|
Generous U15s gift easy win to Henley Henley Hawks U15s 22pts v
Maidenhead U15s 5pts |
|||
| In the early stages
this looked as if it would be an easy match to read. It would be Henley’s
heavier pack against Maidenhead’s faster, more innovative backs, with
Maidenhead probably emerging the narrow winners. As it was, after initial
attacks from the Maids’ 3 quarters, the Henley pack drove the ball deep
into Maids’ territory and forced over for a converted try.
Henley added to their score when, against the run of play, their scrum half ran in for an excellent individual try, assisted by some feeble Maidenhead defence. At this point Maids needed to lift their heads, forget Henley’s 12 point advantage, and refocus their game plan on their undoubted superiority in the backs. As it was the game degenerated into an unseemly physical confrontation, which led to the Henley hooker being yellow carded, to spend 10 minutes repenting his wayward behaviour. Instead of evacuating to the moral high ground, to use cool heads to dismantle the weakened Henley defence, Maids allowed Henley to set the agenda. The first half ended in a shambles, which was certainly not to Maids’ advantage, and a stern dressing down for both teams at half time. With a 12 point deficit at half time, the match still looked eminently winnable for Maids. Indeed, from the kick off Maids ran the ball back at Henley, sending in centre Aaron Lambert for an unconverted try in the corner. At 12-5, that was to be as good as it got for Maidenhead. The referee’s injunctions had their effect on discipline, but Maidenhead seemed to lose the plot. Whilst the forwards stood up well against their opponents, the balance of power in the backs swung to Henley. The experienced Maids’ back line suddenly looked as if they had never played together before. Passes were dropped, excellent individual breaks were not backed up, or were wasted by wild passes, rehearsed set piece moves were broken down by the unplanned interventions of over eager players and the defensive line became as wobbly as a blancmange. In the forwards, instead of taking time to control the ball and set it up for the half-backs, there were too many fly hacks ahead, gaining 5 metres, but handing the ball to the grateful Henley team to run back at Maids. It was almost inevitable that Henley ran in two second half tries. Firstly, their fly half exploited a disorganised defence for an excellent long range effort, then, in the final moments, after heroically withstanding intense Henley pressure, Maids conceded a try in the corner. Maids will want to consider how they surrendered a match they could have won and how they failed to capitalise on their undoubted power and pace in their backs. Henley can look back on a job well done |