halves for next year?

[caylo]

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

I think Mitchell has done his apprentership and is our best hooker. Give him a go, brisbane did it why cant we (esp if we have Orford to help him direct the team).

 

[ParraFan09]

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.

I dont know why your saying that to me because i have never once said mortimer at half i think he is better suited at 6 hopefully with Orford at 7. and Kearney himself said that he wants to sign Orford maybe he is look for an experienced halfback so we can play like the Kiwis.

 

[caylo]

I dont know why your saying that to me because i have never once said mortimer at half i think he is better suited at 6 hopefully with Orford at 7. and Kearney himself said that he wants to sign Orford maybe he is look for an experienced halfback so we can play like the Kiwis.

I'm not saying you said that but we are comparing him to Murray. I think Humble deserves a shot at the 6, he played very well for Wenty and stood up in the NRL when he was called on. So I would have Humble locked in at 6, if we miss out on Orford we need a halfback and Mortimer is a definate no for me there. Humble is also a no in the 7, i think he is a genuine 5-8.

Murray v Mortimer for the #7 ==> Murray wins hands down for me, but Robson Or MaGurie could fill that role, hell it may not be a problem because Orford might sign

So back to your Kiwi comparison to the Eels, We have our Hohaio type player (Humble), Our resident freak (Hayne), Our darty hooker (Mitchell) and we are missing our organising half. Who would you play?

Plus i would hate to have Mortz and Orford in the halves together, a defencive field day for the opposition. Humble is twice the defender Mortimer is, and he has a near perfect technique.

 

[mrpwnd]

I dont know why your saying that to me because i have never once said mortimer at half i think he is better suited at 6 hopefully with Orford at 7. and Kearney himself said that he wants to sign Orford maybe he is look for an experienced halfback so we can play like the Kiwis.

What exactly are Morts assets in the 6 that either Humble or KK didn't have this year?
Vision? I'd say Humble and KK are better.
Running? Again, both Humble and KK are faster, or seem to be.
Hard work? Probably Morts, but irrelevant if nothing happens.
Skill? Undeniably Humble and KK have a much more solid skillset. Sterlo himself has rated Humble as our best prospect in the no. 7 at least for this year.
Support? Hard to say, Morts does seem to know when to be there for second phase play, but really anyone can do that sort of stuff if that's all they brought to the team.

So all-in-all Morts most valuable assets are his work ethic and his ability to be a support player - meaning he's not suited to filling the 5/8 role at our club, more of a utility player at most, half my argument is meaningless now because KK is gone, but IMO Humble is better than Morts and should get the start over Morts until Morts himself proves in 2011 that he is better to have in the first grade squad.

 

[boxhead]

Bloody hell, take out Mortimer for Humble? This argument just gets even more ridiculous every day.....

He has not done anything to say he has proven anything over Mortimer. We can go on about what "should happen" (supposedly), but guess what, Kearney's going to look at the logical choice. Whether we like that or not, well what do you know, there ain't nothing we can do about it. In their time in first-grade, Mortimer has shown way more than Humble, if you compare their best performances. Success in NSW and QLD Cup means nothing if you don't do well in first-grade, which Humble has not. He's older than Mortimer, supposedly more talented than Mortimer, and was nothing more than solid in each of his games.

I distinctly remember before our run last year, when Mortimer debutted for us, that he was individually brilliant and stood out above everyone (except Jarryd of course). I've got a near photographic memory of Eels games, so I distinctly remember he was great for us before the run started, when we were still playing badly; improving, but not up to par.
Now, Tom Humble on the other hand, whilst the team playing well in his debut game (Manly game), he did not stand out. He was nothing more than 'solid', which is what you want on debut. Something tells me that looking at the individual performances of Mortimer before the run in his debut year compared to the individual performances of Tom Humble when we were playing as good or slightly better footy (aka bad footy) were not inspiring whatsoever.

That alone tells me the asnwer.

