2005 - The *on field* issues

[Raider Azz]

omg, a team which looked like that would be a disaster IMO:
Hodgson - i don't like him as a prop.
Tongue - i don't like him.
Martin - top bloke, but there are better players than him now (esp. Josh Miller)
N Smith - wouldn't mind seeing him in the back row, but i really hope we've seen the end of him as a winger. if anything, his size and speed would be better suited to centre.
Robertson- Chalk's done more in 3 games than Robbo's done in 3 seasons.

but as for me, i've given up making my Raiders ideal line-up. my specialty now is to predict what elliott will do

Just because YOU don't like them, doesn't mean they aren't good players ;-)

 

[Bay56]

1. Graham
2. Robbo
3. Mogg
4. Frawley
5. N. Smith
6. Schif
7. J. Smith
8. Hodgson
9. Withers
10. O'Hara
11. Hindmarsh
12. Martin
13. Croker (Captain)

14. Tongue
15. Adamson
16. Weyman
17. McClinden

omg, a team which looked like that would be a disaster IMO:
Hodgson - i don't like him as a prop.
Tongue - i don't like him.
Martin - top bloke, but there are better players than him now (esp. Josh Miller)
N Smith - wouldn't mind seeing him in the back row, but i really hope we've seen the end of him as a winger. if anything, his size and speed would be better suited to centre.
Robertson- Chalk's done more in 3 games than Robbo's done in 3 seasons.

but as for me, i've given up making my Raiders ideal line-up. my specialty now is to predict what elliott will do

Just because YOU don't like them, doesn't mean they aren't good players

doesnt mean they are good players either

 

[Kris_man]

Just because YOU don't like them, doesn't mean they aren't good players

i love Mick Hodgson, he's a really good back rower. but he's barely a prop. he's fast and agile for a forward, and that's put to waste when he's in the front row. then there's his lack of size. that leaves us with one player i don't like - Tongue, and we all knew that already. and i assume by your lack of comments that you agreed with my other statements .

 

[twistedbydesign]

is anyone prepared to entertain the thought of withers as first choice no.7? i think we may see him start there, mac at 6, j smith at 13 and gaf at 17- leaving carney in PL for the time being.

heres my team, its very similar to one already mentioned but ill type it out anyway. (this is with no injuries/suspensions)

1- shif
2- chalky (really liking the look of this bloke!)
3- frawley
4- mogg
5- graham
6- mclinden
7- t carney
8- rhino
9- germ
10- weyman
11- toots
12- hodgo
13- j smith

14 adamson
15 miller
16 hindmarsh
17 withers

the biggest positive for me is the three quarter line, we still have established blokes like robbo, n smith and gafa not in the side, as well as promising youngsters including ale, milne and PNG steve. this willc ome in handy for when injuries occur, and mean that the blokes that are there will have to perform consistently to stick around coz theres really that much between any of them. SURELY we can't see any more bulgarelli with this line up?!

other players that arent there include crossy (who i am very much unsure about), rothery, tongue, terry martin, kahler and campo, each of which have at least had a taste of first grade with most of them having performed well in the top grade at some point in time.

anyway, my viewpoint of next year is that it will come down to two things.

the halves and props.

if we can find a decent halves pairing (emphasis on PAIRING- no single half in our squad can carry the load alone) and keep wyeman and rhino fit i think we are a show.

 

[raiders_lover_18]

Ive got big wraps on the Howell brothers too! Our PL team will kill it

 

[greeneyed]

If the Howells were so good, how come St George released them? I have my doubts about these signings.

 

[I Bleed Green]

Not neccessarily greeneyed.

If Ale was so good, why did the Roosters release him?

Because Ale thought that he had a better shot to play FG in Canberra. Probably the same case goes for the Howell's. With the salary cap and the limited chances to play first grade, it's not just a case of a team keeping any player they want. Even the Roosters have had a STACK of lower grade players leave them this year, because they know that they'll get better chances to advance elsewhere.

 

[greeneyed]

We signed Ale at the end of his contract. They actually released at least one of the Howells from memory from their contract early.

 

[Steven Gerrard]

The released Withers too.....so there goes your theory. 8)

 

[I Bleed Green]

We signed Ale at the end of his contract. They actually released at least one of the Howells from memory from their contract early.

If that's true, my apologies. But as #1 said, that doesn't really mean a whole lot.

 

[raiders_lover_18]

Further to decline your theory .. We released Davico remember.

 

[greeneyed]

The released Withers too.....so there goes your theory. 8)

Doesn't mean they don't think he is second rate. Clearly they do. They prefer Ennis.

I am not sure that Ennis isn't better either.

 

[greeneyed]

We released Davico for a reason... management decided they didn't want him anymore. Pure and simple. They decided he was too old and disruptive.

 

[Bay56]

BOYO !!!!

We will find the real answer in 2005 but at the moment I lean with Greeneyed's "theory" (as others would like to call it) .... the Howell's aint goin to be world beating players ... just ordinary.

 

[Kris_man]

this is all speculative bullshit - "if player X is so good, then why didn't they re-sign him/why did the release him". we've all watched enough footy to be able to make our own judgements on these players.

is anyone prepared to entertain the thought of withers as first choice no.7?

obviously you haven't read my posts - my prediction is that Elliott will pick Withers at halfback, just like he did with Drew the last 2 seasons. if not Withers, then it'll be J Smith. i know a lot of people would like to see Carney start at no.7, me included, but realistically there's no reason to think that's gonna happen.

 

[Steven Gerrard]

We released Davico for a reason... management decided they didn't want him anymore. Pure and simple. They decided he was too old and disruptive.

Really?

Can I see some proof of where this was said? :roll:

 

[Bay56]

We released Davico for a reason... management decided they didn't want him anymore. Pure and simple. They decided he was too old and disruptive.

Really?

Can I see some proof of where this was said? :roll:

Dont you read Rebecca's column in the Tele :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're correct greeneyed ... and they'll do the same to Germ, etc etc ... heck they'd kick Fitler out if they had a chance :lol: :lol:

 

[Steven Gerrard]

Oh you guys are always on the money with your "inside scoops"

Tell us more...... :roll:

 

[greeneyed]

Who would have given credence to these rumours:

Raiders looking to release Davico.... first to Melbourne, then England

Wiki.... Raiders having trouble keeping him

Monaghan... he doesn't want to leave the Raiders under any circumstances... except he might go to the Roosters and Manly

I don't take any pleasure in this No 1, but your rose coloured glasses are becoming blinkers.

 

[Bay56]

I don't take any pleasure in this No 1, but your rose coloured glasses are becoming blinkers.

Actually I think those sand grains have badly scratched the lens.