Asked how much harder the loss made his side's hopes of making the play-offs, Roosters coach Ricky Stuart said: "That's two points we haven't got. [But] we had 11 out. Without any disrespect to the Warriors, give me one or two of our players back and we probably get a different result."
www.smh.com.au
Ricky Stuart has made quite the art form of making a rod for his own back with various comments over the years. Remember 2003? We only won because we slowed the game down, took forever to goal kick which was a deliberate ploy because we were unfit. Or a game against Newcastle where the Chooks just got home and the media commented on the Knights being without many players, and Stuart going on the defensive saying yeah but I only used 7 replacements to try and get the sympathy vote.
Before the game he talked about being confident for the match, his comments post game almost strikes of a man who thought his side had no chance. If I were one of his players, I wouldn't be too impressed with his thoughts on the game.
As I stated in another post, there were two games in 2002 where we didn't have Stacey Jones away to the Storm and to the Knights - people wrote us off. We still won. There were games at the tail end of 2003 where we were sithout Stacey Jones again, we lost to Newcastle away, and the Storm at home, but gained vital wins against the Chooks away, Broncos at home, Dragons away to make the top 8 and even then a half injured Stacey guided us to a 30 point demolition of the Dogs. In 2002, in a game against Wests Tigers we fielded our second string side except for about 4-5 players, Campo, Jones, Lauitiiti, Swann, Seu Seu, even Meli from memory all sat out as the likes of David Myles ran the show... we still got the win, comfortably. A team that can't function without one or two players as he puts it is horribly imbalanced, or perhaps his motivational skills are not that good if deep down inside he feels his side are no chance of winning without those players - in his own words, it seems he feels one or two players make all the difference, not his motivational skills, not his tactical nouse, not the enthusiasm of the young players, nor the quality of the opposition or their performance, just one or two players.
What a Neville!
www.smh.com.au
Ricky Stuart has made quite the art form of making a rod for his own back with various comments over the years. Remember 2003? We only won because we slowed the game down, took forever to goal kick which was a deliberate ploy because we were unfit. Or a game against Newcastle where the Chooks just got home and the media commented on the Knights being without many players, and Stuart going on the defensive saying yeah but I only used 7 replacements to try and get the sympathy vote.
Before the game he talked about being confident for the match, his comments post game almost strikes of a man who thought his side had no chance. If I were one of his players, I wouldn't be too impressed with his thoughts on the game.
As I stated in another post, there were two games in 2002 where we didn't have Stacey Jones away to the Storm and to the Knights - people wrote us off. We still won. There were games at the tail end of 2003 where we were sithout Stacey Jones again, we lost to Newcastle away, and the Storm at home, but gained vital wins against the Chooks away, Broncos at home, Dragons away to make the top 8 and even then a half injured Stacey guided us to a 30 point demolition of the Dogs. In 2002, in a game against Wests Tigers we fielded our second string side except for about 4-5 players, Campo, Jones, Lauitiiti, Swann, Seu Seu, even Meli from memory all sat out as the likes of David Myles ran the show... we still got the win, comfortably. A team that can't function without one or two players as he puts it is horribly imbalanced, or perhaps his motivational skills are not that good if deep down inside he feels his side are no chance of winning without those players - in his own words, it seems he feels one or two players make all the difference, not his motivational skills, not his tactical nouse, not the enthusiasm of the young players, nor the quality of the opposition or their performance, just one or two players.
What a Neville!
