halves for next year?

[Maroubra Eel]

Mortimer is no good. You can give him as long as you like to come good but it ain't going to happen.

No matter how hard you try you can't turn sh*t into gold.

 

[Wise Old Eel]

The remark you made about Tim Smith here is very correct 2006 was a bad year for him after playing so damn good in 2005.
But what happened in 2007 WOE? we were fantastic off the back of Tim Smith. 1. so whats saying that Dan Mortimer cant do it? and i know your answer is going to be that he doesnt have the skill that Tim Smith possess?
2. I bet you thought he had the skill last year when he helped guide us to the Grand Final. 3. WOE are you really ready to ride off a 21 year old half back? that hasnt even finished developing yet!

1. Too right.

2. No, I did not. I have never bought into the hype. Osborne was (& still is) a fool to think "he is the future of Parramatta". I was hoping the Dogs would sign him but Osborne wet his pants over having a "Mortimer play for Parramatta". Had his name been Daniel Jones (for example), we would not be having this debate.

3. I was of the understanding that he was 22...but let's not knit-pick. By the way, the expression is "write off" not "ride off" - unless there's a sunset involved. I have stated many times that Mortimer may well prove me wrong one day and become a terrific footballer but I cannot see it happening. Anyway, the place to "develop" is when playing for Wentworthville, not in the NRL. There are some basic skills he just does not have.

Just on Tim Smith. He WAS fantastic in 2005 AND 2007. In 2006, I am of the opinion he copped too much of the flack for the whole team's poor attitude and performance that year. Brian Smith certainly didn't help that situation. He should have just quit before the start of the season. Tim also made some "dumb" decisions regarding his off field time too. In 2008, I think he was dudded (even stabbed in the back) but that's in the past now.

Bring on 2011 already!

WOE

 

[mrpwnd]

If Morts, hypothetically speaking of course, has another stinker of a year in 2011, can we conclude that he really just isn't up for first grade?
I dislike conjecture and speculation on potential and talent as I believe neither exist.
At the end of the day, you work hard and you reap the benefits, if they don't come your not ready and should be pissed off to Wenty until you are.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Surely we can't waste another year with Mortimer in our halves. He seems like a good bloke and everything but we need someone else.

 

[mrpwnd]

The remark you made about Tim Smith here is very correct 2006 was a bad year for him after playing so damn good in 2005.
But what happened in 2007 WOE? we were fantastic off the back of Tim Smith. so whats saying that Dan Mortimer cant do it? and i know your answer is going to be that he doesnt have the skill that Tim Smith possess?

That is EXACTLY why, you already predicted the correct answer, so why bring up the question? Show me Mortimer doing even a shred of what Tim Smith could do on a bad day and I'll dance upside down.

I bet you thought he had the skill last year when he helped guide us to the Grand Final.

He actually didn't...As a support player he did his job running off loose balls and just chasing kicks whenever he could, but beyond that there wasn't much, I can't even recall any solid line-break/try assist that he made last year apart from that good kick in the corner for Burt.

WOE are you really ready to ride off a 21 year old half back? that hasnt even finished developing yet!

If he hasn't finished developing yet then he should not be in first grade. Let me repeat that in case you bring up the 'oh but he works so sooooo soo SOOOOOOOO hard!' bullsh*t, he hasn't developed yet and SHOULD NOT BE IN FIRST GRADE.
We have our U/20s and Wenty for developing players and if you want to argue that people are put into first grade because they have 'potential', in Morts case he was just put into first grade last year because Finchy was told to piss off, i.e. He had no potential at that time and was just a replacement.

Seriously, at this point in time Morts just isn't ready to be playing in the halves for any first grade line-up.

 

[caylo]

I never said he wasnt i just believe that Mortimer should get the chance to fully develop, escpecially now that we are expected to be signing Matt Orford for next year.

There are stages of development, you learn to kick and pass from 12-16 not in the NRL. Mortimer has major flaws, irrespective of what he did in 2009 or 2010 he needs to spend some time on his own game improving and learning.
You can look at orford all you want and say he didnt help Robson but remember cronk was on the bench for 3 years behind Orford and he didnt turn out too bad. Mortimer could learn alot from Orford as well as Humble tbh.

