Hindmarshisgod2
Juniors
- Messages
- 1,023
Yeah but we would have scored threeIf Smith or Lussick had been on the field Penrith would've scored another couple of tries.
Yeah but we would have scored threeIf Smith or Lussick had been on the field Penrith would've scored another couple of tries.
* Steve Sharp*Stuart
If Smith or Lussick had been on the field Penrith would've scored another couple of tries.
How could you prove that though? Just because you won doesn't mean your chance of winning was 100%, and likewise when you lose. What was our chance of winning against Penrith? Any answer you give is only your opinion. You could be an 80% chance of winning in each of ten games and still lose every single one. That's how probability works.
My point was that it's a ridiculous argument. We don't know if we would've gone any better with Smith on the field instead of Stone.We only let in 1 try in the 37 minutes he was on the field, and it was on the other side of the field. So your assertion we’d let in 2 or 3 tries if we brought him back on for the last 10 is pretty ridiculous. Particularly so, when you push this kind of argument regarding the coach:
It’s one word you f**ken rabbit.Could’ve the two words us Eels fans have been hearing since 1986.
Surely that old wooden ship has a name?At most clubs with high coach turnover they are just shuffling the deck chairs on an old wooden ship.
My point was that it's a ridiculous argument.
Of course we can’t be certain. However, I think there’s little doubt Smith is a better attacking option at hooker than Stone, whereas Stone is a better defensive option. If we were in front, or even level, I’d understand and even agree that Stone was the right call. However, we were behind and as far as I’m concerned, we should have been chasing the win with a try, rather than hope the pricks in pink gift us a kickable penalty. Surely you can agree that the liklihood of that is higher with better attacking players on the field.My point was that it's a ridiculous argument. We don't know if we would've gone any better with Smith on the field instead of Stone.
Pou agrees:Of course we can’t be certain. However, I think there’s little doubt Smith is a better attacking option at hooker than Stone, whereas Stone is a better defensive option. If we were in front, or even level, I’d understand and even agree that Stone was the right call. However, we were behind and as far as I’m concerned, we should have been chasing the win with a try, rather than hope the pricks in pink gift us a kickable penalty. Surely you can agree that the liklihood of that is higher with better attacking players on the field.
But if you're chasing points don't you want your best players on the field Poo?
You want your best attacking players on, who are not necessarily your best defenders.
Our attack needs improvement. We had many opportunities against Penrith but kept trying crash plays and a bomb.
By and large we fixed our defence this season ( with a few notable exceptions on the edges) but we need more variations (dare I say shapes) because we can be too predictable.
We improve there and then we can consistently become top tier team.
What sort of a 6 will he become ?I reckon the key to improving our attack comes from Dylan Brown next year.
Another year of experience, defence top level and a big off/pre season bettering his running game and developing a passing game.
As much as other teams will improve/decline I think this end of year for us has really left us in good stead for season 2022 - bit of a coming of age for the youngsters.
What sort of a 6 will he become ?
It seems that we have 3 types in the NRL:-
Munster - big body more like a ball playing forward, up tempo, runs to the line and creates stuff
Wighton - running and tackling 6. Plays a lot like Gutho does by pushing up and backing up.
(Cody) Walker - finesse and money balls galore.
Sure, but there must've been a reason Smith wasn't on the field.Of course we can’t be certain. However, I think there’s little doubt Smith is a better attacking option at hooker than Stone, whereas Stone is a better defensive option. If we were in front, or even level, I’d understand and even agree that Stone was the right call. However, we were behind and as far as I’m concerned, we should have been chasing the win with a try, rather than hope the pricks in pink gift us a kickable penalty. Surely you can agree that the liklihood of that is higher with better attacking players on the field.
Diversity?Surely that old wooden ship has a name?