My guess has been that a 50/50 record should be enough for a play-off berth, and given that Wakey have one and are in sixth spot, that seems to be reasonable.

So to achieve that, we need eight wins from our final thirteen games. Are they going to come? And where?

=redWarrington a W
St. Helens h
Leeds a
Castleford h
Hull KR a
Wigan h
Celtic a
Harlequins h
Harlequins a
Huddersfield a
Catalans h
Salford h
Hull FC a

Nothing unwinnable or unloseable there...

I think they can be won, but we need to cut out the silly penalties.

Warrington a - Build on last performance, should be able to get a win.
St. Helens h - Hard game, but that's what we thought at Knowesley road. We'll need to have built on form.
Leeds a - Another hard game, have to play well.
Castleford h - Castleford seem to be dipping, hopefully a win.
Hull KR a Tough fixture.
Wigan h Another toughie.
Celtic a We've got to win to make up for the embarassment
Harlequins h
Harlequins a - Both tough, but at least one of them should be ours.
Huddersfield a Tough, but I think we could get the win.
Catalans h - Can see a win
Salford h - Same
Hull FC a - Far away, but we owe them for the early defeat, and hopefully we'll have hit some form.

Personally I can see around 6 wins there for you lot. 8 is possible however but I don't think you wil beat: Leeds, Saints, Wigan, Hull KR, Wire and will probably win around 50% out of the 2 games with Quins, Catalan & Cas.

I can see 7 wins
Cas, Wigan, Celtic, Quinsx2, Catalans, Salford.

Deends how we can kick on from Wakey match. Returning players and no further injuries.
On a roll 7/9 wins and set up for the play-offs. Its a tall order but can be done. Much depends on next weeks performance... will or loose its got to be good.

No Morley or Westwood for them... hmm.

The eleven points dropped to Wakey, Cas, Hudds, Hull KR, Celtic and Salford would have had us in second spot and needing just three more wins for a spot. Ho hum, auntie b.ll.cks etc.

Priceless.



If the Giants had won the five games we had lost we would be top.

If Celtic had won 13 of the games they had lost they would be top.

They were all games where one try would have changed the result, doofus. Apart from Salford, but near enough. Nearer than your lot got.

And if the other teams had got one more try they would have beaten you by TWO tries DOOFUS.

As for the salford result you should look at the table mate

Looked at your results. When you don't win, you tend to get whupped, eh? Meanwhile, Bulls are the masters of the agonising defeat.

give your a shake you no where good enough today to get into the top eight, you lot need to give up drinking that white lighting

makes you see things that aren't there

I bet warrington at home was agonising

We were just mixing it up there.

It is odd that Hudds have only had five defeats all year but that includes three stuffings, while the Bulls have had nine (inc. cup) but been battered just twice.

well you are right to point out our inconsistency.

HOWEVER


i prefer our inconsistency with 3 defeats of more than 20 points to your consistently losing games by 6 or less

Just a note Andrew you do keep using this logic a lot the fact is and will always be that we weren't good enough for the win that day.

Oh, without question I'd swap the five narrow defeats and a draw for a couple more wins and some thumpngs. But it does beg the question that if this team is as godawful as is made out, why are they within touch of every side they play save two?

What a silly quote it doesn't matter if you lose by 1 point or 60 points you still get the same outcome no competition points. So if we lose all our remaining games by a point and finish 14th we won't be an awful side then will we.

I think af just means that people are saying we are absolute garbage and if we were as bad as they make out we'd be losing every game by 50+ points.

If that came to pass, I am sure it would be commented upon. I'm not looking for absolution of all Bradford's sins here, just pointing out an interesting anomaly. I'll give you another, all but five teams have lost at least as many games as us, though only one has won less.

Or at least a few more by 18-24 points.

It doesn't matter how many you lose by it's still a loss. If anything narrow losses suggest we don't have the ability to turn them into wins.

I agree partially, but it shows we have at least some ability, in some cases to defend them getting more tries, or in others to score a reasonable amount of tries.

Sorry but that's confusing what point are you trying to make.

An anomaly which suggests if it's a tight game we normally end up loosing.

OK, so by the same standard...



Make your mind up.

Why is it that when we lose, the performance is irrelevant to the result, but when we win then you get your magnifying glass out and start to look at what was going on?

Results are important and for the competition they're obviously crucial, but we can look past them as well, in an attempt to get a clearer idea of what's going on.