What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Rumours and Stuff

TheRam

Coach
Messages
13,481
Plodders cant offload like these two can.
You nailed it Ram. Once again nailed it. Hehe

Pou must think that plodders makeup 80-90% of the NRL if he thinks that these two are plodders.

A plodder to me is someone that has played NRL for a while and even though they are up to 1st grade standard, will never be considered or make SOO or Australian teams. Their names are generally never seriously mentioned for that level unless for a minnow country. So players may turn into plodders over time for various reasons, but at their best they weren't plodders like Manu and Lane who are both entering their best years.

I think he throws the word plodder around to loosely and doesn't give enough respect to these players that may not be worlds best, but are good enough and capable enough to play high level rep footy. I don't consider those sorts of players as plodders.
 

84 Baby

Referee
Messages
28,312
No he gave them the 7 because he wanted them to take the lead and be the dominate play maker. Like I said it is a psychological thing for most play makers. Why would he give the 7 to Foran who at that stage of his career only exclusively had played at six next to a dominate 7 at Manly, when he could easily have given it to Norman who had played 6 and 7 throughout his career?

Because he wanted the players and all sundry to know who was the king playmaker. He wanted Foran to take the dominant lead. He didn't want Norman to over call his prize bull, which is what was happening when Norman and Moses played together later on. They both want to be the main playmaker. Norman didn't want to play second fiddle to the young Moses. But Moses wanted it to be his team after all he was the 7 and so the overcalling ensued.

The 7 means something to most 7 playmakers mate no matter what you think or say. It has always been the dominant playmakers jersey and it still is for most players, unless you have an exceptional 6 that can play like a 7 but prefers to play a little wider or in the Roosters case have a rookie 7.
Reckon you’re overthinking the effect it has. They don’t wear numbers at training. BA just goes up to them and says (mutely) “Moses is chief playmaker”. These guys’ 9 to 5 job is training, no one gives a f**k want number they wear other than Dally M trophy hunters because for some reason they still split halfback and 5/8th.
Here’s a list of teams who’s chief playmaker isn’t their number 7:
Brisbane - although perhaps Croft is because Milf sure isn’t doing it at moment
Tits - Taylor is currently playing in the 6
Roosters - Flanagan wouldn’t even be second
Dogs
Sharks
Drags - although similar to Brisbane
Canbra
Scum - Hughes wouldn’t even be third in line
That’s half the competition, including the top 2 teams of the past decade who’s current number 7 isn’t even their playmaker understudy (f**k Hughes would be lucky to be 4th in line at times)
 

TheRam

Coach
Messages
13,481
Reckon you’re overthinking the effect it has. They don’t wear numbers at training. BA just goes up to them and says (mutely) “Moses is chief playmaker”. These guys’ 9 to 5 job is training, no one gives a f**k want number they wear other than Dally M trophy hunters because for some reason they still split halfback and 5/8th.
Here’s a list of teams who’s chief playmaker isn’t their number 7:
Brisbane - although perhaps Croft is because Milf sure isn’t doing it at moment
Tits - Taylor is currently playing in the 6
Roosters - Flanagan wouldn’t even be second
Dogs
Sharks
Drags - although similar to Brisbane
Canbra
Scum - Hughes wouldn’t even be third in line
That’s half the competition, including the top 2 teams of the past decade who’s current number 7 isn’t even their playmaker understudy (f**k Hughes would be lucky to be 4th in line at times)

Think carefully of what you have written here and what I have posted. I have already covered most of what you are describing here. As for training and not wearing numbers, well of course, the players know who their primary play maker is and train accordingly.

But Taylor from the Titans is a perfect example of what the numbers mean to the players. Due to Taylors indifferent form over the last couple of years and his well documented psychological issues, the coaching staff have decided to move him to 6 and bring in Fogarty to take over the general and primary duties of steering the team around the park. So then all Taylor needs to do is take his opportunities when he sees them or when Fogarty is in trouble.

So if the numbers mean nothing as POU suggests because they play split on either side of the field, why bother moving a fragile player down on his confidence to 6 to play second fiddle to another player? Why not leave him there and just bring in the other player at 6?

Because as it was reported at the time, they wanted to reduce the pressure and expectation on Taylor's shoulders and hopefully with the less burden of being the primary play maker and the extra responsibilities that come with that he may start to find his best game again.

Numbers matter mate. It is a psychological thing. To some sure, they are so gifted and mentally strong in their play making capabilities or they actually prefer the 6, that it doesn't, but generally it does. Nothing has changed in the 125 years of RL that has me thinking differently, no matter what nouveau fans like Pou or fancy talking journos or supposed avant-garde coaches say to sound progressive.

What is old is new again.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
85,177
Reckon you’re overthinking the effect it has. They don’t wear numbers at training. BA just goes up to them and says (mutely) “Moses is chief playmaker”. These guys’ 9 to 5 job is training, no one gives a f**k want number they wear other than Dally M trophy hunters because for some reason they still split halfback and 5/8th.
Here’s a list of teams who’s chief playmaker isn’t their number 7:
Brisbane - although perhaps Croft is because Milf sure isn’t doing it at moment
Tits - Taylor is currently playing in the 6
Roosters - Flanagan wouldn’t even be second
Dogs
Sharks
Drags - although similar to Brisbane
Canbra
Scum - Hughes wouldn’t even be third in line
That’s half the competition, including the top 2 teams of the past decade who’s current number 7 isn’t even their playmaker understudy (f**k Hughes would be lucky to be 4th in line at times)
When Blake Green was at Manly they weren't even playing split halves. Cherry-Evans was playing more like a traditional five-eighth than any merkin in the competition, with Green feeding him the ball on long open sides. Of course Green didn't need the psychology of the 7 jersey. He wore 6 with DCE in his preferred number. If players do care about jersey numbers it's that they don't want to give up the number they're used to.

