3-2-1 v Knights

[Meth]

Warrior of the week is Leka Halasima

Halasima 55
Tuivasa Sheck 23
Clark 12

Vaimauga 11
Egan 10
Fisher Harris 1
Niukore 1
Tuaupiki 1

19 voted

 

[JJ]

On the flipside 99% of posts about DWZ are bagging him but no-one stops to question whether it's fair or balanced criticism.

In the context of his pay rate (or at least what the Warriors took on) surely it's fair? Few wings are worth that money, he was more on fullback money...

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

In the context of his pay rate (or at least what the Warriors took on) surely it's fair? Few wings are worth that money, he was more on fullback money...

Hadn't factored that in tbh. I was aware of reports he was on excessive money as a hangover from the Bulldogs deal when he first signed in 2021. He has subsequently signed further deals so I've got no idea what money he's on now.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

But more importantly I'm not the club accountant? I'm a bloke on the internet who watches footy and says whether the players he's watching are good or shit.

Edit - and to add to this, I think it's a bit disingenuous to act like Ford is just some minimum wage fringe squad player and not worth worrying about. He came to the Warriors as mostly a NSW Cup player (33 NRL games in 4 seasons) but has been ever present in the 17 for 3 years now (59 games and counting). I don't know exactly what he's getting paid, but Webster treats him like a locked-in first grader.

Basically, we signed up a fringe first grader and treated him like a core member of the 17 from day 1, so I don't see why that isn't something fans are allowed to think about or have an opinion about.

 

[Rich102]

I agree. You are quite right to question it and think about and discuss it.
However we have a good crop of juniors coming through the grades and they will eventually push for Ford's place.
However they aren't there yet. Props are worth big money on the open market and I see a few positions that need filling before we go looking for a replacement. Putting resources into developing talent is rewarding us at the moment. Now where are the speedsters we need?

 

[Meth]

Gould and Smith call Egan’s no-try ‘a try for 100 years’. Gallen says no try.

All agree Gagai’s try was no try

 

[Meth]

I agree. You are quite right to question it and think about and discuss it.
However we have a good crop of juniors coming through the grades and they will eventually push for Ford's place.
However they aren't there yet. Props are worth big money on the open market and I see a few positions that need filling before we go looking for a replacement. Putting resources into developing talent is rewarding us at the moment. Now where are the speedsters we need?

honestly, if Barnett was available, I wouldn’t have Ford in this team. I would rather Stowers-Smith.

 

[Meth]

In saying that, Ford, Fisher Harris, Egan and Tuivasa Sheck did some great work in the last 10 minutes or so to get us into good position to have a chance to win the game

 

[hitro]

In saying that, Ford, Fisher Harris, Egan and Tuivasa Sheck did some great work in the last 10 minutes or so to get us into good position to have a chance to win the game

I thought Fisher Harris was excellent at the end- damaging

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Gould and Smith call Egan’s no-try ‘a try for 100 years’.

lol that old chestnut. Much like the "knock on for 100 years" (i.e. a ball being knocked back).

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

honestly, if Barnett was available, I wouldn’t have Ford in this team. I would rather Stowers-Smith.

The assumed basis for "needing" Ford seems to be that he can play the exact right number of minutes which allows everyone else to play the exact number of minutes they are best served playing. This seems like a stretch to me and makes the unintuitive assumption that the rest of the squad is unfit.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Gould and Smith call Egan’s no-try ‘a try for 100 years’. Gallen says no try.

All agree Gagai’s try was no try

Pointless to relitigate this now but hell, it's a boring day at work...

How would you actually rule the Gagai one a no try? The ball carrying arm did not touch the ground so he has not "passed off the ground", that's a fact. You can only call it as "passing after the tackle is complete", like when they make someone play the ball because they offloaded after a held call - but the pass came fractions of a second at most after Marzhew hit the ground. I just don't really see how you rule it out under the rules of the game. Luckily/unluckily the refs can't really apply Gus Vibes or the "100 years" rule book.

 

[Izz]

This seems like a stretch to me and makes the unintuitive assumption that the rest of the squad is unfit.

Yeah nah

 

[Meth]

The assumed basis for "needing" Ford seems to be that he can play the exact right number of minutes which allows everyone else to play the exact number of minutes they are best served playing. This seems like a stretch to me and makes the unintuitive assumption that the rest of the squad is unfit.

