Eels VS Sharks Match Discussion Thread

[fish eel]

Also we came within 4 and only managed the 1 point??

Brandy is bias IMO, and he hates Parra.

Also, Barrett was good, but both Aiton and Gallen were better.

lucky to have someone even get a point IMO.

 

[_goParra]

but but but, Inu is ''every bit as talented as Hayne'' according to a few select on this board.

he still is.... but lacks the hard work and attitude.

Talent alone does not cut it, you need the work ethic to go with it.

Hayne would have been in the same situation but for his Fiji experience.

 

[hineyrulz]

Gallen was easily the best player on the park, and as for Barrett :lol: He bombed 2 tries and gifted us one in return :crazy:

 

[Mateo Moi Moi]

Don't know if it was mentioned already but I was happy with how Tom Humble played. Showed us a little more than his debut. Like the look of what he can bring to the team. Would I be wrong in saying that maybe Matt Keating could be in trouble of losing his spot on the bench to Humble (Kris Keating to hooker, Humble to 5/8).

 

[Delboy]

GAllen was effective in shutting the play down, easy to do when you are constantly offside and the ref was not willing to penalise him. I thought that was a bit scary, neither referee wanted to pinch him,particularly after he gave them both several sprays in the first half.

Must admit it worked , but we were poor and Inu is only a winger, he is ineffective in the centres other than in defence, it is a shame that he may never go as far as he should, a change of club could do him sone good.

 

[Parra Guru]

Don't know if it was mentioned already but I was happy with how Tom Humble played. Showed us a little more than his debut. Like the look of what he can bring to the team. Would I be wrong in saying that maybe Matt Keating could be in trouble of losing his spot on the bench to Humble (Kris Keating to hooker, Humble to 5/8).

I'm happy for them to keep trying Humble, but his indecision under the high ball was costly on Saturday night.

I'd have him on the bench over MK though too.

 

[Djay]

I'm happy for them to keep trying Humble, but his indecision under the high ball was costly on Saturday night.

I'd have him on the bench over MK though too.

So true he wasn't the best under the high ball but if his playing 5/8 that's not an issue.

Either Humble or Mitchell to replace MK IMO.

 

[Pazza]

MK on the bench is a waste, he has very little impact when he comes on. i'd go for humble or mitchell, humble has handled himself at NRL level and Mitchell looks a level above NSW cup.

 

[NorthShoreEel]

lucky to have someone even get a point IMO.

Agreed.

Very lucky.

 

[lingard]

Lingard, the point I am making about the service from dummy half , is that under pressure Robson is found to be a bot slow and inaccurate,that led to several poor catches and limited bending of the line

I thought last night he was very solid, but there is something lacking around the ruck from both hookers, Aiton showed them how to add something to the attack. I guess I like traditional quick hookers, Piggy was good in his first year and PJ always added something.

I am disappointed in both at the moment, understand why Robson starts but up high you can see how they give him room and just pick up the runners, and when pressured service is ordinary. I want him to prove me wrong, but a 9 has to do more than defend, and Aiton showed up both starting hookers in Morris and Robson. Don't know he can do it every week, but it stood out big time last night.

I think you`d agree then, that with a two hooker system, one generally does the tough, solid stuff; and the one that comes on later in the game does the fancy stuff. In which case M. Keating is the one you would like to be playing the more dynamic role. Keating has far more experience playing hooker; Robson is a novice there. I think Robson`s confidence is growing, though, with two tries in two games. Give Robson a slight rap every now and then, and I`ll take you seriously. I know he`s not the most brilliant player, but I reckon he and Luke Burt are the only two who have put in consistently every game this year.

 

[lingard]

Thanks for the leg up Lingard...

"wood-choppers chop wood; caber-tossers toss cabers
wood-choppers chop wood; caber-tossers toss cabers
wood-choppers chop wood; caber-tossers toss cabers
wood-choppers chop wood; caber-tossers toss cabers
wood-choppers chop wood; caber-tossers toss cabers
wood-choppers chop wood; caber-tossers toss cabers
wood-choppers chop wood; caber-tossers toss cabers
wood-choppers chop wood; caber-tossers toss cabers
wood-choppers chop wood; caber-tossers toss cabers
wood-choppers chop wood; caber-tossers toss cabers"


Out of necessity woodchoppers throwing logs across streams, ditches, etc, evolved into the sport of caber tossing. .

No, Casper; you`ve got it all wrong. Thousands of years ago, men would throw (toss) big logs at animals in order to kill them for food. They called these logs 'cabers'. The saying "what`s your caper?" comes from this. (Originally. "what`s your caber? Or "what sort of caber do you have?" Men would sit in caves, huddle around the fire and compare cabers. There was not much else to talk about.)

Well, after many centuries, the manly art of 'tossing the caber' became not only a necessity of life, but also developed into a sport. Then, "what`s your caber?" took on more signficance because some blokes' cabers were longer or thicker than other blokes', and they were seen to have an unfair advantage in the sport. And so was born the idea of 'wood-chopping', which was originally called 'caber-chopping' - an early attempt at something like a salary cap, whereby all caber-tossers had to adhere to the same dimensions. If your caber was too long, you would be ordered to chop some of it off. Too thick and you would be docked points or ordered to toss through the season without accruing points, etc.

