If you hate Morts...

[Poupou Escobar]

And don't forget Casey McGuire. He can play halfback and punches on like a mad merkin.

 

[TheRam]

You're right.

But we've got two choices - buy one or develop one. We tried to buy one so until next year we've got who we've got.

I don't think we'll score many points (again) this year but we could still make the 8. If one of the kids really steps up (including Morts) we could finish in the top 6.

We might also get the spoon but I think our forwards are too good for that.

Well I truly have no idea as to how we will go this year, or more precisely how our halves and hooker will go, therefore the team.

Morts could surprise but then again he was sooo bad last year I have very little faith. He just is not an organiser, he is an opportunist and a hole runner. So I suppose that it all comes down to SK really and how he can somehow find a way for both Morts and Robson to find that inner creativity and kicking game that they both are not so short on.

If I were the coach though I think that I would go with Brad Murray (pending the outcome of the betting scandal) and Morts or Robson from the first round. I don't like the idea of having the two most uncreative halves in the NRL playing alongside each other again in our team, unless it is absolutely necessary through injury.

Someone like Murray though has got loads of creativity and flare, so considering that we really do have an awesome pack that can protect him well and make it a lot easier for him and that this is a rebuilding year of sorts, imo there is no better time to blood the kid and watch him grow into what should be a very competent no 7. Let the kid get the experience and also I think that Morts would be a better player playing alongside someone that HAS a clue as to how to put him in a hole and kick to his support players.

 

[caylo]

Actually they are. They're two of the best defensive halves in the game.

I'd say Robson is probably the best in the game.

No id say Kimmorley was the best last year, Robson is a good defender front on but stuggles to read defence sometimes. I actually think Sandow is a better defender then Mortz even thou he misses more tackles, Mortimer hangs in the line and gets involves as a 3rd defender more often while sandow can take down a player one on one. Mortz is no more then a speed bump

Morts was the only one consistently looking to draw and pass. He was the only one trying to set up the unders line. That's not easy when you've got opposition back-rowers up in your face all game

No offence but what are you smoking, last year mortimer couldnt even pass the ball. He has no idea most of the time, very often he recieved the ball with time and space and got smashed or did something dumb. Robson looked to organise the team and feed the ball to the outside, he is no Prince but was much better then Mortz IMO. Remember Robson spent half the year playing hooker too.

What do you mean by par? He was better than the majority of NRL halves, and did more work than nearly all of them

I actually said sub par meaning he is worse then the majority. If i think of halfback I would say Pearce, Cronk, Mullen, Prince, Wallace, Kimmorley and Hornsby are easily better defenders and Mortz fits in somewhere in the mix below

He was better than the alternatives. That alone is enough to keep a player in first grade.



That's a big if. I think there's better competition for spots this year, despite Keating being let go. Murray was even better than Morts in NYC but he has no NRL experience and he might not even be with the club. Humble might show Kearney something he didn't show Anderson, and Robson might play like he did in '09 (decent).

There were plenty of alternatives that is just bull. Last year we had Humble who looks to have a better developed skill set, a stronger defender and just as good a support player. Then there is KK, irrespective of how inconsistant he was he showed alot more the Mortz at any stage of the year and Robson who was our best performing half IMO. Plus MK player 5-8 for wenty and performed pretty well and could have been given a shot, he definatly has a better passing and kicking game then morts and he is a genuinly good defender.

This year we have Murray, Humble, Robson and Bruest who could quite easily replace Mortz plus Magurie, Mitchell and MK who arnt genuine halves but can be thrown in.

Last year I honestly would have prefered Reddy at 5-8 then Mortz he was that bad.

Also those that use Mortz experiance as a reason to pick him in the NRL is funny, the kid has played less the 50 NRL games and failed in most of the (maybe 30). That isnt a compeling argument

 

[The Engineers Room]

This is getting ridicolous, the halves are not out there for their tackling skill or workrate in defence. I still think he is a 5/8 and not a half but it will all be about what he offers in the attack that will matter and his defence is good enough to be out there.