I think the balance in the squad is well served by having someone playing bigger minutes in the middle. Ideally, that would be Barnett.

The lift in quality of hit up when Stowers Smith and Vaimauga come on is noticeable.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I think the balance in the squad is well served by having someone playing bigger minutes in the middle. Ideally, that would be Barnett.

The lift in quality of hit up when Stowers Smith and Vaimauga come on is noticeable.

Absolutely. And when Barnett went down, even I said Ford is the stand out candidate for the Barnett-impersonator role (and not because they are both dead-eyed, straight fair-haired, slightly psychotic and/or simple looking Aussies).

With that being said, we're a squad full of small, lean, fit forwards so I don't see a pressing need for a specific guy to cover for guys who aren't fit enough to play big minutes. It's more that the others haven't been given the opportunity to show that ability yet. The question is whether, if you asked another guy to play 50-60 minutes in the middle, the quality they'd give you would be worse than Ford - and the answer to that depends on your perception of the quality of Ford's work.

It's really more a question for next year as I'm not exactly begging for us to take a chance on TSS or Vaimauga playing 60 minutes. I've accepted Ford is going to be plugging a hole in Barnett's absence.

 

[Meth]

Pointless to relitigate this now but hell, it's a boring day at work...

How would you actually rule the Gagai one a no try? The ball carrying arm did not touch the ground so he has not "passed off the ground", that's a fact. You can only call it as "passing after the tackle is complete", like when they make someone play the ball because they offloaded after a held call - but the pass came fractions of a second at most after Marzhew hit the ground. I just don't really see how you rule it out under the rules of the game. Luckily/unluckily the refs can't really apply Gus Vibes or the "100 years" rule book.

As I said (somewhere), I thought both were 50/50’s. I thought Egan has momentum and Marzhew didn’t. My issue was more that they got the 50/50 and we didn’t.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

He isn't a lightning rod. There are two people who don't rate him (me and Meth) and 50 people who do and who keep bringing up how unfair the criticism by the first 2 is. Like god forbid a guy who absolutely sucks balls has 2 critics.

On the flipside 99% of posts about DWZ are bagging him but no-one stops to question whether it's fair or balanced criticism.

It's a fair point. On Dallin, do you think it's fair? Because I see very little upside in what he does right now. OK, he carries the ball reasonably strongly, but that's it. His aerial game this year has been abysmal. His defense is well documented. He isn't finishing.

Differing opinions are all good. I wasn't a Jackson Ford fan at all but I definitely don't think he sucks balls.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

As I said (somewhere), I thought both were 50/50’s. I thought Egan has momentum and Marzhew didn’t. My issue was more that they got the 50/50 and we didn’t.

That's my issue. I though Wayde 100% had momentum that carried him across. I think he would have had to have literally stopped himself going across the line

 

[Penrose Warrior]

The question is whether, if you asked another guy to play 50-60 minutes in the middle, the quality they'd give you would be worse than Ford - and the answer to that depends on your perception of the quality of Ford's work.

Obviously I'm navel gazing here but I don't think we have anyone even remotely resembling the ability to make 150+m and make 40 tackles in 60 mins like Ford does. You lift Vaimauga's minutes, he's naturally going to temper what he does. TSS is too green to do that. Bunty was never that guy. Ale definitely isn't. So to me, Ford is doing a really important job.

I'd be happy to have the argument floated that he might be surplus when Barnett was there (I still wouldn't agree) but definitely not without

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Obviously I'm navel gazing here but I don't think we have anyone even remotely resembling the ability to make 150+m and make 40 tackles in 60 mins like Ford does. You lift Vaimauga's minutes, he's naturally going to temper what he does. TSS is too green to do that. Bunty was never that guy. Ale definitely isn't. So to me, Ford is doing a really important job.

Ford is an edge back rower who never had to do this job until recently either. Webster chucked him into the middle, and then turned him into a starting big minutes prop, without prior evidence he could do either role. Aside from cliches about the gutsy Aussie journeyman, I don’t know why it’s assumed Jackson Ford is the only guy capable of getting through a lot of work?

It’s also not as simple as “we have a Jackson Ford shaped hole to fill” either because there’s plenty of different ways to structure a forward pack. But as I’ve conceded, Webster clearly has a plan and I’ve accepted swapping in Ford for Barnett is easily the least disruptive way to keep that plan going.