Confirmed: Manly is run by imbeciles

[HoldenV8]

And people still want to think that Barrett is a good coach?

Yeah, OK.....

 

[Woodsie]

So why name Fainu in the side when he clearly cannot play being unregistered and bingo the NRL confirm that? Is there nobody at home in either the coaching ranks or club management who may have figured this before naming him? Is the anti Hastings vibe that strong so that's why he was ignored? Come on, this club is currently run by imbeciles.

Do you think it may be because a player has to be named in the 21 to be eligible to play ...... can always take him out .... but can't add him in .....

Ah **** .... it's Bazhaveabitcheagle ...... of course you don't think ....

 

[Chip and Chase]

But the point is that the NRL were never going to allow Fainu's selection. Brown was basically our backup hooker for how long? Of course the NRL were going to say there are other hookers in the squad. So to even name Fainu was stupid since blind Freddie could see that it wasn't going to be allowed.

I was actually reading 1EyedEel a few weeks back and a few of them were banging on about how Arthur in his squad management had been very short sighted when it came to the squad itself and the players in it. In essence only caring about the NRL 17 each week which had led to a severe lack of depth. They could well have been talking about Barrett and Manly.

If Barrett wanted Fainu to be our backup hooker.....he should have been in the 30 from the start. As it is he wasn't and we're left with Lewis Brown as the only anywhere near recognised hooker outside of Api. Then when you've played others there such as Matt Wright and Hastings, none of who are on the injured list......again it boils down to stupidity in roster management.

Agree on the roster management, no argument here. I can't fault the club for trying with the NRL on the Fainu front, I've read a million posts here saying that we need to blood the young guys blah bah blah. So they tried and it didn't work - damned if you do, damned if you don't. They probably thought they could mount a case because Api is long term injured and they may have argued the other options are only short term fixes. Anyway it didn't work so let's just get on with it. Hopefully Fainu will be in the 30 next year.

 

[The Who]

So, does this mean that when all clubs nominate their 30 man squad they also dictate what specialist positions they play? NO!
How can the NRL rule that Wright, Brown and Hastings are hookers? Rubbish.
Wright is a winger. Brown is a second rower and Hastings is a halfback.
Just because all three have been forced to play in other positions doesn't mean they are specialists.
If Fainu's salary is within the club's Cap then that is all that matters, unless the NRL have now become team selectors!

 

[eaglebuzz]

Given that Fainu's naming in the 21 has coincided with rumours of Hastings' impending departure to the UK - I assume that was the strategy. To push Hastings on then upgrade Fainu in to the 30 man squad.

 

[Woodsie]

Stop rewriting history ..... Hastings was our #1 backup Brown our #2 and Lussick and Mainu #'s 3 & 4 ........

Barrett always had the option to elevate Mainu into the 30 ..... up until Walker got reinjured, Parker injured and out of necessity elevated Suli instead ....

 

[eaglebuzz]

It's all very simple at this point. Between the Myles fiasco, the Hastings fiasco, the salary cap fiasco, and our unrelenting injury woes - this season is completely effed in the A.

All we can do now is hope that the Panthers win. I don't want to see the Dragons, Roosters, Broncos or Storm come anywhere near that trophy.

 

[Sue]

So, does this mean that when all clubs nominate their 30 man squad they also dictate what specialist positions they play? NO!
How can the NRL rule that Wright, Brown and Hastings are hookers? Rubbish.
Wright is a winger. Brown is a second rower and Hastings is a halfback.
Just because all three have been forced to play in other positions doesn't mean they are specialists.
If Fainu's salary is within the club's Cap then that is all that matters, unless the NRL have now become team selectors!

That’s the point Who! If you pick two specialists you don’t need to nominate because you have two.It’s is there in black and white.

If you roll the dice with Api plus backup that’s our fault not the NRL.If we had Matt Parcell in the 30 and he was injured Fainu would be playing ecause we would not have been using Brown and Wright prior to that.

 

[HoldenV8]

Agree on the roster management, no argument here. I can't fault the club for trying with the NRL on the Fainu front, I've read a million posts here saying that we need to blood the young guys blah bah blah. So they tried and it didn't work - damned if you do, damned if you don't. They probably thought they could mount a case because Api is long term injured and they may have argued the other options are only short term fixes. Anyway it didn't work so let's just get on with it. Hopefully Fainu will be in the 30 next year.

I can fault the club because the NRL was never going to allow it. Naming him was a big waste of time.

Stop rewriting history ..... Hastings was our #1 backup Brown our #2 and Lussick and Mainu #'s 3 & 4 ........

Barrett always had the option to elevate Mainu into the 30 ..... up until Walker got reinjured, Parker injured and out of necessity elevated Suli instead ....

Either way, the presence of both Hastings and Brown in the squad means that we do at least have a player capable of playing hooker regardless if its their primary position or not. And with neither injured, trying to get dispensation to elevate someone from the U/20s was never going to be allowed regardless of previously having Suli upgraded.

Again, it was absolutely stupid roster management not to have a specialist back up in the one position on the field that touches the ball more than any other. Manly and Trent Barrett have absolutely no one to blame for this fiasco but themselves.

The only one I feel sorry for is Manase Fainu because through the stupidity of others he misses out on playing in the NRL at this time.

 

[lurker]

I rarely ever agree with the NRL but in this case they are 100 per cent correct.

We foolishly made a conscious decision to go into an NRL season with one hooker and part time back up. That was OUR choice.

Both the part time back up players are fit and available for selection. The NRL shouldn’t have to take into account Barrets problems with THE OUTCAST.