 

[The Colonel]

Also those that use Mortz experiance as a reason to pick him in the NRL is funny, the kid has played less the 50 NRL games and failed in most of the (maybe 30). That isnt a compeling argument

Neither is continually using the fact that we have two kids in Bruest and Murray who have never played at the NRL being used as two viable replacements by all and sundry. Bruest is yet to play regularly at the NYC level and Murray could well not even factor in any equation given his current situation and is probably twelve months away from being a regular starting halfback in the Wenty side based on information from better judges than some on here. Just because Murray was named as a replacement in the NYC team of the year last year doesn't make him an automatic replacement for first grade.

Ben Hunt, a much better halfback than Murray and Mortimer in the NYC has yet to hold down a starting position at the Broncos and is being used more at 5/8 and hooker when he does play.

Humble and McGuire are the first grade options at this stage behind Morts and Robson. Bruest and Murray have done nothing to deserve a start ahead of either yet outside of fuel the dreams of some mildly uninformed people on this forum.

 

[caylo]

By far? He makes more tackles than Keating and is only 5% worse off. As for Robson, he's generally considered one of the NRL's top defensive halfbacks.

Again - he makes more than 20 tackles a game, completes 85% of them, weighs 70kg wet, defends next to Mateo...And he's sub par defensively?

so hold on Keating makes 20 tackles a match and misses 1 while Mortimer makes 24 tackles a match and misses 4.

Mortimer makes four more tackles a match but misses 3 more. He may be a good defender for his size, you can consider him gutsy but he isnt a good defender. As halfback or 5-8 goes he is actually a poor defender.

 

[boxhead]

caylo, as halves go Mortimer is actually a pretty damn good defender, depending on who you look at. Compare him to Scott Prince, where Prince is easily in the top three halfbacks in the world, he *has* to organise the defence to cover him, which is something all halves should do anyway, but coach Anderson decided this wasn't necessary with a young Mortimer who is quite a bit more diminutive than Prince.

Whilst Prince isn't a bad defender, when you actually compare halves who are much bigger than Mortimer, he is actually a decent defender for a half.

 

[boxhead]

Neither is continually using the fact that we have two kids in Bruest and Murray who have never played at the NRL being used as two viable replacements by all and sundry. Bruest is yet to play regularly at the NYC level and Murray could well not even factor in any equation given his current situation and is probably twelve months away from being a regular starting halfback in the Wenty side based on information from better judges than some on here. Just because Murray was named as a replacement in the NYC team of the year last year doesn't make him an automatic replacement for first grade.

Ben Hunt, a much better halfback than Murray and Mortimer in the NYC has yet to hold down a starting position at the Broncos and is being used more at 5/8 and hooker when he does play.

Humble and McGuire are the first grade options at this stage behind Morts and Robson. Bruest and Murray have done nothing to deserve a start ahead of either yet outside of fuel the dreams of some mildly uninformed people on this forum.

Great post.

 

[caylo]

Neither is continually using the fact that we have two kids in Bruest and Murray who have never played at the NRL being used as two viable replacements by all and sundry

I dont consider Beurst as a real option but he is there as a last resort, Murry is alot more experianced then Mortimer when he made his debu and actually looks better then Mortimer at the same stages, he is definatly an option and it has been reported that kearney has been very impressed with him.

Murray could well not even factor in any equation given his current situation and is probably twelve months away from being a regular starting halfback in the Wenty side based on information from better judges than some on here

Im sure he will be starting halfback for wenty with humble at 5-8. Who would start ahead of him if Mortimer, Robson and MaGuire are the starting 6,7 and 9.

Ben Hunt, a much better halfback than Murray and Mortimer in the NYC has yet to hold down a starting position at the Broncos and is being used more at 5/8 and hooker when he does play.

He has Wallace and Lockyer infront of him, where would you play him. What a dumb thing to say, sorry!

Humble and McGuire are the first grade options at this stage behind Morts and Robson. Bruest and Murray have done nothing to deserve a start ahead of either yet outside of fuel the dreams of some mildly uninformed people on this forum

Humble and MaGuire are both 5-8, if they pair up any of these two with Mortimer at halfback then I fear we will struggle again with no one there to organise the attack. Murray is our best option after Robson for the 7 IMO. To say he has done nothing to deserve a start is unfair to his performances last season. If you make that judgement of Murray then didn't Mortimer deserve his chance. If Mortimer doesn't perform there is no point playing him, if Murray or Humble arnt showing any form then I would prefer to go with the likes of Reddy, Horo or Matuia at 5-8 tbh.

