Official Match Day Thread: Roosters v Knights

[King Salvo]

The King under attack by republicans again - never mind the King is the King for a reason

Before the Round 15 game

Roosters average 24 points for a game vs Knights 14 - 10 points more per game on average scored by the Roosters

Roosters average 26 points against each game vs Knights 19 - 7 less more points per game on average conceded by the Knights

No do the math.

10 - 7 = 3

Roosters a 3 point better side overall than the Knights per game - for and and against averages

The Score of Roosters 12 vs Knights reflected this - not a 3 point victory but a 4 point one which is close enough.

Another method of determining a teams placing - for and against placings

Roosters 8th in attack and 12th in defence - 8 and 12 is 20 divided by 2 is 10

Roosters on averages would be a 10th placed team - currently 8th on 16 points.

Penrith 9th and Cowboys 10th just behind on 15 points - so that is pretty close to where teams would sit on the comp ladder - sure you have some curve balls at times - who would have thought the Dolphins would have beaten the Cowboys 58-4.

Probably some of the following stats is the reason

11 line breaks by the Dolphins to 2 by the Cowboys
40 missed tackles by the Cowboys to 16 by the Dolphins

Penrith 10th in for and 7th in against - 17 divided 2 = 8.5 - so an 8th or 9th team currently on averages. - Currently 9th

Cowboys - 11th in for and 16th in against - 27 divided by 2 = 13.5 - So a 13th or 14trh team currently on averages even though currently 10th.

They had a poor start to the season losing their first 3 games - 40 for and 108 against and a round 15 loss 58-4 - so 44 for and 166 against in those 4 games- A lot to make up - 234 for and 216 against in the other games

[Inflictor]

The King under attack by republicans again - never mind the King is the King for a reason

Before the Round 15 game

Roosters average 24 points for a game vs Knights 14 - 10 points more per game on average scored by the Roosters

Roosters average 26 points against each game vs Knights 19 - 7 less more points per game on average conceded by the Knights

No do the math.

10 - 7 = 3

Roosters a 3 point better side overall than the Knights per game - for and and against averages

The Score of Roosters 12 vs Knights reflected this - not a 3 point victory but a 4 point one which is close enough.

Another method of determining a teams placing - for and against placings

Roosters 8th in attack and 12th in defence - 8 and 12 is 20 divided by 2 is 10

Roosters on averages would be a 10th placed team - currently 8th on 16 points.

Penrith 9th and Cowboys 10th just behind on 15 points - so that is pretty close to where teams would sit on the comp ladder - sure you have some curve balls at times - who would have thought the Dolphins would have beaten the Cowboys 58-4.

Probably some of the following stats is the reason

11 line breaks by the Dolphins to 2 by the Cowboys
40 missed tackles by the Cowboys to 16 by the Dolphins

Penrith 10th in for and 7th in against - 17 divided 2 = 8.5 - so an 8th or 9th team currently on averages. - Currently 9th

Cowboys - 11th in for and 16th in against - 27 divided by 2 = 13.5 - So a 13th or 14trh team currently on averages even though currently 10th.

They had a poor start to the season losing their first 3 games - 40 for and 108 against and a round 15 loss 58-4 - so 44 for and 166 against in those 4 games- A lot to make up - 234 for and 216 against in the other games

How does this have anything to do with the Knights have a shit attack?

A lot of hours googling for a nothing post that literally nobody will read let alone try and understand WTF you are talking about.

FFS

[SamKerrSimp]

What even is this dribble? Newcastle are statistically the worst attacking team in the comp and they were missing Ponga, Gamble, Sharpe, Frizzell, Thompson, Elliott, Hetherington from their team, any other team in the comp would have put points on us in the first half. Anyone who tries to argue that Newcastle aren't a terrible attacking team has no idea.

Millions across American just had a 'No Kings' protest today btw

[Vasco]

In the first half Newcastle had enough ball and field position to win two games.

