Paradise lost

The Kandy Times spoke to a few former Trinity rugby stalwarts to obtain their views on the 2007 Bradby since they had lost the custody of the coveted Trophy after two years. Ajith Abeyratne – The second leg was a fantastic game. Royal played in characteristic style with their forwards and kept it tight. They had the character to stick to their game plan even when things were going against them.

Trinity opened up the game, they always tried to run the ball. The game became more interesting in consequence. Royal’s tries came when Trinity were a man short as a result of the yellow card. Fifteen players were sorely needed. Royal’s backs didn’t do much. Royal’s tries came from close-to-the-line situations.

Trinity had six penalties and failed to get touch on all those occasions. On two of these ‘failed’ kicks, Royal scored. Skipper Wanigasekera had a brilliant game. He really led from the front. The winger scored a brilliant try after Wanigasekera broke through in the middle and started it all.

The rugby was thrilling to the end. There was no fault in the refereeing. Jupana Jayawardena – Unfortunately, I didn’t see the return leg, only the first. Royal’s forwards dominated. They played to a plan and played to their strength. Trinity could have scored more tries if the ball had been unloaded earlier. Trinity should have played the game more in Royal’s half, had it been so, Royal would have made mistakes under pressure.

Maurice Perera – If I were coaching the team, I wouldn’t have been playing ping-pong with the players. If a player is injured, he shouldn’t play: or send him in and take him out when his injury worsens. These are schoolboys and they get psychologically upset.

The Trinity side was a comedy of errors. They were immature. They didn’t have the material like in 2006. If you can’t field the ball, if you can’t kick to touch, then you’re done for. Players made mistakes 5 meters from the Royal line. Trinity didn’t support the man with the ball. When the move broke down, there was no one. Where was the third row?What Trinity needs is not a coach, but a referee who will teach the rules of the game.

Ashan Ratwatte – Trinity played below the level they could have performed at. They had a well-balanced, experienced side. Hats off to Royal for doing the simple things well. They stuck to the basics. Trinity were badly affected by injuries and one must consider the mental outlook that comes with that kind of situation. It was up to the coaching staff to decide how to use the experience and skills in the team to achieve the best results. “I’ve seen this happen over and over again at Trinity”

Franklin Jacobs – The Trinity try was a grand one. Possession and the play itself were dominated by Royal. Trinity was kicking into the hands of the Royalists and giving away possession. This happened to a lesser extent in the second leg. On the run of play, Royal deserved to win. Their loose play was guilty of not tackling low. They held on to the ball too long. The stand off’s berth is a vital one and they missed an experienced player here.

Seevali Samarasekera – Skipper Wanigasekera was trying to lead the pack and the three quarters, too. He should have made himself available to the forwards. Of course, there was an extra man in the line.

We lost even our lines outs. When Royal were under pressure, they managed to get rid of the ball in a better way because of Trinity’s weak kicking. The passing of the three quarters was slow. Loops have to be used and the third row must back up. Trinity shouldn’t have moved the ball at the start. They should have clipped it over, but not to the full back.

Trinity’s fitness was below par. Kicking power was nil. Only one player could kick. It was nice to see the Royal scrum half kicking from the base of the scrum. Royal had the better side. Being the weaker side, we should have planned our game according to the talent available. We should have known our limitations.

Paradise lost - A Trinity point of view