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!
How about something simple like, he was totally in charge in 2016 and did not act on suggestions from others. In the off-season the football committee did it's research and arranged meetings to resolve on-field problems. Of course Mary was a part of the prcess and was at the meetings however, he was the problem and most probably counselled prior to listen and be positive.
Because the cream of the crop normally rises to the top with the stats reflecting this especially in the case of players like Smith, Cronk and Thurston, with both of the latter, featuring heavily in those very same statistics.
As the argument that their loss will dramatically decrease the sides performance, although as highlighted by our performances without Dugan this year, there is a chance it will not have the affect you are alluding to.
Hunt is a half Duges a FB so no correlation.
Difficult to answer considering we do not know yet who the replacements will be. The question could be asked that if we had met their demands, who would we have lost in their place?
As soon as we find out who the replacements are, we will have a clearer indication as whether we have gone backwards or not.
Again, another issue that needs to be addressed once they have signed contracts, be it with us or someone else. Most likely we would have lost all three had Dugan and Packer been retained on similar figures to which they signed.
It would have given us an excellent chance of that occurring. But one way or the other, we were always going to lose a few players with Hunt coming. In this case, Packer really did get offered ridiculous money that I wouldn't have matched. Dugan, well in the big scheme for whatever reason I do not care as much about.
Its yet to be seen if we are actually further from the prize without them. I think it has been demonstrated over the last few weeks that missing a quality half is much more of an issue than missing a limited fullback. We are yet to see who will be retained and if any replacements will be signed. Personally, it was disappointing to see Packer go and I suppose a little with Dugan, but I really am not too stressed at this point.
That is your opinion but whatever. Stats are the one thing that doesn't lie and sure, he may not be in the same echelon as those guys, but he is still a good halfback that has helped his team win plenty of games, which is a stat you cannot argue with.
A moot point? A poor hypothetical, but if we had Ben Hunt, we most likely win the Sharks game and the Roosters game and I'd suggest we win several other games much more comfortably. The loss of Dugan in the games he has missed has been much less felt than the loss of a good quality half in Widdop.
According to some No, it's a mess apparently.
We are dancing around the issue. The problem is Millward and he will only be shown the door when it is realised he has not got what it takes. Yes he is learning on the job but my take is that he jumps to the easy tasks and struggles to handle the more difficult tasks.
I am sure we will and the feeling will be just as sweet. This year we are showing the league we are a force in all facets of the game.
I was lucky enough to be around at the end of the great run and that was surrounded more more a tinge of sadness when it ended rather than the great legacy of what it all meant.
My daughter was 14yrs when I took her to the GF in 2010, I said to her "I was your age when I watched them win there last GF after camping overnight at the SCG, I hope you don't have to wait as long as me for their next premiership !!!
Your win loss ratio isn't very good.
My GF attendance is
