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

 

[LeonardCohen]

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

I don’t know what it is about you Bear…you perplex me, but I love you 😎

 

[Disco]

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

I feel two different discussions are happening here.

Because we are talking the role of locks in the current game. So that is coaching strategies. And the role is for locks to play through the middle.

Make yards
Make tackles
Play the link role

There are your prop types like Carrigan, King, Jurbo, Taumalolo

There are your more mobile types like Murray, Radley, Watson, Walker.

By player skillsets aside, when playing licks in 2025 players generally play through the middle.

Locks are not running wide to take on centres etc

 

[Bearfax]

I feel two different discussions are happening here.

Because we are talking the role of locks in the current game. So that is coaching strategies. And the role is for locks to play through the middle.

Make yards
Make tackles
Play the link role

There are your prop types like Carrigan, King, Jurbo, Taumalolo

There are your more mobile types like Murray, Radley, Watson, Walker.

By player skillsets aside, when playing licks in 2025 players generally play through the middle.

Locks are not running wide to take on centres etc

I'm saying that the game has not changed significantly since the 1970s. The only big changes are professionalism, full time player commitment, strength, fitness and speed improvements. Players are built bigger, stronger, faster, which wasn't possible back in the 70s as much because players often had two jobs (a difference). Seems I give examples of similar roles played by players forty years ago, yet the implication is that, without evidence, that there have been significant changes in the roles played. The differences depend on who is coaching and the specific talents of the players.

There are no Menzies today not because the game has changed but because there are no Menzies. If Menzies was playing today and had Cliffy inside him, you'd be seeing much the same thing that happened during their career. What changes is specific (not general) strategies by coaches. And that can depend on the quality of player in their stable. But strategies get eventually countered and new strategies are introduced. And if you look closely, often the new strategies are old ones revisited. For example, the alleged delaying tactics suggested to be in the Storms style (hold onto tackled player longer etc). Watch the 1969 grand final again Balmain Vs Souths, Same thing was happening. A tactic revisited.

As for mobility being better in the back row today I would suggest you consider Menzies, Gartner, Kosef. All very mobile back rowers in the one team. Watmough, Price, Phil Lowe (1960s), Coote, MacCarthy, Clyde, Mackay, Roberts ..I could go on, all very mobile. Just depends on the player's skill. An old timer would suggest Raper was one of the most mobile payers in the game. They maybe fitter today but no more talented and mobile.

 

[Disco]

I'm saying that the game has not changed significantly since the 1970s. The only big changes are professionalism, full time player commitment, strength, fitness and speed improvements. Players are built bigger, stronger, faster, which wasn't possible back in the 70s as much because players often had two jobs (a difference). Seems I give examples of similar roles played by players forty years ago, yet the implication is that, without evidence, that there have been significant changes in the roles played. The differences depend on who is coaching and the specific talents of the players.

There are no Menzies today not because the game has changed but because there are no Menzies. If Menzies was playing today and had Cliffy inside him, you'd be seeing much the same thing that happened during their career. What changes is specific (not general) strategies by coaches. And that can depend on the quality of player in their stable. But strategies get eventually countered and new strategies are introduced. And if you look closely, often the new strategies are old ones revisited. For example, the alleged delaying tactics suggested to be in the Storms style (hold onto tackled player longer etc). Watch the 1969 grand final again Balmain Vs Souths, Same thing was happening. A tactic revisited.

As for mobility being better in the back row today I would suggest you consider Menzies, Gartner, Kosef. All very mobile back rowers in the one team. Watmough, Price, Phil Lowe (1960s), Coote, MacCarthy, Clyde, Mackay, Roberts ..I could go on, all very mobile. Just depends on the player's skill. An old timer would suggest Raper was one of the most mobile payers in the game. They maybe fitter today but no more talented and mobile.

Menzies played edge for 95% of his career.

Nobody is talking skillsets or body types or mobility.

The point is in NRL in 2025 a lock plays in the middle. Its not a rule, a coach can innovate, a player can occasionally pop up else but a locks role in the modern game is to control the middle.

Please provide me one example of a modern lock, playing lock roving out wide taking on centres etc.

 

[Bearfax]

Menzies played edge for 95% of his career.

Nobody is talking skillsets or body types or mobility.

