What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

halves for next year?

boxhead

First Grade
Messages
5,958
I am of the opinnion that Kearney will come in and try and distance himself from the typical and expected parramatta team. I doubt (and hope) that he will pick mortimer because of 2009 and the same is to be said with Robson. Hagan came in and didnt change the team, Anderson came in and changed it slightly but there were not obvious changes outside of playing Hayne at 6.

I expect one of Humble or Murray to step up if we do not get the services of an experianced halfback they both could (assuming they perform in trial etc). I also expect the likes of Filinga, OHanalan, Sio and Loko to get some experiance and push for spots, Kearney doesn't seam like the type to shy away from picking jnrs and leaving out old head (Asotasi not being picked in the NZ squad).

Next year if we cant get the services of anyone else i think we will start with a very inexperianced core 1 Hayne, 6 Humble, 7 Murray and 9 Mitchell. Now most people would question that sort of move but you have to look at the experiance they have around them, they are in the best situation to perform. They will have 3 of the best props in the game carting the ball forward, they will have a very strong backrow, experiance off the bench and a backline that has the likes of Tahu and Grothe who both can beat players one on one and will require attention. Then there is Hayne who was able to turn it on at any time and is the best hole runner in the NRL IMO.

If these guys can play a simple role and do what they know then they can do very well. It isnt like Humble, Murray or Mitchell are 17 or 18 like Mitchell Pearce or Jamie Soward when they hit grade, they are 20-22 years old, the same age as Tim Smith when he made his debu.
People have questioned Murrays skills but tbh if he can kick and pass then he has already surpassed Mortimer or Robson who he is going up against. Humble has played a year of Wenty and has proved that he is a cut above that level and need more regular first grade in the NRL. He scored two tries in his first two matches from his support play, which means he could play Mortimers role but also a more creative role and allow Hayne to follow the ball more.

What, you "hope" a player is dropped? That's a bit bleak, don't you think?
Honestly though, if you think-and hope-Kearney won't pick Mortimer somewhere in the team, I am sorry but you are going to be disappointed.....Robson is anyone's guess.

I disagree with most of this, playing Humble and Murray both in the halves is something which Kearney would only do if he is on drugs, he isn't going to do something so unbelievably risky. No offence, but it won't happen. He won't throw two halves with almost zero first grade experience into the starting halves at any point in time, especially considering the pressure that the media and the staff will place on him to succeed.
Also, you need experience in the spine to support youngsters, not forwards.

Just my opinion though.....
 

boxhead

First Grade
Messages
5,958
You know, if we are going to try out either Humble or Murray, I think we should stick with Humble. However, it depends on where he plays.
He already seems to be able to handle first-grade, it might be the best option to give him closer to a full year if possible next year and over the next few years blood one of our other players in that time, whether it be Murray, Barba or whoever.
My main problem is debuting all these players at once, I think you need to do them one by one gradually.
 

caylo

Bench
Messages
4,870
What, you "hope" a player is dropped? That's a bit bleak, don't you think?
Honestly though, if you think-and hope-Kearney won't pick Mortimer somewhere in the team, I am sorry but you are going to be disappointed.....Robson is anyone's guess.

I disagree with most of this, playing Humble and Murray both in the halves is something which Kearney would only do if he is on drugs, he isn't going to do something so unbelievably risky. No offence, but it won't happen. He won't throw two halves with almost zero first grade experience into the starting halves at any point in time, especially considering the pressure that the media and the staff will place on him to succeed.
Also, you need experience in the spine to support youngsters, not forwards.

Just my opinion though.....

Mate in 2005 we started with Burt, Morris, Smith and Riddell. Then Burt was swapping between fullback and wing and had not settled in any position. Morris played on the wing for the dragons and previously at hooker while smith was untired. Our only real experiance was Riddell and Marsh and yet the halves played very well.

I am not saying that Kearney will pick Humble and Murray, but simply if he comes here and saids it a clean slate and positions are pretty much open bar the obvious ones then Mortimer and Robson in the halves is not set in stone.

