Rabbitohs signings, rumours and injuries 2015-16 Part 2

[Big man]

I don't know how valid this is but Pablo a bloke who claims to have mail on another forum is saying that Souths are meeting with Foran today. The idea apparently is to let Cook go to Sharks and play Foran at 5/8 and Cody as utility off the bench. Pablo was saying that Foran doesn't want to go Warriors because too far from his family and has knocked back St George. Apparently it's down to Dogs and Souths with Souths meeting today. I hope this rumour is true.

 

[DiegoNT]

I love foran as a player, but jeez there are way to many questions marks on his personal life atm

 

[rabbitohs95]

Would rather not risk it with Foran. We have a good pairing of Reynolds and Walker, why risk giving that away? Probably just a rumour though...

 

[souths_reborn]

Like I've said before, if souths coaching staff saw cook in the same light as many in here do then we don't even begin to negotiate with farah let alone actually sign him. Farah isn't an idiot, in fact he is a smart operator, and after all the drama he had at tigers the last thing he wants to do is move to a team where there is a chance to he'll be playing reserve grade. Not only would that effect his huge ego it would also put his blues jumper in jeopardy. He has a brother in the coaching staff. If cook really was the future, and going into 2017 the first choice hooker you don't think his brother would be letting him know? I'm not saying farah would get picked because his brother is on the staff, I'm saying through his brother he would know whether he'll have competition for his spot. Would farah really sign if there is a hint that he wouldn't be number 1? Surely a move to sharks, with no hooker, with a number of Blues players plus the likes of Gal and Lewis, and with the team on the up, be a better fit for a player of his age with the stakes so high.
Having 1 coach make the mistake of favouring a fairly average hooker over cook would be understandable. Having it happen a second time, with a quality coach like hasler for a guy like lichaa would raise a few questions. Having another quality coach in maguire prefer the unfinished product that is mcinnes over cook and suddenly a pattern is emerging. Then finally for a fourth time, after supposedly completely transforming the team into winners, and unlocking whatever was stopping the burgii, reynolds and inglis from hitting top form, the team goes out and buys an aging robbie farah with all the baggage that entails and surely you have to question whether nrl coaching staff are seeing the same player you are seeing.

Like I have said to you in my previous post - coaches make mistakes. Hence, it is more than possible Michael Maguire regrets not giving Cook a chance in the run-on team sooner in the season. Alternatively, you could also look at things from the flip side and argue that if Michael Maguire saw that much potential in McInnes, then he would have kept him and persevered with him into next season. The other thing you need to take into account is how much power Maguire has over signings. After the Raiders debacle, it was confirmed that his assistants and other backroom staff were sacked over his head and that Richardson was running things in the background. Now I'm not saying this is a foregone conclusion but there is a distinct possibility that players, including Robbie Farah, could have been signed over his head too.

In terms of Farah being in the starting squad, I don't think that is as much of an issue as you are making out. Remember, when he played for the Tigers this season he was coming off the bench, as he did at times last season as well and from all reports, quite enjoyed that role. So if starting games meant that much to him, then surely he would have left the Tigers long ago. Personally, at his age, I think he will be more than content with playing 40-50 minutes a game. Based on the way we play - with a hooker who runs out of dummy half in order to utilise our forwards strengths, it becomes paramount that we have two hookers because such a style of play can be particularly draining. Hence, Farah would almost be guaranteed a decent portion of games, albeit if he comes off the bench. Just on that, I actually think its quite beneficial for him coming off the bench as well as it will give him a chance to play against tired defenders - that is why the Cowboys do with Jake Granville with great success; you cannot deny that a crafty hooker, like Farah, would not benefit against tiring big men.

You seem to have massive issues over the hooker role and while it is your right to voice your opinion, you seem to fall into the trap of critiquing signings without proposing any viable alternatives. Like I said, if you can think of any viable alternatives to Farah then name them and we can analyse them. Furthermore, I've also explained to you using sound logic and concrete examples the impact that Cook has had on the team and why other players in the team have benefited from his performances. I'm not saying he transformed the teams on field fortunes on his own, nor do I think he was even our best player in a lot of those games. All I've said and implied is that his style of game is what the team needed. I just think you a) have something against Cook, b) are seeing something in McInnes that isn't there - maybe its because he is a souths junior and c) do not and will not accept any pro-Cook arguments regardless of how logical and justified they are.

 

[souths_reborn]

I think if Cook wants a release he will achieve it.

Maybe a player such as Baptiste,who is on the market I believe, from the Raiders, could take his place.

Whoever is there won't play much 1st grade unless injury occurs to Farah!

Baptiste is no better or worse player than Cook. At the moment he is benefiting massively from those around him. I personally don't think the Raiders are all that good - they are a team with decent players that are in form and high on confidence; I think that they are carrying weakness that are yet to be exposed but that is another discussion in itself. The biggest issue regarding Baptiste is why would he want to leave the Raiders at this point in time to join us? We would have to pay massive overs for him!

 

[souths_reborn]

Would rather not risk it with Foran. We have a good pairing of Reynolds and Walker, why risk giving that away? Probably just a rumour though...

I agree with you. While Adam Reynold is no world-beater, I think he is a very decent half. However, I go by the principle that a team of champions doesn't necessarily make a champion team. Hence, there is such a thing as team chemistry and cohesion and I think we finally found the right balance at the back end of the season. I think that the last thing that we want to do is disrupt the apple cart by letting players go. For instance, Cody Walker being promised the five-eight position was one of the reasons why he resigned for us over Brisbane. While I'm not a fan of promising positions to players, I'm not too sure how well it would go down amongst the playing group if Maguire went back on his word!