 

[boxhead]

No id say Kimmorley was the best last year, Robson is a good defender front on but stuggles to read defence sometimes. I actually think Sandow is a better defender then Mortz even thou he misses more tackles, Mortimer hangs in the line and gets involves as a 3rd defender more often while sandow can take down a player one on one. Mortz is no more then a speed bump

Calling Sandow a better defensive half than Mortimer? Why because he shoulder-charges sometimes? Have you seen how many ineffective tackles he makes? The stats do not lie here, saying Sandow is a better defender than Mortimer is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. If he was a speed bump but still completes tackles at a rate of 75% and is one of the hardest working halves defensively then OBVIOUSLY he is a much better defender than you give him credit for, ESPECIALLY considering his size and who he was paired with in defence (Mateo and Tahu).

 

[boxhead]

I dont consider Beurst as a real option but he is there as a last resort, Murry is alot more experianced then Mortimer when he made his debu and actually looks better then Mortimer at the same stages, he is definatly an option and it has been reported that kearney has been very impressed with him.

The problem is, and this is another valid critique for why Mortimer struggled so much at halfback, is that very young players tend to struggle on debut at halfback - the exception being Mitchell Pearce and a few others. This is why risking Murray there could not only hurt the team but also hurt his development.


Im sure he will be starting halfback for wenty with humble at 5-8. Who would start ahead of him if Mortimer, Robson and MaGuire are the starting 6,7 and 9.

It's an unknown at this stage really. Mcguire is no definite to play ahead of Keating and Mitchell.

He has Wallace and Lockyer infront of him, where would you play him. What a dumb thing to say, sorry!

What he is getting at is that if Wallace and Lockyer are injured (which they were last season at varying points) then why isn't Ben Hunt, a half who is much better than anyone we have, getting game-time as a halfback there? It's because coming into first-grade at halfback is one of the hardest things to do, you regularly find halfbacks debut closer to their mid 20's than their early 20's. You can also say it's an allusion to how a 21 year old was played at halfback rather foolishly.

Humble and MaGuire are both 5-8, if they pair up any of these two with Mortimer at halfback then I fear we will struggle again with no one there to organise the attack. Murray is our best option after Robson for the 7 IMO. To say he has done nothing to deserve a start is unfair to his performances last season. If you make that judgement of Murray then didn't Mortimer deserve his chance. If Mortimer doesn't perform there is no point playing him, if Murray or Humble arnt showing any form then I would prefer to go with the likes of Reddy, Horo or Matuia at 5-8 tbh.

Have you seen Mcguire play recently? He played hooker primarily at his club, and back in the day he was both a halfback and a five-eighth. A utility, just an older one than Tom Humble. He may very well play at halfback, but it is most likely he would either be the starting hooker or simply played as a utility off the bench. I think you are assuming though that a) Humble or Mcguire will play five-eighth and b) that Mortimer will play halfback. I think most agree Mortimer is a five-eighth over a halfback. With Brad Murray, the thing is caylo - and this is what many have been saying regarding Humble as well - is that stepping up to first-grade, especially when you are so young and a half, is very difficult. Performing well in the NYC means nothing to how you might go in regards to being selected. The NRL is several cuts above the NYC. Mortimer apparently wasn't great in the NYC but he had a strong debut regardless (in 2009). But Mortimer is more the exception than the common, and look at how badly he performed in the next season.

 

[caylo]

caylo, as halves go Mortimer is actually a pretty damn good defender, depending on who you look at. Compare him to Scott Prince, where Prince is easily in the top three halfbacks in the world, he *has* to organise the defence to cover him, which is something all halves should do anyway, but coach Anderson decided this wasn't necessary with a young Mortimer who is quite a bit more diminutive than Prince.

Whilst Prince isn't a bad defender, when you actually compare halves who are much bigger than Mortimer, he is actually a decent defender for a half.