This is a big if, but IF Murray and Humble play well in the trials and they have a better kicking game then Mortimer or Robson then why not. Remember that Mortimer is about 35-40 first grade games into the NRL, he is not an established half so the risk of playing humble or Murray is not much different. I would prefer we play the best players in every position and then Hayne chime in as he needs to, Murray and Humble would have the same level of support that Smith and Morris did in the halves in 05.
I thinks it navie to believe that Robson and Mortimer will magically improve in the NRL, IMO neither are of first grade standard. I mentioned last year that Mortimer will always be over paid because of his name and that KK had shown just as much as he had. In 2009 he didnt play that well it was just hype, most of what he did was on the back of a roling forward pack and our ad-hoc second phase play rather then him actually creating anything.

If I evaluate the skills of our halves:

Mortimer: can not throw a spiral pass, can not kick under pressure and has limited vision, is nippy and supports his forwards well.

Humble: can throw a spiral pass (nothing to write home about, i can do this thou), has an average kicking game,decent vision, knows how to runs lines and supports his man well.

Robson: can defend well, kicking game is non-existant, throws to many hospital balls (no vision) but can organise a team better then the other two.

Murray: by all reports has a good kicking game and good passing game (compared to T. smith BY OTHER - who had the best kicking game and passing game of any 7 in his first year of RL I have ever seen.)

plan and simple, on that comparison Humble > Mortimer and Murray > Robson. They pick themselves.

NOW I HAVE TO STRESS: this is assuming Murray and Humble perform in the trials as expected. I do not condon throwing a jnr in because the players above arnt performing, you pick the best players and put them in your team. If Murray or Humble are no better then Robson or Mortimer then dont waste your time, Id prefer to have MaGuire and Matuia in the halves if you want to pick an experianed pair.
 

caylo

Bench
Messages
4,870
You know, if we are going to try out either Humble or Murray, I think we should stick with Humble. However, it depends on where he plays.

Mate if we sign a halfback such as Gower, Orford or Cronk then I would play Humble at 5-8 and Murray at 14 no questions asked. I personally would prefer it if they were introduced slowy without all the pressure.

If we cant though so you think playing Humble with Robson or Murray with Mortimer is any better then playing Murray and Humble.

I look at it this way, If you play:

Mortimer with Murray --> then Mortimer will try and ball play because he thinks he is senior and tbh he has no ball playing skills

Humble and Robson --> will add extra pressure on Humble because Robson throws to many hospital balls. This would be better then the above senario thou because Robson is an organiser and can throw a spiral pass.

Humble and Mortimer --> both 5-8s, i would ask... have we not learnt yet.

Murray and Humble --> both unknows, wont try and out call eachother just play within themselves and play together. Hayne may drift out wide more often if he isnt having to ball play because there would be two genuine ball players.
 

boxhead

First Grade
Messages
5,958
Mate in 2005 we started with Burt, Morris, Smith and Riddell. Then Burt was swapping between fullback and wing and had not settled in any position. Morris played on the wing for the dragons and previously at hooker while smith was untired. Our only real experiance was Riddell and Marsh and yet the halves played very well.

I am not saying that Kearney will pick Humble and Murray, but simply if he comes here and saids it a clean slate and positions are pretty much open bar the obvious ones then Mortimer and Robson in the halves is not set in stone.

This is a big if, but IF Murray and Humble play well in the trials and they have a better kicking game then Mortimer or Robson then why not. Remember that Mortimer is about 35-40 first grade games into the NRL, he is not an established half so the risk of playing humble or Murray is not much different. I would prefer we play the best players in every position and then Hayne chime in as he needs to, Murray and Humble would have the same level of support that Smith and Morris did in the halves in 05.
I thinks it navie to believe that Robson and Mortimer will magically improve in the NRL, IMO neither are of first grade standard. I mentioned last year that Mortimer will always be over paid because of his name and that KK had shown just as much as he had. In 2009 he didnt play that well it was just hype, most of what he did was on the back of a roling forward pack and our ad-hoc second phase play rather then him actually creating anything.

