So far off the pace

[Bearfax]

It implies that I saw what so many other posters and commentators saw as anecdotal evidence. Someone pointed out to you the flaw in the tackle efficiency statistic and danced around it like Fred Astaire!

What I'm saying Leonard is that many on this site hold opposing or differing views and I'm sure there are many outside of this discussion. Just because you think something is right, doesn't make it right.. You are only looking for things to support your argument. I can assure you in my people oriented employment positions over five decades, if I took that stance I'd be out on my ear. That is not unbiased thinking. As I said, forget your personal opinions and let the evidence lead you. Notice what I did. Phobia presented tangible evidence to show Garrick's deficiencies. Let the evidence lead you. so I accept the material he is supplying. Of course there are no absolutes so other material my come allow and offer another way of looking at it. I accept that. Its not personal, and its not a personal perspective. Its following the money so to speak.

 

[Scorpio]

My whole argument was not to defend Garrick but to ensure that tangible evidence is produced to support claims. I've consistently taken that stance on this site for years. I have no problems at all supporting well presented verified evidential claims. Phobia presented tangible evidence and consequently I am swayed by that material. I'm not swayed by conjecture, anymore than I'm swayed by rhetoric over action. Too often people are swayed by the former. The US elections result shows that.

You are expecting a statistical comparison as evidence for some of these opinions.

The problem is that there are no (at least, publicly available) statistics kept by rugby league statisticians that count, for example, for all players for every game:

• Defensive decisions that lead to an opposition overlap
• Defensive decisions that lead to a conceded try
• Tackles made where the attacking player made more than 5 post-contact metres
• Tackles where attacking player managed to offload the ball
• Lack of tackle attempt made
• And so on.

So, people here (some more accurately than others) rely on what they see to form their opinions. Just because there is not a statistic kept for these events, doesn't mean that they don't happen.

 

[LeonardCohen]

What I'm saying Leonard is that many on this site hold opposing or differing views and I'm sure there are many outside of this discussion. Just because you think something is right, doesn't make it right.. You are only looking for things to support your argument. I can assure you in my people oriented employment positions over five decades, if I took that stance I'd be out on my ear. That is not unbiased thinking. As I said, forget your personal opinions and let the evidence lead you. Notice what I did. Phobia presented tangible evidence to show Garrick's deficiencies. Let the evidence lead you. so I accept the material he is supplying. Of course there are no absolutes so other material my come allow and offer another way of looking at it. I accept that. Its not personal, and its not a personal perspective. Its following the money so to speak.

I'm very open to other people's perspectives and opinions, except when it comes to someone's complete ignorance - the 'tackle efficiency statistic' is a fallacy in the context of Garrick's ability as a defensive centre, because it completely ignores one very important aspect of defending, i.e. the reading of the play. Garrick is 'hit and miss' in this regard and still learning. How do I know? I saw it with my own eyes. Now, I am prepared to accept that it's my perspective but I'll be damned if that 'tackle efficiency statistic' is in anyway valid evidence to the contrary, as you tried to suggest.

 

[Bearfax]

You are expecting a statistical comparison as evidence for some of these opinions.

The problem is that there are no (at least, publicly available) statistics kept by rugby league statisticians that count, for example, for all players for every game:

• Defensive decisions that lead to an opposition overlap
• Defensive decisions that lead to a conceded try
• Tackles made where the attacking player made more than 5 post-contact metres
• Tackles where attacking player managed to offload the ball
• Lack of tackle attempt made
• And so on.

So, people here (some more accurately than others) rely on what they see to form their opinions. Just because there is not a statistic kept for these events, doesn't mean that they don't happen.

Scorpio, your points are valid in my opinion. However in major sports, stats are everything. Even kids in the States and Britain live by them. We do have some stat material as has been shown in this discussion and it does offer significant information, but its not offering anything absolute. Opinions offer far less because as I said we are all biased in certain ways, even though we don't realise it. So we are never right, only right in our own mind.

