I have to put my hand up here. I get annoyed with the quick turn on a great coach after one loss and dudes dredging up their pet small issues as the whole reason things went wrong (the irony is that don't they realise that an NRL coach has already thought of their idea and made a calculation in another direction because they have multiples of factors we are not privy to in making those calls).Even the dud coaches Nathan Brown etc know the game better than us but the weaknesses in their coaching philosiphies can stand out like dog balls at times....
.....and thats what i thought these forums we're for....punters can post
One thing regarding the Tigers game i have a big question mark over and i havent seen much mention of.....since when did Stowers Smith leap frog Demetric?
Dont get me wrong i like Stowers Smith and thought he was pretty decent but for me Vaimauga just offers more prescence, physicallity and energy when he comes on which i thought we were lacking.....strange call by Webby there i thought....id be interested in his reasoning.
But I should take a leaf from your book and shut up on it. I know this isn't confessional so I will skip the hail Mary's and our Father's (I'm not Catholic I just love them for the myriad of pop culture references, thank you Papists!). On to the footy....well with Tanner I was wondering whether Webster thought (as others have said) that he would rotate the young forwards, and perhaps....he thought the Tigers would be a safer option to do that little experiment with?