if mateo is ready

[parra-all-the-way]

What do players like Greg Inglis, Billy Slater, Cameron Smith, Andrew Johns, Ben Kennedy, Darren Lockyer and Sonny Bill Williams have in common? (throw in Scott Prince and Benji Marshall too)

They're all "flashy" players who helped their teams score enough points to win a premiership.

What are you on Eela if you think this team doesn't need a shot of Feliti Mateo in the worst possible way?? The guy is an out and out playmaker who can trouble the defence with his running, passing, offloading or kicking ability. Our offence is pretty well dead-last in the league; we've gone past 30 points like once this season and need someone to generate our attack in the worst possible way.

Why on earth would we stick with 2 'toiling clones' in Lowrie and Ben Smith when we could bring in a guy who has a similar defensive work-rate, but makes a tremendous impact with ball in hand?

From Anderson's mouth, Mateo isn't fit to return this week, so we'll have to wait on him. But he's in our top tier of players - as soon as he's right to go he has GOT to be in the team. And it's Ben or Todd who are keeping the seat warm for him.

My take is that i dont think eela is arguing that, what he is trying to say that lowrie is effective at doing HIS role in the team, and he would be very unlucky to miss out. Mateo has more ability and flair than lowrie but they have different roles. I consider lowrie in the wagon mould of player.

I would (for what its worth) put mateo at lock, lowrie back to backrow with Joe onto the bench with wright out of the side.

 

[Raudonikis]

I would think we already have a workhorse in Hindy and dont need lowrie when joe has been 1 of our best pigs this season.A back row of hindy/joe/mateo would be really good.someone mentioned lowrie does the job he is supposed to do,but didnt Hagan say he was the next BK? Well BK could do both, defend and attack and i doubt he would have thrown passes over the sideline in first grade.Yeah lowrie has filled in in an average way,cos he is just average.I wonder where he will be playing next year?

 

[Eelementary]

*Double Post*

 

[Eelementary]

:roll:

What?

Easy to do when Mateo hasnt played

Doesn't matter.

Because you make the side better.

Supposedly.

 

[Eelementary]

What do players like Greg Inglis, Billy Slater, Cameron Smith, Andrew Johns, Ben Kennedy, Darren Lockyer and Sonny Bill Williams have in common? (throw in Scott Prince and Benji Marshall too)

They're all "flashy" players who helped their teams score enough points to win a premiership.

What are you on Eela if you think this team doesn't need a shot of Feliti Mateo in the worst possible way?? The guy is an out and out playmaker who can trouble the defence with his running, passing, offloading or kicking ability. Our offence is pretty well dead-last in the league; we've gone past 30 points like once this season and need someone to generate our attack in the worst possible way.

Why on earth would we stick with 2 'toiling clones' in Lowrie and Ben Smith when we could bring in a guy who has a similar defensive work-rate, but makes a tremendous impact with ball in hand?

From Anderson's mouth, Mateo isn't fit to return this week, so we'll have to wait on him. But he's in our top tier of players - as soon as he's right to go he has GOT to be in the team. And it's Ben or Todd who are keeping the seat warm for him.

We have flashy players in Hayne, Mortimer, Inu, and Mateo, for sure. But look at the Premiers - guys who have won titles include Corey Hughes (he was their hooker, or was it Perry?), Fizthenry (Tigers 'utility' back), Sattler...

And I have to say I am amazed at people's inability to understand the very simple argument I am putting forward.

But what amazes me more is the pedestal you blokes out Mateo up on - acting like he's a God to football.

If you're going to use "going past 30 points" as your gauge for how successful you are, then pray - explain 2001 and 2005 for me. REAL successful seasons there.

I'll reiterate my point: yes, he has potential, and yes he clearly has skill. I, for one, was unimpressed with him in 2009. As for Lowrie and Ben/Wright, they have helped build the wins we've reaped, and they deserve better from some of you.

Yes, bringing in Mateo would probably strengthen the side (if he decided to not throw dumb passes and miss easy tackles). But my point is and has been all along that Lowrie or whoever misses out could be seen as very unlucky.

As for the argument that we already have a workhorse in Hindmarsh...Haven't you noticed how good we look lately with Hindmarsh running the ball and popping offloads? But you want to take that energy away from him and focus it all onto making 50 tackles a game?

Someone else said it well - Lowrie is our new Wagon. Not quite as good, no. But that's the role he's playing. And if you're to bring back a player from a long injury lay-off, why not start the game with a guy like Lowrie, who will soak up all the defence and punishment, and then bring Mateo off the bench? Why do you insist on starting him altogether?