However, I appreciate in the context of these sites, that this is all about fun and as such we are just bantering about issues most of us really have only superficial awareness about, and I am including myself here. The majority don't know what is happening behind the scenes, and though we are enthusiastic supporters of the game, I doubt any of us have reached the first grade level of these players we watch. We express side line opinions, analyze the games, comment on individual players performances, but awareness of what really is happening is limited. So opinions we make are nothing more than perceptions from our point of view and should be expressed as such. Just opinions. Not right or wrong, just our point of view. And we will only know more about what is happened when we look carefully at tangible evidence available to us. It wont make us right, just more aware.

 

[Bearfax]

I'm very open to other people's perspectives and opinions, except when it comes to someone's complete ignorance - the 'tackle efficiency statistic' is a fallacy in the context of Garrick's ability as a defensive centre, because it completely ignores one very important aspect of defending, i.e. the reading of the play. Garrick is 'hit and miss' in this regard and still learning. How do I know? I saw it with my own eyes. The 'tackle efficiency statistic' in no way is evidence to the contrary, as you tried to suggest.

That's arrogance on your part Leonard. How is it you can set yourself on a pedestal and judge what others think. You are still arguing about your own rightness. What if I was to say of you that your position offers complete ignorance. Another point of view just as valid as your position could say that. You say you are open to other people's perceptions but its not revealed in what you say. I know I can get on my high horse at times and preach a little, but I'll admit my faults and have done so in the past. Can you?

 

[BOZO]

Garrick is a Great Athlete and has all the Great Attributes to be a Great centre
I also think that he has the ability to improve on his defensive reads
2025 and Garrick has the final say
2025 will be his defining year

 

[BOZO]

That's arrogance on your part Leonard. How is it you can set yourself on a pedestal and judge what others think. You are still arguing about your own rightness. What if I was to say of you that your position offers complete ignorance. Another point of view just as valid as your position could say that. You say you are open to other people's perceptions but its not revealed in what you say. I know I can get on my high horse at times and preach a little, but I'll admit my faults and have done so in the past. Can you?

We all have strong views feathered friend @Bearfax
Some of our views are so strong at times that we do not believe we are wrong
When we reach this stage . The best solution is to agree to disagree and keep the harmony

 

[LeonardCohen]

That's arrogance on your part Leonard. How is it you can set yourself on a pedestal and judge what others think. You are still arguing about your own rightness. What if I was to say of you that your position offers complete ignorance. Another point of view just as valid as your position could say that. You say you are open to other people's perceptions but its not revealed in what you say. I know I can get on my high horse at times and preach a little, but I'll admit my faults and have done so in the past. Can you?

Ignorance is dancing around the short sightedness of the tackle efficiency statistic because it doesn't suit your initial claim that its evidence of people's misperceptions around Garrick's ability as a defensive centre. The shortcomings were made clear and clarification was given, and instead of accepting them, you attempted to distort logic to cling to your initial argument; which seems kinda arrogant.

 

[eaglebuzz]

Seem to forget that Garrick played in the Australian X111 only a few months ago, so I doubt the ship has sailed. Obviously some who know the game well, recognise his worth, despite his apparent weaknesses at centre as well pointed out by Phobia.

He was crap defending in that game too

 

[Bearfax]

Ignorance is dancing around the short sightedness of the tackle efficiency statistic because it doesn't suit your initial claim that its evidence of people's misperceptions around Garrick's ability as a defensive centre. The shortcomings were made clear and clarification was given, and instead of accepting them, you attempted to distort logic to cling to your initial argument; which seems kinda arrogant.