If I evaluate the skills of our halves:

Mortimer: can not throw a spiral pass, can not kick under pressure and has limited vision, is nippy and supports his forwards well.

Humble: can throw a spiral pass (nothing to write home about, i can do this thou), has an average kicking game,decent vision, knows how to runs lines and supports his man well.

Robson: can defend well, kicking game is non-existant, throws to many hospital balls (no vision) but can organise a team better then the other two.

Murray: by all reports has a good kicking game and good passing game (compared to T. smith BY OTHER - who had the best kicking game and passing game of any 7 in his first year of RL I have ever seen.)

plan and simple, on that comparison Humble > Mortimer and Murray > Robson. They pick themselves.

NOW I HAVE TO STRESS: this is assuming Murray and Humble perform in the trials as expected. I do not condon throwing a jnr in because the players above arnt performing, you pick the best players and put them in your team. If Murray or Humble are no better then Robson or Mortimer then dont waste your time, Id prefer to have MaGuire and Matuia in the halves if you want to pick an experianed pair.

I still disagree with a lot of that mate, it's nothing against you, it's just my opinion. I think Mortimer was not over-payed at all, and deserved the salary he was put on when we signed him (we expected him to play well this year like 2009), as his individual form of 2009 was brilliant. That's one of a few things though.

Mate if we sign a halfback such as Gower, Orford or Cronk then I would play Humble at 5-8 and Murray at 14 no questions asked. I personally would prefer it if they were introduced slowy without all the pressure.

If we cant though so you think playing Humble with Robson or Murray with Mortimer is any better then playing Murray and Humble.

I look at it this way, If you play:

Mortimer with Murray --> then Mortimer will try and ball play because he thinks he is senior and tbh he has no ball playing skills

Humble and Robson --> will add extra pressure on Humble because Robson throws to many hospital balls. This would be better then the above senario thou because Robson is an organiser and can throw a spiral pass.

Humble and Mortimer --> both 5-8s, i would ask... have we not learnt yet.

Murray and Humble --> both unknows, wont try and out call eachother just play within themselves and play together. Hayne may drift out wide more often if he isnt having to ball play because there would be two genuine ball players.

Tom Humble is a halfback, he isn't a specialist five-eighth. He has played halfback most of his playing career; he was the second best halfback in the QLD Cup in 2009.

Mortimer does have some ball playing skills, but he is not selfish like you are trying to make out he is. Mortimer will do whatever is necessary for the team, he will do whatever he is told; if he is told to merely run off Murray's kicking and passing then he will do that. He has an attitude that is far better than anyone else's at the club, I don't understand the sentiment that he will be selfish with the ball.

Humble and Robson could well be the best combination of all of them, one thing Robson does well is settle the team, but if I was to play either one of them at halfback it would be Humble. Humble is a genuine playmaker, and if Robson pairs him, even as a five-eighth, it can help settle Humble into the role-more of a short term thing to help Humble develop easier.

Mortimer is a five-eighth, Humble can play halfback very well. However, the most experienced of the two has less than fifty games to his name, which of course is not a good idea with any halves combination.

On Murray and Humble, I think a lot of that is assumptions they can handle first grade. Murray has never played first grade before, and Humble has only played six games. As many people on here point out, and as the coach will decide, you cannot play two halves in first-grade with less than 10 games between them, it would be political and playing suicide by Kearney. The only possible reason Kearney would do it is if he had Casey Mcguire as starting hooker for most of the game. Most halves combinations have at least 100 games between them, the exceptions of course being combos like Hodgkinson and Foran at Manly (but they had a poor season overall).

There are other combinations too, as well as when you factor in Casey Mcguire;

Humble and Mcguire - a genuine combination, either can play halfback and five-eighth well, with Mcguire and Humble both being good runners of the ball. Mcguire would be the better halfback to settle the team and also is fully developed and experienced as a player, whilst Humble can ease into the role of a playmaker and feed off Mcguire.

Mortimer and Mcguire - different to the above combination, this combo would see a distinct pairing of runner and organiser rather than dual roles like the previous one; Mortimer's great support play allows him to feed off everything that happens if he has a true organiser paired with him, which Mcguire can fill the role of.