Wood-chopping, then, evolved out of caber-tossing; not the other way around. An easy mistake to make though, Casper. Happy tossing.

 

[Hellsy]

I think this has come about because of their dimwitted decision to have 1 ref be the main ref and the other guy just there to be, as an astute coach put it, the "tits on the bull" (ie pointless)

one ref spends his whole time running around trying to be a pointless waste of space behind the play the ball and occaisionally gets stuck in the wrong place, creating nothing but confussion

I wonder which idiot in the referee's department thought this would be good, Finch or Harrigan?

the whole point of 2 referees was to try and prevent them tiring and thus make better decisions as the game goes on .... but now with this single dominant ref and one useless sidekick, they spend more time trying not to get in eachother's way and get into the right place on the field ... dumb! :crazy:

It was freaking ridiculous on Saturday nite, I have never seen 2 pink idiots refereeing the same side for so long. Morons.

Brett Suttor = w*nker Ben Cummins = d**khead. Brett Suttor and Ben Cummins reffing a Parra game together = my worst nightmare...

They should get hauled in for their Sat Nite efforts

 

[Casper The Ghost]

No, Casper; you`ve got it all wrong. Thousands of years ago, men would throw (toss) big logs at animals in order to kill them for food. They called these logs 'cabers'. The saying "what`s your caper?" comes from this. (Originally. "what`s your caber? Or "what sort of caber do you have?" Men would sit in caves, huddle around the fire and compare cabers. There was not much else to talk about.)

Well, after many centuries, the manly art of 'tossing the caber' became not only a necessity of life, but also developed into a sport. Then, "what`s your caber?" took on more signficance because some blokes' cabers were longer or thicker than other blokes', and they were seen to have an unfair advantage in the sport. And so was born the idea of 'wood-chopping', which was originally called 'caber-chopping' - an early attempt at something like a salary cap, whereby all caber-tossers had to adhere to the same dimensions. If your caber was too long, you would be ordered to chop some of it off. Too thick and you would be docked points or ordered to toss through the season without accruing points, etc.

Wood-chopping, then, evolved out of caber-tossing; not the other way around. An easy mistake to make though, Casper. Happy tossing.

Thank you for the lesson Lingard.
Gratefully appreciated.
Same time next week?:lol:

 

[Alan Shore]

I thought HUmble looked good for the Eels.

 

[Casper The Ghost]

I now tend to agree with Stagger.... Inu, Mateo.. that's if he is suggesting these two. If there ever was a time when these two players were needed the most, to stand up and be counted, it was last Saturday night against the Sharkies. This is very hard for me to say because I really love these two players and have stood by them through thick and thin but after last Saturday night it now appears that DA & co have made the right decision to let these boys move on.

Sometimes the grass really is greener on the other side of the fence, so all the best to both of you moving across the Tasman. The Warriors experience might help to bring the best out of both of you week in week out, something that collectively failed with the Eels.

It's moments like these where I wish I was more involved in the club to help get inside the brains of players like Inu and Mateo so we don't lose them. To help them realise their dreams and be the best they can be. To inspire them to express their dream in the best way possible and in their fun on the playing field, be a joy for all to rejoice in.

We still have the rest of the year to go and the Eels are going to need these boys performing at their very best if we are to be called the 2010 NRL champions. I predicted late last year that Inu and Mateo would be better players this year (Mateo to play SOO & INU to be one of the best in his position in the NRL), I also said that Robbo was going to be one of the top ten players in the NRL this year too. So much for my passion with these players and the Eels club.

It's not over to the fat lady sings.....

 

[Ron Jeremy]

he still is.... but lacks the hard work and attitude.

Talent alone does not cut it, you need the work ethic to go with it.

Hayne would have been in the same situation but for his Fiji experience.

argh yes, i love seeing Inu throwing those cut out passes to others to set up match winning trys.

He's not, just a churchy with some fancy footwork - he couldn't out run a turd sliding down a drive way, Inu isn't even as talented as Joel Reddy - 4 years is a long time, and enough to prove otherwise.

 

[Jake the snake]

INU, Reddy and Mateo did nothing on Saturday... very dissapointing. More dissapointed with Mateo. He should have taken that game and dominated. There was no Jarryd and that was his chance to prove it.

I'll add that the whole team played like crap.

 

[Jake the snake]

argh yes, i love seeing Inu throwing those cut out passes to others to set up match winning trys.

He's not, just a churchy with some fancy footwork - he couldn't out run a turd sliding down a drive way, Inu isn't even as talented as Joel Reddy - 4 years is a long time, and enough to prove otherwise.

I agree with most things you say but I can't see why you have to bring the Churchy bit into it. no need to.

 

[Stagger eel]

INU, Reddy and Mateo did nothing on Saturday... very dissapointing. More dissapointed with Mateo. He should have taken that game and dominated. There was no Jarryd and that was his chance to prove it.

I'll add that the whole team played like crap.

honestly Jake, how many times can Feleti dissapoint you?? how many times has he taken the game by the scruff of the neck when we desperately needed him to??...

I'll be honest with you had we stolen that game away from the sharks on saturday I would of expected the 6, 7 and our left winger to do something and not Mateo, it's sad that it's come to this because I love Feleti but i actually didn't expect him to win it for us...

 

[hineyrulz]

Agree with Mateo that was his chance to shine and he really didn't do much at all, and as for INU the less said the better.