Box do you actually read my posts, I said for his size he is a good defender and he tries hard but he is a bad defender even for a half. Even if you consider him a good defender for his size, he is sub par in so many facets of his game I couldn't justify picking him.

As I've said before I think he is easily the worst regular starting half in the NRL. If $$ wasnt a consideration I would pretty much chose every other half in the NRL over Mortimer.

I understand why Kearney has chosen Mortimer and I hope him all the best I want him to do well but I have doubts. If he fails again guys liek Humble, Murray and even MK should be given a shot in the halves. Finch was punted for much less tbh, atleast Finch was setting up tries every now and then.

Something i looked up yesterday, in Mortimers 38 games 19 of those games he did not have any influence in attack (score a try, TA, LB or LBA) 15 of those games were in 2010. So in 2010 75% of his games he had no influence in us scoring any points and for a half that is unacceptable.

Also in 2009 when he was playing "well" he had alot of line breaks and TA but he only had 2 LBA in his 18 games. That gives the impression that Mortimer does no create but rather supports a creative player which isnt a quality you want of a halfback or 5-8 if they dont have a dominate partner.

 

[caylo]

Have you seen Mcguire play recently? He played hooker primarily at his club, and back in the day he was both a halfback and a five-eighth. A utility, just an older one than Tom Humble. He may very well play at halfback, but it is most likely he would either be the starting hooker or simply played as a utility off the bench. I think you are assuming though that a) Humble or Mcguire will play five-eighth and b) that Mortimer will play halfback. I think most agree Mortimer is a five-eighth over a halfback. With Brad Murray, the thing is caylo - and this is what many have been saying regarding Humble as well - is that stepping up to first-grade, especially when you are so young and a half, is very difficult. Performing well in the NYC means nothing to how you might go in regards to being selected. The NRL is several cuts above the NYC. Mortimer apparently wasn't great in the NYC but he had a strong debut regardless (in 2009). But Mortimer is more the exception than the common, and look at how badly he performed in the next season.

box read stuff more carfully, I clearly stated that Robson and Mortimer where the starting options at 6 and 7 with MaGuire likley to start at 9 (speculation atm). I also stated that he is an option for 5-8 if Mortimer struggles and even when MaGuire was interviewed he said that he has never realy played halfback and mainly played as a 5-8. I doubt before he went the UK he would have played more than a handful of games at halfback. If Morts, Humble and Murray arnt up for next year and all our halves are struggling I think we should stick with MaGuire and Robson in the halves because their experiance will help and maybe Mitchell could be given more time at hooker.

Plus humble performed in QLD cup and NSW cup, you say that you dont want to play them because their young but you are contradicting yourself by saying Mortimer should play. ATM we dont have the luxtury of bringing up halves slowly, we need to take some risks if we are going to do well next year.

 

[boxhead]

box read stuff more carfully, I clearly stated that Robson and Mortimer where the starting options at 6 and 7 with MaGuire likley to start at 9 (speculation atm). I also stated that he is an option for 5-8 if Mortimer struggles and even when MaGuire was interviewed he said that he has never realy played halfback and mainly played as a 5-8. I doubt before he went the UK he would have played more than a handful of games at halfback. If Morts, Humble and Murray arnt up for next year and all our halves are struggling I think we should stick with MaGuire and Robson in the halves because their experiance will help and maybe Mitchell could be given more time at hooker.

Plus humble performed in QLD cup and NSW cup, you say that you dont want to play them because their young but you are contradicting yourself by saying Mortimer should play. ATM we dont have the luxtury of bringing up halves slowly, we need to take some risks if we are going to do well next year.

I'm not contradicting myself by saying Mortimer should play, I'm saying that at least he has first-grade experience and it really is the only reason the others haven't been picked over him. And I go off what Kearney said too.
I don't really think Mortimer should play, but the coach has spoken and I'm all inclined to listen. Frankly that's all that really matters to me at this point, if you noticed in my posts I'm not saying anything about Mortimer's talents but more about the other options we have and how they may not be better options than sticking with Mortimer. If Mortimer gets dropped for poor form in 2011 then it doesn't bother me, but it's just why this pre-season discussion has me on edge; the coach has spoken, he has a far better opinion than us and we aren't giving his ideas as much leeway as we should. Not saying you aren't but some people are.

