hybrid_tiger
Coach
- Messages
- 11,684
Degois should be hooker, with Hinchcliffe on the bench.
Ricky shafted De Gois for Corey f**king Hughes at the Sharks, what makes you think he would even consider him?
Degois should be hooker, with Hinchcliffe on the bench.
This is just asking for trouble IMO. Wallace playing a small number of games at hooker five years ago does not equal FG experience at hooker as far as I'm concerned. Comparing his defensive ability 3 in from the sideline to Farah's in the middle of the park is comparing apples and oranges - who's to say Wallace would be able to handle the workload, particularly the opening exchanges? Is his service out of dummy half any better than Farah's, or Hinchcliffe's? Does he possess the running game of those two players? Again getting the ball at first or second receiver and asking questions of the line is completely different to asking questions around the ruck. Maybe he's up to it, but to essentially play him there as a makeshift hooker - when there's clearly superior club hookers to choose from - is borderline lunacy. Going on past NSW decisions, it's probably a good chance of happening then.9. Wallace - yes, he has played hooker at first grade level. He's tough, his defence is excellent, he has great service out of dummy half and provides another option in attack. He's in good touch - at one point people were saying pick him over Pearce at halfback. Now that Pearce is starting to show some good touches, why can't have our cake and eat it too? We get the Pearce/Carney combo, plus we get the form of Wallace. Farah isn't playing well enough and Buderus was risky even when he wasn't injured. Wallace can be our next Toovey.
This is just asking for trouble IMO. Wallace playing a small number of games at hooker five years ago does not equal FG experience at hooker as far as I'm concerned. Comparing his defensive ability 3 in from the sideline to Farah's in the middle of the park is comparing apples and oranges - who's to say Wallace would be able to handle the workload, particularly the opening exchanges? Is his service out of dummy half any better than Farah's, or Hinchcliffe's? Does he possess the running game of those two players? Again getting the ball at first or second receiver and asking questions of the line is completely different to asking questions around the ruck. Maybe he's up to it, but to essentially play him there as a makeshift hooker - when there's clearly superior club hookers to choose from - is borderline lunacy. Going on past NSW decisions, it's probably a good chance of happening then.
For everyone choosing Hayne at centre - Do you really want to see him attempt to defend against Inglis and Hodges? Really?
"In form" - at halfback. And "good enough". What's next, "born Origin player"?I'd pick him because he's good enough and in form.
"In form" - at halfback. And "good enough". What's next, "born Origin player"?
He shouldn't play at hooker for the same reason Hayne shouldn't defend at centre - they're important defensive positions and players that aren't used to defending there shouldn't just be thrown in there and be expected to do the job.
Pick apart Farah's defensive short-comings all you like - he's very much in the Cameron Smith mould in that he works with the players around him to wrap the ball up and attempt to slow the ptb down (although Smith is a superior 1-on-1 defender and the master of slowing the ptb down), as opposed to the Bedsy (and to a much, much lesser extent Ennis) mould - but he's also got the form on the board at hooker, particularly his defence around the ruck and in the middle of the park. Wallace doesn't.
Buderus should be selected, if fit, to start and Farah off the bench. They are by far and away the most logical selections possible.
So now we can look forward to Ennis giving away stupid penalties or Farah kicking from Dummy Half every 2nd tackle, loving it
So now we can look forward to Ennis giving away stupid penalties or Farah kicking from Dummy Half every 2nd tackle, loving it