foran
- Thread starter susan
- Start date
Technical Coach
Bencher
First half picked for Qld (over Cronk and Prince)
Any Half looks good with the quality Qld have and Lockyer at 5/8--lets see him carry Qld next year. The speed of play in origin and the added fatigue element due to intensity levels also helps his dummy and run play around the ruck and short sides. NRL club based halves require a more structured guide the team around the park player with a good range of skills---he is no Joey or Prince.
I would take Cronk and Prince anyday of the week even Pearce over Thurston. Thurston can play no doubt but way over-rated in relation to his skills as a half---his commitment and tank fully agree is top notch.
First half picked for Australia
Has not looked all that great playing for Australia and i recall was lambasted in the media for his slow loopy passes which they were spot on with.(for once) Thurston needs a 5/8 or a second option to win a premiership he cant carry a team to success alone. If your labelled in some parts as the best half in the world you have to show you can do this like other halves in the past who have carried teams.
Bowen has never played halfback
I recall many times Bowen has slotted in at half----maybe not in shirt number but in executing plays----actually i think for a period he did slot in at half for the cowboys for a small period when Thurston was out but not long enough to establish being comfortable in the position.
What i was alluding to in relation to Bowen----if earlier in his career Bowen was developed into a half he would offer a greater range of skills than Thurston based on the limited times i've seen him slot in during games or chime in from the back. Matty Johns alluded on air that he would like to see Bowen at half more often.
Stop basing a players credentials on Rep jumpers playing for "great teams"(you can select a player in these instances due to one good characteristic they offer the team for a small amount of games) base it on what is required to win a Premiership he does not tick all the boxes at "NRL" level
Any Half looks good with the quality Qld have and Lockyer at 5/8--lets see him carry Qld next year. The speed of play in origin and the added fatigue element due to intensity levels also helps his dummy and run play around the ruck and short sides. NRL club based halves require a more structured guide the team around the park player with a good range of skills---he is no Joey or Prince.
I would take Cronk and Prince anyday of the week even Pearce over Thurston. Thurston can play no doubt but way over-rated in relation to his skills as a half---his commitment and tank fully agree is top notch.
First half picked for Australia
Has not looked all that great playing for Australia and i recall was lambasted in the media for his slow loopy passes which they were spot on with.(for once) Thurston needs a 5/8 or a second option to win a premiership he cant carry a team to success alone. If your labelled in some parts as the best half in the world you have to show you can do this like other halves in the past who have carried teams.
Bowen has never played halfback
I recall many times Bowen has slotted in at half----maybe not in shirt number but in executing plays----actually i think for a period he did slot in at half for the cowboys for a small period when Thurston was out but not long enough to establish being comfortable in the position.
What i was alluding to in relation to Bowen----if earlier in his career Bowen was developed into a half he would offer a greater range of skills than Thurston based on the limited times i've seen him slot in during games or chime in from the back. Matty Johns alluded on air that he would like to see Bowen at half more often.
Stop basing a players credentials on Rep jumpers playing for "great teams"(you can select a player in these instances due to one good characteristic they offer the team for a small amount of games) base it on what is required to win a Premiership he does not tick all the boxes at "NRL" level
I dont have to STOP doing anything old boy.
Pearce over Thurston ffs.You dont have to like Thurston to see that for rubbish..Im sure Gene Miles is currently pouring over Pearces junior carreer to check his eligibility as we speak.
You need to keep sitting at home with your mother,your knitting,your clipboards,your slide rule and your match tapes and keep up the great technical analysis we find so stimulative each week.
Mata
finding it quite amusing that winning a comp is now the defining characteristic of a great half.
who was the bloke who was half in 08 and won a premiership.
Seen quite a few posts musing over Thurston not being good enough to win a premiership and thus he is a hack - we actually had one that won a comp(and a Dally M) but,thats right,he was hopeless.
Pearce over Thurston ffs.You dont have to like Thurston to see that for rubbish..Im sure Gene Miles is currently pouring over Pearces junior carreer to check his eligibility as we speak.