Difference is Leonard, I was not saying that was what I believed. It wasn't an opinion, it was looking at the evidence produced and coming to a provisional decision. You misinterpret my intent. I'm not suggesting at any point that I'm right. I'm merely saying that certain evidence points to such and such conclusions. New evidence can alter that but its all about the evidence, not what I believe. I dont have beliefs Leonard. Gave that away many decades ago. I look at evidence as presented and provisionally consider what seems probable. New information comes along and that may alter the position. But I don't start off with a pre set belief. I had to learn that lesson through my career and if I hadn't I would have failed. So I may look upon something and assume certain things, but I know that is only based on a very limited amount of information. What was required for me was to put information together, kind of like a jigsaw, each piece adding to a clearer understand about what I'm dealing with. My role was kind of like a profiler. If you make assumptions before you've developed a clear picture, you are only projecting your own perspective, which might be nothing at all like the reality of what the picture will eventually show. So opinions are not about what is right or wrong. Its about how we interpret and the more limited the information the less likely you are to get a decent sense of what you're looking at.

 

[LeonardCohen]

Difference is Leonard, I was not saying that was what I believed. It wasn't an opinion, it was looking at the evidence produced and coming to a provisional decision. You misinterpret my intent. I'm not suggesting at any point that I'm right. I'm merely saying that certain evidence points to such and such conclusions. New evidence can alter that but its all about the evidence, not what I believe. I dont have beliefs Leonard. Gave that away many decades ago. I look at evidence as presented and provisionally consider what seems probable. New information comes along and that may alter the position. But I don't start off with a pre set belief. I had to learn that lesson through my career and if I hadn't I would have failed. So I may look upon something and assume certain things, but I know that is only based on a very limited amount of information. What was required for me was to put information together, kind of like a jigsaw, each piece adding to a clearer understand about what I'm dealing with. My role was kind of like a profiler. If you make assumptions before you've developed a clear picture, you are only projecting your own perspective, which might be nothing at all like the reality of what the picture will eventually show. So opinions are not about what is right or wrong. Its about how we interpret and the more limited the information the less likely you are to get a decent sense of what you're looking at.

I see, Bearfax. I apologise if I misinterpreted your intention.

 

[manlyfan76]

Stats, perspective.....whatever.

Last contract time, there were seemingly demands made/ ot guarantees made, depending on who you believe, about what position Garrick would play in 2024.

Fans are frustrated cause initially we had weakened 2 positions with this change. Not much happened through the year to change my initial thought on this either. He is the best winger at the club, but not in the top 2 centres.

Garrick himself should be frustrated. He is an elite finishing winger, had improved dramatically in other aspects of his game , and IMO, was a smokey for SOO going forward, especially before Lomaxs rebirth on a wing. That ship has probably sailed now unfortunately.


Madness all around, along with a very healthy dose of blind stubbornness.

Rubs top 25 games would all be on the wing.
He'd be lucky to have a game at centre that would be 60% as good as any game he's played as winger.

 

[eaglebuzz]

Rubs top 25 games would all be on the wing.
He'd be lucky to have a game at centre that would be 60% as good as any game he's played as winger.

Yes, when he was agitating for the move to centre the club should have cut him loose.

The conversation should have been: "You can be an excellent winger here or a crap centre somewhere else."

 

[Dion Johnson]

Throughout different threads on the forum statistics are often quoted / used by most of us posters, however they only play a part and don’t tell the full story.

Statistics are an integral part of analysing performance in rugby league, but they often fail to capture the full scope of a player's contribution.

For starters, statistics primarily focus on quantifiable metrics such as tackles made, meters gained, tries scored, line breaks and conversions kicked (etc). While these numbers are essential for evaluating certain aspects of performance, they overlook qualitative factors such as a player's leadership, decision-making, and ability to inspire teammates.

For instance, a player like Jake whose statistics don’t read well in tackle breaks is instrumental in guiding the team through high-pressure situations and making strategic decisions that don’t necessarily reflect in the basic statistics but are crucial for the team's success.