In the case of Ash Taylor, the bloke had mental problems and probably felt the 7 jersey carried too much weight, just like TheRam. But most players don't give a f**k. If the number matters to a player then I'd suggest you don't want him running your team.

Foran wore 7 at Parra but in the 9 games he played, Norman handled the ball more in 8 of them.
 

84 Baby

Referee
Messages
28,312
Think carefully of what you have written here and what I have posted. I have already covered most of what you are describing here. As for training and not wearing numbers, well of course, the players know who their primary play maker is and train accordingly.

But Taylor from the Titans is a perfect example of what the numbers mean to the players. Due to Taylors indifferent form over the last couple of years and his well documented psychological issues, the coaching staff have decided to move him to 6 and bring in Fogarty to take over the general and primary duties of steering the team around the park. So then all Taylor needs to do is take his opportunities when he sees them or when Fogarty is in trouble.

So if the numbers mean nothing as POU suggests because they play split on either side of the field, why bother moving a fragile player down on his confidence to 6 to play second fiddle to another player? Why not leave him there and just bring in the other player at 6?

Because as it was reported at the time, they wanted to reduce the pressure and expectation on Taylor's shoulders and hopefully with the less burden of being the primary play maker and the extra responsibilities that come with that he may start to find his best game again.

Numbers matter mate. It is a psychological thing. To some sure, they are so gifted and mentally strong in their play making capabilities or they actually prefer the 6, that it doesn't, but generally it does. Nothing has changed in the 125 years of RL that has me thinking differently, no matter what nouveau fans like Pou or fancy talking journos or supposed avant-garde coaches say to sound progressive.

What is old is new again.
The whole moving him to 6 to take pressure off him was lip service to the media (because out of form he’s still comfortably in their top side) and to people stuck in the past who believe their a clear distinction between halfback and 5/8th. You believe Taylor on game day thinks to himself “thank god Fogarty is wearing 7 and he’ll do 90% of the playmaking”? No chance. He’ll do (and the rest of team) what he did at training where Holbrook wouldn’t have said “ok Ash, Jamal is wearing number 7 this week”. They train in structures on how to advance the ball, break down the defence and then create and identify opportunities. They’ll train to know under what circumstances which player should get the ball and where he should be. And guaranteed when it comes to crunch time playmaking, everyone (Tits, the opposition, the media, you, me, maybe Pou) will be leaning more to Taylor making the call. No one is going to blink an eye when he does because he’s wearing 6 instead of 7. You’re simplifying NRL players to the point of under 6s. If they think the number on the back makes any difference then they won’t be playing NRL for long
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
59,269
Pou must think that plodders makeup 80-90% of the NRL if he thinks that these two are plodders.

A plodder to me is someone that has played NRL for a while and even though they are up to 1st grade standard, will never be considered or make SOO or Australian teams. Their names are generally never seriously mentioned for that level unless for a minnow country. So players may turn into plodders over time for various reasons, but at their best they weren't plodders like Manu and Lane who are both entering their best years.

I think he throws the word plodder around to loosely and doesn't give enough respect to these players that may not be worlds best, but are good enough and capable enough to play high level rep footy. I don't consider those sorts of players as plodders.

Nailed it

Plodder are Alvaro and Terepo
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
59,269
Pou must think that plodders makeup 80-90% of the NRL if he thinks that these two are plodders.

A plodder to me is someone that has played NRL for a while and even though they are up to 1st grade standard, will never be considered or make SOO or Australian teams. Their names are generally never seriously mentioned for that level unless for a minnow country. So players may turn into plodders over time for various reasons, but at their best they weren't plodders like Manu and Lane who are both entering their best years.

I think he throws the word plodder around to loosely and doesn't give enough respect to these players that may not be worlds best, but are good enough and capable enough to play high level rep footy. I don't consider those sorts of players as plodders.

Nailed it

Plodder are Alvaro and Terepo
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
59,269
Pou must think that plodders makeup 80-90% of the NRL if he thinks that these two are plodders.

A plodder to me is someone that has played NRL for a while and even though they are up to 1st grade standard, will never be considered or make SOO or Australian teams. Their names are generally never seriously mentioned for that level unless for a minnow country. So players may turn into plodders over time for various reasons, but at their best they weren't plodders like Manu and Lane who are both entering their best years.

I think he throws the word plodder around to loosely and doesn't give enough respect to these players that may not be worlds best, but are good enough and capable enough to play high level rep footy. I don't consider those sorts of players as plodders.

Nailed it

Plodder are Alvaro and Terepo
 

natheel

Coach
Messages
12,137
This morning from Buzz’s column he reckons we are wanting Blake Green (he’s set to leave) to take the 14 and be a back up for the 6,7,9.as it’s from Buzz take it with a grain of salt but a green is set to be shown the door because of his manager
 

TheRam

Coach
Messages
13,481
Blake Green is a good player...and a Parra junior...

He would be a great 14 for us and can come in and give Mahoney a 10-15 minutes spell each game which would do wonders for his game overall.

Strange how the Broncos haven't jumped on him though.
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
99,922
I'd have Blake back for a year. Maybe a second year as a NSW Cup player. He's still a good player and I think he's a future coach at some level so he'd be a valuable squad member.
 
Top