You need to keep sitting at home with your mother,your knitting,your clipboards,your slide rule and your match tapes and keep up the great technical analysis we find so stimulative each week.
Mata
finding it quite amusing that winning a comp is now the defining characteristic of a great half.
who was the bloke who was half in 08 and won a premiership.
Seen quite a few posts musing over Thurston not being good enough to win a premiership and thus he is a hack - we actually had one that won a comp(and a Dally M) but,thats right,he was hopeless.
Masked Eagle
Bencher
I think Cronk is one of the most overrated players in the game. He is a product of the Storm system. He has been next to ineffectual when playing for QLD and Australia. He is just a perfect fit for the style of play at the Storm. Remember some guy called Orford who was the no 7 before him the Storm, as good as he was for us check his stats when playing in Melbourne, they are astounding. And Ox didn't have the benefit of playing with Cameron Smith.
That doesn't mean I think Cronk isn't any good. Just not as good as some people seem to think.
Also TC, can't believe you are trying to make the analogy that JTs plays works better in origin because the fatigue levels are higher intensity levels. No thought given that he's actually doing it against a higher quality player?
I like Scott Prince. When on form I think he is the best halfback in the game in the traditional sense and thats running the show. Knowing when to keep it tight and when to give it wide. I also like Mitchell Pearce but he isn't in the same class as JT.
I also don't rate the public opinions of Matty Johns too highly either. I'm not sure how much credence you can put in someones comments when they never had a bad thing to say about anyone they had an association with, whether that be through playing or coaching. Also his comments to me sound more like common sense, I'm sure he thinks Joey shouldn't have dominated the play as much and thats not because he didn't think he had the cability to, more so because he just wanted more ball.
That doesn't mean I think Cronk isn't any good. Just not as good as some people seem to think.
Also TC, can't believe you are trying to make the analogy that JTs plays works better in origin because the fatigue levels are higher intensity levels. No thought given that he's actually doing it against a higher quality player?
I like Scott Prince. When on form I think he is the best halfback in the game in the traditional sense and thats running the show. Knowing when to keep it tight and when to give it wide. I also like Mitchell Pearce but he isn't in the same class as JT.
I also don't rate the public opinions of Matty Johns too highly either. I'm not sure how much credence you can put in someones comments when they never had a bad thing to say about anyone they had an association with, whether that be through playing or coaching. Also his comments to me sound more like common sense, I'm sure he thinks Joey shouldn't have dominated the play as much and thats not because he didn't think he had the cability to, more so because he just wanted more ball.
Technical Coach
Bencher
Its not an issue of Pearce over Thurston---its about what type of half you can build a team around that is capable of implementing a variety of attacking structures based around different game plans.
Even though Foran is currently a 5/8 if i had to purchase a half and my only two options were Foran and Thurston i would take Foran any day of the week. Even when interviewed he comes across as a league intellectual in relation to the finer points of the game its a no brainer in my opinion.
A great half is not just judged on winning premierships but they tend to keep the team in contention most years. Orford was not a great half but he is the type of half you can build a premiership team out of by remaining consistently in the top 4---you can build game plans and stuctures around his style of play which is important for an NRL team.
Orford had many bad habits and required someone earlier in his career to iron them out of his game--- he had the potential to be a lot better than he showed but still had a great career with more NRL success than
Thurston will ever have.
Even though Foran is currently a 5/8 if i had to purchase a half and my only two options were Foran and Thurston i would take Foran any day of the week. Even when interviewed he comes across as a league intellectual in relation to the finer points of the game its a no brainer in my opinion.
A great half is not just judged on winning premierships but they tend to keep the team in contention most years. Orford was not a great half but he is the type of half you can build a premiership team out of by remaining consistently in the top 4---you can build game plans and stuctures around his style of play which is important for an NRL team.
Orford had many bad habits and required someone earlier in his career to iron them out of his game--- he had the potential to be a lot better than he showed but still had a great career with more NRL success than
Thurston will ever have.