Moreover, the game is highly dynamic and a fluid game where the context of each play can significantly impact its value. Statistics often fail to account for these nuances / variables, such as the quality of opposition, weather conditions, or strategic game plans that might influence a player's performance. Example Jake might have fewer meters gained in a game but still be highly effective in executing a defensive strategy that neutralises the opposition along with his work of the ball. Additionally, statistics do not capture the pressure of the moment — a successful tackle in a high-stakes game might have a much larger impact than a similar tackle in a less critical game.

Statistics cannot measure the intangible elements of a player's contribution, such as their influence on team morale or their role in creating opportunities for others. A player's ability to communicate effectively, build team cohesion, and maintain a positive attitude can be pivotal in a team's overall performance, yet these aspects are not captured by traditional statistics / metrics.

Before data on statistics was readily available coaches / journalists relied on the naked eye and their gut feel of the players contribution to evaluate their individual performances, this still plays a large part in the game today of a players performance and what they bring to the team, statistics may back up a point though they are only part of the story line.

 

[Dion Johnson]

Garrick's edge often gets shown up due to the middles losing the contest in the ruck, allowing ridiculous momentum which will look 100% on Garrick and friends on that edge, where credit should often be shared with where the root of the problem started, back at that play the ball.

Very true, there are so many different variables that lead to the opposition breaking the line, often it is the player that gets beaten gets the blame without noticing those players who should be pushing across in the middle.

I personally think I have an unconscious bias on Garricks defence due to how unnatural he looks in reading the attacking opponents play.

 

[maxta]

Very true, there are so many different variables that lead to the opposition breaking the line, often it is the player that gets beaten gets the blame without noticing those players who should be pushing across in the middle.

I personally think I have an unconscious bias on Garricks defence due to how unnatural he looks in reading the attacking opponents play.

It's fair to have that view mate, based on exactly this.....yes there has been a flawed defensive situation inside, but harsh as it may be, Garrick needs to improve his reads regardless, especially the indecisive decisions that leave him zero chance to even attempt the tackle.

 

[Phobia]

Honestly, I don't think Garrick should be our long term centre, but he definitely should be the right centre in 2025, until Hoppa is physically big enough to be a consistent first grader. Our back five yardage isn't good enough to justify our first choice backline including a version of Lehi that gets pushed back five metres, every other hit up. Give him 10 kilos and I could see him as being a fantastic right centre, or fullback.

Right centre at Manly is a poisoned chalice. I think Koula's speed and acceleration is the obvious reason why that edge was perceived to be better last year, but I think the main reason, was because opposition attack instead targeted the gaping hole between Schuster/Johns, and Kelma Tuilagi. Garrick (or rather, his side) was the weakest link in our defence this year. Schuster was last year. They'll go where the points are.

In my original reply on here, I noted that Garrick is technically the worst, but you'll notice he has some interesting company in those Fox Sports stats, in Nick Meaney and Izack Tago. One just won another premiership, and the other played in that grand final. Those statistics are still accurate in my view, as you put the hypothetical best defender in the world there, and the try isn't scored, but this problem is far from unique, or terrifying. Both Meaney and Tago have played in the centres before 2024. Garrick didn't.

If centre is your biggest hole in defence, you're doing something right. Centre is notoriously known as the hardest position to defend for a reason. When Olakau'atu reads it wrong (an arguement is there for moving him to the left because of this), or DCE goes off for a walk to nowhere like the old man that he is, Garrick is basically sold out.

I've looked back on a few highlights to check the eye test again. There's a few terrible reads early in the season, several against the Roosters in the SF when he was absolutely concussed, but most of the tries that I can identify as being 100% his fault, he's slipping off the tackle. We've already identified that his tackle efficiency isn't the problem. So those other tries, that I presume are tagged as being his fault by Fox Sports, it very much appears to occur from problems further in. Some of them he has milliseconds to make a decision, and even then, the alternative option is not a guaranteed try-saver.

Obviously he has problems, but the right edge has been our undoing in the last two periods where we were competitive (2021, early to mid 2022, 2024). There's something more there.

