Luke Walsh

[mxlegend99]

See this is what annoys me. He missed 5 or so games neither Graham or Burns got the Backs to turn their kicks to gold neither has try assists in double figures.

So some credit would have to be given for putting the right weight/height on the kicks

We've scored just as many points without Luke Walsh in the team - the difference is that when he's not in the team we're usually scoring them through quality passing or running game before we get to our kick. When do get to the kick though, I would imagine our success rate from kicks is pretty close to the same regardless of the kicker.

Over our last 3 games we've only looked like a good side when he wasn't on the field:

Finals Week 1: Walsh @ half - we looked average and he kept relying on bombs
Round 26: Graham @ half - the entire team looked great. Our danger men were getting the ball and we didn't need to rely on kicks
Round 25: 1st Half - Walsh @ half - we looked average and he was hugely responsible for us being down 16-0 through not even attempting to tackle
Round 25: 2nd Half - Burns @ half - we scored tries off kicks and our attack looked a lot sharper. But more importantly our defence didn't leak any points after Walsh went off

He did have a fantastic game against the Souths in Round 24. The only time our team has looked truly outstanding without Wade Graham in the halves somewhere. If you look at all the other games where we've carved up or beaten a class side we had Wade Graham in the halves somewhere.

I would love nothing more then for Luke Walsh to come out and have a ripper and show his running game. But in all honesty I think it's far more likely that he'll have an average game in attack and that his defence will hurt us more then his attack helps us.

 

[chanticleer]

If the forwards do their job and get a roll on like in Round 24, Walsh (like most other good halves) will carve up...

The forwards didnt turn up with any intensity Round25 or Finals Week 1 for mine... I feel they will fire up come Saturday

 

[chrisD]

Walsh has played behind a dominant pack for nearly the whole season, that excuse doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Big Mick]

We've scored just as many points without Luke Walsh in the team - the difference is that when he's not in the team we're usually scoring them through quality passing or running game before we get to our kick. When do get to the kick though, I would imagine our success rate from kicks is pretty close to the same regardless of the kicker.

Over our last 3 games we've only looked like a good side when he wasn't on the field:

Finals Week 1: Walsh @ half - we looked average and he kept relying on bombs
Round 26: Graham @ half - the entire team looked great. Our danger men were getting the ball and we didn't need to rely on kicks
Round 25: 1st Half - Walsh @ half - we looked average and he was hugely responsible for us being down 16-0 through not even attempting to tackle
Round 25: 2nd Half - Burns @ half - we scored tries off kicks and our attack looked a lot sharper. But more importantly our defence didn't leak any points after Walsh went off

He did have a fantastic game against the Souths in Round 24. The only time our team has looked truly outstanding without Wade Graham in the halves somewhere. If you look at all the other games where we've carved up or beaten a class side we had Wade Graham in the halves somewhere.

I would love nothing more then for Luke Walsh to come out and have a ripper and show his running game. But in all honesty I think it's far more likely that he'll have an average game in attack and that his defence will hurt us more then his attack helps us.

MX I'm usually with you but totally disagree here.

Firstly he was also the half during the Manly game. So its the Souths game isn't the only game he's one.

Also Wade Graham wasn't the halfback when we played the Tigers and beat them. He wasn't the halfback when we played the Broncos and beat them during their unbeaten run. All that was Luke Walsh.

Everyone is blowing their load over Graham after the Sharks game. That game was nothing. They were on the plane to Bali already ffs.

Name me one other Game Graham himself took the game by the scruff of the neck and we won?

The only other game we won with Graham at Half was against the Dragons...and that was a sh*t game. He did nothing other than score a try...but our attack was rubbish that night. Our kicking was also subpar.

Graham is a good young player but the calls for him to be halfback over Walsh when Walsh has played quite well all year...aside from his defense...are far off the mark.

 

[Kilkenny]

Mitchell Pearce is an outstanding talent with all the attributes of a top class half back and his combination with Todd Carney is surely on e of the best in the game.

 

[Big Mick]

Walsh has played behind a dominant pack for nearly the whole season, that excuse doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Wanna bet?

Watch the games we lost.

Want to watch that and tell me he played behind a dominant pack...if you can...do it. But I guarantee 90% of the losses are the result of forwards not aiming up..our "impact" forwards (Pritchard/Waterhouse) doing SFA and our outside backs just dropping the ball.

 

[Big Mick]

Mitchell Pearce is an outstanding talent with all the attributes of a top class half back and his combination with Todd Carney is surely on e of the best in the game.

Yet he showed nothing last year when he played outside Anasta and behind a beaten pack.

Funny that.

 

[murraymob]

not sure if we all see the same thing when watching a game.And there would be not fun if we did anyway.But a halfback the runs the ball once during a semi final game is just not up to it
When graham played no coinsidence pritchard and jennings got more ball and where far more of a danger in attack.I hope he does run it more for us to have any chance against the goosters he has to

 

[soc123_au]

I still don't think Pearce is that great. I feel a bit sorry for him, filling the old mans shoes was always going to be a big ask. The kid can tackle & has plenty of ticker but I don't get the hype.

 

[Big Mick]

not sure if we all see the same thing when watching a game.And there would be not fun if we did anyway.But a halfback the runs the ball once during a semi final game is just not up to it
When graham played no coinsidence pritchard and jennings got more ball and where far more of a danger in attack.I hope he does run it more for us to have any chance against the goosters he has to

Not saying Walsh was good last week. but it isn't why we lost.

We lost because we had about 4 guys walking wounded and Jennings dropping the ball 4 times.

Walsh should have taken on the line as the games he's played well he has.

I fully expect him to do that tomorrow night. If he doesn't...i'll say he isn't up to it. Until then I still believe he can do the job better than Wade at this point.