Technical Coach
Bencher
Susan you wouldn't by any chance be a QLDer or live in the area your sounding very much like one.....
And what's my Mother got to do with the price of eggs?
If you require selection panels and rep jumpers as your only comeback in relation to debating who is better than who without adding your own justifications in relation to what that player can offer i pity your level of intelligence and thought.
Hmm should i revert back to myself 10yrs ago and comeback with a sly reply----nah "Serenity now Serenity now"
Oh i have free tickets to next years pre season trial games if your busy schedule affords you the time. (i just cant help myself this time around)
Roosters are playing bad due to the attitude within the playing group not due to Pearces abilitly to lead the team around.
The added strike power of Carney will allow the Roosters to get some wins purely on out-scoring teams but the attitude and toughness of the club needs to change----they are still considered soft.
I expect the Roosters will win and lose high scoring games all season or until they toughen up mentally and physically.
Yes your playing against higher quality players but some players are made for Origin some are not, does not mean an Origin level player will have more success in the NRL than a non Origin level player.
Cliff Lyons magical ball playing 5/8 but not suited for short turn around Origin games---he needed time with his outside backs and no matter what people say a lot of Lyons plays were structured and not ab lib as he made it look. Would i pick Daley over Lyons in my NRL team "nope"----but i would pick R. Stuart over Toovey any day.
As much as i admired Toovey he was one of the reasons why Manly struggled winning GF's and Premierships with a few semi/Qtr's knockouts but conversely his leadership and tough qualities probably promoted the right attitude to remain consistent and make those GF's.
(yes i know injuries during the Semi's against Norths and Canberra did not help either)
I admired Toovey but was never a big fan of his limited skills and at the time felt our attack was too overly reliant on Lyons. I feared our one dimensional attack would struggle in the big time for lacking a creative half with a good kicking game. Kosef plugged the ball playing creative role a little but purchasing Craig Field had the same affect as playing Toovey in the halves and was bad recruiting.
And what's my Mother got to do with the price of eggs?
If you require selection panels and rep jumpers as your only comeback in relation to debating who is better than who without adding your own justifications in relation to what that player can offer i pity your level of intelligence and thought.
Hmm should i revert back to myself 10yrs ago and comeback with a sly reply----nah "Serenity now Serenity now"
Oh i have free tickets to next years pre season trial games if your busy schedule affords you the time. (i just cant help myself this time around)
Roosters are playing bad due to the attitude within the playing group not due to Pearces abilitly to lead the team around.
The added strike power of Carney will allow the Roosters to get some wins purely on out-scoring teams but the attitude and toughness of the club needs to change----they are still considered soft.
I expect the Roosters will win and lose high scoring games all season or until they toughen up mentally and physically.
Yes your playing against higher quality players but some players are made for Origin some are not, does not mean an Origin level player will have more success in the NRL than a non Origin level player.
Cliff Lyons magical ball playing 5/8 but not suited for short turn around Origin games---he needed time with his outside backs and no matter what people say a lot of Lyons plays were structured and not ab lib as he made it look. Would i pick Daley over Lyons in my NRL team "nope"----but i would pick R. Stuart over Toovey any day.
As much as i admired Toovey he was one of the reasons why Manly struggled winning GF's and Premierships with a few semi/Qtr's knockouts but conversely his leadership and tough qualities probably promoted the right attitude to remain consistent and make those GF's.
(yes i know injuries during the Semi's against Norths and Canberra did not help either)
I admired Toovey but was never a big fan of his limited skills and at the time felt our attack was too overly reliant on Lyons. I feared our one dimensional attack would struggle in the big time for lacking a creative half with a good kicking game. Kosef plugged the ball playing creative role a little but purchasing Craig Field had the same affect as playing Toovey in the halves and was bad recruiting.