Wait, are you seriously saying it is less of a risk to throw an untested NYC player into first grade at halfback with no first-grade experience? Any coach would look at the grand finalist five-eighth and what he did in 2009 first compared to a player who has never played first-grade and is new to the club. Whether I agree with you about Mortimer being dropped, sticking with Mortimer is far less risky than throwing Murray in the deep end.

Sorry if that comes off as rude....

1.Don't apologise, your a man (i assume) if you have something to say and are going to be sorry about it don't say it. I don't take offence to people talking, just don't call every second person out for a fight, swear or belittle other or think your all that and you wont have anything to apologise for.

2. I don't care if Mortimer played in a Grand Final or 3. Finch played in three grandfinals and I wouldnt want him here, he'll Anderson chose a guy who had played 5 first grad games in asmany years over him.
Mortimer has minimal NRL experiance, its pretty insignificant to even think its worth anythink. Murray is clearly the more skilled player with ball in hand, from all reports he can organise a team and has good vision. Mortimer has shown he can handle the speed and has the mental ability to handle the NRL, I admire that about him, but he lack important skills and that is a big problem.

See Murrays Risk is that he is untested, may not have the mental strength to hack grade and that will probably never change either way. He may also not have the physical ability but Mortimer isn't the biggest guy so that is a silly argument tbh (mortimer missed some 80 tackles this year). Mortimers risk is that he does not have the skills to be a NRL 7 (definatly) and he could get away with being at 6 if we had a strong 7 to complement him. He will almost certainly fail if he doesnt try and further develop his game in a lower grade, so yes it is a bigger risk IMO to start Mortimer then it is to start Murray.

If Humble gets first shot at the 6, then we have 4 options (if Orford isn't signed). They would be Robson, Maguire, Murray and Mortimer and Mortz would be my fourth choice with out a shadow of a doubt. Before you say it too, I don't think Humble is a halfback and should only ever play in the 6

 

[ParraFan09]

I dont understand why there is people on here saying they want to see murray over mortimer next year. Im all for given the kid a chance when he earns it, or if everything else has failed. Im ready to give Morts another crack. And i know WOE & caylo and alot of other people on here are going to argue with me, But imo Morts deserves first shot wheather it be 6 or 7 he should be in the halves round 1 2011!

 

[caylo]

I dont understand why there is people on here saying they want to see murray over mortimer next year. Im all for given the kid a chance when he earns it, or if everything else has failed. Im ready to give Morts another crack. And i know WOE & caylo and alot of other people on here are going to argue with me, But imo Morts deserves first shot wheather it be 6 or 7 he should be in the halves round 1 2011!

Can I ask why does he deserve another shot? (I simply want to understand why you think so, because TBH i cant fathom why anyone would have that opinnion)

I'm all for Kearney giving Mortz another chance if Kearney is satisfied with his abilities, BUT on Mortimers most recent form and considering he hasn't trained with the team since round 26 IMO he does not deserve another chance until he proves himself otherwise.

At the end of the day we all have an opinnion and the only persons opinnion who counts is Kearneys, and it his job on the line.

 

[Eels Dude]

I dont understand why there is people on here saying they want to see murray over mortimer next year. Im all for given the kid a chance when he earns it, or if everything else has failed. Im ready to give Morts another crack. And i know WOE & caylo and alot of other people on here are going to argue with me, But imo Morts deserves first shot wheather it be 6 or 7 he should be in the halves round 1 2011!

I agree to an extent. I certainly wouldn't be handing Murray a starting spot on a platter. He's too young and without an experienced half to help him he'll be even worse than Morts. On the other side of the scale Morts hasn't shown any organising skills nor any promise that he will gain any. If we can't get Orford... Robson at least has the organisational skills to be a first grade halfback, despite a lack in playmaking skills. Open slather to Humble, Murray, Morts as to who can do the job outside him, or hopefully better.