If we had another specialist hooker who was injured Fainu would be fine to play. This is solely down to our roster selection.No other team in the competition has one specialist hooker for this very reason.Lunacy.

The really amazing part about this is that Barrett declared Croker as an absolute certainty for 5/8 well before the March top 30 roster announcement. Given Croker had played one game of NRL I think it’s pretty safe to say Barrett and Hastings were not exactly on good terms, which was confirmed when Barrett said his misdemeanours had occurred over a long period of time and they had already had mediation occur prior to the top 30 being announced.

So with that knowledge that a blow up could occur at any time we proceeded to announce a single hooker in our squad.Im in no way backing Hastings behaviour but how could you go with a single hooker knowing this. It defies belief.

I disagree. Have you seen hastings tackle. Even if he wasn't out of favor you can't pick him at hooker. He just wouldn't hold up to that time in the middle. Teams do it all the time. We have a long term injury list of 7-8 players. Surely that is grounds for an exemption

 

[The Who]

That’s the point Who! If you pick two specialists you don’t need to nominate because you have two.It’s is there in black and white.

If you roll the dice with Api plus backup that’s our fault not the NRL.If we had Matt Parcell in the 30 and he was injured Fainu would be playing ecause we would not have been using Brown and Wright prior to that.

I'm not arguing that the club should have a second specialist hooker in the squad. I'm arguing that the NRL doesn't have the right to become a club selector and decide which other player can fill-in that role. If the club says there are no other specialists (in any position) and they can bring a specialist rookie in, and his salary is Cap compliant, then it is the club's decision.

 

[Andrew..]

I'm not happy that Fainu can't play and I'm certainly no lover of Greenberg but I can see the logic behind the NRL's position. Imagine the never-ending stream of quality players some of the stronger clubs have outside their top 30 and the advantage they would have if there wasn't a line drawn somewhere. Whilst I recognise the inordinate amount of injuries we have suffered this year we still have to take responsibility for the squad we've chosen and the reasons for some of the decisions we've made.

 

[jbb/james]

One selection the NRL could be a little flexible with is Brown. In reality lewis was probably our second choice hooker at seasons start. The fact that matt wright has overtaken him in pecking order should at least tell you one thing. Lewis just isnt much of a hooker. We know he is average but i wonder if he is just getting the silent treatment at manly to try move him on . Perrett also. Im happy these guys are getting less game time i just wonder if it was form or contract that has them on the outer

Matt wrights service from dummy half while limited , has been pretty good. Not slick but on the mark pretty much. Just typical matty wright stuff. No frills, does the job, relatively safe but he is quite limited in what he offers from there. Love to see him develope a kick this week and expand his skill set on field. No one will expect that.

I have no idea what he has to offer but if he does have a go i suspect it will be typical matty fare, safe and reliable , and **** we could do with that right now

Hope barett instucts him to be a hooker and not just play number 9. What have we got to lose

 

[HoldenV8]

The fact is that we have used at various times this year, Hastings, Brown and Matty Wright at hooker or dummy half. Brown actually started at hooker in the #9 jumper just two weeks ago.

I agree that the NRL shouldn't have the right to decide who can play what position, but I can definitely see their logic on this one and regardless, they have made the correct call under the rules. None of those mentioned are on the injured list, and if they have been good enough to play there before, Brown and Wright both recently in the last 2-3 weeks, then why should we need to elevate a player into the squad just to fill a position that others already in the squad have been playing for us?

 

[The Who]

So, what specialist position is Jake? A lock or a prop? Surely only the club can say, not the NRL.
If Jake gets injured who is our second specialist lock?
Until the NRL introduce a rule by which clubs must list the specialist position of each rostered player then this situation will continue to arise.

 

[Woodsie]

I think we have a good case ..... to my knowledge Hastings has never started a football game as a hooker .. ever. ... Brown may have started about 2 games as a hooker and to even suggest that M.Wright is a hooker is certifiable lunacy.

To suggest that anyone of those 3 could be classified as being a hooker simply for filling in a couple of times takes a level of dishonest stupidity that astonishes even taking into consideration intoddegrity ....

Are we also going to suggest that because Tom Turbo backs into the back of a scrum he is a locke?

 

[Woodsie]

The fact is that we have used at various times this year, Hastings, Brown and Matty Wright at hooker or dummy half. Brown actually started at hooker in the #9 jumper just two weeks ago.

I agree that the NRL shouldn't have the right to decide who can play what position, but I can definitely see their logic on this one and regardless, they have made the correct call under the rules. None of those mentioned are on the injured list, and if they have been good enough to play there before, Brown and Wright both recently in the last 2-3 weeks, then why should we need to elevate a player into the squad just to fill a position that others already in the squad have been playing for us?

Because they have both proven beyond reasonable doubt ... that they are not hookers ...

 

[CBB]

Now I wonder if it another team asking, say the Doggies??????

If you look back at last weeks team list for the doggies you will wonder no more. Lachlan Lewis was to debut but was knocked back due to too 30 constraints.

 

[tookey]

Sums up Barrett's time as coach of Manly

 

[MuzztheEagle]

if they have been good enough to play there before, Brown and Wright both recently in the last 2-3 weeks, then why should we need to elevate a player into the squad just to fill a position that others already in the squad have been playing for us?

They haven't been good enough to play there, we have been desperate enough to play them there and Brown is the only one to start there - on a week where our starting 9 was suspended because he punched someone in the face (there was no chance that the NRL would have given us a pass that week).
The management of the roster and Hastings issues are another matter but I can't see why the NRL would list Brown and Wright in its reasoning.