Technical Coach
Bencher
Rex said:
Well then i'm dreaming because i wouldn't---but i'm sure your correct that "most" teams would go out of their way to fit him in but most teams dont make the top 4 either lol.....
Masked Eagle
Bencher
TC. I like getting involved in a good argument but I really don't know where to start with your last post. Its really just alot of nonsense. Your sterotyping players on specific abilities but ignoring the whole package they bring to the table and how they fit in the team dynamics. Toovs was actually a very good attacking player but was an even better teamplayer. He was the architect of alot of the play, just because Cliffy pulled the trigger didn't mean Toovs didn't load the bullets.
Fearing our one dimensional attack ... I mean seriously, we couldn't have been more dominant. Are you suggesting the other teams let us have our merry way during the regular season so they could strangle us in the finals? The reason for losing the 95 & 97 GFs had absolutely zilch to do with our attacking options.
As for Cliffys lack of impact in Origin, you need look no further than Wally. He bashed him. A few years ago, (actually thinking about it must be at least 10) I was present at a sportsmans night where Wally was a guest speaker and someone asked him why Cliffy couldn't cut it at Origin and he said he would have but NSW didn't give him a chance. He said QLD were very worried about him so they made a concerted effort to bash him out of the contest.
I actually think your a reasonably intelligent analyst with some of the things I honestly think your so far off the mark on some of your summations there its bordering on lunacy.
Fearing our one dimensional attack ... I mean seriously, we couldn't have been more dominant. Are you suggesting the other teams let us have our merry way during the regular season so they could strangle us in the finals? The reason for losing the 95 & 97 GFs had absolutely zilch to do with our attacking options.
As for Cliffys lack of impact in Origin, you need look no further than Wally. He bashed him. A few years ago, (actually thinking about it must be at least 10) I was present at a sportsmans night where Wally was a guest speaker and someone asked him why Cliffy couldn't cut it at Origin and he said he would have but NSW didn't give him a chance. He said QLD were very worried about him so they made a concerted effort to bash him out of the contest.
I actually think your a reasonably intelligent analyst with some of the things I honestly think your so far off the mark on some of your summations there its bordering on lunacy.
Technical Coach
Bencher
I did make references about how Toovey fitted in the team dynamics in relation to his leadership and toughness. Basically Toovey held up the slide defence structures and kept the up and in defence honest for Lyons to work his magic by either straightening up and taking on the line or with a dummy and go trying to slide behind the up and in targetting Lyons.
Lyons always struggled with the Dogs up and in defence that was in his face cutting down his time and options--- Lyons and Manly's record against the dogs during this time was probably a 50/50 win ratio---- they had our mark many times.
I totally agree if Lyons was given more time he would have succeeded in Origin and i wished at the time they gave him time--- but in most instances Origin is not a patient environment so you have to accept in the time he was playing he was not "suitable" for origin like a less talented but more conventional tougher player like Laury Daley.
I'm not suggesting teams let us have our merry way that is rediculous---just because we had the best attacking record does not mean its not flawed in some capacity and will be exposed under pressure----and it did occur.
Take for example Newcastle during the mid 90's----at one stage Manly i think had a 11 match winning streak and it was "partly due" to the Johns Brothers over-use of long torpedo passes. This allowed our top of the line slide defence time to slide and easily read each play---especially when most of their passes were not at the line but several metres away.
Newcastle at the time were considered a great attacking young team also but it had its flaws and this is all i'm saying.
Conversely our slide defence was the best defence in its time but personally we were overly reliant on it---just because it was the best defence does not mean "its good enough". Slide defence is less about players making the right judgements and being pro active its more about forcing teams sideways so we dont have to commit or make decisions defensively.
The Roosters Friday night game in 97 with flat hole runners with decoys going against the slide grain was the start of our demise defensively---for once our defence had to make decisions and be pro-active and we were left wanting.
Slide defence allows too many metres in general sets of 6 and is only used when heavily outnumbered in the modern game----most centres and wingers are pro active now and try and cut off the play before it unfolds.