Oh, that's right. Because he's Mateo, and he's better than SBW in some of you people's eyes.

 

[slippery_sucker]

Has Lowrie, Wright and Robbo... sign for next year have they?? No they havent!!!
Mateo and KK straight back in!!!

 

[oldmancraigy]

We have flashy players in Hayne, Mortimer, Inu, and Mateo, for sure. But look at the Premiers - guys who have won titles include Corey Hughes (he was their hooker, or was it Perry?), Fizthenry (Tigers 'utility' back), Sattler...

And I have to say I am amazed at people's inability to understand the very simple argument I am putting forward.

But what amazes me more is the pedestal you blokes out Mateo up on - acting like he's a God to football.

If you're going to use "going past 30 points" as your gauge for how successful you are, then pray - explain 2001 and 2005 for me. REAL successful seasons there.

I'll reiterate my point: yes, he has potential, and yes he clearly has skill. I, for one, was unimpressed with him in 2009. As for Lowrie and Ben/Wright, they have helped build the wins we've reaped, and they deserve better from some of you.

Yes, bringing in Mateo would probably strengthen the side (if he decided to not throw dumb passes and miss easy tackles). But my point is and has been all along that Lowrie or whoever misses out could be seen as very unlucky.

As for the argument that we already have a workhorse in Hindmarsh...Haven't you noticed how good we look lately with Hindmarsh running the ball and popping offloads? But you want to take that energy away from him and focus it all onto making 50 tackles a game?

Someone else said it well - Lowrie is our new Wagon. Not quite as good, no. But that's the role he's playing. And if you're to bring back a player from a long injury lay-off, why not start the game with a guy like Lowrie, who will soak up all the defence and punishment, and then bring Mateo off the bench? Why do you insist on starting him altogether?

Oh, that's right. Because he's Mateo, and he's better than SBW in some of you people's eyes.

What can I say?
The defence rests???

You've conjured up some tortured logic here that's for certain.

Firstly - on the need for players who generate offence:
(1) Are you suggesting that you'd prefer seasons like the current one to seasons like 2001 and 2005????? If you ARE saying that, then there's no need to continue reading - but we made the grand final in 2001 and lost it by 6 points (damn Ryan getting held up in goal by Robbie O???).

(2) You're saying that every premiership team needs a bunch of toilers and scoring 30 points is irrelevant --> let me point you to the premiership winners over the past 10 years (past 100 years?) and you show me any one of them which had the worst attack in the league (or bottom 5 at any rate).

(3) Somehow you're completely over-rating Lowrie's defensive capabilities? For the record we're one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Yes, when Mateo played he missed some tackles - but mate, don't let the facts stand in the way of a good Lowrie love fest! Both players have missed 10.8% of the tackles they attempted so far this season, so it's not like Lowrie's putting him to shame there...
Add that to the fact that Mateo wasn't playing all that well at the start of the season (an abberation when compared to his last 2 years) - whereas Lowrie's in career best form... And yet Mateo is still a better option.
OH - and Mateo makes 50% more tackles per contest than Lowrie anyhow... so where's the benefit of Lowrie being a defensive workhorse? (he's less than 20 tackles per game...)

And whether Mateo starts or comes off the bench is irrelevant - he's a back-rower, and the spot that he would take is occupired by either Ben Smith or Todd Lowrie. Personally I like what Smith has brought in his latest "stint" (above and beyond Lowrie).
Not saying Lowrie hasn't been playing well, but when one of the better players is slated to return, someone has to miss out.

[don't suggest we go without 4 props - that's been a proven failure at all levels of football over the last few years]

 

[EELICIT]

Guys theres LIES, DAMNED LIES and STATISTICS !!! And all these support Mateo coming back into the squad plain and simple!

 

[Pazza]

And I have to say I am amazed at people's inability to understand the very simple argument I am putting forward.

As for the argument that we already have a workhorse in Hindmarsh...Haven't you noticed how good we look lately with Hindmarsh running the ball and popping offloads? But you want to take that energy away from him and focus it all onto making 50 tackles a game?

Someone else said it well - Lowrie is our new Wagon. Not quite as good, no. But that's the role he's playing. And if you're to bring back a player from a long injury lay-off, why not start the game with a guy like Lowrie, who will soak up all the defence and punishment, and then bring Mateo off the bench? Why do you insist on starting him altogether?

but your arguement is flaud!

in our last 5 games Lowrie has averaged 19.8 tackles a game while Hindmarsh is up around 42.4 tackles a game. Lowrie hasnt been played the full 80 any of these games. Lowrie has played well for us but he doesnt bring any outstanding skill to the side that makes him irreplacable. He has been working as a attacking forward in recent times, running wide off short passes from morts and trying to link up with his outside men. Something i think Mateo would be far better at.

