but . . but. . . didn't Monas play hooker and The Ox halfback? And I hate to remind people, but wasn't he playing hooker in the losing Manly grand final team, not the winning one? I know that's a nasty tarnish to put on the guy, but I'm pretty sure that's what happened.
Monas always wanted to play halfback (or 5/8th), but his coaches always preferred him as hooker.
A major reason he went to The Silvertails was that they said he could play halfback, but they subsequently bought The Ox off The Storm, so Monas was back to hooker.
Am I having false memory regression here? He's a hooker in everyone's eyes except his own.
I've always been of the opinion, Moneghan was treated very unfairly by the Manly club and in particular Des Hasler.
In 2005, Michael was our halfback and captain. It's fair to say he wasn't amoungst the top 5 halfbacks in the comp, but he had plenty of potential and was improving week to week. Unfortunately, Des decided he wasn't good enough to be Manly's number 7 and went after Matt Orford.
Now if you remember, Matt was asking for big money and at the time looked to be headed to Souths. Michael was also looking for a contract and the powers at Manly (mostly Des) decided to effectively string him along for as long as they could, until Matt made up his mind. After a couple of weeks of dithering, Max Delmedge stepped in and gave Des the ultimatum....either sign Michael or release him. The word was, Matt had all but agreed to terms with Souths, so Manly finally decided to sign Michael to 3-4 year deal. Then either the next day or the one after, Matt contacts Manly and says he wants to sign!!
Well it's history now, Manly did sign Matt and almost immediately began trying to offload Michael to another club. However, he had a good contract, and apart from the drama with Des, he liked being at Manly. Nobody else could match his deal anyway, so he stayed where he was.
In the offseason, Manly had released Chad Randall, so the hooking spot was open. Michael was told to bulk up, as that's where he was going to be playing from then on. In a strange way, it was the best thing to happen to him.
Michael's problem, in my opinion was, he was too indecisive. With the ball in his hands, he often got too close to the defense before executing the play. This would invaribaly lead to him throwing a pass to a support under too much pressure or getting tackled in possesion. Now halfbacks need to take the line on, but the whole point is to put the defense in a position where they have to make a choice. He usually took too long to make up his mind and thus the defense were able to keep their structure and make the tackle.
These days, hookers and halves play a similar game. They're both playmakers and both need to engage the defense. The difference is the hooker is only responsible for about two of the six plays, the halfback the rest. When he was playing halfback, the responsibility to run most of the attacking plays seemed too much for him. So....only having to worry about a couple of plays to get the set started, suited him. The extra weight he put on, also gave him the confidence to take on the line a bit more. All in all, 12 months at hooker in 2006 improved his overall play so that when Matt was injured early in 2007, Michael slotted back into halfback and absolutely shone. He was a more mature player and was now able to handle the responsibility of running the attack.
He is capable of playing both positions however, he would be happiest playing halfback. As there don't seem to be too many quality halfbacks around at the moment, he'd be a fine acquisition for someone. Even though Parramatta desperately need a playmaker, I'd like to see him go back to the Raiders and play alongside his brother. Him and Campese would be a formidible combination.
