G&GR Brumbies Player of the Match (versus Hurricanes)

[Langthorne]

The Brumbies were bad, but not equally bad across the park, so I am happy to give out a few points:

3. Chisholm
2. Hand
1. Moore

I didn't think Huxley did all that much, although what he did was very good (there was one brilliant kick chase and recovery). I hope they play that badly against the Tahs next week.

 

[Scarfman]

Thanks for letting us know

Want to know what I did do tonight!!!?

Yeah, that would be great.




















NOT!

 

[rugbywhisperer]

I'm with Chief and Biff here
3: Huxley

The rest can go take a running f**k at a rolling dohnut

 

[GC]

0.00000000000003 AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
0.00000000000002 Hux
0.00000000000001 Alexander

 

[fatprop]

3 Huxley
2 AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
1 Phibbs - He did as good as he could behind that pile shit purporting to be a pack of forwards

 

[spectator]

3. Huxley
2. Mafi
1.Hoiles

That was tough!

 

[wobbly]

3. Huxley
2. Hooper
1. Phibbs

Yes, I know Phibbs service was a shower of @#!*% , but he also gave them the most go-forward with some darting runs.

Hooper is developing well. Chis shouldn't have been let back on after his knock.

The poor cat got it the boot last night. Is there anything worse than coming home from a hard week at work to sit down, put the feet up, have a beer and watch the rugby, only to have it turned into a complete farce by that arse-face Kaplan.

 

[disco]

1 Phibbs - He did as good as he could behind that pile shit purporting to be a pack of forwards

Fatprop,
I couldn't disagree more, I thought Phibbs was terrible his service to the backs was shocking if it wasn't slow service it was a pass 2 foot behind the ball runner.

 

[Sully]

1 Phibbs - He did as good as he could behind that pile shit purporting to be a pack of forwards

Fatprop,
I couldn't disagree more, I thought Phibbs was terrible his service to the backs was shocking if it wasn't slow service it was a pass 2 foot behind the ball runner.

I'm going with Disco on this one FP

 

[fatprop]

1 Phibbs - He did as good as he could behind that pile shit purporting to be a pack of forwards

Fatprop,
I couldn't disagree more, I thought Phibbs was terrible his service to the backs was shocking if it wasn't slow service it was a pass 2 foot behind the ball runner.

I'm going with Disco on this one FP

Phibbs was trying to clear ball while in contact, behind a tight five afraid of contact and passing to a 10 and/or runner hiding 3 miles behind the gain line.

He wasn't great, but he was better and more committed than any forward and most of the backs

 

[Epi]

Thats true. At times he needed a telescope to see Gits. Seriously.

 

[wobbly]

Even the commentators picked up on it, Gits was so rediculously deep sometimes, he was out of Phibbs site.

There's no way the Wallabies can carry him into 3N tests with this sort of form.

 

[DPK]

Even the commentators picked up on it, Gits was so rediculously deep sometimes, he was out of Phibbs site.

There's no way the Wallabies can carry him into 3N tests with this sort of form.

He'll be picked. Not on form, but because he would be the most experienced back available if Mortlock isn't picked.

 

[Scotty]

Phibbs was trying to clear ball while in contact, behind a tight five afraid of contact and passing to a 10 and/or runner hiding 3 miles behind the gain line.

He wasn't great, but he was better and more committed than any forward and most of the backs

Giteau was standing ridiculously deep and stationary.

Phibbs didn't think he was deep enough so threw it behind him.

 

[Spook]

Phibbs was poor and Gits was shite. Do you hear me Matt? YOU WERE SHITE! :angryfire:

3. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
2. Hux
1. McCabe

 

[Gagger]

Giteau was standing ridiculously deep and stationary.

Phibbs didn't think he was deep enough so threw it behind him.

:lmao: good one Scotty.

Sorry FP, I think the contrarian in you has gone too far on this one!

 

[Spook]

Giteau was standing ridiculously deep and stationary.

Phibbs didn't think he was deep enough so threw it behind him.

:lmao: good one Scotty.

Sorry FP, I think the contrarian in you has gone too far on this one!

Absolutely. He can't explain all the good ball wasted by Phibbs. It was the Burgess effect.

 

[fatprop]

Giteau was standing ridiculously deep and stationary.

Phibbs didn't think he was deep enough so threw it behind him.

:lmao: good one Scotty.

Sorry FP, I think the contrarian in you has gone too far on this one!

partly, but I get annoyed when players become the reason for losses incorrectly

The reality of rugby is that the tight forwards win rugby matches, the backs only work out by how far.

The Tahs lost the week before because they lost the 12 inches over the ball, the Brumbies were beaten this week by a side playing shitty because their tight forwards forgot the principles of rugby chose not to do the hard work required to get on the front foot at the breakdown

That made Phibbs receive shit ball all game, so that pressure was passed on to Gits, so Gits stood deeper and deeper in the pocket, and that meant Smith & AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) were given the ball a mile before the gain line etc etc

Now you contrast that with the Reds match where the Reds forwards attacked the gain line, stayed on their feet and gave Genia front foot ball. All of a sudden the attack flows

 

[Scotty]

fp,

I reckon the forward battle was pretty even. The brumbies back were so bad they may actually have lost the game for them.

It is tough on the forwards when they have to run back 10 metres to rejoin a ruck because Giteau is setting the line so deep.