Plus, the style we are playing in the second half of this season is far more suited to mateo's game than anyone else in this football side. i can see him tearing up given a licence to thrill!

 

[Stagger eel]

Has Lowrie, Wright and Robbo... sign for next year have they?? No they havent!!!
Mateo and KK straight back in!!!

is it 2009 or 2010??

 

[EELICIT]

Don't be surprised if Lowrie is re-signed at a better price...He's a good back-up.

You don't see how we should move Galuvao...I don't see why Lowrie should automatically be dropped when the one thing he is good at, defence, is what has won us our last two games.


Eelementary, Galuvao should not be moved because DA has figured out exactly where he should take a hit up etc. Lowrie has only thrown speculators which have found the floor which we dont need. His stats dont complement his style of footy and to be honest he is not required next year because he doesnt fit into what DA is trying to accomplish!. In regards to his defence. Ive seen more try stopping hits from keating (whos a hooker in the mould of PJMARSH) who is a star at dropping blokes point blank. So really LOWRIE isnt needed! If we faced another coach who decided to sweat on dropped balls from lowrie we would get slaughtered. Bennett is one who would pick it!;-)

 

[lingard]

When I first started reading this thread, my opinion was that we should save Mateo for next year and keep the team as it is. I`ve changed my mind. I agree with Eelementary that Mateo is over-rated - there`s no question about that - based on his earlier performances this year. He is very erratic and he does overplay his hand terribly. But the more I read this thread, the more I am reminded that, at his best, he is brilliant. And a couple of people have pointed out that his style would probably suit the team at present. Imagine Hayne running off some of his off-loads! Or Mortimer.
I also agree with Eelementary about Lowrie. He is vastly under-rated. His level of commitment is without question. His dedication and his improvement over the last month in particular is also without question. His mistake rate has dropped to almost nil. However, I think Mateo should be eased back in. And if that happens, then there are only two players that could possibly be dropped - Wright or Lowrie. Wright definitely won`t be here next year, and Lowrie might not be. Tough decision? I`d drop Wright.

 

[oldmancraigy]

I`d drop Wright.

4 props.

The modern game of rugby league requires 4 props - 2 starters and 2 on the bench.

Don't give me the "Hindmarsh can fill in" argument - it's been shown time and again by all manner of teams that the requirement is for 4 props.

If Mateo is to come back in, then one of Gulavao, Lowrie and Ben Smith ought to be the ones to miss out (ie - replace a backrower with a backrower).
The only other possibility is that Robson misses out with Mateo to 5/8 and Mortimer to half - I would think that unlikely with Keating slated to return soon.

Lowrie has been playing really well for his standards - basically he's been a passable option in first grade, which is the most we could hope for.

You guys are tripping if you want a guy whose potential is 'passable' to remain in the team while a guy whose potential is 'superstar' plays reserves....

 

[Raudonikis]

When I first started reading this thread, my opinion was that we should save Mateo for next year and keep the team as it is. I`ve changed my mind. I agree with Eelementary that Mateo is over-rated - there`s no question about that - based on his earlier performances this year. He is very erratic and he does overplay his hand terribly. But the more I read this thread, the more I am reminded that, at his best, he is brilliant. And a couple of people have pointed out that his style would probably suit the team at present. Imagine Hayne running off some of his off-loads! Or Mortimer.
I also agree with Eelementary about Lowrie. He is vastly under-rated. His level of commitment is without question. His dedication and his improvement over the last month in particular is also without question. His mistake rate has dropped to almost nil. However, I think Mateo should be eased back in. And if that happens, then there are only two players that could possibly be dropped - Wright or Lowrie. Wright definitely won`t be here next year, and Lowrie might not be. Tough decision? I`d drop Wright.

That highlighted comment totally blows my mind.

 

[EELICIT]

Just had a look at stats between Mateo and Lowrie and put it this way Mateo did just about the same in 9 games that Lowrie has done in 19 so put 2 and 2 together and you have a solution to all issues. Oh and Mateo was pulling those stats when we were garbage so over and out!!!!

 

[Angry_eel]

My problem with Lowrie is his passing. He can't pass for sh*t. Unless he's going to be used as a prop which i doubt he can play as, i see no reason of keeping him.

 

[yy_cheng]

Lowrie is good and honest. The only problem is that he is current paid more than his worth.

At a reasonable salary, he is definitely worth keeping.

