J. Hayne

[Dr Crane]

Hmm. Must have missed Inu's 2 tries, Burt's goal-kicking and Reddy's shutting down of his opposite number.

:roll:

that's the point, champ.

 

[Eelementary]

Another display of poor sportsmanship with that dive after the little bump from Hannant. He is as much a great player as he is a wanker!

That wasn't a dive. I've criticised him in the past for taking dives (see: Thaiday a few years ago), but that was not a dive. A dive implies he was milking it - he staid down, but was looking at the ball.

That was 100% the referee's fault.

 

[Dr Crane]

Loudstrat has a point though - no-one has any problem with Inglis (or Thurston) not turning up for half the season.

i do.

 

[Eelementary]

The issue is that with Hayne Parramatta are scrambling their way in to a top 8 spot now. They will have to do it the hard way because Hayne (and the rest of the team) were so rubbish for the first half of the season.

The Dragons and Tiges are in a much better position finals wise.

Would I rather a consistently good player over a flashy genius who goes missing for the majority of the season? Yes.

He didn't go missing - he was playing a totally different style of footy.

All this talk of him missing for the first 16 rounds...NFI.

Fact: Daniel Anderson wanted him to reign in his flashy plays and roll up his sleeves and do the hard work. He still made plenty of metres per game and was up there with try and linebreak assists.

As for this consistency argument...

(1) He's 22. How many 22 year olds are there that play brilliantly the whole season?

(2) Premierships aren't won in the March through July window.

I agree that it would be nice to have had a few more wins under our belts so that we weren't "playing for our season" now until the end of the season. But what's the bloody point playing the first 16 round at your best if you're going to fizzle out come the Finals?

 

[Eelementary]

that's the point, champ.

What was the point? It seemed to imply the only player worth feeding in our backline is Hayne. Clearly not the case.

 

[typicalfan]

The issue is that with Hayne Parramatta are scrambling their way in to a top 8 spot now. They will have to do it the hard way because Hayne (and the rest of the team) were so rubbish for the first half of the season.

The Dragons and Tiges are in a much better position finals wise.

Would I rather a consistently good player over a flashy genius who goes missing for the majority of the season? Yes.

But Hayne played well when the pressure is on, something the Lockyer, Thurston, C Smith style players all do. How many sudden death games did he play well in a row in 2009? at least a dozen maybe more. These are the games where the best players come to the fore. What pressure is on a team in round 1? If you lose you get another crack next week that isn't pressure.

Parramatta made the grand final last year and I bet teams like the Tigers and Dragons are fearful of a firing Eels side in the finals. Would I rather a consistently good player that doesn't have that next level or a player that wins me the big games? I will go player number 2 every time.

Oh and Lockyer has had quiet patches in the season, he rarely fires from round 1-26 BUT he lifts for the big occasion and that is why he is the best.

 

[AuDragon]

That wasn't a dive. I've criticised him in the past for taking dives (see: Thaiday a few years ago), but that was not a dive. A dive implies he was milking it - he staid down, but was looking at the ball.

That was 100% the referee's fault.

That's BS!
His facial expression says it all. He acted like Hannant had hit him at full force (I really wish he had), while it was overwhelmingly clear that Hannant held in and merely bumped him...
You are right that it is the ref's fault for falling for it, but I really would like to see the MRC charge him for this pathetic acting.

 

[Chook Norris]

That's BS!
His facial expression says it all. He acted like Hannant had hit him at full force (I really wish he had), while it was overwhelmingly clear that Hannant held in and merely bumped him...
You are right that it is the ref's fault for falling for it, but I really would like to see the MRC charge him for this pathetic acting.

i wouldn't say he dived at all though, perhaps he exaggerated it... but the moment he kicked it, he was in the air.. when you have a 110kg prop running towards you of course you're gonna fall onto the ground whilst mid-air

 

[typicalfan]

It is not like he did a Matt Bowen and hide his face from the camera to wait for a penalty.

 

[Eels Dude]

That's BS!
His facial expression says it all. He acted like Hannant had hit him at full force (I really wish he had), while it was overwhelmingly clear that Hannant held in and merely bumped him...
You are right that it is the ref's fault for falling for it, but I really would like to see the MRC charge him for this pathetic acting.

You can't hit the player late at all these days after they kick it. Would have been a penalty regardless. 99% of the time when players attempt to put pressure on the kicker they've been able to back out and thus avoid getting penalised. Hannant didn't, he took that risk and failed, fair penalty no matter how you look at it.

 

[oldmancraigy]

i wouldn't say he dived at all though, perhaps he exaggerated it... but the moment he kicked it, he was in the air.. when you have a 110kg prop running towards you of course you're gonna fall onto the ground whilst mid-air

So because someone knows the rules and accentuates them in order for the ref to make the correct call you're upset?

Hannant is the melon head here - why contact a kicker in the air while making no effort to even pretend to play at the ball?? Softest penalty given - but the fault is not the referees or Haynes, it is Hannants.