 

[Ohgeez]

Seem to forget that Garrick played in the Australian X111 only a few months ago, so I doubt the ship has sailed. Obviously some who know the game well, recognise his worth, despite his apparent weaknesses at centre as well pointed out by Phobia.

Alex Seyfarth, Fogarty & Sean Russel also made that team so it’s not saying much…

 

[Stewbojevic]

Honestly, I don't think Garrick should be our long term centre, but he definitely should be the right centre in 2025, until Hoppa is physically big enough to be a consistent first grader. Our back five yardage isn't good enough to justify our first choice backline including a version of Lehi that gets pushed back five metres, every other hit up. Give him 10 kilos and I could see him as being a fantastic right centre, or fullback.

Right centre at Manly is a poisoned chalice. I think Koula's speed and acceleration is the obvious reason why that edge was perceived to be better last year, but I think the main reason, was because opposition attack instead targeted the gaping hole between Schuster/Johns, and Kelma Tuilagi. Garrick (or rather, his side) was the weakest link in our defence this year. Schuster was last year. They'll go where the points are.

In my original reply on here, I noted that Garrick is technically the worst, but you'll notice he has some interesting company in those Fox Sports stats, in Nick Meaney and Izack Tago. One just won another premiership, and the other played in that grand final. Those statistics are still accurate in my view, as you put the hypothetical best defender in the world there, and the try isn't scored, but this problem is far from unique, or terrifying. Both Meaney and Tago have played in the centres before 2024. Garrick didn't.

If centre is your biggest hole in defence, you're doing something right. Centre is notoriously known as the hardest position to defend for a reason. When Olakau'atu reads it wrong (an arguement is there for moving him to the left because of this), or DCE goes off for a walk to nowhere like the old man that he is, Garrick is basically sold out.

I've looked back on a few highlights to check the eye test again. There's a few terrible reads early in the season, several against the Roosters in the SF when he was absolutely concussed, but most of the tries that I can identify as being 100% his fault, he's slipping off the tackle. We've already identified that his tackle efficiency isn't the problem. So those other tries, that I presume are tagged as being his fault by Fox Sports, it very much appears to occur from problems further in. Some of them he has milliseconds to make a decision, and even then, the alternative option is not a guaranteed try-saver.

Obviously he has problems, but the right edge has been our undoing in the last two periods where we were competitive (2021, early to mid 2022, 2024). There's something more there.

Great perspective, thanks Phobia.

Garrick has proven in the past to be a huge improver due to his work ethic off the field. I think we’ll see some big improvements defensively from him in 2025

 

[jbb/james]

A defensive line is a chain
Garrick is a link
Manlys right side us synonomous with woe
Garrick is the latest chapter


Doesnt mean he hasn't fallen off a few,
Koula had some good moments with fast deliberate leg tackles . Not a tactic many centres use as it frees the ball for unloads but its shaky out there at times.His desire to not be swatted was his most memorable attribute IMO

I think garrick brings a lot to this footy team , but his cart backs at wing were only ok and my memory is he juggles a few in the air.

What are other poster recollections of Garrick under the bomb at wing.

I think whats most overlooked when we talk wing/centre is who is best under the high ball
Not saying i have the answer but its where i start

I want our fullback and wingers to be safe as a house first, then move the rest to centres
You can always get by if you stop almost everything and not gift ball off bombs in the 10. The talent is still out there
Before positions , my view is hoppa is the most gifted under the ball but still lacks physical presence . Talau just handled everything well but was mr fix if and that shouldnt persist

We often lose field position and our nerve. Having players that can do those simple but hard under pressure big game moments is where i would start. Who ever us left goes to centre .

We watched Jorge and Uate man, this team needs to shore up those types of 1%.
I think Saabs form in the air may decide overall who gets the spots first. He started shaky, got better , lets see if thats consistent. His pace and size is wasted so his spot is also