We need to sort this out NOW! Best options:

[Crushercleal]

OK guys, by the sound of it both Matai and Burns were unavailable, but I think from this week on for the rest of the year, we must do NO more chopping and changing. It is very obvious to me what our top team is, and here it is:

1. Stewart 2. Robbo 3. Bell 4. Lyon 5. Hicks 6. Burns 7. Orford 8. King 9. Ballin 10. Kite 11. Menzies 12. Choc 13. Stewart. Bench: 14. Bryant 15. Hall 16. Monas 17. Willo

Can anyone possibly tell me this is not our best team??!! Lyon is obviously not a 5/8 (please Des!!!) and Burns HAS to play the full 80. And Ballin controls things much better out of dummy-half. That leaves the 2 props plus Willo on the bench, and Monas to sub either Ballin, or for an injury to a back. That means no room for Matai unless there is an injury. We've had 12 weeks now, and we need a settled halves/hooker combination from THIS DAY ON.

Do you agree?

 

[Kiwi Eagle]

I dont agree

My best team is

Stewart
Robertson
Bell
Matai
Hicks
Lyon
Orford
King
Monaghan
Kite
Menzies
Watmough
Stewart

Burns
Bryant
Hall
Williamson (hesitant, dont see him as a bench playet)

Firstly, we are a better team with Monaghan on the park somewhere, would be a waste with him on the bench. When Orford goes missing through parts of games it is good to have Monaghan out there to take over a bit
Matai offers something no-one else does in the centres, some punch out of dummy half when we are in trouble, and good, hard, aggressive through the line running. His metres are a big part of our game
Lyon at 5/8 is what i will get hammered for, fair enough. I just think that he offers more to the side in attack than Burns, and that there is no way his defence is worse. I will also add that our best defensive display this season was v the storm, with that backline above. I would just like to see Lyon given some time to develop, because he looks far better in a roving role, especially on the right, which the left centre position does not offer him. G. Stewart and Bell look better playing outside him that Burns imo
Ballin is out injured for 4 weeks so didnt enter him into this eqaution, but there may be a case for him coming onto the bench and Burns doing Williamsons work from the bench with a bit of extra impact

 

[PEPSI]

OK guys, by the sound of it both Matai and Burns were unavailable, but I think from this week on for the rest of the year, we must do NO more chopping and changing. It is very obvious to me what our top team is, and here it is:

1. Stewart 2. Robbo 3. Bell 4. Lyon 5. Hicks 6. Burns 7. Orford 8. King 9. Ballin 10. Kite 11. Menzies 12. Choc 13. Stewart. Bench: 14. Bryant 15. Hall 16. Monas 17. Willo

Can anyone possibly tell me this is not our best team??!! Lyon is obviously not a 5/8 (please Des!!!) and Burns HAS to play the full 80. And Ballin controls things much better out of dummy-half. That leaves the 2 props plus Willo on the bench, and Monas to sub either Ballin, or for an injury to a back. That means no room for Matai unless there is an injury. We've had 12 weeks now, and we need a settled halves/hooker combination from THIS DAY ON.

Do you agree?

yeah agree completely, now if the players can just stop getting injured and getting picked in rep teams, oh forgot to mention, no more losses of form and miss tackles, that would mean us fans can watch the same 17 every week, no more chopping and changing as thats the most important thing!!!
:wall: :wall:

ironically manly have used the least players in 1st grade this year, not sure what else you want Dessie to do.

 

[Crushercleal]

I wouldn't have put Lyon to 5/8 for the match on Fri, that's for sure. I would have had Monas to 5/8 and Ballin to Hooker. Neumann cost us the game.

 

[Fluffy]

CC i can tell you that it wasnt Neumann's fault but Orford's more so for those tries out wide in the first half.

It was the inside man that didnt spread wider, Neumann tried to get it to happen but got waved away by Orford.

Not sure how much more a rookie can do when the captian doesnt want to defend properly.