 

[mrpwnd]

No id say Kimmorley was the best last year

Really? I'd back him as a solid 1 on 1 defender and his kick and chase has really developed over the years, but considering his age and experience in first grade it's a given.

Robson is a good defender front on but stuggles to read defence sometimes.

Funny, I think you could cite just about any player in the NRL for occasional defensive lapses, it's like saying Hindy is a sh*tty defender because he got palmed like a fly against the Sharks, but we all know he's more than that.

I actually think Sandow is a better defender then Mortz even thou he misses more tackles,

So, he misses more tackles and is more prone to leave his own defensive line only to get hammered. Sounds to me he's more of a defensive liability than Morts, fyi most defensive gameplans revolve around the halves doing as little defensive work as possible so as to maximize their efficiency in attack.

Mortimer hangs in the line and gets involves as a 3rd defender more often while sandow can take down a player one on one. Mortz is no more then a speed bump

He hangs in the line and with good reason, he doesn't let his own defensive power-ego to get ahead of the team. Some people forget that defense is predominantly a team effort. He may struggle in getting players one on one but if I were to have a set of defensive halves I'd surely have him over Sandow any time of the day. He may be a speed bump to the likes of Idris or Inglis etc etc, but at the very least he's not rushing out of the line and missing stupid tackles like Sandow does.

 

[Eelementary]

so hold on Keating makes 20 tackles a match and misses 1 while Mortimer makes 24 tackles a match and misses 4.

Mortimer makes four more tackles a match but misses 3 more. He may be a good defender for his size, you can consider him gutsy but he isnt a good defender. As halfback or 5-8 goes he is actually a poor defender.

He weighs 10kg wringing wet and has everyone run at him all game and still makes 85% of his tackles - and he's a poor defender?

FMD.

 

[Eelementary]

This is getting ridicolous, the halves are not out there for their tackling skill or workrate in defence. I still think he is a 5/8 and not a half but it will all be about what he offers in the attack that will matter and his defence is good enough to be out there.

That's all fine and dandy in theory, but when the reality is:

* you weight 79kg;
* you're partnered up in defense with Feleti Mateo (aka Laziest McDefender);
* you get people running at you all game that are twice your size,

any half is going to struggle. It's no secret - run your big men at Lockyer all game and his attack will suffer. Ditto for Thurston, Cronk and every other elite half.

Mortimer is TINY. He was partnered with a very questionable player defensively. And he had people twice his size running at him all game. It's no wonder he had nothing left in the tank to attack.

 

[Eelementary]

No id say Kimmorley was the best last year, Robson is a good defender front on but stuggles to read defence sometimes. I actually think Sandow is a better defender then Mortz even thou he misses more tackles, Mortimer hangs in the line and gets involves as a 3rd defender more often while sandow can take down a player one on one. Mortz is no more then a speed bump


How can someone who misses more tackles not be considered a speed bump and be considered a better defender? That makes no sense, and it shows an agenda.


No offence but what are you smoking, last year mortimer couldnt even pass the ball. He has no idea most of the time, very often he recieved the ball with time and space and got smashed or did something dumb. Robson looked to organise the team and feed the ball to the outside, he is no Prince but was much better then Mortz IMO. Remember Robson spent half the year playing hooker too.



But more often than not Mortimer got the ball after a bad pass from Keating and he had defenders up in his face and rushing a bad decision. He made bad decisions, true - but his service wasn't exactly great.



I actually said sub par meaning he is worse then the majority. If i think of halfback I would say Pearce, Cronk, Mullen, Prince, Wallace, Kimmorley and Hornsby are easily better defenders and Mortz fits in somewhere in the mix below

Isn't it funny how all the blokes you mentioned are: (1) bigger than Mortimer; and (2) have locks/back-rowers who can actually tackle partnering them? Mateo, for all his attacking flair, is lazy and cannot read defensively.



There were plenty of alternatives that is just bull. Last year we had Humble who looks to have a better developed skill set, a stronger defender and just as good a support player. Then there is KK, irrespective of how inconsistant he was he showed alot more the Mortz at any stage of the year and Robson who was our best performing half IMO. Plus MK player 5-8 for wenty and performed pretty well and could have been given a shot, he definatly has a better passing and kicking game then morts and he is a genuinly good defender.