Mcguire and Murray - a complex one, Murray is a good runner but needs to be told to take the line on and is a brilliant organiser, this combo would see Murray at halfback and Mcguire more into the running role as he prefers.


Each of them have their own merits, it's up to Stephen Kearney to decide which is best. I believe however that Casey Mcguire will be our hooker next year, Anthony Mitchell off the bench to interchange with Mcguire, and a combo of the four (if we don't sign Orford)-Murray, Mortimer, Humble, Robson. Have to wait and see I guess.

Again, nothing against you mate, we just disagree is all :)
 
Last edited:

caylo

Bench
Messages
4,870
I still disagree with a lot of that mate, it's nothing against you, it's just my opinion. I think Mortimer was not over-payed at all, and deserved the salary he was put on when we signed him (we expected him to play well this year like 2009), as his individual form of 2009 was brilliant. That's one of a few things though.



Tom Humble is a halfback, he isn't a specialist five-eighth. He has played halfback most of his playing career; he was the second best halfback in the QLD Cup in 2009.

Mortimer does have some ball playing skills, but he is not selfish like you are trying to make out he is. Mortimer will do whatever is necessary for the team, he will do whatever he is told; if he is told to merely run off Murray's kicking and passing then he will do that. He has an attitude that is far better than anyone else's at the club, I don't understand the sentiment that he will be selfish with the ball.

First I understand we can disagree, but we are discussing. You can make statments but more so you need to explain why you believe that (you dont have too... but it would be nice)

Firstly from what I've seen of Humble he is a 5-8 not a halfback, i dont care where he played in QLD or NSW cup. He runs good lines on the edges, he has a very good short passing game and his short kicking game is alright. I've seen him create on the edges rather than through the middle and he generally likes to take the ball two player wide of the hooker.

Thurston wears the 7 for QLD, Australia and the Cowboys but he plays as a 6. He still struggles to organise his team by himself and his greatest asset is to go to the line and ball play --> he is a 5-8 not a halfback I dont care what number he wears. Humble played in the 7 in QLD and so did mortimer for Parramatta jnrs but both are 5-8. Humble has the ball playing skill to be a convert halfback (ala Thurston, Seymore and Cronk) but its not natural to him like it is to Kimmorley or Prince lets say. Mortimer at the moment does not have the skills to be a genuine 5-8 let alone a halfback. He could play a running 5-8 role but we don't have a dominate halfback to afford that luxuary IMO.

I can honest not think of a game where mortimer set up a try by putting a player through a hole, outside of Cayless try in round 26 i cant remember him setting up a try with a grubber behind the line. He does not have the skill to play first grade atm. I think he needs a stint in wenty to work on his game, he seams to train well but the role of a half does not come natural to him IMO. He will end up as a Finch style half, can play well behind a dominate half but not as a stand alone to run the team.

I think it is a big risk to play Humble and Murray together, and trust me I would much prefer that we only played one with an experianced half but in the senario where we cant sign one then I think the Murray/Humble option is the best. I could understand why someone would start with Robson/Humble but I cant justify picking Mortimer over Murray or Humble tbh. He has played 37 games for the eels. 16 of those games where in 2009, 21 games in 2010, 20 in the halves and he set up 6 tries, compared to keatings 8 TA from 13 games starting in the halves.

Stats arnt everything but Mortimer would not have played more then 15 good games out of the 37 he played and majority of the 21 games he played this year he was horrible. Mortimer needs to work on his game, atm there is nothing in his form that tells me he can be any assistance in attack next year. Humble played 6 games and he looked better adapted to mortimer after those 6. He runs better lines, he positions himself better, he looks more natural. Since I havn't seen Murray play, If i had to rate the 3 others it would be Humble>> Robson>> Mortimer. If the reports about Murray are true I think he is worth the punt like Timmy was in 2005 when everyone expected Morris/Marsh combo.
 