All structures have their eventual down fall and its beautiful to watch but i tend to always look for improvements and flaws and not appreciate the good points i guess.
Lyons always struggled with the Dogs up and in defence that was in his face cutting down his time and options--- Lyons and Manly's record against the dogs during this time was probably a 50/50 win ratio---- they had our mark many times.
I totally agree if Lyons was given more time he would have succeeded in Origin and i wished at the time they gave him time--- but in most instances Origin is not a patient environment so you have to accept in the time he was playing he was not "suitable" for origin like a less talented but more conventional tougher player like Laury Daley.
I'm not suggesting teams let us have our merry way that is rediculous---just because we had the best attacking record does not mean its not flawed in some capacity and will be exposed under pressure----and it did occur.
Take for example Newcastle during the mid 90's----at one stage Manly i think had a 11 match winning streak and it was "partly due" to the Johns Brothers over-use of long torpedo passes. This allowed our top of the line slide defence time to slide and easily read each play---especially when most of their passes were not at the line but several metres away.
Newcastle at the time were considered a great attacking young team also but it had its flaws and this is all i'm saying.
Conversely our slide defence was the best defence in its time but personally we were overly reliant on it---just because it was the best defence does not mean "its good enough". Slide defence is less about players making the right judgements and being pro active its more about forcing teams sideways so we dont have to commit or make decisions defensively.
The Roosters Friday night game in 97 with flat hole runners with decoys going against the slide grain was the start of our demise defensively---for once our defence had to make decisions and be pro-active and we were left wanting.
Slide defence allows too many metres in general sets of 6 and is only used when heavily outnumbered in the modern game----most centres and wingers are pro active now and try and cut off the play before it unfolds.
All structures have their eventual down fall and its beautiful to watch but i tend to always look for improvements and flaws and not appreciate the good points i guess.
Masked Eagle
Bencher
It looks like it. 😉 I'm not sure if you meant it, but its the way I took it, that because of your rating of Stuart as halfback as opposed to Toovs you were making the leap that we would have been a better side if we had him instead. I believe we would have been different, but I would disagree til the cows come home we would have been better.
I'm probably a little more prepared to live with the imperfections in certain players and styles because I probably do look at their positives more than their negatives. Choc being a fair example of that. I know he does some things which cost us, but I believe the other aspects of his game far outweigh and of that. Some people can get hung up on the negatives too much.
I'm probably a little more prepared to live with the imperfections in certain players and styles because I probably do look at their positives more than their negatives. Choc being a fair example of that. I know he does some things which cost us, but I believe the other aspects of his game far outweigh and of that. Some people can get hung up on the negatives too much.
clontaago
First Grader
TC if you werent so arrogant and conceited and every post didnt wreak of how much more you think you know than every other poster, you might actually find yourself gaining a little bit more respect.
The truth is that most of your posts are just rubbish, you would have to be one of the worst judges around.
The truth is that most of your posts are just rubbish, you would have to be one of the worst judges around.
Berkeley_Eagle
Current Status: 24/7 Manly Fan
Hey TC a tip for Monday just watch the game without disecting it, you might find you may enjoy yourself
The Johns brothers were masters at the short ball and this is how they attacked mostly. Both Matty and Andrew worked fairly close in together near the ruck and often played side by side rather than either side of the ruck as was common then.
You make up a lot of dribble TC. Watch a couple of 90's games again, it took forever for them to get the ball out wide because they used to attack up the middle and Ainscough used to come in off his wing and attack not too far out from the posts.
Manly strangled any long passing game anyway because of the umbrella style defense.
You make up a lot of dribble TC. Watch a couple of 90's games again, it took forever for them to get the ball out wide because they used to attack up the middle and Ainscough used to come in off his wing and attack not too far out from the posts.
Manly strangled any long passing game anyway because of the umbrella style defense.
Jatz Crackers
First Grader
The real mystery in all of this is does TC have a Des style 70s hairdo ?
I know your all thinking about it.
I know your all thinking about it.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
