Pick Your Team Warriors v Raiders - [Round 3, 2024]

[Christchurch_Warrior]

I do not care what the score is I just want us to win. If we can do what we did in the second half against the Storm barring the last 5 minutes there is no way the Raiders can beat us.

 

[sup42]

I tihnk we have a dream combo in the making. Roger & Rocco have it all. Both fit, Will develope more as the season progresses also.

Too true eh.
And then there is Ali coming through on top of that, for a club that ignored the position of Center in the past, Webster has targeted the Centers (rightly) as keys to winning a competition.

 

[John Nick]

Too true eh.
And then there is Ali coming through on top of that, for a club that ignored the position of Center in the past, Webster has targeted the Centers (rightly) as keys to winning a competition.

So true. Not only important to be a winning team but more importantly can be the losing factor

 

[sydneywarrior92]

Raiders are a gritty side. They had close games all last season including against us. I can't see this being a cake walk 50+ result to us at all.

Canberra either won by 1-12 or lost by 13+ last year. Their points differential was -100 I think. They don't have the creativity in attack to blow good sides away. Their style is to bring their opponents into the mud with them and plan to win the war of attrition. They score a lot of tries off kicks and second phase play because they just don't possess a structured attacking formation. Towards the end of last season tries off kicks were literally the only way they were scoring. If you match them physically, like we did in Canberra last year, opportunities will arise to exploit their weaknesses in edge defense with our set piece attack. I'm sure webby is looking very closely at the two soft tries the tigers scored last week in Canberra as a perfect illustration of this fact.

 

[sydneywarrior92]

Too true eh.
And then there is Ali coming through on top of that, for a club that ignored the position of Center in the past, Webster has targeted the Centers (rightly) as keys to winning a competition.

Not just center. I think across all positions we have close to best depth in this competition.

 

[Inruin]

Canberra either won by 1-12 or lost by 13+ last year. Their points differential was -100 I think. They don't have the creativity in attack to blow good sides away. Their style is to bring their opponents into the mud with them and plan to win the war of attrition. They score a lot of tries off kicks and second phase play because they just don't possess a structured attacking formation. Towards the end of last season tries off kicks were literally the only way they were scoring. If you match them physically, like we did in Canberra last year, opportunities will arise to exploit their weaknesses in edge defense with our set piece attack. I'm sure webby is looking very closely at the two soft tries the tigers scored last week in Canberra as a perfect illustration of this fact.

6 of their 11 losses were by under 12 points including the 1 point loss to us.

I agree with the rest of your assessment as I have posted similar previously also. We can beat them, and with a full strength team we would potentially blow them away. Without CNK, potentially Egan, Walker and an unconvincing Metcalf at 6 I just think its a bit fanciful to be suggesting that a 50+ win is a given and likely to happen.

 

[sydneywarrior92]

6 of their 11 losses were by under 12 points including the 1 point loss to us.

I agree with the rest of your assessment as I have posted similar previously also. We can beat them, and with a full strength team we would potentially blow them away. Without CNK, potentially Egan, Walker and an unconvincing Metcalf at 6 I just think its a bit fanciful to be suggesting that a 50+ win is a given and likely to happen.

But some of the other 5 were absolute beltings- they lost 42-14 against Manly, 48-2 against Storm and we beat them 36-14 in Canberra. They got belted against good sides last year. I don't believe we beat them by 50. Closer to a 14-18pt victory. Their 2-0 record is a bit misleading given it was against an out-of-sorts Newcastle and the back to back wooden spooners. Swap our two opponents for theirs and we would be 2-0 and they would be 0-2.

 

[Inruin]

But some of the other 5 were absolute beltings- they lost 42-14 against Manly, 48-2 against Storm and we beat them 36-14 in Canberra. They got belted against good sides last year. I don't believe we beat them by 50. Closer to a 14-18pt victory. Their 2-0 record is a bit misleading given it was against an out-of-sorts Newcastle and the back to back wooden spooners. Swap our two opponents for theirs and we would be 2-0 and they would be 0-2.

We also had close to a full strength side both time we played them. I think we are actually in agreement here. We should be good enough to beat them but its not a 50+ blood bath

 

[Worried2Death]

We also had close to a full strength side both time we played them. I think we are actually in agreement here. We should be good enough to beat them but its not a 50+ blood bath

Bloodbath? I see what you're doing there, inciting the hillbilly militias to rise up and cut the cable.