Last edited:

yy_cheng

Coach
Messages
18,734
First I understand we can disagree, but we are discussing. You can make statments but more so you need to explain why you believe that (you dont have too... but it would be nice)

Firstly from what I've seen of Humble he is a 5-8 not a halfback, i dont care where he played in QLD or NSW cup. He runs good lines on the edges, he has a very good short passing game and his short kicking game is alright. I've seen him create on the edges rather than through the middle and he generally likes to take the ball two player wide of the hooker.

Thurston wears the 7 for QLD, Australia and the Cowboys but he plays as a 6. He still struggles to organise his team by himself and his greatest asset is to go to the line and ball play --> he is a 5-8 not a halfback I dont care what number he wears. Humble played in the 7 in QLD and so did mortimer for Parramatta jnrs but both are 5-8. Humble has the ball playing skill to be a convert halfback (ala Thurston, Seymore and Cronk) but its not natural to him like it is to Kimmorley or Prince lets say. Mortimer at the moment does not have the skills to be a genuine 5-8 let alone a halfback. He could play a running 5-8 role but we don't have a dominate halfback to afford that luxuary IMO.

I can honest not think of a game where mortimer set up a try by putting a player through a hole, outside of Cayless try in round 26 i cant remember him setting up a try with a grubber behind the line. He does not have the skill to play first grade atm. I think he needs a stint in wenty to work on his game, he seams to train well but the role of a half does not come natural to him IMO. He will end up as a Finch style half, can play well behind a dominate half but not as a stand alone to run the team.

I think it is a big risk to play Humble and Murray together, and trust me I would much prefer that we only played one with an experianced half but in the senario where we cant sign one then I think the Murray/Humble option is the best. I could understand why someone would start with Robson/Humble but I cant justify picking Mortimer over Murray or Humble tbh. He has played 37 games for the eels. 16 of those games where in 2009, 21 games in 2010, 20 in the halves and he set up 6 tries, compared to keatings 8 TA from 13 games starting in the halves.

Stats arnt everything but Mortimer would not have played more then 15 good games out of the 37 he played and majority of the 21 games he played this year he was horrible. Mortimer needs to work on his game, atm there is nothing in his form that tells me he can be any assistance in attack next year. Humble played 6 games and he looked better adapted to mortimer after those 6. He runs better lines, he positions himself better, he looks more natural. Since I havn't seen Murray play, If i had to rate the 3 others it would be Humble>> Robson>> Mortimer. If the reports about Murray are true I think he is worth the punt like Timmy was in 2005 when everyone expected Morris/Marsh combo.

I completely agree with you except which Halves combo to choose.

I just worry that we'll go through 5 halves combo like 2010 and come up with nothing.

Mortz has created tries with Short passes and short kicks/grubbers. I definitely recall a Ben Smith try off a short pass, however, he probably tried it 3-4 times before that try actually came off.

For mine, it is too far between each try assist. i.e. He might make one of these plays once every 2-3 games but in between dishes out mediocrity in terms of halfback skills. So I agree, he has to goto wenty and work on playing like a halfback if he is to be a halfback.

If we get orford, I am all for Mortz at 6 just because of his backup skills.

But like you, I think Humble looks more like a 6 outwide than a 7.
 

yy_cheng

Coach
Messages
18,734
Mate if we sign a halfback such as Gower, Orford or Cronk then I would play Humble at 5-8 and Murray at 14 no questions asked.

Mate, if we signed a quality half, there is no need to put a half on the bench.

The 14 jersey belongs to ANTHONY MITCHELL.

I like the looks of him. A bit Farrah like. But is not ready to start and so has to come off the bench.

I can't see the point of Murray coming in to replace Humble. It makes no sense.

To replace MK or Casey also makes no sense.

If we do get a quality half. A 6 has to be chosen and only if he fails, the other halves lining up should get a shot. Not off the bench though.

1. Reddy
3. Tonga
4. Tahu
6. Hayne
7. Burt

Yeah, the 3 and 4 aren't signed yet though and Burty has to play wing in defense.
 

The Engineers Room

First Grade
Messages
8,945
Mortimer is our best 5/8. Plain and simple.