Sorry guys, but I am being a "realist". Most coaches will look at 2009 form Mortimer and say "if he can do that again, he's in my team every year". The kid scored several tries, most of them off individual play, and set up quite a few too; in his debut year, at the age of 21-20, he was considered to be one of the game's best players in 2009. I don't see many players anywhere do that in their debut year; usually you get only a few per year.

I will bet any of you $50 that Mortimer is in the first-grade side next year, and I will bet you guys a further $50 he is in the starting side. He has earned his spot off dedication and his 2009 form, he yes he definitely has a crap load of improvement and work to do to retain his spot.

You can insult me by saying "oh but you are a fanboy" or "take off the glasses", but it isn't difficult to realize who Kearney will stick with.
Again, whether I agree or disagree with your views on Mortimer being dropped, it will not happen, not for Tom Humble, not for Brad Murray, and certainly not anyone else we have. If that hurts too much guys, well I am sorry.

Mortimer is proven in first-grade. Brad Murray is not. Tom Humble is not. If Mortimer comes out and plays badly again next year individually, then yes, he will/should be dropped in my books. Persistence is key with young players, so telling him to p*ss off to Wenty is not the right idea; what's best is to simply tell him areas to improve his game and also just try to keep his confidence up as he plays reserve grade for a while until he proves himself again. The kid is a dedicated, so he'll do whatever the coach asks him to.

I'm not going to debate who is the more talented player, but in saying that, Kearney will most likely stick with Mortimer, whether we like it or not. I don't see why there is the need for this discussion really.

 

[boxhead]

P.S. You all should take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm a nobody :sarcasm:

 

[Gronk]

P.S. You all should take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm a nobody :sarcasm:

Relax Boxy, trainee moderators like yourself are highly respected members of this community.

 

[bartman]

Yeah... only thing that I'd add in response to boxie's post is that Mortimer's form in 2009 was as a five-eighth, whereas in 2010 we persisted with him as a halfback... where imo he wasn't up to scratch.

Will Kearney look at Mortimer as a halfback, or as a five-eighth? I know the positions can virtually be the same these days, but the theory is that one has the ball in hand and calls the shots a little more than the other. In 2009 Robson did his job well (pass, deliver) when the team was in good form, last year with players out of form this wasn't enough.

Kearney might look at:
6. Morts
7.Robson
...or if he wants Morts at half he might plump for
6.MacGuire
7.Morts
9/14.Robson?

I'm interested to see what role Casey Maguire will play next year - he hasn't been bought just to fill our salary cap.

 

[bartman]

PS. The above is based on the assumption that Orford isn't coming, since with interest from union as well as Canberra, plus the fact Bradford have been reluctant to offer a release, that seems far from a done deal....

 

[eel01s]

Boxhead, they start training today for the 2011 season. If Kearney is as good a coach as we hope, then he hasn't got his 17 picked for round 1 just yet mate.

We can go on about what "should happen" (supposedly), but guess what, Kearney's going to look at the logical choice.

Sorry guys, but I am being a "realist". Most coaches will look at 2009 form Mortimer and say "if he can do that again, he's in my team every year".

You can insult me by saying "oh but you are a fanboy" or "take off the glasses", but it isn't difficult to realize who Kearney will stick with.
Again, whether I agree or disagree with your views on Mortimer being dropped, it will not happen, not for Tom Humble, not for Brad Murray, and certainly not anyone else we have. If that hurts too much guys, well I am sorry.

I'm not going to debate who is the more talented player, but in saying that, Kearney will most likely stick with Mortimer, whether we like it or not. I don't see why there is the need for this discussion really.

Well, which is it? How do you know what Kearney will do with our halves? A lot will depend on whether we sign Orford.

Why don't you let the Coach coach, and work out who he wants? Stop defending Mortimer, just because he played well in 2009.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

If Mortimer is in our side then look forward to another long season. He is not a first grader.

 

[Eels Dude]

P.S. You all should take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm a nobody :sarcasm:

I shall.