[King Salvo]

How does this have anything to do with the Knights have a shit attack?

A lot of hours googling for a nothing post that literally nobody will read let alone try and understand WTF you are talking about.

FFS

You do realise it's a game of two parts - Attack and Defence

No time at all - just common sense and took no time at all

If you can't understand this then how do you ever get up in the morning for work?

It's so very basic to understand

Again for you

Roosters average 24 points for vs Knights 14
Knights concede 19 points against vs Roosters 26

Roosters have the better attack - 10 points better per game than the Knights - But the Knights have the better defence in conceding 7 less points per game than the Roosters.

So on averages it was always going to be a close game which the average season stats show - Roosters a 3 point per game better team on averages ( for and against) - the winning score was by 4 points

[King Salvo]

What even is this dribble? Newcastle are statistically the worst attacking team in the comp and they were missing Ponga, Gamble, Sharpe, Frizzell, Thompson, Elliott, Hetherington from their team, any other team in the comp would have put points on us in the first half. Anyone who tries to argue that Newcastle aren't a terrible attacking team has no idea.

Millions across American just had a 'No Kings' protest today btw

With all these players out then how did the Roosters only score 12 points and all in the second half?

Mmm was it because the Knights defended better ? - They had only conceded 19 points per game vs the Roosters 26

The Roosters showed a lot in this game in not panicking when down 8-0 as can often happen when teams get behind and think they have to score on every set in playing catchup.

The Roosters defence also saved several try scoring opportunities as well which belied this so called worst attack ( Knights had a first half try disallowed as well- Could well have been 12-0 at half time)- Roosters and Knights were 5 wins each coming into this round 15 game.

Tens of thousands more like it and paid "protesters"

[SamKerrSimp]

With all these players out then how did the Roosters only score 12 points and all in the second half?

Mmm was it because the Knights defended better ? - They had only conceded 19 points per game vs the Roosters 26

The Roosters showed a lot in this game in not panicking when down 8-0 as can often happen when teams get behind and think they have to score on every set in playing catchup.

The Roosters defence also saved several try scoring opportunities as well which belied this so called worst attack ( Knights had a first half try disallowed as well- Could well have been 12-0 at half time)- Roosters and Knights were 5 wins each coming into this round 15 game.

Tens of thousands more like it and paid "protesters"

You are always so disingenuous.

Everybody else: "We are lucky we played the worst attacking team in the comp in the first half because another team would have scored many more points"

You: "BuT wHy dId NeWcAsTlE dEfEnD wElL fOr 80 MiNuTeS"

Their whole season has been they can defend but they can't score points that's literally why they are third last and will fight it out for a spoon. Nobody once has questioned Newcastle's defence everyone is pointing out that we would have been up shit creek having to chase down 20+ points in the second half against ... wait for it now ... THE NEWCASTLE DEFENCE THAT NOBODY IS CRITICISING WHICH IS WHY EVERYONE IS THANKFUL THEY CAN'T SCORE POINTS. You aren't as smart as you think you are.

Boston alone had over 1 million protesters, you're always on the losing side.

[milanja]

Was good when he was away earlier in the year eating chicken Kievs. Mmm….chicken kievs

More so the French/Russian dish later adapted by the Ukrainians.

[King Salvo]

In the first half Newcastle had enough ball and field position to win two games.

mmm so the Roosters must have defended well then as after all they were conceding 26 points a game as of round 14 - Saved a number of tries and Knights denied a first half try on Bunker review - 12-0 as the game panned out could have been a bridge too far especially as the Knights kicked a penalty goal in the second half -could well have been 14-0 down.

[ism22]

Gagai's hilarious during the presser...