Humble looks busy but doesn't offer anything better at this stage. If we got a more experienced half then it would Mortimer and him.

Murray is a halfback as is Robson. The problem is not only the halves it is what options the other player give them when they have the ball in hand and the attacking structure that we failed to carry over from 2009.
 

Stagger eel

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
65,786
Mate, if we signed a quality half, there is no need to put a half on the bench.

The 14 jersey belongs to ANTHONY MITCHELL.

I like the looks of him. A bit Farrah like. But is not ready to start and so has to come off the bench.

I can't see the point of Murray coming in to replace Humble. It makes no sense.

To replace MK or Casey also makes no sense.

If we do get a quality half. A 6 has to be chosen and only if he fails, the other halves lining up should get a shot. Not off the bench though.

1. Reddy
3. Tonga
4. Tahu
6. Hayne
7. Burt

Yeah, the 3 and 4 aren't signed yet though and Burty has to play wing in defense.

somoeone should tell Willie that he's in the wrong state..
 

The Engineers Room

First Grade
Messages
8,945
Mate, if we signed a quality half, there is no need to put a half on the bench.

The 14 jersey belongs to ANTHONY MITCHELL.

I like the looks of him. A bit Farrah like. But is not ready to start and so has to come off the bench.

I can't see the point of Murray coming in to replace Humble. It makes no sense.

To replace MK or Casey also makes no sense.

If we do get a quality half. A 6 has to be chosen and only if he fails, the other halves lining up should get a shot. Not off the bench though.

1. Reddy
3. Tonga
4. Tahu
6. Hayne
7. Burt

Yeah, the 3 and 4 aren't signed yet though and Burty has to play wing in defense.

Well that is one of the strangest sides I have seen. I would have agreed with Burt at 7, 5 years ago but not now.

I think he is better at 2 or 1 but Hayne has to stay at 1. He is not a 6. I don't want Tonga, very overrated player and is only wanted because he is a junior. I would rather we sign a guy like Phil Graham. I would be tempted to give Atkins a go in the centres. If we struugle to get a halves pairing then put Reddy at 6 but Mortimer is a better 6.
 

boxhead

First Grade
Messages
5,958
First I understand we can disagree, but we are discussing. You can make statments but more so you need to explain why you believe that (you dont have too... but it would be nice)

Yeah no worries :) I'll try to explain, I'm a bit dizzy at the moment.

Firstly from what I've seen of Humble he is a 5-8 not a halfback, i dont care where he played in QLD or NSW cup. He runs good lines on the edges, he has a very good short passing game and his short kicking game is alright. I've seen him create on the edges rather than through the middle and he generally likes to take the ball two player wide of the hooker.

You should watch some footage of him as halfback in NSW and QLD Cup, it's just my opinion that he is a better halfback; I think he is a great runner but he seems to also be a good organiser.

Thurston wears the 7 for QLD, Australia and the Cowboys but he plays as a 6. He still struggles to organise his team by himself and his greatest asset is to go to the line and ball play --> he is a 5-8 not a halfback I dont care what number he wears. Humble played in the 7 in QLD and so did mortimer for Parramatta jnrs but both are 5-8. Humble has the ball playing skill to be a convert halfback (ala Thurston, Seymore and Cronk) but its not natural to him like it is to Kimmorley or Prince lets say. Mortimer at the moment does not have the skills to be a genuine 5-8 let alone a halfback. He could play a running 5-8 role but we don't have a dominate halfback to afford that luxuary IMO.

I won't speculate on Thurston, but I do agree that Mortimer needs a dominant half for him to succeed; he worked brilliantly in 2009 with Jeff Robson at halfback, with Hayne coming in and bringing out his brilliance at times. THe problem with Mortimer this year was that he was told to do the organising role, he has the skills to pass and kick well; i.e. short passing and chip and chase, but he is more like an individual attacker that feeds off everyone else. It's a big reason to why Mortimer had a bad year this year, he was forced to play in a role he wasn't suited to.

