dazeely said:
Doesn't say a thing.
How can you compare a halfback's work rate to a winger's?
Also, I'm assuming that that means Burt made 2 tackles - he completed 1 and missed 1.
Sure, on the face of it it's bad - a 50% completion rate.
But what about Grothe? I'm sure he made more and missed more tackles than Burt.
He also made more errors which could have been more costly (offloading to nobody, dropping the ball and arm-grabbing, just to name a few).
Just once and for all, can we drop the name tags please?
No more of this "Burt basher" or "Burt lover" rubbish.
I am usually very critical of Luke Burt, because he is usually heart-attack material.
His game against the Warriors was not a 10/10 effort, but a 6, maybe even 6.5 out of ten I would say is appropriate.
After all, the day a winger makes 20 tackles in a match, we know the game has taken a turn for the worse.
Wingers are attacking machines. Excitement machines - I would sooner have a player with Eric Grothe's attacking skills and his defensive lapses than with the defence of Hindmarsh and the attack of Witt.
You can cover up the issues - if Burt's struggling under the high ball, make him swap places with Tahu in defence. It's simple.