 

[Chook Norris]

So because someone knows the rules and accentuates them in order for the ref to make the correct call you're upset?

umm...... where on earth did i say i was upset? My opinion is basically in accordance with yours. I said the penalty was rightly given, if you bothered to read my post in full rather than two words

 

[Tiger_Tim]

What was the point? It seemed to imply the only player worth feeding in our backline is Hayne. Clearly not the case.

He's saying that Hayne is the only one in the Parra backline that gets any wraps - all those other guys deserve some attention too

 

[Ladmate]

Farah/Thurston in 07 had a better year than Hayne did in 09. They got more points overall in the Dally M's, but in Farah's case, since he was against decent opposition, he didn't win.

 

[Ladmate]

If it was that simple how come Slater kept getting smashed in his first year at fullback for QLD?

Maybe it has something to do with the other 12 players putting in as well? Last night the go forward in attack and defence from Parra was awesome. The work of Ben Smith, Fui etc made the environment for Hayne to do his bit


Silverware? Medals, maybe. Silverware? What - Heather's got his grandmother's jug? Nice.....


These Hayne threads are rediculous. Geez - which player could do what he did last night? He's brilliant. He's also not the only brilliant player in the comp - some at the end of their careers like Heather, some mid career like Benji, some early like Hayne. Yet, Hayne has a blinder, and everyone bags him - he should have also scores 2 tries in 6 minutes, set up another 2 in the next 12, and made the tackle of the season in round 4 as well. FFS!

How come Inglis never gets the MIA tag - when was his last MOM performance in a Storm jumper from rounds 1-26?

I give it to him every week, basically useless for the storm. Waste of 400k. Only good for rep games and finals.

 

[Avenger]

Farah/Thurston in 07 had a better year than Hayne did in 09. They got more points overall in the Dally M's, but in Farah's case, since he was against decent opposition, he didn't win.

Both top shelf players. However of the two only Thurston has consistently grabbed a game by the scruff of the neck and won it by himself on numerous occasions.

I still however think that Hayne can do things that Thurston cannot. Hayne when in the zone is on another level and captures the imagination of fans. He will go down as the greatest player that the Eels have ever produced and if he is fortunate enough to jag a few comps will be known as the best of them all.

 

[Ladmate]

Both top shelf players. However of the two only Thurston has consistently grabbed a game by the scruff of the neck and won it by himself on numerous occasions.

I still however think that Hayne can do things that Thurston cannot. Hayne when in the zone is on another level and captures the imagination of fans. He will go down as the greatest player that the Eels have ever produced and if he is fortunate enough to jag a few comps will be known as the best of them all.

I agree. I was just using stupid Dally M logic that some people here use.

 

[chrisD]

Inglis doesn't get a free ride for going missing. I've heard plenty of critisism, all just, the guys head is in the dream time.

On topic, I don't remember so can someone who does tell us if Lockyer had Haynes ball playing skills and instinct when he played fullback? Could he inject himself into the backline like Hayne does and do it all from there? Short ball, long ball, chip, grubber or just beat the defense himself? From memory Lockyer didn't, rather he slotted into the backline as a deep second man the same way Slater and Boyd are used.

 

[Avenger]

Inglis doesn't get a free ride for going missing. I've heard plenty of critisism, all just, the guys head is in the dream time.

On topic, I don't remember so can someone who does tell us if Lockyer had Haynes ball playing skills and instinct when he played fullback? Could he inject himself into the backline like Hayne does and do it all from there? Short ball, long ball, chip, grubber or just beat the defense himself? From memory Lockyer didn't, rather he slotted into the backline as a deep second man the same way Slater and Boyd are used.

In his day the "little master" Clive Churchill changed the way that fullbacks played the game.

Hayne is doing something similar.

 

[Loudstrat]

Inglis doesn't get a free ride for going missing. I've heard plenty of critisism, all just, the guys head is in the dream time.

On topic, I don't remember so can someone who does tell us if Lockyer had Haynes ball playing skills and instinct when he played fullback? Could he inject himself into the backline like Hayne does and do it all from there? Short ball, long ball, chip, grubber or just beat the defense himself? From memory Lockyer didn't, rather he slotted into the backline as a deep second man the same way Slater and Boyd are used.

Exactly. Lockyer has great peripheral vision, is great running sideways and getting quick changes of direction, has the best short to medium pass in the game, and is a percentage player.

As pivot (I'll divert for a sec), these qualities make him a great player. However, he needs a halfback to get him outside the ruck area and give him a bit of space. Andrew Johns never needed that luxury - and from midfield could hit each winger on the chest with his pass. He played in the teeth of the defence, and some of the off the cuff stuff he did was mind blowing.

Hayne doesn't have the smarts or discipline to play in the 6 or 7, but I reckon he'll end up in the 6 in a few seasons, because he also has a very good short to medium passing game - hence the try to INu last night. But now he is playing the same role that Lockyer pioneered when Brisbane couldn't find a halfback. Lockyer was the more percentage player - yet Hayne is more prone to create stuff out of nothing.

In comparison, someone like Brett Stewart is more of a speed machine that created opportunities for his outside men after his inside men have created half a chance (also essential for Inglis). Slater is somewhere in between.