I can honest not think of a game where mortimer set up a try by putting a player through a hole, outside of Cayless try in round 26 i cant remember him setting up a try with a grubber behind the line. He does not have the skill to play first grade atm. I think he needs a stint in wenty to work on his game, he seams to train well but the role of a half does not come natural to him IMO. He will end up as a Finch style half, can play well behind a dominate half but not as a stand alone to run the team.

I've seen Mortimer put a few players through holes, and I have seen his short kicking game do wonders both this year and last year. IMO a lot of people's argument saying Mortimer has no skills are largely off the back of a terrible season this year and not giving him any of the praise for 2009. What people fail to understand was that even though Hayne was brilliant, it is still a team game and Mortimer was still one of our top three or five players last year, his attacking brilliance tore apart the Dragons I mean. Watch clips of our game against the Knights late into the season in 2009, Mortimer does I think two or three short kicks for himself that end in amazing tries.

Thing I realize about Mortimer is that his short-kicking is better suited to himself, i.e. his chip and chase against the Sharks this year, he seems more skilled at making opportunities for himself than making them for others. If you notice in 2009, he had quite a few try and line-break assists, but the amount of tries he scored simply by doing stuff outside of the team's thinking were great; I think if you get a playmaker to control the game, and let Mortimer roam around, he returns to form and devastates the opposition. It's not so much that Mortimer will feed off the halfback I realize, but more that he will just get the ball somewhere and create something out of nothing-it's not vision so much as it is blind instinct to take a chance and do a short-grubber, run through defenders or chip and chase, that is what he does best as a support player, and a short-kicker.


I think it is a big risk to play Humble and Murray together, and trust me I would much prefer that we only played one with an experianced half but in the senario where we cant sign one then I think the Murray/Humble option is the best. I could understand why someone would start with Robson/Humble but I cant justify picking Mortimer over Murray or Humble tbh. He has played 37 games for the eels. 16 of those games where in 2009, 21 games in 2010, 20 in the halves and he set up 6 tries, compared to keatings 8 TA from 13 games starting in the halves.

Yeah it is a big risk, in fact it is too big a risk; it is better to stick with either Mortimer or Robson than to blood both of them, it would be disastrous; between them there are less than 10 games of experience, you simply cannot have two halves that inexperienced controlling a team, you simply cannot.
On Mortimer, he deserves to be picked over Humble and Murray because he is proven at first-grade level, and also your stats are completely wrong. Those are stats for 2010, not for his whole career. The stats he has closer to 15 or 17 try-assists overall and quite a few line-break assists, yes those are not good stats for a half, but you can lay the blame of a lot of that on his move to halfback, the fact he is not a proven organiser and more a runner of the ball (and a brilliant one at that when he does it). Mortimer needs a dominant half, or if not he needs to find his own form.


Stats arnt everything but Mortimer would not have played more then 15 good games out of the 37 he played and majority of the 21 games he played this year he was horrible. Mortimer needs to work on his game, atm there is nothing in his form that tells me he can be any assistance in attack next year. Humble played 6 games and he looked better adapted to mortimer after those 6. He runs better lines, he positions himself better, he looks more natural. Since I havn't seen Murray play, If i had to rate the 3 others it would be Humble>> Robson>> Mortimer. If the reports about Murray are true I think he is worth the punt like Timmy was in 2005 when everyone expected Morris/Marsh combo.

I strongly disagree, Mortimer showed more in 2009 than Humble has ever shown. Of Mortimer's 'good' games-and his form slump is also attributable to a stupid decision to move him to a position he can't handle and also the fact that the rest of the team were playing crap for most of the year-Mortimer was outstanding, he was in fact named by Laurie Daley and Warren Smith as the best player of the finals series in 2009. Go figure, there is no doubt Mortimer's best games are still ahead of him. He offers a lot in attack mate, he scores a tonne of tries when he is allowed to run the ball. You seem to be judging him on one year only, and forgetting the brilliance he showed last year.
 

