Like many teams this season, Hull's pack wore you down and in that last 15-20 minutes you didn't seem to have the energy to go on and win the game. I thought we controlled sandow and gidley really well and their only telling contribution all night was a couple of decent kick chases from sandow, one of which led to a try. Likewise, you did a really good number on jamie shaul who had his least effective game of the season.

Hull's outside backs, talanoa in particular, and their back row really made the difference on the night plus getting in front was always going to be easier to manage than chasing the game in those conditions

Yes it's funny how things can look so different in the emotions of the game. It felt to me like Hull couldn't get out of their own half at times, we just seemed to be repelling one attack, only for us to drop it again and give you another chance. It seemed like most of our errors were in our own half, whereas yours were letting us off the hook in attacking areas.

The result was a gift from Smith and Agar.
For 80mins there was no change in our style of play.
The smugness of TS face and his cocky comments in the after match interview told it all.
He knows his stubborn dumbass tactic lost the game.

Peeing down for 24 hours so what tee got was...

For 80 mins.....
we can count on one hand the kicks for field position.
Almost every 1st drive taken up by a winger...several costly errors.

A dumbass decision to run the play when we had 3 mins on the clock! Time to kick the goal and get another set of 6 in before ht forfeited for just a set of six, which do happened to be a set of one and another feckin knock on.

The game TS and and Agar was a feckin dismal disagrace and your smug face tells it all.
What on earth do you send Briers and Jon Clark on for?
"Gaffer says more of the same lads!"

Did it really rain so much in Warrington RD ? I heard some roads had been closed ,but here in sunny Newton we got away with a few light showers. Amazing is it not ?

We've got standing water puddles here that would drown Doctor Forster!

I suppose if you ignore the fact both Ellis and Mini muscled their way over you are correct.

If you say so but we hardly laid a finger on Minichello so can't see how that counts as outmuscled.

Spot on for me.

I lost count of how many times possibly as high as 8 or 9 where we were gifted possession in prime areas. I've no complaints about the result I think Hull deserved the points but we should have or expected to have notched up a couple of more scores last night. Sure the stats might reflect 'honours even' on the cock up front but stood in the stands we followed your mistakes around your 30 with on of our own early in our next set too early for panic tactics

I think the errors probably evened out in the end. You bombed plenty of chances, but if we had looked after the ball better you wouldn't have had all those chances in the first place. Clark and Westerman made crucial errors, but then Shaul blew a try and one end and gifted one to Ormsby at the other.

I dont think there's too much analysis that you can do on the game. Both teams handled the ball pretty abysmally, I think Hull probably just defended a little better.

You know, for a game that is based on handling a ball ,you would think that the RL technical boffins would try coming up with a ball that is easier to hold on to. I don't think we had so many knock ons with the old leather ball.

Newer balls are designed for better handling in "summer" rugby. The problem with some of them have been that the shpae of the surface is not only better to grip, it itself grips water. Older balls were basically replaced as basically when they got wet, they became heavier and also misshaped.

The old rounder, 8 panel "super league logo embossed" ball was the grippiest ball I've ever had the pleasure to play with. Can't comment on the new ones unfortunately, but when both teams are coughing up that much ball, questions have to be asked

The who out muscled who and the who made most errors pails into insignificance for me, we keep spouting about how good the halfbacks are and yet we didn't have an end of set plan we just hoofed the ball up field and hoped for the best. This was the case last week at Stains, but last week we won and it papers over the cracks.

Gidley and Sandow can be wonderful with their attacking kicks but without the end of set defensive kicks we invite excessive pressure, this has to be addressed.

On another note when will Smith and Agar coach the team to build pressure before trying the wonder passes which end in us loosing possession?

The problem on Friday thought was that we very rarely got to the end of the set in order to put an attacking kick in. Does anyone know what the completion rate at the end of the game was? Id be surprised if either team achieved 50% or more.

Every set where you are not attacking the line should have a structured end even if its the only set you complete all match!

Couldn't agree more, i just don't think we got to a point in many sets where the structured end was used.....the ball was all too often lost, penalty given, knocked on etc etc before the kick became an option.

