Will Thursfield v Riewoldt

[rfctigerarmy]

Riewoldt was damaging last night. Maybe the Saints second best player.

Just wondering after Thursty's performance last year against Riewoldt why he didn't go to him (at least I dont think he did)? Any reasoning behind this? Is it because we are trying to get Will to be our Full Back and thats it?

 

[krustyman]

thursty was good on fraser until the last quarter when the floodgates opened with saints getting on to upfield. the plan was for polak, the loose man in defense to chip in and give raines a hand, but lyons was onto it and put gilbert on polak, so polak had his hands full. polak looked lost and rarely got the chance to contest.

thursty would have been a good 1 on 1 match for riewoldt with his extra agility.

 

[Madtiger2006]

yeah, he should have been on reiwoldt and polak should have been on gehrig. We might have won the game then

 

[Stripes666]

The goals were not a result of poor defense, rather because of poor midfield pressure. We were deplorable at the stoppages, no defensive element

 

[rfctigerarmy]

I just think if Bowden went to Fraser and Thursty to Nick, Polak wouldn't of had to be such a necessary loose man in defense. Then we could of had Rainesy using his run and carry out of the 50. Although he doesnt seem to be doing that as well as last year. He's getting caught far to often. Although it is good to watch when he breaks through.

 

[lids2004roar]

Thursfield learnt more by playing on a gorilla forward like Gehrig.

Sure, it didn't give us the best chance of winning this week, but what Thursty learned yesterday will come in handy in close games for many future years

 

[Bojangles17]

was a terrible decision to leave raines on riwoldt for so long...Lids hadnt spent a penny in 3/4...he should have been thrown the task, at least he can play above his ahead, I can recall raines ever making an effective spoil

 

[emperor]

was a terrible decision to leave raines on riwoldt for so long

or was it?