Jake Trbojevic offers nothing in attack

[Disco]

Love to read this

“It will be a similar role (to the Warriors). We want to take a bit of that workload off Jakey (Trbojevic). He’s played amassive part in the Sea Eagles over the last 10 years and I think he needs a bit of help,” Tevaga said."

Jake is integral for me but I do think 60 odd minutes is the go these days

 

[frank stokes]

Love to read this

“It will be a similar role (to the Warriors). We want to take a bit of that workload off Jakey (Trbojevic). He’s played amassive part in the Sea Eagles over the last 10 years and I think he needs a bit of help,” Tevaga said."

Jake is integral for me but I do think 60 odd minutes is the go these days

Well we saw last year what happened when Jake sat on the bench… covering that other 20min is crucial and hopefully Jazz is the man for the job…

 

[LeonardCohen]

Sure is. To start with, 13 was prop forward in the 80’s!

😂

 

[lsz]

For what it is worth I also think there is also how we play which means that his "attacking" stats as per the super coach stats is reduced.

 

[Bearfax]

Oh Bear I give up. We’ve been over this so many times. A lock and a second row forward are not the same position. Don’t use Olakau’atu as evidence of a lock running wide, because a lock and a second row forward are two different positions….and definitely don’t use Menzies because he retired 17 years ago!

next time you watch a game, keep an eye on the guy wearing 13…he’ll do his defending and running in the middle third. They’ll also provide a ‘link’ in the middle, where they ball play during attacking forays. Don’t worry what the 11 and 12 are doing, because they’re not locks, which is why they don’t have 13 on their jumper. And don’t worry about what the 13 used to do in the 80s because the game is a bit different now 😉

I think you're confusing coach strategies and specific player skills, with changes in the game. Personally, and I've watched the game since 1966, the only significant change to the way the game is played occurred in 1967 with the introduction of the limited tackle rule. That impacted significantly on how the game was played. There have been other smaller features such as reducing field goals for 3 to one point in 1971, the ending of the scrum contest in the 1980s, the ending of the contest in the play the ball in the 1970s and the introduction of the 10 metre rule in 1993. However in my opinion the fundamentals of the game have not changed much since the early 70s and the role of the players has also not changed much. Individual players and coaches introduce new skills or strategies, but the game is much the same. The only other significant difference is the professionalism, the intensity of training and the body building, speed training etc. But a winger is still a winger doing a wingers job, same as other positions on the field have their role.

Now you say things have changed since Menzies. I disagree. Menzies was a bit of a freak but not the only one of his style. In the late 1960s to 1970s there was a player who used almost exactly the same tactic. Bob McCarthy. Like Menzies he ranged out nearer the centres and was a terror. Menzies incredible try scoring skills saw him score 0.515 tries per game. McCarthy crossed the line at a rate on 0.484 per game. If he had played as many games as Menzies he would have been up there among the highest ever try scorers. Yet he played forty years before Menzies. Was there much difference in style Compare Phil Lowe with Sonny Bill Williams again 40 -50 years apart. Played similar games. Lowe scored at 0.347 tries per game. Sonny Bill 0.341 tries per game. By the way Sonny Bill played wide, like Menzies as second row and lock. Lowe generally second row also played some lock and played wide. It all depends on the players you have and the strategies you use. But I suggest again, the game fundamentally has no changed much since the 1970s

 

[Kalvin]

Actually the rumour at the time was Manly paid overs for Jake in order to keep Tom!! The Bulldogs were offering similar dollars for both so Manly upped the offer! Jake was not worth $950k at the time he was upgraded. $650k max. Murray, Radley & Yeo are nowhere near $950k & please don’t tell me Jake is better than those 3!

I believe Radley would be around 800k & some cash bags under the table etc.... & I'd still take Jake over him...

But agree yeo & Murray are better now that age has caught up with Jake. But he has multiple other attributes that the other 2 don't also imo

 

[BOZO]

Wrong thread for this observation @BOZO

Say what like about Jake but nobody can ever question that you get 110% (and then some) effort from Jurbo EVERY time (plus he did not play the trial)…

I understand with what you are saying about Jake
He does give it his all including when he plays state of origin and he seems to have lost his place there .
What I was referring to my 110% post was that if we are to improve on last seasons results
Every players must raise their standards , defence as well as attack
It is obvious that Jake needs to Improve his offensive play

The moral of the story and this applies to every player
The road to excellence is Always under construction
Rest on your loreals and you are left behind