The point is in NRL in 2025 a lock plays in the middle. Its not a rule, a coach can innovate, a player can occasionally pop up else but a locks role in the modern game is to control the middle.

Please provide me one example of a modern lock, playing lock roving out wide taking on centres etc.

Yeo, Ex Centre plays wide often. Walker, ex centre often runs at the fringes.

 

[Bearfax]

I think some of you guys are not understanding my process/tactics. Let me first stress what I state I don't necessarily believe unequivocally I'm using typical debating techniques whereby a position I take, I support by presenting evidence. Now that evidence is not necessarily unchallengeable, in fact it can often be challenged or overturned by better evidence. However most of you operate on assumptions based on a position that you don't seem to be supporting through specific evidence. Some are just becoming frustrated reinforcing a position without producing facts, but merely conjecture, and cant understand why I continue to take a different position by adding evidence as I see it. Now I make conjectural comments all the time but when challenged, I try to research and present examples to support my position. Doesn't mean I'm right, but unless you do likewise, you are merely reiterating the same position, but changing the emphasis. I've been trained not to operate that way. If you have an argument its important to support it through evidence, not generalised responses to observations.

Example. When one of the people on this site produced statistical evidence regarding the defensive flaws in Garrick's play at centre, I conceded and agreed, given that evidence strongly suggested there was a problem. But opinion based purely on observation and perspective is not fact.

I come from a role that at one stage had me presenting assessment reports, with some social background, on offenders by the thousands, and I do mean thousands, at local, district, supreme and Parole Board hearings. I was regularly cross examined. If I relied on opinion without compelling evidence, my report would be thrown out. It never was. Same with union activities at the Industrial Court. It was always important to verify claims through tangible evidence. If you couldn't, you had to always couch the comment as an opinion only. eg its seems that way, its apparent, it appears to be so.

So what I am saying is this process here is a debate, and debates are not about opinions alone, but opinions supported by tangible evidence. So far in respect of this issue regarding locks, I have not met tangible evidence to counter my assertion, just opinions based on personal observations or what you've heard said. I might be quite wrong in my argument, or at least misinterpreting, in fact that's quite likely. But unless you can present evidence as was supplied in respect of the Garrick issue, I see your comments as merely opinions. Prove me wrong through evidence and research. I want you to. That's what makes debating fun.

 

[Sheikheagle]

Interesting in todays paper Jazz said he will fill in as a a 9 but prefers 13. Jakey may be heading to the front row.

 

[Rafferty]

Some interesting but useless info about Jake, he wears the number 13, Debuted in the year 13 and current sits 13th on the most games played for Manly list at 224 games.

If he stays fit and plays all or most of his current contract, he could move into 5th, should Manly sign Jake on any subsequent deals year by year, the first extension could see him move past Beaver into 3rd (well sort of !) play another year and he can reach second on the list behind Chez, won’t pass Daly and probably won’t get the extra 2 years, but you never know. I’m sure Jake will want to play footy for the rest of his life, either way he can finish in the top 5, possibly even 2nd and a member of the 300 club.

 

[Nike]

Yeo, Ex Centre plays wide often. Walker, ex centre often runs at the fringes.

A slightly edited quote from a discussion regarding the role of locks, and Yeo specifically.

"A ball playing lock is like the old Scott Hill/Jason Smith style player. Basically a slight bigger half with playmaking, silky skills, putting players through holes. Both those players could (and did) fill in in the halves.

Yeo's play is so simple, yet so hard to do. It requires a good footy IQ. He is simply a distributor, but every time he takes the ball his assessing the defense. What most have clued onto now is the value in the space he creates by rotating run and pass quite effectively be it for Nathan or in the defensive line when he chooses to carry. Knowing when to pass and when to run is a massive, underrated skill.

But it only works if you've already got the 'prop' basics down pat. You have to be at least decent prop/middle to build that subtly into your game. Strip away the passing and the good footy IQ and you still have a very good forward in Yeo, add those things on top and you have an elite player. The problem is a lot of teams try and do the passing without a player who has the footy brain, but more importantly, isn't doing the 'prop' basics first before adding the passing.

Yeo isn't a ball playing lock or a playmaker, if Cleary goes down you do not want Yeo at halfback. I think people misunderstood his role sometimes as just a distributor when his whole game is a lot more than that, and other teams miss the point when they just try and make their locks a distributor."