Luciano Leilua

[BennyV]

After watching ISP today he is still the best of the younger brigade.

Leilua or Host?!

 

[2010]

If you compare the build on our first grade forwards and you compare Luc to them Luc needs a lot of work. A lot of work in my opinion

 

[Old Timer]

How many minutes should he have got?
At whose expense and at what stage of the game?
I would’ve liked to see him come on for Frizz and get 12-15 minutes at the end. But I don’t think it would’ve been right to pull Frizz or Sims off earlier when the game was still in the balance. As it was we got to close out the game with Ah Mau back on after a rest and if host had come on 5 minutes earlier I don’t think you could really fault the use of the bench that game.

You only look in hindsight as do many others in this place.
Because we won in your opinion the tactics were therefore correct.
Then you use terms like "the game was in the balance" so again justifying the bazaar way Mc Fookknuckle uses the bench and not getting the spare forward into the game.
I would have had Host on before Latimore and Mann and rejigged the back 3 to accommodate it.
If you like others believe that Sims, Vaughan, Frizz and JDB are all origin prospects if not certainties then the way we have used Sele & Host is pathetic and how would you expect them to be able to knock out long, productive and relatively mistake free minutes when they get such little game time?

 

[denis preston]

How many minutes should he have got?
At whose expense and at what stage of the game?
I would’ve liked to see him come on for Frizz and get 12-15 minutes at the end. But I don’t think it would’ve been right to pull Frizz or Sims off earlier when the game was still in the balance. As it was we got to close out the game with Ah Mau back on after a rest and if host had come on 5 minutes earlier I don’t think you could really fault the use of the bench that game.

What ?? The commentators were going off about fatigue on both sides after 20 minutes ! Also after 15 in the second half. THIS is the time IMO that Host should have been put on. The big picture here is playing all 17 good minutes surely is going to help stifle burnout. FFS you would think the club was under some health & safety rule regarding players under 23 !

 

[The Damo]

You only look in hindsight as do many others in this place.
Because we won in your opinion the tactics were therefore correct.
Then you use terms like "the game was in the balance" so again justifying the bazaar way Mc Fookknuckle uses the bench and not getting the spare forward into the game.
I would have had Host on before Latimore and Mann and rejigged the back 3 to accommodate it.
If you like others believe that Sims, Vaughan, Frizz and JDB are all origin prospects if not certainties then the way we have used Sele & Host is pathetic and how would you expect them to be able to knock out long, productive and relatively mistake free minutes when they get such little game time?

Just trying to have a conversation OT.
So you’d play Host in the middle? For how many minutes? Replacing Vaughan or Jack?
I do think the middle rotation is pretty good
Vaughan and graham played 47
Ah Mau and Latimore played 33
Jack and Mann split 58/22
I’d prefer to see graham and Ah Mau a more even split, and I’d like Latimore and Sele to rotate that second prop position. But the Mann and Jack split is frankly excellent tactics and is working a treat.
So to me Host should only be playing on the edge, and I think we’re better with Frizz and Sims playing the majority of the 80. Between getting hopefully 15ish minutes on an edge in first grade and 80 most weeks in ISP in his best position this will prep him better than 20 mins in the middle. And will be better for the team performance.
And it’s pretty clear the tactics weren’t wrong- because we won, vs a team you clearly thought was a dangerous test.
So please - specify what minutes, in what position would be better. I’d be interested to hear.

 

[The Damo]

What ?? The commentators were going off about fatigue on both sides after 20 minutes ! Also after 15 in the second half. THIS is the time IMO that Host should have been put on. The big picture here is playing all 17 good minutes surely is going to help stifle burnout. FFS you would think the club was under some health & safety rule regarding players under 23 !

Then explain exactly how the subs should work dude - who plays less? Vaughan? Jack? Where does Host play - middle or edge? How should the 8 subs work differently? Don’t just exclaim extravagantly - make an argument. Is it asking to much of first grade props to play 47 minutes?

 

[Old Timer]

Just trying to have a conversation OT.
So you’d play Host in the middle? For how many minutes? Replacing Vaughan or Jack?
I do think the middle rotation is pretty good
Vaughan and graham played 47
Ah Mau and Latimore played 33
Jack and Mann split 58/22
I’d prefer to see graham and Ah Mau a more even split, and I’d like Latimore and Sele to rotate that second prop position. But the Mann and Jack split is frankly excellent tactics and is working a treat.
So to me Host should only be playing on the edge, and I think we’re better with Frizz and Sims playing the majority of the 80. Between getting hopefully 15ish minutes on an edge in first grade and 80 most weeks in ISP in his best position this will prep him better than 20 mins in the middle. And will be better for the team performance.
And it’s pretty clear the tactics weren’t wrong- because we won, vs a team you clearly thought was a dangerous test.
So please - specify what minutes, in what position would be better. I’d be interested to hear.