You can't compare Humble's efforts to Mortimor in first grade when Humble has only been given the oppurtunity in a handful of games and was shifted from fullback, 5'8th and hooker. I think he showed promise in his limited oppurtunites. Based on 2010 Mortimor certainly doesn't have a mortgage on a starting position, and often players of his age and experience could do with a stint in reserves to get their confidence up and work on certain aspects of their game.

I think Morts has the determination to be a solid first grader, but he still lacks in a lot of areas and doesn't have the skill base to be a leading half at this stage. Let's forget 2009 already. Everyone played great in the back half of 2009 for us... it was a team effort and Morts complemented the style of play we adopted. That's as far as it goes. He wasn't individualy brilliant in his own merit. 2011 is a new year and you have to go with a plan, and it's up to Kearney to determine who is the best halves combination and he may well want to give Humble that oppurtunity due to his higher range of playmaking skills.

 

[Wise Old Eel]

Bloody hell, take out Mortimer for Humble? This argument just gets even more ridiculous every day.....

He has not done anything to say he has proven anything over Mortimer. We can go on about what "should happen" (supposedly), but guess what, Kearney's going to look at the logical choice. Whether we like that or not, well what do you know, there ain't nothing we can do about it. In their time in first-grade, Mortimer has shown way more than Humble, if you compare their best performances. Success in NSW and QLD Cup means nothing if you don't do well in first-grade, which Humble has not. He's older than Mortimer, supposedly more talented than Mortimer, and was nothing more than solid in each of his games.

I distinctly remember before our run last year, when Mortimer debutted for us, that he was individually brilliant and stood out above everyone (except Jarryd of course). I've got a near photographic memory of Eels games, so I distinctly remember he was great for us before the run started, when we were still playing badly; improving, but not up to par.
Now, Tom Humble on the other hand, whilst the team playing well in his debut game (Manly game), he did not stand out. He was nothing more than 'solid', which is what you want on debut. Something tells me that looking at the individual performances of Mortimer before the run in his debut year compared to the individual performances of Tom Humble when we were playing as good or slightly better footy (aka bad footy) were not inspiring whatsoever.

That alone tells me the asnwer.

Sorry guys, but I am being a "realist". Most coaches will look at 2009 form Mortimer and say "if he can do that again, he's in my team every year". The kid scored several tries, most of them off individual play, and set up quite a few too; in his debut year, at the age of 21-20, he was considered to be one of the game's best players in 2009. I don't see many players anywhere do that in their debut year; usually you get only a few per year.

I will bet any of you $50 that Mortimer is in the first-grade side next year, and I will bet you guys a further $50 he is in the starting side. He has earned his spot off dedication and his 2009 form, he yes he definitely has a crap load of improvement and work to do to retain his spot.

You can insult me by saying "oh but you are a fanboy" or "take off the glasses", but it isn't difficult to realize who Kearney will stick with.
Again, whether I agree or disagree with your views on Mortimer being dropped, it will not happen, not for Tom Humble, not for Brad Murray, and certainly not anyone else we have. If that hurts too much guys, well I am sorry.

Mortimer is proven in first-grade. Brad Murray is not. Tom Humble is not. If Mortimer comes out and plays badly again next year individually, then yes, he will/should be dropped in my books. Persistence is key with young players, so telling him to p*ss off to Wenty is not the right idea; what's best is to simply tell him areas to improve his game and also just try to keep his confidence up as he plays reserve grade for a while until he proves himself again. The kid is a dedicated, so he'll do whatever the coach asks him to.

I'm not going to debate who is the more talented player, but in saying that, Kearney will most likely stick with Mortimer, whether we like it or not. I don't see why there is the need for this discussion really.

boxhead, you are entitled to your opinion regarding Mortimer. Some of us just disagree. That's all. From what I hear, Kearney believes "Mortimer can do the job". Which job that is, well only Kearney knows at this stage. We shall see.