 

[caylo]

I agree to an extent. I certainly wouldn't be handing Murray a starting spot on a platter. He's too young and without an experienced half to help him he'll be even worse than Morts. On the other side of the scale Morts hasn't shown any organising skills nor any promise that he will gain any. If we can't get Orford... Robson at least has the organisational skills to be a first grade halfback, despite a lack in playmaking skills. Open slather to Humble, Murray, Morts as to who can do the job outside him, or hopefully better.

i agree, as much as I would be tempted to throw in a Murray-Humble combo if we miss out on orford I would play Robson-Humble with Murray coming in at 14 and playing 20-30min in the halves or even hooker to ease into firstgrade.

I would also not give anyone a first grade spot without them proving themselves. If Mortz plays better then Murray or Robo in the trials I would be all for him playing. We need a halves combo, today if i was in charge and had to chose it would probably be the Robson-Humble combo with Murray at 14 but in a months time that may change as players perform and don't.

I was simply sick of people using Murrays inexperiance as an excuse for not playing him, atm Mortimer has not performed in the NRL and is just as big a risk. I can't see a reason why Mortimer should retain his spot, but some people must have a reason (and if that reason has anything to do with 09 i will just :crazy::crazy

 

[ParraFan09]

Can I ask why does he deserve another shot? (I simply want to understand why you think so, because TBH i cant fathom why anyone would have that opinnion)

I'm all for Kearney giving Mortz another chance if Kearney is satisfied with his abilities, BUT on Mortimers most recent form and considering he hasn't trained with the team since round 26 IMO he does not deserve another chance until he proves himself otherwise.

At the end of the day we all have an opinnion and the only persons opinnion who counts is Kearneys, and it his job on the line.

I just believe that he deserves a chance under Kearney. I think we will be playing a different style of Footy similar to what the Kiwis play. And if Kearney gives Morts a similar role to what Hohaia has I think it can be succecful. i know they play a different position but all he has to do is rap aroound our backline easy! that just my opinion i believe it would suit our team to play like the Kiwis do.

 

[ParraFan09]

i agree, as much as I would be tempted to throw in a Murray-Humble combo if we miss out on orford I would play Robson-Humble with Murray coming in at 14 and playing 20-30min in the halves or even hooker to ease into firstgrade.

I would also not give anyone a first grade spot without them proving themselves. If Mortz plays better then Murray or Robo in the trials I would be all for him playing. We need a halves combo, today if i was in charge and had to chose it would probably be the Robson-Humble combo with Murray at 14 but in a months time that may change as players perform and don't.

I was simply sick of people using Murrays inexperiance as an excuse for not playing him, atm Mortimer has not performed in the NRL and is just as big a risk. I can't see a reason why Mortimer should retain his spot, but some people must have a reason (and if that reason has anything to do with 09 i will just :crazy::crazy

So you wouldnt pick 14. Mitchell?

 

[Eels Dude]

I just believe that he deserves a chance under Kearney. I think we will be playing a different style of Footy similar to what the Kiwis play. And if Kearney gives Morts a similar role to what Hohaia has I think it can be succecful. i know they play a different position but all he has to do is rap aroound our backline easy! that just my opinion i believe it would suit our team to play like the Kiwis do.

I hope not. You've got to play to your strengths. The Kiwis play well under Kearney but they do so because he coaches them to their strength. Our Parramatta players have different strengths and it's up to Kearney to find the best style of footy and balance that plays to those strengths. Thats what good coaches do.

 

[caylo]

I just believe that he deserves a chance under Kearney. I think we will be playing a different style of Footy similar to what the Kiwis play. And if Kearney gives Morts a similar role to what Hohaia has I think it can be succecful. i know they play a different position but all he has to do is rap aroound our backline easy! that just my opinion i believe it would suit our team to play like the Kiwis do.

See a big reason I think Mortz shouldn't be in the team is because that is Haynes responsibility. IMO Hayne should do less playmaking and more running, that is when he is at his best. Watch him in origin 3, he makes two line breaks supporting ball players and then is able to play the attacking playmaking role when he choses to rather then being forced too. It also becomes more of a shock weapon. Teams will soon work out his no look double cut out pass, he isnt a true ball player and has a few tricks rather then the vision of a halfback.