1. Says 'he clearly grounded it with his forearm [so it's no try, although that's proof it was a try]... I've never seen a person control the ball with their forearm'

2. [Are you excited about playing with Young]... 'I'm gonna be really cliche here. I'm not looking that far ahead, I'm just looking at getting us into the top-8' [Young's coming to Newie this week and you're gonna play with him before you have a chance of being back in the 8, bruh]

Besides looking young (I'm amazed he's still playing for some reason... okay 34... makes sense) he seems to have lost it up top.

[mightyrooster]

We won the game because we scored more points than Newcastle despite the fact they had a greater share of the possession and better territorial advantage. Seems simple to me. Am I missing something?

[King Salvo]

You are always so disingenuous.

Everybody else: "We are lucky we played the worst attacking team in the comp in the first half because another team would have scored many more points"

You: "BuT wHy dId NeWcAsTlE dEfEnD wElL fOr 80 MiNuTeS"

Their whole season has been they can defend but they can't score points that's literally why they are third last and will fight it out for a spoon. Nobody once has questioned Newcastle's defence everyone is pointing out that we would have been up shit creek having to chase down 20+ points in the second half against ... wait for it now ... THE NEWCASTLE DEFENCE THAT NOBODY IS CRITICISING WHICH IS WHY EVERYONE IS THANKFUL THEY CAN'T SCORE POINTS. You aren't as smart as you think you are.

Boston alone had over 1 million protesters, you're always on the losing side.

You look that up ? - mmm people would say that is you.

Not worried about the so called "everyone else" opinions as well they are the usual suspects whose opinions of the game and performances are kneejerk ones and based on a dislike of certain players which they post Ad nauseam daily and weekly.

Not Unlike the ones who turn up after a loss but are like Nessy from Loch Ness after a win.

mmm so the best defensive side in the Dogs concede 42 vs Brisbane and 44 vs Dolphins - Can you explain how that occurred ?

Wake up - the game is won on any given day - Nailing the KPI's

Not sure what Boston has to do with it but I take you as being a 20 odd year old naïve person who is easily influenced and rather clueless about world and political matters.

[HunchoRooster]

Certainly not a game to write home about. Good that we won a tussle but we were really poor in the 1st half and made a really poor side look good.

We’ve played really well this season and end up losing the game so it’s good to play rather poorly and come away with a win. Bank the 2pts and move on.

Thought the halves had a really poor game, especially Sandon. Disappointing as I thought he’d be raring to go to prove himself after getting benched. Looks like the opposite happened. On a positive, Foketi, Steep were outstanding. And Billy Smith defended extremely well. So good seeing him actually put games together.

[Vasco]

mmm so the Roosters must have defended well then as after all they were conceding 26 points a game as of round 14 - Saved a number of tries and Knights denied a first half try on Bunker review - 12-0 as the game panned out could have been a bridge too far especially as the Knights kicked a penalty goal in the second half -could well have been 14-0 down.

Yes of course the Roosters defended well. I'm just stating that the Knights had enough ball to score a lot more points than they did, regardless of who they had missing.

[Waylander]

You look that up ? - mmm people would say that is you.

Not worried about the so called "everyone else" opinions as well they are the usual suspects whose opinions of the game and performances are kneejerk ones and based on a dislike of certain players which they post Ad nauseam daily and weekly.

Not Unlike the ones who turn up after a loss but are like Nessy from Loch Ness after a win.

mmm so the best defensive side in the Dogs concede 42 vs Brisbane and 44 vs Dolphins - Can you explain how that occurred ?

Wake up - the game is won on any given day - Nailing the KPI's

Not sure what Boston has to do with it but I take you as being a 20 odd year old naïve person who is easily influenced and rather clueless about world and political matters.

Let’s see how we went with your all conquering KPI’s:

Completions >80% - nope
Possession >50% - nope
Single digit error count - nope

So, why did we win? Oh, that’s right. NEWCASTLE HAVE THE WORST ATTACK IN THE COMP.

Your pontificating is getting ridiculously repetitive and is also substantially off-point. Time to take a deep breath and understand others opinions are every bit as valid as yours.