Round 7 vs Sydney Roosters

[Bullucked]

With the press conferences do the coaches choose which members of the press they have in the knowledge that they will ask "friendly" questions? I thought the media wanted sensationalism, their were a few more juicy questions that could've been asked,
ie.
"So James, what did you think about the tripping penalty and do you think you were lucky not to go to the bin or even be sent off?"
"Trent, what did you think of the missed knock on call against Jennings before Manu's try?"
"Do you think you were lucky when Paps had a 3 man overlap outside and instead attempted the inboard pass?"

I would love to hear their responses

Spot on. I always think the same thing.

How average are the journalists if they can’t ask glaringly obvious questions. There seems to be a desperation to be liked by the coaches so they can keep getting scoops, instead of doing their jobs.

How the f*ck do you not as Trent about the knock on before the try or the dangerous trip!??

Since I originally posted this I've been thinking that there can only be two answers, ineptitude or "sucking up" could be but I think probably either of the following:

1. What's the point of asking a question during a limited time press conference where the interviewee's can either say, "I didn't see it" or get up and walk out. (I would love to have seen Teddy asked about the trip!)
2: It's a Sydney centric biased media.

Personally, a bit of both but mostly number 2.

Craig / Harry were asked the controversial question about Hughes' non obstruction call and they just straight batted it back instead moving on to Munsters (intimated) dumb penalty. Nothing dumb about it, just playing smart.

[riders of the storm]

With the press conferences do the coaches choose which members of the press they have in the knowledge that they will ask "friendly" questions? I thought the media wanted sensationalism, their were a few more juicy questions that could've been asked,
ie.
"So James, what did you think about the tripping penalty and do you think you were lucky not to go to the bin or even be sent off?"
"Trent, what did you think of the missed knock on call against Jennings before Manu's try?"
"Do you think you were lucky when Paps had a 3 man overlap outside and instead attempted the inboard pass?"

I would love to hear their responses

Spot on. I always think the same thing.

How average are the journalists if they can’t ask glaringly obvious questions. There seems to be a desperation to be liked by the coaches so they can keep getting scoops, instead of doing their jobs.

How the f*ck do you not as Trent about the knock on before the try or the dangerous trip!??

Since I originally posted this I've been thinking that there can only be two answers, ineptitude or "sucking up" could be but I think probably either of the following:

1. What's the point of asking a question during a limited time press conference where the interviewee's can either say, "I didn't see it" or get up and walk out. (I would love to have seen Teddy asked about the trip!)
2: It's a Sydney centric biased media.

Personally, a bit of both but mostly number 2.

Craig / Harry were asked the controversial question about Hughes' non obstruction call and they just straight batted it back instead moving on to Munsters (intimated) dumb penalty. Nothing dumb about it, just playing smart.

As a former journalist based in Sydney I can assure you it’s number two.

[TC]

Geez Robinson is sore loser....highlights NAS pushing Eli for about 1 nano second....and says it shouldn't have been a try and then moans about Reimis begin a disruptor on Xav's try...and also say no try. But doesn't mention the poor referring that failed to pick up Jennings losing the ball before Manu scored and doesn't say anything about Teddy the Tripper not being sin binned for a really low grubby act of trying to trip Pappy (especially as that sort of trip can easily break a guys leg...and with Pappy's long history of injuries anything could happen).

Also missed Hughes being taken out and the ball out off a Rooster who he said was "no longer shadowing". Not sending for review led directly to the Munster sin bin (and while Bellamy had words, I guarantee he was not as displeased as if Teddy had run the length and scored. Cam saw that no-one is back and made a calculated decision to save a try.)

[RobbieRoss]

Geez Robinson is sore loser....highlights NAS pushing Eli for about 1 nano second....and says it shouldn't have been a try and then moans about Reimis begin a disruptor on Xav's try...and also say no try. But doesn't mention the poor referring that failed to pick up Jennings losing the ball before Manu scored and doesn't say anything about Teddy the Tripper not being sin binned for a really low grubby act of trying to trip Pappy (especially as that sort of trip can easily break a guys leg...and with Pappy's long history of injuries anything could happen).

Robinson cultivates an air of intelligence and reasonableness, but it is a fraud - he is a whinger with an over-inflated ego.