I just think it is the WRONG decision. But I am not the coach, Kearney is. I will just have to sit back and watch it unfold like the rest of you. As much as I believe I know what needs to be done, I am not so egotistical that I cannot admit when I am wrong........should that ever happen! :lol:

Bring on 2011!

WOE

 

[lingard]

Honestly, you would think that is the case with most halves, but it isn't. The kid is 21, he has a sh*t load of improvement in him if he works hard.
If you are going to seriously argue, at least remember that most halves take a while to develop; hell, many halves are much older when they come into first-grade, especially halfbacks. One of the many reasons why putting Mortimer at 7 was a shocking move.

Boxhead; the whole reason that this is being discussed with such passion is that Mortimer didn`t just have a bit of an off year in 2010, where he played a bit below par and was suffering from second year syndrome. If that was the case, I`m sure most people would be willing to give him another go. The fact is that he was absolutely abysmal. He was far and away the worst half/five-eight in the comp and then some. Anderson`s sticking with him was unfathomable - and probably went a long way toward Anderson getting the sack. Mortimer has a huge task ahead of him and a hell of a lot of ground to make up before he can be considered a first grade player again. And the other thing you forget is that he played half the season in his so-called preferred position of five-eight without any hint of improvement. I think you need to come to terms with this stuff.
Cheers.

 

[lingard]

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.

I dunno. I watched every Parramatta game of 2010 and I`m afraid I did not see Daniel Mortimer as being a 'great support player up the middle' in any one of them.

 

[boxhead]

I think you all missed the joke......

How long ago was it that I told you guys I would stop posting serious comments on this argument?

Why do you think my argument sounded so contradictory?

 

[mrpwnd]

He has not done anything to say he has proven anything over Mortimer.

Likewise Morts has shown this year that he can have shockers and that he doesn't have first dibs for his spot on the team anymore, at least based on form.
He probably will appear in the line-up, but whether or not he deserves it over Humble is a seperate issue which I was arguing.
Humble hasn't done anything to prove he's anything over Morts? He's had strong impact in the QLD cup whilst Morts was pretty average before hitting first grade.
What Humble showed this year was that he was at the very least solid at 5/8, albeit for 1-2 games. What Morts showed this year was that he was having absolute shockers.

We can go on about what "should happen" (supposedly), but guess what, Kearney's going to look at the logical choice.

And that's the whole point of this forum, discuss what should, could and would happen with the Eels. Btw, I don't think keeping Morts in first grade would really be a logical choice unless he proves that he can actually become a proper playmaker.

In their time in first-grade, Mortimer has shown way more than Humble, if you compare their best performances.

That's an irrelevant comparison, Morts was given a year and a half to prove his worth in first grade, needless to say, 80% of his time in first grade showed that he...lacked.

Success in NSW and QLD Cup means nothing if you don't do well in first-grade, which Humble has not.

Just like how a players game stats isn't always indicative of how actually impact a game most of the time.
But considering the fact that QLD cup is much more competitive than NSW cup and Humble had a stronger impact there, it's safe to say that Humble is the all-around 'better player' than Morts, although it's true that it doesn't necessarily mean that they'll do well in first grade, but it's fair game to say it's a good indication on how valuable a player is. Humble was solid at most and Morts was horrible.

He's older than Mortimer, supposedly more talented than Mortimer, and was nothing more than solid in each of his games.

He's been given a tiny fraction of games compared to Morts, even less in his favored/best position. I don't think it's fair to call the shots on his impact until he's also given as much games in the 6 or 7 as Morts has, then I'll admit he's either good or bad.

I distinctly remember before our run last year, when Mortimer debutted for us, that he was individually brilliant and stood out above everyone (except Jarryd of course).

I wouldn't say that, there were 2-3 games where he really did shine i.e. finals against bulldogs and to a smaller extent, the dragons, but beyond that he was essentially just playing as a support player on the back of a team where anyone could just follow the ball for an offload and make some impact.

