Official Match Day Thread: Roosters v Knights

[caz]

not saying sutton refs with an even hand but we gave away some dumb penalties - egan had two.
defence was great. if not for an uncharacteristic shocker of an attempt from hugo we would have kept them tryless

[gragra]

Excellent defensive game by both seriously depleted sides. The pleasing aspect for the Tricolours was the ongoing consistency of the younguns which shows the value of the Academy pathway. Newcastle, too, has some impressive youth coming through. I thought that Son of Horace had as terrific dig on the left which he had firing all game. Unfortunate that he seems to be such an unfortunate personality.

Lucky win? Possibly, though the Bunker is infamous for its pedantry so Wong's try must have passed its exacting scrutiny. 9/10 times any messy touch of the ball in those circumstances is a k/o but for once cooler heads seemed to prevail.

The rule is clear though...any downward pressure from torso, hand or FOREARM, is a try. There was no separation or bounce to negate it..

[King Salvo]

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.

If the Roosters defended well then wouldn't that have limited the Knights points scoring ability? -Your assumption then if the Knights with enough ball should have scored more points doesn't make sense when the defence limited the point scoring opportunities.

101 Footy - defend and limit your oppositions scoring opportunities - An obvious KPI

Pretty obvious if the Roosters were a 10 points better in attack and Knights a 7 points better side in defence and with all things around equal it was going to be a close game which it proved to be.

101 NRL

[King Salvo]

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.

Here's the link for the Roosters games – show us all how the Roosters won games when not winning any of these stats – possession/set completions/errors.

https://www.nrl.com/draw/?competitio...25&team=500001

It is apparent that you did not watch the game, as a look at both teams' statistics suggests a certain level of cluelessness. However, I must acknowledge your improvement in at least one area: you have managed to spell Angus's surname correctly after I pointed out the errors on several occasions.



Roosters won 2 out of 3 Key KPIs - Knights only 3 more set completions but 1 more error

Roosters vs Knights

Possession - Knights 54% - Roosters 46^
Set Completions - Knights 77% ( 35/45) - Roosters - 80 % ( 32/40)
Errors - Knights - 13 - Roosters 12


Compared to the two most recent losses

0 out of 3 Key KPI's vs Raiders - Raiders 12 more set completions and 8 less errors and 16% more possession

Raiders Game

Possession - Raiders 58% - Roosters 42%
Set Completions - Raiders 88% ( 38/43) - Roosters - 63% ( 26/41)
Errors - Raiders - 8 - Roosters 16

Dogs 4 more set completions and 9 less errors - possession 50-50

Level in 1 and 0 out of 2 for the others

Bulldogs Game

Possession - Dogs 50% -Roosters 50%
Set Completions - Dogs 81% ( 35/43) - Roosters 67% ( 31/46)
Errors - Dogs - 8 - Roosters - 17

[Rooster_6]

Here's the link for the Roosters games – show us all how the Roosters won games when not winning any of these stats – possession/set completions/errors.

https://www.nrl.com/draw/?competitio...25&team=500001

It is apparent that you did not watch the game, as a look at both teams' statistics suggests a certain level of cluelessness. However, I must acknowledge your improvement in at least one area: you have managed to spell Angus's surname correctly after I pointed out the errors on several occasions.



Roosters won 2 out of 3 Key KPIs - Knights only 3 more set completions but 1 more error

Roosters vs Knights

Possession - Knights 54% - Roosters 46^
Set Completions - Knights 77% ( 35/45) - Roosters - 80 % ( 32/40)
Errors - Knights - 13 - Roosters 12


Compared to the two most recent losses

0 out of 3 Key KPI's vs Raiders - Raiders 12 more set completions and 8 less errors and 16% more possession

Raiders Game

Possession - Raiders 58% - Roosters 42%
Set Completions - Raiders 88% ( 38/43) - Roosters - 63% ( 26/41)
Errors - Raiders - 8 - Roosters 16

Dogs 4 more set completions and 9 less errors - possession 50-50

Level in 1 and 0 out of 2 for the others

Bulldogs Game

Possession - Dogs 50% -Roosters 50%
Set Completions - Dogs 81% ( 35/43) - Roosters 67% ( 31/46)
Errors - Dogs - 8 - Roosters - 17

Why skip from the Raiders game to the Bullldogs game when we played the Sharks in between.

Wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact we beat the Sharks with more errors and a worse completion rate would it?

It’s the dishonesty in the way you present your arguments and only cherry pick the stats that suit your argument that becomes so tediously boring.

Put the shovel down, you really don’t need to keep digging that hole.

[King Salvo]

Why skip from the Raiders game to the Bullldogs game when we played the Sharks in between.

Wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact we beat the Sharks with more errors and a worse completion rate would it?

It’s the dishonesty in the way you present your arguments and only cherry pick the stats that suit your argument that becomes so tediously boring.

Put the shovel down, you really don’t need to keep digging that hole.

Legal Matters
/
mmm talking about shovels keep digging - continually calling me dishonest does have legal ramifications - it is defamatory and a harm to my reputation under current NSW Law and as a Public Sector Employee - ICAC legislation and enquiries use the term dishonest - i.e A Public Official dishonestly exercised their official function ( Public Officials engaging in conduct that is not truthful, ethical, or impartial, often for personal gain or to the detriment of others)

I request you apologise and "cease and desist" in using such a term when responding to any of my posts.