Craig is one of the few coaches who does not have a hidden agenda. He calls it as he sees it, which I think is a good reflection of his honesty as a human being . I don’t want to deify the guy, but I am very proud he is our coach.

As to the game itself, I agree with an earlier post re Blore . He had a very good game, and is now playing 80 strong minutes.

I like the bench rotations. McDonald and Chan both played strong minutes. The fact that Wishart was not required allows Craig potentially to do something funky in selecting the number 14. I would like to see Sua slotted in there if he comes back well from injury - he could provide a real spark in 10 or 15 minutes to break open a dour struggle.

[Mattpoet]

The 14 is a tough one for sure.

On one hand it would be great to get some minutes into Sua and build him into a full time fg spot that way.

But, he only covers fullback and wing (maybe he could do some minutes at 5/8 if he really had to) and so we do need to be able to cover injuries/sin bins in key positions.

I'd guess Wishart will get a few games by virtue of being the most flexible fg ready player.

[RobbieRoss]

Thanks Matt. I totally understand the rationale for Wishart at 14 ( and he is a wholehearted performer) but, with Paps not back to his best yet, I think we are missing a game-breaker. Sua could be that person. If we lose a forward during the game, maybe bring Will into the second row.

As great as our ladder-position looks, I just think we need something extra if we are going to win the whole thing.

[yourhero]

Pretty sure Bellamy said that Sua was earmarked for that 14 jersey before his injury. So they would have had a plan for how to effectively use Sua heading into the season.

I definitely would like to see what that looks like and how effective it is.

[yourhero]

Another smaller guy playing in the middle (defensively) is the obvious concern. But hey, Paps managed it well for a period of time. I’m sure Sua would do a job.

[Papenhuyzen23]

I mean we rarely use that 14 player anyway, if Wishart gets on it’s usually for the last 10 minutes or so, we don’t really lose anything carrying Sua there, maybe he could just be a weapon against a tiring team.

Our current forward rotation seems to be fit enough to handle the 80 minutes with just 3 forwards on the bench, chuck Sua in there when fit and see what he can do. Watching the Roosters game back a fit fresh Sua in the last 10 would have caused absolute havoc!

[Bullucked]

I mean we rarely use that 14 player anyway, if Wishart gets on it’s usually for the last 10 minutes or so, we don’t really lose anything carrying Sua there, maybe he could just be a weapon against a tiring team.

Our current forward rotation seems to be fit enough to handle the 80 minutes with just 3 forwards on the bench, chuck Sua in there when fit and see what he can do. Watching the Roosters game back a fit fresh Sua in the last 10 would have caused absolute havoc!

Our players gotta keep up with him too...

[Scooter]

Dally M votes: Victor Radley 4, Eli Katoa 3, Jahrome Hughes 3, Xavier Coates 1, Harry Grant 1.

[Shuttlesworth99]

Unless a player has an absolute blinder, I’m never a fan of a player on the losing side getting the most votes.
Radley was good - but hardly a blinder.

[blazza18]

Those vote totals are weird. Storm were the better team for a majority of the game but don’t come away with the top vote getter? Sure….

[TC]

Dally M votes: Victor Radley 4, Eli Katoa 3, Jahrome Hughes 3, Xavier Coates 1, Harry Grant 1.

Ok, so two "experts" each vote 3, 2, 1.
For the numbers to work, both of these geese awarded Radley 2 points each. One gave Eli 3, the other gave him none. Same with 'Rome. And one gave Harry 1, the other gave his 1 to X.

So;
- One thought Eli was BOG and didn't think Hughes was in the top three. The other thought Jerome was the best but didn't rate Katoa at all. What stuns me is only one thought Xavier was in the top 3.
All I can come up with is either;
a) Both have taken too many head knocks, or - if one was Buzz Rothfield* - the brain cells have finally given up in a fog of alcohol, or
b) collusion.

* I'm assuming Newds** Limited journos are still involved in voting.

** Not a typo.

[glennb]

Did anyone see Trent Robinson press conference after the match today. Did the refs do anything wrong today and award any incorrect tries or penalties today? As his team won by heaps so I am assuming there is no complaints.