Devere sent home?!

[PB]

i heard this moring that Michael Devere has been sent home from the Kangeroo tour.

Anybody know more to it?

Does Anderson want to try and call up Greg Bird for the kangeroos? Perhaps Jarred is coincidently travelling through England at the moment....

 

[Tidus_Raider]

I cant see that happening. The kangaroos are already light on outside backs.

 

[Special K]

Rubbish.

Ander rates Devere very highly. He was behind the club and pushed for him to be signed by the sharks. The sharks offered him $350 thousand Opes wanted him that bad. Also Opes wanted him in the sydney test this year.

 

[PB]

Fair enough. I just over heard a telephone conversation this morning and wanted to see if anyone knew any more

 

[In-goal]

oh a scandal, maybe this tour will be remebed as Devere's last stand or something.

 

[Kiwi]

Rubbish.

Ander rates Devere very highly. He was behind the club and pushed for him to be signed by the sharks. The sharks offered him $350 thousand Opes wanted him that bad. Also Opes wanted him in the sydney test this year.

If that was the case then why leave him out of the centres in the up coming test? Selecting a hooker and a utility over Devere says he doesn't think very highly of him.

Maybe in true Anderson fashion this is his way of telling Devere he should have signed for the sharks.

 

[dannyboy]

signing with the "wrong" club and being left out of the team as payback....now doesn't that sound very Bennet like.

 

[gcbronco]

Rubbish.

Ander rates Devere very highly. He was behind the club and pushed for him to be signed by the sharks. The sharks offered him $350 thousand Opes wanted him that bad. Also Opes wanted him in the sydney test this year.

If that was the case then why leave him out of the centres in the up coming test? Selecting a hooker and a utility over Devere says he doesn't think very highly of him.

Maybe in true Anderson fashion this is his way of telling Devere he should have signed for the sharks.

Heres my first post on league unlimited (used to be on rleague.com until that closed down) looks like most of the people from the old rleague.com forums are here

Now onto Michael Devere, I find it very suspicious that two non centres are selected ahead of an experienced centre in Michael Devere, perhaps its payback from Anderson for Devere's decision not to sign with Cronulla, wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

[Kiwi]

signing with the "wrong" club and being left out of the team as payback....now doesn't that sound very Bennet like.

There is a big difference between what happened with hodges and this. Hodges was being blooded to replace sailor, which is why he was getting the game time. When he signed with the roosters, he himself took away the reason he was being blooded by the broncos, and in doing so was dropped so someone else could be blooded to step up. That to me and anyone with a brain ( obviously this leaves you out ) makes sense, you are getting game time to make your step up the following year easier at the club you play for, you sign for another club and still expect the leg up? Someone else had to be blooded, and Hodges reason for getting game time was taken away by himself.

devere on the other hand just chose to stay at the Broncos, the club that gave him his chance over money and is being treated poorly for it. I have no doubt thats why Devere is not playing for Australia against.

I also believe that Anderson wants Mason at the Sharks which is why despite playing very poorly Mason is still playing in the test.

 

[dannyboy]

Hmmmmmm yes makes sense. Lets send a talented player to the "boonies" because he won't be here after another 12 weeks of footy. Lets see Alfie, you're hanging up you boots next year aren't you - sorry but it's the Clysdales for you.

Tell me Einstein, what was so different between Hodges & Sailor or Tuqiri?

 

[gcbronco]

Hmmmmmm yes makes sense. Lets send a talented player to the "boonies" because he won't be here after another 12 weeks of footy. Lets see Alfie, you're hanging up you boots next year aren't you - sorry but it's the Clysdales for you.

So what your saying is that clubs should completely ignore those who have a longterm future with the club and need to be blooded because they will be a longterm replacement for a position in your team in favour for an unestablished player who has minimal to no future at your club and was brought into first grade as a longterm prospect in a position he doesn't want to play afterall he left the Broncos to play fullback :lol: :roll:.

The Broncos brought Hodges into first grade as a longterm replacement for Sailor, if the Broncos had of known Hodges had no intention of being at the club for the future and of his desire to play fullback(something he never once brought up until AFTER signing with the Roosters) do you really think the Broncos would have given him that extra run in first grade for experience in favour for another player who deserves and wants a chance? hell no they would have given the opportunity to someone who wanted to play in first grade for the Broncos longterm and on the wing. He screwed the Broncos around and didn't even have the decency to tell them of his decision instead having to learn about it through the media!

Thats not to say the Broncos/ Bennett couldn't have handled it better, perhaps they could have but they have every right to give another player an opportunity to make their way into the Broncos NRL side with the intention of being there for the longterm. Afterall the Broncos were intending for Hodges to be a longterm replacement for Sailor and thats how he got the extra run in the NRL in the first place!

Tell me Einstein, what was so different between Hodges & Sailor or Tuqiri?

Well for one thing they had informed the Broncos of their decision to leave the club before the media was informed and they didn't come up with bullshit excuses (like a desire to play fullback :lol for doing so. Yes they all signed with different clubs and thats not the problem, the problem is how you go about doing it, if your stuffing your club around telling them one thing and doing another, making bullshit excuses then you get exactly what you deserve and thats what Hodges got, what goes around comes around. Other players have signed with different clubs while at the Broncos and you haven't seen them dropped because of it :roll:

I still yet to see how this even relates to Devere who hasn't done a single thing wrong to deserve being treated like this. If Anderson likes Devere so much as some say and wanted him so much and isn't bitter about his decision to remain at the Broncos then why has Devere been completely shunned from the test team in favour for players who have far less if any experience in the centres? Sounds like to me the perfect way to get back at Devere would be to bring him along for the tour, have him play the few opening games and then completely shun him from the real test matches and thats exactly what his done.