Not sure you quite get the picture here.
We are going to lose several forwards to SOO and potentially some will get some niggling injuries and will need a break.
Therefore the likes of Host & / or Sele are going to be required to play big minutes in 1st grade not the pissy little minutes they now play when the do get selected.
ISP will help with match fitness to a degree but the only preparation to handle the rigours of 1st grade is to in fact play 1st grade.
Host is not a centre 3rd player he is an edge back rower and if we lose Sims and Frizzell to SOO Host will be required to play almost the entire game so do you really think 7 minutes in a 1st grade game is any sort of preparation to handle that pressure?
So when JDB goes off for a break Host to edge and either Frizz or Sims to take the lock position.
Whilst I do like Mann's cameos at the back of the scrum the simple fact is that he is a seasoned 1st grade player and can come into the game and fit straight in but that is not the case with Host or Sele and they need to have many more minutes in the top grade to be prepared for what they will have to do in the near future.
Mc Fookknuckle just refuses to do it and f**ks around with Latimore and Mann eating up the minutes.
We don't have 1 young forward that is getting the benefit of good coaching and planning and if they all decide to piss off and get a crack somewhere else then we will have a roster full of Latimore's and Allgoods who are happy to get limited minutes and we will again become a second rate team full of journeymen.

 

[Crush]

I think this year we will only be without our origin players for one game.
ONE GAME.....

 

[Old Timer]

I think this year we will only be without our origin players for one game.
ONE GAME.....

So you don't think we will have any injuries or fatigue just as many thought the same last year and how did that work out for us?
Just admit the fact that we don't promote youth very well especially in the forwards.
When push comes to shove we will as usual have players not well enough skilled for the rigours of big minutes in 1st grade.
For so many in this place a win justifies the means and no regard for the length of the season and making sure we get it right at the business end of it.
The current tactics will only work if we go though win no injuries or fatigue whatsoever and we all know that will not be the case or at least the realistic supporters do.

 

[Old Timer]

Is it asking to much of first grade props to play 47 minutes?

That in fact is the wrong question to ask.
The correct question to ask is
When the players who currently play 47 minutes are unavailable is it too much to ask players who get 7 minutes of 1st grade on an irregular basis to step into their shoes and perform at a high level?
What preparation do novice players need to fill the void left when we have injuries to established players who play long minutes?

 

[Forster Dragon]

Leilua or Host?!

leilua

 

[Saint_JimmyG]

I realise contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on - just ask Gorden Tallis - but I thought Leiliua extended his tenure with SGI earlier this year.

Is this incorrect?

 

[ouryears]

Not sure you quite get the picture here.
We are going to lose several forwards to SOO and potentially some will get some niggling injuries and will need a break.
Therefore the likes of Host & / or Sele are going to be required to play big minutes in 1st grade not the pissy little minutes they now play when the do get selected.
ISP will help with match fitness to a degree but the only preparation to handle the rigours of 1st grade is to in fact play 1st grade.
Host is not a centre 3rd player he is an edge back rower and if we lose Sims and Frizzell to SOO Host will be required to play almost the entire game so do you really think 7 minutes in a 1st grade game is any sort of preparation to handle that pressure?
So when JDB goes off for a break Host to edge and either Frizz or Sims to take the lock position.
Whilst I do like Mann's cameos at the back of the scrum the simple fact is that he is a seasoned 1st grade player and can come into the game and fit straight in but that is not the case with Host or Sele and they need to have many more minutes in the top grade to be prepared for what they will have to do in the near future.
Mc Fookknuckle just refuses to do it and f**ks around with Latimore and Mann eating up the minutes.
We don't have 1 young forward that is getting the benefit of good coaching and planning and if they all decide to piss off and get a crack somewhere else then we will have a roster full of Latimore's and Allgoods who are happy to get limited minutes and we will again become a second rate team full of journeymen.

Well I prefer to play our best week after week and keep winning, honestly, stuff the replacements!

When we need them they will just have to step up, if we win 10 because we play our best week after week... but lose 2 because the replacements aren't up to it come SOO, I can handle that.

Better than losing more games by not playing our best week after week.

Watching Host in ISP, he isn't first grade material if you ask me. Latimore is so far ahead it ain't funny.

Play our best week after week, and Host can step up if he has the ability when we need him.

If he doesn't step up.....ruthlessly I would not re-sign him.

 

[Old Timer]

Well I prefer to play our best week after week and keep winning, honestly, stuff the replacements!

When we need them they will just have to step up, if we win 10 because we play our best week after week... but lose 2 because the replacements aren't up to it come SOO, I can handle that.

Better than losing more games by not playing our best week after week.

Watching Host in ISP, he isn't first grade material if you ask me. Latimore is so far ahead it ain't funny.

Play our best week after week, and Host can step up if he has the ability when we need him.

If he doesn't step up.....ruthlessly I would not re-sign him.