BTW, Mannah doesn't pass well either, we should get rid of him too.

 

[Eelementary]

What can I say?
The defence rests???

You've conjured up some tortured logic here that's for certain.

Firstly - on the need for players who generate offence:
(1) Are you suggesting that you'd prefer seasons like the current one to seasons like 2001 and 2005????? If you ARE saying that, then there's no need to continue reading - but we made the grand final in 2001 and lost it by 6 points (damn Ryan getting held up in goal by Robbie O???).

(2) You're saying that every premiership team needs a bunch of toilers and scoring 30 points is irrelevant --> let me point you to the premiership winners over the past 10 years (past 100 years?) and you show me any one of them which had the worst attack in the league (or bottom 5 at any rate).

(3) Somehow you're completely over-rating Lowrie's defensive capabilities? For the record we're one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Yes, when Mateo played he missed some tackles - but mate, don't let the facts stand in the way of a good Lowrie love fest! Both players have missed 10.8% of the tackles they attempted so far this season, so it's not like Lowrie's putting him to shame there...
Add that to the fact that Mateo wasn't playing all that well at the start of the season (an abberation when compared to his last 2 years) - whereas Lowrie's in career best form... And yet Mateo is still a better option.
OH - and Mateo makes 50% more tackles per contest than Lowrie anyhow... so where's the benefit of Lowrie being a defensive workhorse? (he's less than 20 tackles per game...)

And whether Mateo starts or comes off the bench is irrelevant - he's a back-rower, and the spot that he would take is occupired by either Ben Smith or Todd Lowrie. Personally I like what Smith has brought in his latest "stint" (above and beyond Lowrie).
Not saying Lowrie hasn't been playing well, but when one of the better players is slated to return, someone has to miss out.

[don't suggest we go without 4 props - that's been a proven failure at all levels of football over the last few years]

(1) I'm not saying that, but merely pointing out that an all-out attacking philosophy isn't alwayss successful. In 2001 and 2005 we did well during the regular season but choked when the Premierships were there for the taking.

(2) Not saying scoring 30 points is irrelevant, but have a quick browse through the Premiers of the past ten years - they always have at least one toiler in their squad. It's a necessity.

(3) Stats paint half the picture. In our steeliest defensive performances this year, who has been in the team? Not Mateo, albeit due to injury.

You bring out the phrase "Lowrie lovefest". Lowrie is not one of my favourite players. But he's doing his job and doing it well.

I'd point out that the people defending Mateo are in a Mateo lovefest because they are completely unable to see any of his deficiencies.

 

[Eelementary]

but your arguement is flaud!

in our last 5 games Lowrie has averaged 19.8 tackles a game while Hindmarsh is up around 42.4 tackles a game. Lowrie hasnt been played the full 80 any of these games. Lowrie has played well for us but he doesnt bring any outstanding skill to the side that makes him irreplacable. He has been working as a attacking forward in recent times, running wide off short passes from morts and trying to link up with his outside men. Something i think Mateo would be far better at.

Plus, the style we are playing in the second half of this season is far more suited to mateo's game than anyone else in this football side. i can see him tearing up given a licence to thrill!

Who said Lowrie's job is to bring "outstanding skill" to the table? Why does he have to be "irreplaceable" to be any good?

Reddy Burt and Grothe are playing great football, but they're all replaceable - hey, let's punt them! :roll:

Lowrie is there to defend and make a hit-up when nobody else wants to because they're knackered. It is not a complex or flawed argument at all.

 

[Eelementary]

Don't be surprised if Lowrie is re-signed at a better price...He's a good back-up.

You don't see how we should move Galuvao...I don't see why Lowrie should automatically be dropped when the one thing he is good at, defence, is what has won us our last two games.


Eelementary, Galuvao should not be moved because DA has figured out exactly where he should take a hit up etc. Lowrie has only thrown speculators which have found the floor which we dont need. His stats dont complement his style of footy and to be honest he is not required next year because he doesnt fit into what DA is trying to accomplish!. In regards to his defence. Ive seen more try stopping hits from keating (whos a hooker in the mould of PJMARSH) who is a star at dropping blokes point blank. So really LOWRIE isnt needed! If we faced another coach who decided to sweat on dropped balls from lowrie we would get slaughtered. Bennett is one who would pick it!;-)

It's not such a stretch for Gaulvao to take a hit-up two or three men in from where he's doing it now...

Lowrie, once again, although throwing poor passes, is not a ball-playing forward.

Maybe he hasn't made that many try-saving tackles (he's actually pulled off a few), but there are other areas of defence where he has done a good job - kick chases, for starters.