lingard

Coach
Messages
11,424
Boxhead; every clip I`ve seen of Humble in the QLD Cup, he was wearing the 6 on his back. Not sure where you get this idea that he is a 7. Anyway, regardless of numbers, I see him as a specialist five-eight (in an era where we apparently don`t have them anymore - which I think is a bit of a fallacy, but anyway....). I just have to re-iterate that of the six first-grade games he played this year, five of them were out of position - and a different position every game. That`s not an ideal introduction to first grade now, is it? If you think we haven`t seen the best of Mortimer yet, I suggest we haven`t seen anything of Humble yet. Wait and see. For the record, I would favour a Robson / Humble combination to start the season, and then gradually shift Robson to either 14 or Wenty. Sorry, but I do not see a place for Mortimer in first grade at the moment.
This year, I was disappointed that Robson didn`t improve on last year, because I really thought he would. (I`ve got a real soft-spot for Jeff Robson). But he was mediocre this year. Mortimer, I was very disappointed in. The only thing that would make me think that Mortimer and Robson could go up another level next year, would be if it could be shown to me that Daniel Anderson didn`t coach them very well this year. And, you know, the more I think about it, the more that seems like a possibility. So who knows what next year will bring.
 

The Engineers Room

First Grade
Messages
8,945
You seem to be judging him on one year only, and forgetting the brilliance he showed last year.

Of course he is a member of this forum. This is what happens, young players get all the praise in the world until they play first grade then if they faulter there is calls for them to be dumped.
 

True EEL

Bench
Messages
4,857
if Ordord does sign, a lot of the other backline/halves options thrown around by me and others will most likely go out the window......will probably be:

1. Hayne
2. Burt
3. Atkins/Reddy (if fit)
4. Tahu
5. Grothe
6. Mortimer
7. Orford
 

Djay

Juniors
Messages
1,827
Ok, Mortimer was so called "amazing" in 09 but as we all know it was off the back of Hayne's brilliance. Like I have said before people like Todd Lowrie, Jeff Robson etc. were looking like stars in our team in 09.

Robson is simple not a FG half and Mortimer needs a stint in Wenty until he can improve on his kicking and passing, which is horrible IMO, the amount of times he gives hospital passes and gets our forwards smashed is a joke.

I seriously don't see why we can't use Humble and Murray if we don't sign a half. What are we going to lose? In reality, let's be honest we aren't going to win the comp in 2011 (I'd love to be proved wrong) so what's the risk and harm in looking to the future and playing Humble and Murray. what's the worst that can happen? I don't think anything really bad can happen.

And on the 14, that's Mitchell's IMO. He is made for it ATM and he has to be playing there next year IMO.
 

The Engineers Room

First Grade
Messages
8,945
Lowrie did his job and he developed into a good ball running forward and linked in well on the left side attack. This was due to his time in the premier league with Hauraki, Paulo and Taia that he learnt some ball playing skills off.
 

lingard

Coach
Messages
11,424
Of course he is a member of this forum. This is what happens, young players get all the praise in the world until they play first grade then if they faulter there is calls for them to be dumped.


To be fair, mate, I think everyone on this forum gave Mortimer a fair crack this year. It wasn`t until well into the season that the calls for him to be dropped commenced.
 

lingard

Coach
Messages
11,424
Ok, Mortimer was so called "amazing" in 09 but as we all know it was off the back of Hayne's brilliance. Like I have said before people like Todd Lowrie, Jeff Robson etc. were looking like stars in our team in 09.

Robson is simple not a FG half and Mortimer needs a stint in Wenty until he can improve on his kicking and passing, which is horrible IMO, the amount of times he gives hospital passes and gets our forwards smashed is a joke.

I seriously don't see why we can't use Humble and Murray if we don't sign a half. What are we going to lose? In reality, let's be honest we aren't going to win the comp in 2011 (I'd love to be proved wrong) so what's the risk and harm in looking to the future and playing Humble and Murray. what's the worst that can happen? I don't think anything really bad can happen.

And on the 14, that's Mitchell's IMO. He is made for it ATM and he has to be playing there next year IMO.

I suppose you could say the WE have got nothing to lose. But Stephen Kearney might have his job to lose. :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top