 

[Bobby DIGital]

I agree wholeheartedly with what Bennett did. I wish Elliott would of done the same thing with Finch and dropped him to Belconnen 3rd grade and given his jersey to Michael Monaghan, who would of gained valuable experience in the number 7. And then maybe we wouldn't of signed Drew who can't play halfback really. But is a very good hooker.

 

[Kiwi]

Hmmmmmm yes makes sense. Lets send a talented player to the "boonies" because he won't be here after another 12 weeks of footy. Lets see Alfie, you're hanging up you boots next year aren't you - sorry but it's the Clysdales for you.

Tell me Einstein, what was so different between Hodges & Sailor or Tuqiri?

The difference is Sailor and Tuqiri were established players and Hodges was being blooded to replace one. If you can't see the difference then there is something wrong with you.

On the Alfie thing, you really are clutching at straws aren't you. Alfie was an established long term player at the club, played over 270 games for the club, and you don't just replace an established player when he decides to leave the club without blooding someone to step up. Which brings us full circle to Hodges, he was being blooded to replace Sailor, when he chose, not the Broncos, he chose to take the reason for him being blooded away, he dropped himself. After all why should the Broncos blood him further to help the club he went to? If you think it'd be any different at another club then you are sadly miguided and mistaken.

 

[dannyboy]

I admit the "Alfie" thing was a stretch. I merely used it for an exagerated example.

It just makes no sense to me to drop a performing player and weaken the team just because he's switching clubs.

I'll give you another "what if". What if John Lang objected to Sattler changing clubs next year & as payback left him out of the GF. Would Byrne have scored? Would the Roosters have kicked on & won back-to-backs? I know its impossible to play a "what if game" with any certainty as the whole dynamics change with even one different player in the team.

 

[nqboy]

Sattler was forced out by Penrith, he wanted to stay. Your point is valid, but he's a poor example of it.

 

[Misty Bee]

So Hodges was dropped because he couldn't replace Sailor the following year? , What, don't the Broncos get any benefit out of a player at the actual time they play?

Hodges was in the team, therefore he was the best available for his spot. if he wasn't he wouldn't be in the team! Bennet wouldn't have had Hodges there if another could have done better at the time.

 

[Bobby DIGital]

So Hodges was dropped because he couldn't replace Sailor the following year? , What, don't the Broncos get any benefit out of a player at the actual time they play?

Hodges was in the team, therefore he was the best available for his spot. if he wasn't he wouldn't be in the team! Bennet wouldn't have had Hodges there if another could have done better at the time.

No he wasnt the best available for his spot. They still had Sailor at that point...with Tuqiri on the other wing.

 

[gcbronco]

So Hodges was dropped because he couldn't replace Sailor the following year? , What, don't the Broncos get any benefit out of a player at the actual time they play?

Shortterm yes, longterm none. In the shortterm having Hodges there in the side is of some benefit but eventually the Broncos would have to replace BOTH Sailor and Hodges for the next season which would mean blooding a youngster at the time the following season with very little to no experience in first grade. The Broncos gave Hodges the opportunity in first grade because they believed he was a longterm replacement for Sailor on the wing and thus it would be of massive benefit to give the player who was replacing Sailor experience in first grade for the next season.

Hodges wasn't the only player in contention for the experience in first grade with the intention of replacing Sailor on the wing next season, there were other players too. It makes more sense in that situation for the Broncos to give another player experience in the lower grades because eventually the Broncos would have to anyway. Essentially if the Broncos were to keep Hodges in first grade you would be denying the right of another player, whos intention is to be there for the long run the right to gain first grade experience which they will need for the next season.

Hodges was in the team, therefore he was the best available for his spot. if he wasn't he wouldn't be in the team! Bennet wouldn't have had Hodges there if another could have done better at the time.

That might be true if Hodges was an established first grader but at that point and time he wasn't, certainly he played the odd game in first grade when injuries, rep duties for Sailor, Tuqiri etc but the majority of his football was spent at the Toowoomba Clydesdales in the Queensland Cup. His place in first grade was never 100% certain, not as (DaleyIsGod pointed out) long as Sailor and Tuqiri were available.

An opportunity became available for the player(I think through injury) who was going to be replacing Sailor to gain experience in first grade, thats why Hodges was called up in the first place, not because he was the best available, but because they had him lined up as a replacement for Sailor for the future, it was the ideal situation to give the player who was to be Sailor's replacement experience in first grade, if the Broncos had of known that Hodges wasn't a longterm option then he wouldn't have been called up in the first place, another youngster would have got the call up.

 

[dannyboy]

incidently....who was the youngster they blooded when they dropped Hodges?

 

[gcbronco]

incidently....who was the youngster they blooded when they dropped Hodges?

Brent Tate, might have been Danny Bampton if it wasn't for a shocking run of injuries forcing him to retire only at the age of 22, Craig Frawley was injured at the time I believe and Chris Walker might have been in the centres at that stage? In any event its Brent Tate who got the call up.