 

[Eels Dude]

I was simply sick of people using Murrays inexperiance as an excuse for not playing him, atm Mortimer has not performed in the NRL and is just as big a risk. I can't see a reason why Mortimer should retain his spot, but some people must have a reason (and if that reason has anything to do with 09 i will just :crazy::crazy

See I see Murray as a big risk. Promising true, but he has to earn the right to a first grade call up. Every year you see half a dozen halfback discards by NRL clubs. If Murray is good enough he shouldn't be thrown into the deep end too soon.

 

[caylo]

So you wouldnt pick 14. Mitchell?

No i would start him tbh. If Orford is at halfback I would definatly start Mitchell, if its Robson I would lean towards MaGuire at 9 and Mitchell at 14 but he would be in my team either way.

So to answer your question, no I wouldn't pick Murray over Mitchell. I actually wouldn't mind having Mortz in the 14 because I think that role would suit him, but he will never improve his ball playing skills which I believe are there he just isn't used to playing under such presure. If Mortz goes down to Wenty and develops his skills then I'm all for him being our 5-8 or 14, IMO thou he is best to learn his trade in NSWRL.

 

[ParraFan09]

I hope not. You've got to play to your strengths. The Kiwis play well under Kearney but they do so because he coaches them to their strength. Our Parramatta players have different strengths and it's up to Kearney to find the best style of footy and balance that plays to those strengths. Thats what good coaches do.

Whats the difference between our strenghts and the Kiwis?
1. Both have big strong Forward pack - check
2. Both have 1 attacking winger 1 big winger who gets in and rests the forwards - check
3. Both have great support players up the middle Hohaia/Morts - check
4. Both have absolute freaks who can create something out of nothing with complete ease - check

We are very similar to the Kiwis and imo we will play that way.

 

[ParraFan09]

No i would start him tbh. If Orford is at halfback I would definatly start Mitchell, if its Robson I would lean towards MaGuire at 9 and Mitchell at 14 but he would be in my team either way.

So to answer your question, no I wouldn't pick Murray over Mitchell. I actually wouldn't mind having Mortz in the 14 because I think that role would suit him, but he will never improve his ball playing skills which I believe are there he just isn't used to playing under such presure. If Mortz goes down to Wenty and develops his skills then I'm all for him being our 5-8 or 14, IMO thou he is best to learn his trade in NSWRL.

IMO no matter who has the 7 shirt on it should be
9. McGuire
14. Mitchell.

 

[caylo]

See I see Murray as a big risk. Promising true, but he has to earn the right to a first grade call up. Every year you see half a dozen halfback discards by NRL clubs. If Murray is good enough he shouldn't be thrown into the deep end too soon.

Pearce thrown in at 17, Soward 20, Prince 18, Walsh 20, Benji 18, Campese 20, Carney 18.

They Kid is 21 years old, he isnt young. Halves will always take time to adapt to the NRL, none is born a legend. Halves must learn to adjust and then readjust as defences nulify different parts of their game.

Pearce took 3 years, Cronk played off the bench for 3 years, Prince was at the broncos for 5 years and couldnt hold down a spot, Soward dumbed by the Roosters, Walsh dumped by Newcastle, Campese only found his feet after Carney was dumped.

Murray is a risk but Mortimer is 3 years away from playing any sort of consistant footy if he ever will and Murray is in much the same situation. The difference is (from all reports) Murray has a more advance skill set which will put him in good stead to learn and re-ajust. I'm not saying its the right choice, just as valid an option as to chose Mortimer and you can't just dismiss the option because "he's inexperianced" and then ask to throw him in the deep end in round 15 after we have only won 3 games and comming 15th on the ladder.

 

[caylo]

Whats the difference between our strenghts and the Kiwis?
1. Both have big strong Forward pack - check
2. Both have 1 attacking winger 1 big winger who gets in and rests the forwards - check
3. Both have great support players up the middle Hohaia/Morts - check
4. Both have absolute freaks who can create something out of nothing with complete ease - check

We are very similar to the Kiwis and imo we will play that way.

Kiwis have an experianced half, we don't. You are comparing Benji to Hayne, they play different roles.

Anyone can support, you dont pick a 5-8 on that and you are underplaying Hohaia abilites. Humble plays a very similar roles to Hohaia anyway so we need an organising half which we don't have in Mortimer.