You're saying Humble has a better skill set after 3 First Grade games? The only thing he did was score a couple of tries.

We didn't have "plenty" of alternatives that were viable. Kris Keating was a more seasoned player than Mortimer and was unable to do much of anything. Humble, for whatever reason, got no game time - perhaps indicating that the coach thought he wasn't ready, or that his best position is at fullback and there is now way he is dislodging Hayne.


This year we have Murray, Humble, Robson and Bruest who could quite easily replace Mortz plus Magurie, Mitchell and MK who arnt genuine halves but can be thrown in.


Murray and Bruest are totally unproven and will not "easily" replace Robson or Mortimer. That leaves Humble, Mitchell (why?) and Matt Keating. If you hate Mortimer so much I doubt Mitchell would impress you in the halves (nor should he - he is our only genuine spark from dummy-half), and Matt Keating....Did you see him play for Wenty? He has skills, sure, and he can defend. But his instincts in the halves are no better than Mortimer's.


Last year I honestly would have prefered Reddy at 5-8 then Mortz he was that bad.


And then who do put at centre?


Also those that use Mortz experiance as a reason to pick him in the NRL is funny, the kid has played less the 50 NRL games and failed in most of the (maybe 30). That isnt a compeling argument

But throwing in two kids in Murray and Bruest who haven't played a single First Grade game is a better argument?

 

[caylo]

Murray and Bruest are totally unproven and will not "easily" replace Robson or Mortimer. That leaves Humble, Mitchell (why?) and Matt Keating. If you hate Mortimer so much I doubt Mitchell would impress you in the halves (nor should he - he is our only genuine spark from dummy-half), and Matt Keating....Did you see him play for Wenty? He has skills, sure, and he can defend. But his instincts in the halves are no better than Mortimer's.


But throwing in two kids in Murray and Bruest who haven't played a single First Grade game is a better argument?

Mortz and Robson will start round one... no arguing there

Senario 1) Mortz and Robson play well then no changes need

BUT

Senario 2) Mortz struggles, who do you play. I would have Humble and MaGuire would be the best options. If MaGuire is doing well at hooker and Humble is performing then I would play Humble in the 6 if Humble isnt performing I would move MaGuire to 6.

Senario 3) Robson is struggling, this is hard to you play Murray or Bruest with an inexperianced Mortz? I thinks that is too big a risk. I dont think Mortz is an option for the 7 so MaGuire would be the best option IMO. If Murray was in super form and pushing selection then you could consider a Murray or Mortz half pairing.

Senario 4) Robson and Mortz both are struggling then what do you do. In this senario I would possibly consider MK to partner someone like Murray or Humble because even though he lacks vision he is a strong defender and has a strong kicking and passing game so he can spread the ball and play a structured game. MaGuire would be the other option to also partner because he has experiance and has pretty good vision.

At no stage have i said that I think Murray, bruest, MK or Mitchell should start in the halves they are a last resort. Murray would probably the only one that can force his way in to the halves at full strength if he performs like T.Smith did early on.

The Halves are a choice between Mortz, Robson, MaGuire and Humble. I was of the opinion that Humble should have started ahead of because of Mortz poor performances last year but I have said that I understand why Kearney has picked Mortz. Even thou Mortz has more first grade experiance I think Humble has performed better in the juniors then Mortz and he was Wentys best back last year. If you watched wenty games you would have noticed that he distributes well to the players outwide and IMO has better vision. Most of Wentys tries came of the back of Humble or Mitchell and that is why i wanted humble there.

Does that explain it better.

 

[overandout]

There is a young bloke from Morts junior club (Orange Cyms) by the name of Jack Wighton who I believe will become a better player than Morts.
Unfortunatley Rocket Rod didnt see that a few years ago when Parra would of had a great chance of signing him.

Speaking to a photographer who covers all the Schoolboys tours of UK and has seen Peirce, Sandow Faloua etc and he said this kid is going to be better than the lot of them.

Will be interesting to see what happens but obviously the Raiders rated him well above Bruest.