What a doomsayer you really are and posters like you think posters like OV and me are pessimists what a f**king joke you people really are.
Somehow you conjure up the thought that by changing something (even for potentially the better) we will somehow instantly lose.
Then you come up with the classic statement "When we need them they will just have to step up" well how do you really expect that to happen when they don't get a go and you will be one of there first to dish them and say I told you they weren't good enough rather than saying we didn't prepare them well enough.
Then you top it off by saying you are willing to lose 2 games just to keep picking what you think is our best squad.
Your faith in the squad is paper thin but your faith in the coach (and your rabbit's foot) is steadfast whereas I have lots of faith in the squad and not a hell of a lot in the coach and his tactics.
I can assure you the coach and his current tactics will lose you a lot more games than the squad will and you better get to church everyday and pray that we don't lose players to rep games or to injury because if we do, the current tactics by the coach which you so proudly endorse will be the tactics of a rabbit in the headlights.

 

[ALSGI]

What a doomsayer you really are and posters like you think posters like OV and me are pessimists what a f**king joke you people really are.
Somehow you conjure up the thought that by changing something (even for potentially the better) we will somehow instantly lose.
Then you come up with the classic statement "When we need them they will just have to step up" well how do you really expect that to happen when they don't get a go and you will be one of there first to dish them and say I told you they weren't good enough rather than saying we didn't prepare them well enough.
Then you top it off by saying you are willing to lose 2 games just to keep picking what you think is our best squad.
Your faith in the squad is paper thin but your faith in the coach (and your rabbit's foot) is steadfast whereas I have lots of faith in the squad and not a hell of a lot in the coach and his tactics.
I can assure you the coach and his current tactics will lose you a lot more games than the squad will and you better get to church everyday and pray that we don't lose players to rep games or to injury because if we do, the current tactics by the coach which you so proudly endorse will be the tactics of a rabbit in the headlights.

Pessimists are usually right and optimists are usually wrong but all the great changes have been accomplished by optimists.
Thomas L. Friedman

 

[Old Timer]

Pessimists are usually right and optimists are usually wrong but all the great changes have been accomplished by optimists.
Thomas L. Friedman

What about "poptimists" as I try to have a foot in both camps?

 

[ALSGI]

OT, LL has been given a decent crack, starting in 2016, allowed to develop in reggies last year, and looked like a rabbit in headlights this year. His signing is to me a sign that he’s been supported and developed.
Field was given a shot last year, needs more time in reggies. Lawrie, Host, Sele all been given a shot and they’re still developing. Garrick was given a shot in trials, as was Lomax. Being named in the 21 is in it self a sign of support and part of their development.
That’s atleast 7 players that have had a taste of FG and our coaches have deemed them not ready, yet.

Sure doesn’t look like the way I’d develop them but the most senior teams I’ve coached are u13’s (soccer).

Hope the coaches know what they’re doing, the way we’re playing this year and our position on the ladder suggests they have some idea, a much better idea than last few years.

We will need some of these guys this year and I hope they rise to the occassion like Dufty did last year.

I’m optomistic they will.

 

[Old Timer]

OT, LL has been given a decent crack, starting in 2016, allowed to develop in reggies last year, and looked like a rabbit in headlights this year. His signing is to me a sign that he’s been supported and developed.
Field was given a shot last year, needs more time in reggies. Lawrie, Host, Sele all been given a shot and they’re still developing. Garrick was given a shot in trials, as was Lomax. Being named in the 21 is in it self a sign of support and part of their development.
That’s atleast 7 players that have had a taste of FG and our coaches have deemed them not ready, yet.

Sure doesn’t look like the way I’d develop them but the most senior teams I’ve coached are u13’s (soccer).

Hope the coaches know what they’re doing, the way we’re playing this year and our position on the ladder suggests they have some idea, a much better idea than last few years.

We will need some of these guys this year and I hope they rise to the occassion like Dufty did last year.

I’m optomistic they will.

Forwards playing 7 minutes off the bench when a game is winding down does absolutely nothing for their development and in fact hinders it.
It is about as useful as joining the training run when they are doing there cool down and about to jump in the ice bath.
20 -30 minutes in the heat of battle is where you learn the real art of your trade and LL is suffering because he never had to do that in the lower grades as he was just bigger than everyone else and is now found wanting in the big time.
Nothing better for a players development then when he is put on the ground he is trusted to do his job and the players around him rely on him at crucial times and that doesn't happen when you run out with 7 to go in a match you can't lose.

 

[Coffs dragon]

Luch is young & a work in progress to reach his potential. If he stays that's good, but if he leaves then the coaching staff have simply run out of patience & belief.
I can't see him being any different at Canberra under Ricky, they seem to have an abundant of overweight lazy forwards already.
Personally,I do hope our club sticks with him and he works hard.

 

[avocado]

I've been critical of McGregor's bench use. And will continue to do so until he starts to listen. Or change.
The time to bring on Host was late first half or 15 min into second half. But by the time McGregor looked down at his interchange sheet and realised he'd only used 16 players, the game was getting tight and was not the right time to bring in an inexperienced forward at such a crucial time on such a big stage. It could have been disastrous.

What a doomsayer you really are and posters like you think posters like OV and me are pessimists what a f**king joke you people really are.

There may be a back story to this, but was that really necessary?