Wade over Burns...that's a different story.

 

[chanticleer]

Wanna bet?

Watch the games we lost.

Want to watch that and tell me he played behind a dominant pack...if you can...do it. But I guarantee 90% of the losses are the result of forwards not aiming up..our "impact" forwards (Pritchard/Waterhouse) doing SFA and our outside backs just dropping the ball.

Im 100% with Mick on this...

Bring on those latte boys... Pearce is overrated on 400K pffft

 

[chanticleer]

I still don't think Pearce is that great. I feel a bit sorry for him, filling the old mans shoes was always going to be a big ask. The kid can tackle & has plenty of ticker but I don't get the hype.

The roosters are overhyped and regardless of the result will not make the GF... They are very beatable...

The tigers lost the unlosable last week, terrible goal kicking, losing scrum against the feed, try called back for punch ... Those chooks had ALL the luck

 

[Kilkenny]

Im 100% with Mick on this...

Bring on those latte boys... Pearce is overrated on 400K pffft

1. No one knows what Pearce earns and I suspect it is not 400K although he is not far of being worthy of such earnings.

2. Seriously, leaving aside the outside backs and forward packs how do the halves pairings compare. Burns/Walsh against Dally M winner/Pearce. Seriously we can only hope both Pearce and Carney get game ending injuries in the first couple of minutes in this one otherwise we could be in serious trouble.

 

[Fibroman]

1. No one knows what Pearce earns and I suspect it is not 400K although he is not far of being worthy of such earnings.

2. Seriously, leaving aside the outside backs and forward packs how do the halves pairings compare. Burns/Walsh against Dally M winner/Pearce. Seriously we can only hope both Pearce and Carney get game ending injuries in the first couple of minutes in this one otherwise we could be in serious trouble.

Walsh has deft passes and kicks. Burns is a 100% niggler.

Unless Jennings has the game of his career and Lewis is handling the ball twice in every set,we are history. Sad, but true.

I hate roosters... for the record.

 

[thommo4pm]

The roosters are overhyped and regardless of the result will not make the GF... They are very beatable...

The tigers lost the unlosable last week, terrible goal kicking, losing scrum against the feed, try called back for punch ... Those chooks had ALL the luck

I agree with that, they had some massive things go their way last week the Roosters. I give you guys a big chance tonight.
Keep a straight line on Carney and don't have any lazy inside defenders and you'll be fine. Carney crabs across field waiting for the lazy defender then exploits it.
Everyone works together as a team in defence and he has no options other than the chip over the top and hope for the best.

 

[chrisD]

Wanna bet?

Watch the games we lost.

Want to watch that and tell me he played behind a dominant pack...if you can...do it. But I guarantee 90% of the losses are the result of forwards not aiming up..our "impact" forwards (Pritchard/Waterhouse) doing SFA and our outside backs just dropping the ball.

Second Warriors game is the best example but his inability to create has been obvious for the whole of the year whilst our pack has dominated for nearly the whole of the year. Win or loss it's been self evident. Whether our half is good or not wouldn't have changed the fact that errors cost matches, it's irrelevant. Had he not gotten injured he'd have cost us the game against the Dogs too.

As for the games we won with Walsh at halfback, well put the halves aside and we have on paper arguably the best team in the comp.

We'd be better off with Graham than Walsh because we know what Walsh can do, we've seen his inability to provide our backs with their own opportunities to break the line let alone create some himself, with Graham atleast we have a chance. That and he's without exageration the worst defender in the league and has a very poor long kicking game.

 

[mxlegend99]

Firstly he was also the half during the Manly game. So its the Souths game isn't the only game he's one.

Also Wade Graham wasn't the halfback when we played the Tigers and beat them. He wasn't the halfback when we played the Broncos and beat them during their unbeaten run. All that was Luke Walsh.

He was in the halves in both of those games though - that was my point. In every game (aside from the Souths) we've looked great as a team, Wade Graham was in the side somewhere.

Graham is a good young player but the calls for him to be halfback over Walsh when Walsh has played quite well all year...aside from his defense...are far off the mark.

You have your opinion. I have mine.

IMO Luke Walsh is a defensive liability and his attack is only really on fire 1 in every 10 games or so. He's usually passable in most games, but you can't even say that about his last couple of games. Now that he has come out and said he'll focus on his running game, you can safely bet that he and our team will be horrible. We always fail to deliver on claims we make in the media.

 

[The Realist]

He was in the halves in both of those games though - that was my point. In every game (aside from the Souths) we've looked great as a team, Wade Graham was in the side somewhere.


You have your opinion. I have mine.

IMO Luke Walsh is a defensive liability and his attack is only really on fire 1 in every 10 games or so. He's usually passable in most games, but you can't even say that about his last couple of games. Now that he has come out and said he'll focus on his running game, you can safely bet that he and our team will be horrible. We always fail to deliver on claims we make in the media.

+1 couldn't agree more really.

I'll add also that Walsh seems to NEED Coote. He has barely played a good game without him (exception being against a badly depleted South Sydney side). Graham doesn't seem to need him - even though the Graham Bomb to Coote is a play Elliot has borrowed from the 2008 TC side and adapted to Walsh.

Also Walsh's defence is so horrible it is a nightmare to watch. Wade puts his body on the line.

 

[The Realist]

Hey Big Mick and other Walsh fans. What do you think after watching Andrew John's analyse our Canberra game?

And now what do you think about his running game at half time. That f**king little PR**K mongrel would need to be hooked if not for our injuries.

Someone please run Elliot over with a bus, he is useless bringing in Walsh and the TURTLE in the back row!!!

F**K THIS. I'm over the Panthers.

 

[macnaz]

Honestly how did you come 2nd ? You werent even in the hunt tonight, from the opening whistle you guys were shot, no heart what so ever.