Having said that, the few attacking kicks we put in, if only for field position, i thought were pretty good, especially when Sandow was chasing each one down like a man possessed.

I think it wad 54% and 57% completion rates to Wire and Hull respectively. Appalling stats.

How many sets did we throw a silly offload or just cough up possession on tackle 1 to 3 in their 20m area? Must have been seven+ occasions and i think we bombed three on tackle 1 within 10m of their line.

Quote ="BuckleyStreetWire"I think it wad 54% and 57% completion rates to Wire and Hull respectively. Appalling stats. How many sets did we throw a silly offload or just cough up possession on tackle 1 to 3 in their 20m area? Must have been seven+ occasions and i think we bombed three on tackle 1 within 10m of their line.'" For me, this video www.skysports.com/rugby-league/w ... MaEkQjfByU is a perfect summary of the handling skills on the night. Something was certainly up. Sneyd just wouldn't normally miss like that, and you'd expect Clark to pick it up cleanly as well.

Quote ="BuckleyStreetWire"I think it wad 54% and 57% completion rates to Wire and Hull respectively. Appalling stats. How many sets did we throw a silly offload or just cough up possession on tackle 1 to 3 in their 20m area? Must have been seven+ occasions and i think we bombed three on tackle 1 within 10m of their line.'" For me, this video www.skysports.com/rugby-league/w ... MaEkQjfByU is a perfect summary of the handling skills on the night. Something was certainly up. Sneyd just wouldn't normally miss like that, and you'd expect Clark to pick it up cleanly as well.

although i cut your quote to suit my agenda.... i do wonder about this sometimes.

When we signed Gidley, i imagine it went like this on the first day

TS - gday gidderz.. so, know any decent attacking moves? if so, care to teach this rabble in training?
CG - well erm.....
TS - nice one... OI Richie, what we practicing in training today mate?
RA - erm...... <scratches head>....... Charge downs?
TS - lovely lets get cracking

I don't think that we lost a lot of possession through throwing the ball about too much. Gidley was pinged for crossing twice. Currie was dragged into touch and lost the ball straight from a tap penalty. Ormsby came up with a couple.
Last week against saints we had 3 chances in the first half and scored on each attempt. Westerman and Clark just had to catch a ball and we would have been 12 points better off.
I do think there was a couple of spells where if we had better ball security for 3 or 4 sets that Hull would have started to fade. They had a lot of big units and turning them around was starting to cause them trouble but a small error like I have mentioned above let them off the hook.
I remember the challenge cup semi against Leeds at Langtree Park and errors cost us the game. We just couldn't build any pressure and that was similar.
I hope that was just a one off and we learn just to respect possession a bit more for the odd spell because big sides like Hull and catalan will get tired.
Fair play to Hull fc though. They remind me a bit of Bradford from 15 years ago. Massive pack and huge wingers who take a lot of energy to put down. I don't think they were massively creative but will take some stopping if they stay injury free.
A lot of our game plan relies on smaller blokes running at big tired forwards (Clarke, dwyer, ratchford, sandow, Russell) but we never made Hull defend enough to see them start to drop off tackles.

[list[/list:u

Ridiculous!!

Sandow what fit hasvbeen great kicking!!


We didnt get to the end of enough sets!!

Hull were exceptional defensively, we didn't look capable of getting over the line. Hull have used the old Bradford Bulls blueprint to perfection, build a massive pack, creative halfback with great kicking game, then fill the three quarter line with loads of big powerful backs. They murder you when they get in the 20.

Hull's pack isn't particularly big, it's just there is a lot of quality in there. taylor and pritchard are the only big forwards. They do seem to be particularly well conditioned and we've won plenty of games in the last 15-20 minutes of late.

As for smaller blokes running at tired forwards, I'll counter yours with sneyd, tuimavave, shaul and houghton.

2 well matched teams on Friday in appalling conditions. Hull's forwards gave them the edge and nullified wire's better half backs IMO

What?

On reflection, if our skills were better on Friday night ,we would have won playing the Warrington way , whether playing the Warrington will win us anything other than friends .is another question