walker did well for them in his 1st spell - but other than that, they didnt really make a lot of yardage forward apart from with penalties.

Yep Walker had a good game.



What were the pens and error counts?

Penalties were 6 each .Don't know error count though.

6 each seems low, but I did think that the ref was quite good (or Australian) at the play the ball.

See Brucie your playing the generation game again.

Did your dad tell you all of this Brucie, because as a 3 year old, you wouldn't have been around when Rovers won anything.

I did think that they dominated through the middle. The stat suggest we were second best there, too. If you look at the 4 props and LF for each team, they made more metres, whereas Ellis and Tickle made more than their backrowers, and our centres also made more metres than theirs, which goes a bit against them making most of their metres out wide. I also think that they had quicker ptb speed and more control of the ruck in general for long periods. They just generally looked more aggressive than us IMO.



The error count was 12-9 Rovers.

Interesting re the stats which I'm certainly not contesting. It's just that they didn't seem to spend very much time near our line at all even in the first half (or us theirs - it seemed fairly even). I think in terms of the game view the packs were pretty even. I'd put a bid in for Walker mind as he was the best prop out there in the first period and the main reason they may have seemed to edge the middle. I know they wont sell but it might annoy the little bloke who runs that club.

Was a little disappointing that, especially with both tries being virtually the same.

I think the first half was fairly even territorially, but I think some of that came down to our kicking game being good, and also a lot to do with our our back 3 and centres doing some excellent work early in the tackle counts. They also seemed to drive us back a few times, which I don't really remember us doing all that much.

Love it! viewtopic.php?f=59&t=556097&tsmp=1376307527

Love it! viewtopic.php?f=59&t=556097&tsmp=1376307527

Just read some of Sandercock's post match comments, and he says about them missing 8 players. Genuine question, which 8 is it, and how many of them would actually make their team when at full strength?



I mainly ask because he always manages to slip such things in any time they lose, but they usually seem to be an exaggeration to me, as well ignoring any similar adversities the opposition are facing. By my reckoning, they were probably about 6 positions short of first choice (and that's classing O'Hara still as a first choice player), and we were 3 down, plus arguably Horne and Galea to make it 5. Listening to Sandercock you'd think we were at full strength with them struggling to put a team together.