Post Response

Anyone with even the basic knowledge of the game would know why the Roosters lost those games in the end to both Dogs and Raiders as below shows. - The Roosters made twice as many errors and under 70% completion rates vs teams that were 80% plus completion rates and single digit errors.

Very little in some of the main KPI stats in the Sharks game compared the Dogs and Raiders games.

Sharks Game - Led 20 - 6 at half time

Possession was 50-50 - Even
Set Completions - Roosters 75 % ( 31/41) - Sharks 80% - ( 32/40) - Only 1 set completion difference - Roosters had one more set as well
Errors - Roosters 13 - Sharks 11 - 2 the Difference


Ridiculous to compare the Dogs and Raiders game vs the Sharks Game stats as anyone can see

Bulldogs Game - Led 14 - 0 at half time

Possession - Dogs 50% -Roosters 50% - even
Set Completions - Dogs 81% ( 35/43) - Roosters 67% ( 31/46) - 4 completed sets the difference
Errors - Dogs - 8 - Roosters - 17 - 9 errors the difference

Raiders Game - Led 12 -4 at half time

Possession - Raiders 58% - Roosters 42% - 16% the difference
Set Completions - Raiders 88% ( 38/43) - Roosters - 63% ( 26/41) - 12 completed sets the difference
Errors - Raiders - 8 - Roosters 16 - 8 errors the difference

[theGman]

I request you apologise and "cease and desist" in using such a term when responding to any of my posts.

mmm, you're an interesting being.

I don't believe an apology is necessary. The poster was simply pointing out the manner in which, you contort statistics to suit your narrative.
It's ok and acceptable for others to disagree with your views and not get your knickers in a knot. Don't be so precious.

[nayfo]

Haha Wow. Just when I thought Sally couldn’t get any more ridiculous. I literally laughed out loud when he asked R6 to “cease and desist”

I think you do more harm to your reputation yourself than being called dishonest which let’s be honest…you have proven you are.

[The Lip]

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

It’s a lot easier for you King - you’re smarter, more emotionally intelligent and a much better person than everyone else on this site.

Please don’t be perturbed and continue posting your infinite pearls of wisdom and rationale and hopefully it will rub off on the rest of us in some minute way that will immensely lift the overall IQ around here.

All Hail the King!

[Waylander]

Here's the link for the Roosters games – show us all how the Roosters won games when not winning any of these stats – possession/set completions/errors.

https://www.nrl.com/draw/?competitio...25&team=500001

It is apparent that you did not watch the game, as a look at both teams' statistics suggests a certain level of cluelessness. However, I must acknowledge your improvement in at least one area: you have managed to spell Angus's surname correctly after I pointed out the errors on several occasions.



Roosters won 2 out of 3 Key KPIs - Knights only 3 more set completions but 1 more error

Roosters vs Knights

Possession - Knights 54% - Roosters 46^
Set Completions - Knights 77% ( 35/45) - Roosters - 80 % ( 32/40)
Errors - Knights - 13 - Roosters 12


Compared to the two most recent losses

0 out of 3 Key KPI's vs Raiders - Raiders 12 more set completions and 8 less errors and 16% more possession

Raiders Game

Possession - Raiders 58% - Roosters 42%
Set Completions - Raiders 88% ( 38/43) - Roosters - 63% ( 26/41)
Errors - Raiders - 8 - Roosters 16

Dogs 4 more set completions and 9 less errors - possession 50-50

Level in 1 and 0 out of 2 for the others

Bulldogs Game

Possession - Dogs 50% -Roosters 50%
Set Completions - Dogs 81% ( 35/43) - Roosters 67% ( 31/46)
Errors - Dogs - 8 - Roosters - 17

The simple point is that you insisted that to win games teams HAD to complete at >80%, HAD to have >50% possession, and HAD to have single digit errors. Your own post proves that wrong, so now you’re trying to qualify your earlier insistence by making these relative …. ‘just one less error’ or ‘only one more set’.

I won’t continue this discussion as you are clearly an
incorrigible ideologue and impossible to sway.

BTW, there are no legal ramifications for expressing an opinion. If you don’t like being called dishonest, try a little intellectual honesty for a change.

[Inflictor]

Great grinding win but this thread has become the most boring thread in Chookpen history.

theGman can you create a section for King and only give him access to that where he can go for his life and cut and paste the entire Google content?

FFS

[Steggles]

I’m sure another litigious poster threatened legal action recently. Now who was that, I can’t recall?

There was also one not so long ago that implied a threat of violence against another member; scary stuff indeed.

The Chookpen has become a tough place to just be a Roosters fan.

[The Lip]

Toughs not the right word - now tedious and repetitive that’s getting closer to the mark.

[dice]

crybully

someone who intimidates or harasses others while claiming to be a victim of ill treatment.

[Andrew Walker]

Haha Wow. Just when I thought Sally couldn’t get any more ridiculous. I literally laughed out loud when he asked R6 to “cease and desist”

I think you do more harm to your reputation yourself than being called dishonest which let’s be honest…you have proven you are.

Exactly