Tigers v Sarries

kornboy130 · Post by **kornboy130** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 5:55 pm

same problems as a few seasons ago - we cant play without or full team, pat howard praised the depth of his squad when beating a bottom of the league team at home - but playing a half decent team away - we cant hack it. we need to invest more in our younger players - bringing up experience levels, matt cornwell etc should see games more often

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:18 pm

yet again we seem to be naming one player, at the end of the day it is down to the team, not Burke, i didn't go to the match but listened and you can't blame burke for the loss solely.

Bud · Post by **Bud** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:23 pm

Yes, it is unfair to blame it all on Burke. The team just didn't seem to perform whilst Burke was on, which is also not all his fault. He did make the mistake which gifted them the try and missed "easier" attempts at goal and when Goode came on he showed more drive and promise with the same players around him. End of.

Snorbins · Post by **Snorbins** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:24 pm

Just got back from the match. Sorry to say but Goode is the man; for a few plays they had him at 15 with Sam Vesty at 10.
The team seemed a yard short at the break downs. Harry Ellis when he came on instantly gave away a penalty. The sarries guy behind me thinks the pounds shed by Andy Goode went on the hooker (he did look a bit immobile).
Had we had one play maker or opportunist it would all have been different.
Dire first half, second half Tigers showed signs of what they could do!

G.K · Post by **G.K** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:31 pm

Didn't see the match just got the audio but from what I heard two things stood out. Firstly Tigers were pretty poor until they had dug themself a hole, mainly due to stupid penalties yet again. Really Deja Vue here (or on the radio Deja Etendu I suppose). Secondly things improved significantly when Goode came on.

quincy · Post by **quincy** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 6:57 pm

Just got back from the game.
Basically a poor first half by the Tigers and a brighter second when the half backs were changed. More drive and quicker ball.
Should have won in the end but one or two strange decisions by the ref.
Nothing to be too despondant about as we can do it when we want to.
By the way I cant see Farrell walking into the England team or any team for that matter.

Snorbins · Post by **Snorbins** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:20 pm

"Nothing to be too despondant about as we can do it when we want to."
Sorry Quincy - why did Tigers turn up if they didnt want to do it?

As for "Fazza" he is big and could be intimidating but all balls seemed to lead to him. His lines looked to be improving and he could become a good back in time. He is apparently up at the Walker Stadium for the South Africa v World XV.

lock04 · Post by **lock04** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:14 pm

how did jennings play? how comehipkiss didnt play? and is it just me who thought matt cornwall was doing well at the begining of season, i dont understand why he seems to have disappeared, he only got 10 mins and smith and hipkiss werent their?
cheers :)

westwinds31 · Post by **westwinds31** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:56 pm

g...are you related to Humphreys ??!!

:D

cal · Post by **cal** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:18 am

It was a frustrating match, and I seem to have gone through every emotion that can possibly connected with sport in the last 5 minutes, complete euphoria when Goode got shoved over under the posts, then utter, utter dismay when the ref signalled the ball was helf up, and blew for full time. Burke cannot soley be blamed for the loss, but 2 missed penalties that should've been over, lack of creativity and the whole package just seemed to add to a dismal performance. When Goode came on it was exciting to see him get the ball, we started running some moves and the backs were running lines.
Also, Varndell, when will he learn to tackle? If he could then the first try may have been prolonged or stopped, he gets hold of players at about the shoulders, and they then gain about ten metres before someone else comes along and brings them down.

Panda · Post by **Panda** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:58 am

It is most unfair to blame this on Paul Burke. I was at the game and for 25 minutes of the first half the forwards did not turn up. We were lucky to still be in touch at half time. 15 mins into second half we were 13 points down and facing a big loss so it is credit to the team that they fought back.

Having got back into it still far too many penalties. What about the back chat from Moreno that got us marched back 10 yards from their half to ours that allowed Jackson to kick penalty that put them 6 ahead. Criminal again.

Its not the selction policy before the game so much as this idea that a number of key players play little more than half a game each. when was the last time ellis, bemand, goode or burke played a full 80 mins.

Tigersfan90 · Post by **Tigersfan90** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:20 pm

From the Leicester Mercury: - "James Buckland scored," Howard said. "Paul Gustard (Saracens flanker) is a great friend of mine and he told me that he scored.

Bucklands try should have definitely been given. It couldn’t even be reviewed, as there was no television match official yesterday. How frustrated must Buckland have been!

http://tinyurl.com/ybwmfv

Nabuk · Post by **Nabuk** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:07 pm

Tigersfan90 wrote:From the Leicester Mercury: - "James Buckland scored," Howard said. "Paul Gustard (Saracens flanker) is a great friend of mine and he told me that he scored.

Bucklands try should have definitely been given. It couldn’t even be reviewed, as there was no television match official yesterday. How frustrated must Buckland have been!

http://tinyurl.com/ybwmfv

I'm sorry but that just makes Pat Howard sound like a whinger. I thought he was Austrailian, he's starting to sound more and more like a whinging pom whenever we lose.....it's never "Sorry we were sh*t" or "sorry the better team won" it's always an excuse of some sort!

g · Post by g » Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:39 pm

Westwinds

No i'm not. I just want to see the bloke given a chance. And while Pat stays in charge I don't think he has a hope in hells chance of getting a start.

It's pretty obvious that Pat has a big problem with Humphreys otherwise he wouldn't be putting Vesty in the FH position. We have 1 mediocre FH and 1 average FH and another 1 who is desperate to be given a chance.

How Pat can really think Burke is better than Humphreys is beyond me. OK people say Humphs couldn't hack it last season. But as I keep saying that was last season this is now. Humphs should have been on the bench against Wuss as that was the ideal time to give him game time. What did Howard do? pick Burke with no back up on the bench and then move Vesty to FH. WHY?

If Goode is away with England this week then against Irish I would start with Humph's and have Burke on the bench. If it really does go pear shape with Humphs playing then Howard has the option of bringing Burke on or moving Vesty to FH.

By moving Vesty to FH all the time Howard is clearly giving Humphreys a vote of no confidence. What I want to know is why? what has Humphreys done to receive that sort of treatment?

Big Dai · Post by **Big Dai** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:52 pm

My view on this is not about ability as such. Burke's inclusion is a step backwards. Selection of a has been. Sorry to be brutal but I'd rather we stuck with and developed the likes of Sam, Broadfoot or Humph. Bring them on rather than go for the "elder statesman"

I know I've got my wig off about playing when the internationals are on but if you're going to benefit anyone from this mess, benefit youth. Not has beens or journeymen?? :?: