Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Alberts possibly gets his chance TONIGHT

DVS Matt

Bencher
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
1,721
Reaction score
45
The papers have Tezza at next to no chance of playing. Matai is suspended.

They said that if Ash can overcome his niggling injuries he will play.

I hope he does, and walks all over the top of Siola.
 

Garts

First Grader
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
5,627
Reaction score
991
someone said on ME the doctor did not clear him and Beaver into the centres.

hope it is not true
 

DVS Matt

Bencher
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
1,721
Reaction score
45
ahhh ok, i didn't see that.

Beaver in the centres is NOT GOOD!

Why weaken our strongest area of the field? Bring up a young guy in Taylor or even Mullane.

OR push Hicks to centre and Creary to Wing, but please NO Beaver in centres
 

The Wheel

https://membership.seaeagles.com.au/
Premium Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
16,689
Reaction score
16,879
Agree Hicks to centre is a far better option than Beaver, although I would like to see Ash get a chance.
 

Garts

First Grader
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
5,627
Reaction score
991
It does not surprise me putting Beaver in the centres.

Still hoping Alberts is ok and runs out!!! hoping
 

lasvegas

Reserve Grader
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
898
Reaction score
5
boys beaver defends a fair bit as a center anyway ,stewart is a good backrower and will fill the void.i agree i would like to see alberts as well but if not give me beaver anyday over the other ****.he also takes his hitups wider of the ruck as well.
 

DVS Matt

Bencher
Joined
Oct 29, 2004
Messages
1,721
Reaction score
45
answer me this, why weaken 1 area to strengthen another?

we have become dominant this year because of our back-row.

our centres have been one of the worst pairings around and yet we are still coming 2nd, so imo it won't hurt us to put a young specialist centre in there.
 

Kiwi Eagle

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
16,337
Reaction score
7,643
I was cracking a fat at the thought of Alberts playing,but that was quickly deflated with the mention of Menzies in the centres !
 

lasvegas

Reserve Grader
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
898
Reaction score
5
because it wont matter squat how good we are up the middle if everytime they ping it wide they carve us up.i agree give me alberts if fit but if hes not and you run out with mullane or someone its over.hicks would be good in the centres but the wingers like creary and so on are crap .the people in charge have got us this far so obviously their opinions of the alternatives arent that high,have faith boys
 

Ryan

Journey Man
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
19,605
Reaction score
17,902
1. Brett Stewart
2. Scott Donald
3. Ashley Alberts
4. Paul Stephenson
5. Chris Hicks
6. Michael Witt
7. Michael Monaghan
8. Brent Kite
9. Luke Williamson
10.Sam Harris
11.Anthony Watmough
12.Steve Menzies
13.Ben Kennedy

14.Shayne Dunley
15.Jason King
16.Mark Bryant
17.Glenn Stewart
 

PEPSI

Bencher
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
2,578
Reaction score
2
our centres dont play a traditional centre type game anyway. ( as in free flowing, running into created gaps etc ) so having Beaver there wont be a major issue, he attacks out there anyway, we will miss his defence in the middle but we know Glenn Stewart can tackjle.

so mayby that would not be a major issue ???? just a thought.

But as a rule, im with DVS Matt, never strengthen one position to weaken another.
 

lasvegas

Reserve Grader
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
898
Reaction score
5
pepsi i agree totally not to move backrowers out there but management know a lot more than we do about the ability of replacements so i will put my trust in their judgement in this case.i was only saying to sue yesterday i wish alberts would get a gig so i am not against that.
 

ChuckWood

Reserve Grader
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
463
Reaction score
5
Sam Harris in the centres wouldn't be a bad move.
He wouldn't be any slower than Hill & his defence is fairly good. ( just a thought )
 

Garts

First Grader
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
5,627
Reaction score
991
answer me this, why weaken 1 area to strengthen another?

we have become dominant this year because of our back-row.

our centres have been one of the worst pairings around and yet we are still coming 2nd, so imo it won't hurt us to put a young specialist centre in there.

I do agree but we dont have a specialist centre available besides Johnson and he is not ready for 1st grade. Taylor is a winger/fullback and Mullane is a 5/8 who plays a bit of centre. If Alberts is out I believe Beaver is the best choice. By adding Stewart in 2nd row we get a real workhorse.
 

lasvegas

Reserve Grader
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
898
Reaction score
5
Sam Harris in the centres wouldn't be a bad move.
He wouldn't be any slower than Hill & his defence is fairly good. ( just a thought )

i think we keep that for what it is , a thought
 

Garts

First Grader
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
5,627
Reaction score
991
[quote author=ChuckWood]
Sam Harris in the centres wouldn't be a bad move.
He wouldn't be any slower than Hill & his defence is fairly good. ( just a thought )

i think we keep that for what it is , a thought
[/quote]

when I think of Sam Harris in the centres I think of the Waratahs 2002, Christchurch.
 

CC_Eagle

Reserve Grader
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
695
Reaction score
1
answer me this, why weaken 1 area to strengthen another?

we have become dominant this year because of our back-row.

our centres have been one of the worst pairings around and yet we are still coming 2nd, so imo it won't hurt us to put a young specialist centre in there.

Agreed.

Taylor,Johnson or even Mullane would be able to do the job.

Just don't destroy our backrow Des!!!
 

Staff online

  • Jethro
    Star Trekkin' across the universe
Team P W L PD Pts
15 13 2 344 26
15 13 2 311 26
15 12 3 202 24
14 11 3 105 24
14 9 5 122 20
14 8 6 65 18
15 7 8 -11 14
14 6 8 -44 14
14 6 8 -121 14
14 5 9 -66 12
14 5 9 -70 12
15 6 9 -131 12
15 5 10 -94 10
15 5 10 -132 10
14 2 12 -230 6
15 3 12 -250 6
Top Bottom