The only thing Lyon would have done different is rip his captain a new one after the first **** up, something we can hardly expect from a second gamer.

 

[Crushercleal]

Fluffy which try are you talking about? For the first one it just appeared to me that Neumann just didn't have the pace to go with his opposite number, who managed to get outside him , forcing Robbo to come in. That's what it appeared to me.

 

[Matabele]

Ballin 9

 

[Pepi]

One thing i love about Ballin is his enthusiasm.
See him come on against the Panthers and make 3 tackles in a row from marker and trap them in their own 20. We are missing his service from Dummy half IMO.

 

[Fluffy]

Fluffy which try are you talking about? For the first one it just appeared to me that Neumann just didn't have the pace to go with his opposite number, who managed to get outside him , forcing Robbo to come in. That's what it appeared to me.

they were fairly similar, we jsut slid better on the first one. They simply stacked 2 players standing right next to each other when the defence was setting, thus from the centre and our right 1 bloke was hidden. Had Robbo stayed on his man in the first one the inside cover may have got there in time as Neumann slowed him up and had him around the shoulders from the inside thus only restricting the left non ball playing arm. The second try was the one that shat me big time. Neumann called Orford wider and got waved away. There was plenty of time and Orford didnt even budge a metre. What else can a rookie do when his captain wont do his job in defence.

 

[Downie]

1. Stewart
2. Hicks
3. Bell
4. Lyon
5. Robertson
6. Burns
7. Orford
8. King
9. Monaghan
10. Kite
11. Menzies
12. Watmough
13. Stewart

14. Ballin
15. Matai
16. Hall
17. Bryant

At the moment I'd prefer Monaghan at 9 as I reckon he offers us a bit more than Ballin with attack close to the line. A lot of our tries this year have been from Monas bringing the ball out of dummy half with the ball in both hands running across the line and things happening from there.

As for Matai, I'd much rather Burns at 5/8th instead of Lyon if not simply for his defence. It can't be a coincidence that when we miss Burns our defence goes all sloppy. I even reckon we look more structured in attack. Therefore, Matai gets put on the bench and can come on in the latter part of the first half and do a lot of dummy-half and one-off running from deep in our red zone. He'll also offer some extra sting in defence without costing us as much with a bad read if he's defending further in.

Also, I'd have someone have a little talk to Orford to remind him that he's part of a team and to start acting the part in defence. Too many times he rushes out (like with Matai, sometimes good, sometimes bad) or in the reported Neumann case doesn't listen to his outside man. He's had a lot of linebreaks go through his part of the field (Bowen in NQLD, one of, if not both, Canberra's tries in the first round from memory).

I'd also consider giving the captaincy to Kite as well.

 

[DSM5]

Downie has just about got it right although I'd have Willo instead of Bryant. You don't have to be huge to be a front rower these days with uncontested scrums, just look at the Tigers. Willo adds more to defence than Bryant. Their go forward is just about even. At the moment Ox is the problem, lacks confidence. Burns must be 5/8 or we just don't win.

 

[Chip and Chase]

There is no way known that they would field a side that has Ballin, Matai and Willo on the bench, and rightly so.

 

[DSM5]

And rightly so? Well, that's a good enough reason for me.

 

[DVS Matt]

You're all wrong 😛

The best team we can field in our next game is:

Stewart
Robertson
Bell
Lyon
Hicks
Monaghan
Orford
King
Ballin
Kite
Menzies
Watmough
Stewart

Burns
Williamson/Sione
Bryant
Hall

 

[Nutzcraw]

Kiwi Eagle, has it spot on.

Matai at 4.
Lyon at 6.
Monas at 9.
Burns at 14.

 

[DSM5]

Have we lost a game this year with Burns at 5/8th?

 

[Fluffy]

Have we lost a game this year with Matai in the side?

 

[Nutzcraw]

Have we won because Burns was at 6??

 

[fLIP]

Have we won because we are good?