I've got a near photographic memory of Eels games, so I distinctly remember he was great for us before the run started, when we were still playing badly; improving, but not up to par.

How do you define great? IMO, he was average, it really wasn't until we played excellently and we came up against equally strong opponents that he really put in, even then it was small pigments of the game.

Now, Tom Humble on the other hand, whilst the team playing well in his debut game (Manly game), he did not stand out. He was nothing more than 'solid', which is what you want on debut.

I wouldn't say we played well in that Manly game, we were very very average against a very very average team too, he did all that was required of him - support play, second receiver play, playmaking, solid defense, at the very least he showed potential to be more consistent than Morts, pity he only got that game at 5/8

Something tells me that looking at the individual performances of Mortimer before the run in his debut year compared to the individual performances of Tom Humble when we were playing as good or slightly better footy (aka bad footy) were not inspiring whatsoever.

They were both pretty average, it's just that Humble has a better skill set as a player, if you've got 2 playmakers you naturally choose the one with better skills, we can talk all day long about Morts great ability to support plays and running hard, but as far as i'm concerned in regards to the actual playmaking department that you need from a 5/8, Humble trumps him there.

Sorry guys, but I am being a "realist". Most coaches will look at 2009 form Mortimer and say "if he can do that again, he's in my team every year".

A realist would look more at 2010 form and think 'we should've just given him to the dogs', but i'll humor you, if a coach actually thinks what you think then at the very least Morts should be in Wenty until he can show that he can get back into his apparent 2009 form.

He has earned his spot off dedication and his 2009 form, he yes he definitely has a crap load of improvement and work to do to retain his spot.

At what point do we need to stop looking at his 2009 form and just make the brave decision of temporarily dropping him. Dedication exists so one can reap the benefits after, we haven't had much benefit from having Morts in our side, but he was playing in the 7 and asked to be a playmaker which he hasn't, so fair game.

If Mortimer comes out and plays badly again next year individually, then yes, he will/should be dropped in my books. Persistence is key with young players, so telling him to p*ss off to Wenty is not the right idea;

At least we're on the same page now.
Persistence is a key with young players, but there comes a point where persisting with them in first grade is just hampering their progress. For a while now I've been critical of the RL international scene which brings up a very weak nation and rather than attempting to develop a proper competition in that respective country, they just put them against the top 3 national teams to get them hammered for the sake of 'development'. 'Pissing' Morts off to Wenty doesn't mean that no one cares about him, it's just that he has a lot of fundamental skills that he needs to develop in an easier comp so that he can ripen his skills properly for first grade. That's still a degree of persistence.


Woohoo wall of text.

 

[bartman]

Boxhead; the whole reason that this is being discussed with such passion is that Mortimer didn`t just have a bit of an off year in 2010, where he played a bit below par and was suffering from second year syndrome. If that was the case, I`m sure most people would be willing to give him another go. The fact is that he was absolutely abysmal. He was far and away the worst half/five-eight in the comp and then some. Anderson`s sticking with him was unfathomable - and probably went a long way toward Anderson getting the sack. Mortimer has a huge task ahead of him and a hell of a lot of ground to make up before he can be considered a first grade player again. And the other thing you forget is that he played half the season in his so-called preferred position of five-eight without any hint of improvement. I think you need to come to terms with this stuff.
Cheers.

Do you think that with Morts appearing on the club's 2011 membership promotional flyer, that the situation was more likely to be the opposite with some sort of pressure on Anderson to keep picking Morts in the side?

I believe Morts could also be described also a sponsor of the club, with the wine business... not that that should make a difference in team selections. DA has been very dignified in his silence, but I personally would love to hear his side of proceedings, when the time comes that he can be open about it (timing may be subject to conditions of accepting a pay out).

 

[boxhead]

I was not seriously arguing mate. Sorry if I wasted anyone's time.

 

[mrpwnd]

I was not seriously arguing mate. Sorry if I wasted anyone's time.

No, I don't think I was arguing as well.
Let's call it a discussion