Regarding Foran, I do agree that he would be a massive risk. I mean what is to stop him from walking out on us if he has done it already to Parramatta? Add to this the fact that he is massively injury prone. Could someone confirm this for me but didn't it come out earlier in the year that he has a chronic injury problem (I think it might be his hamstring) and it is going to be a real effort for him to stay 100% fit from now to end of his career? A million dollars a year is a hell of a lot to pay for damaged good.

 

[DiegoNT]

Like I have said to you in my previous post - coaches make mistakes. Hence, it is more than possible Michael Maguire regrets not giving Cook a chance in the run-on team sooner in the season. Alternatively, you could also look at things from the flip side and argue that if Michael Maguire saw that much potential in McInnes, then he would have kept him and persevered with him into next season. The other thing you need to take into account is how much power Maguire has over signings. After the Raiders debacle, it was confirmed that his assistants and other backroom staff were sacked over his head and that Richardson was running things in the background. Now I'm not saying this is a foregone conclusion but there is a distinct possibility that players, including Robbie Farah, could have been signed over his head too.

In terms of Farah being in the starting squad, I don't think that is as much of an issue as you are making out. Remember, when he played for the Tigers this season he was coming off the bench, as he did at times last season as well and from all reports, quite enjoyed that role. So if starting games meant that much to him, then surely he would have left the Tigers long ago. Personally, at his age, I think he will be more than content with playing 40-50 minutes a game. Based on the way we play - with a hooker who runs out of dummy half in order to utilise our forwards strengths, it becomes paramount that we have two hookers because such a style of play can be particularly draining. Hence, Farah would almost be guaranteed a decent portion of games, albeit if he comes off the bench. Just on that, I actually think its quite beneficial for him coming off the bench as well as it will give him a chance to play against tired defenders - that is why the Cowboys do with Jake Granville with great success; you cannot deny that a crafty hooker, like Farah, would not benefit against tiring big men.

You seem to have massive issues over the hooker role and while it is your right to voice your opinion, you seem to fall into the trap of critiquing signings without proposing any viable alternatives. Like I said, if you can think of any viable alternatives to Farah then name them and we can analyse them. Furthermore, I've also explained to you using sound logic and concrete examples the impact that Cook has had on the team and why other players in the team have benefited from his performances. I'm not saying he transformed the teams on field fortunes on his own, nor do I think he was even our best player in a lot of those games. All I've said and implied is that his style of game is what the team needed. I just think you a) have something against Cook, b) are seeing something in McInnes that isn't there - maybe its because he is a souths junior and c) do not and will not accept any pro-Cook arguments regardless of how logical and justified they are.

So after finally seeing the light with cook, and regretting not giving him more of a go earlier in the year ( even though he did), maguire goes out and signs farah? Good logic there.
Farah, after kicking up a fuss about getting a bit time role at the tigers, accepts an offer to join souths and be a bit time player here. That's even with a chance of joining sharks and dragons and having a key role he so desperately seeks. Good logic there.
Multiple coaches have favoured other, very average hookers over cook. Dragons preferred rein, bulldogs preferred lichaa, maguire initially preferred mcinnes and has now brought in farah. 3 coaches, including including 2 premiership winning coaches who between them have one every club trophy available in the northern and southern hemispheres, have all beem wrong about cook. Good logic there.
Cook asking for a release despite it being obvious to you that he will be the nunber 1 hooker in 2017 and will beat out the current nsw hooker. Good logic there.
As much as i don't like, farah will be our hooker in 2017. I've said I'd have preferred to keep mcinnes and cook for 2017. We'll simply have to live with farah in 2017.
Your 'sound logic' still doesnt explain why from the storm game onwards Inglis was bringing kick returns back lack it was 2014, why our outside backs hit good form, why the burgess brothers cut back the unforced errors, why guys like turner, gray and reynolds suddenly started playing like their old selves, why sam suddenly become a hitman in defence again and our defence as a whole improved dramatically. Your sound logic doesnt explain why this didnt all happen in any of cooks previous 12 games, expecially the games where he was starting and playing full games. Its abouts as logical as saying you need more Caucasian player's as islanders and indigenous players are brainless coconuts.

 

[souths_reborn]

So after finally seeing the light with cook, and regretting not giving him more of a go earlier in the year ( even though he did), maguire goes out and signs farah? Good logic there.
Farah, after kicking up a fuss about getting a bit time role at the tigers, accepts an offer to join souths and be a bit time player here. That's even with a chance of joining sharks and dragons and having a key role he so desperately seeks. Good logic there.
Multiple coaches have favoured other, very average hookers over cook. Dragons preferred rein, bulldogs preferred lichaa, maguire initially preferred mcinnes and has now brought in farah. 3 coaches, including including 2 premiership winning coaches who between them have one every club trophy available in the northern and southern hemispheres, have all beem wrong about cook. Good logic there.
Cook asking for a release despite it being obvious to you that he will be the nunber 1 hooker in 2017 and will beat out the current nsw hooker. Good logic there.
As much as i don't like, farah will be our hooker in 2017. I've said I'd have preferred to keep mcinnes and cook for 2017. We'll simply have to live with farah in 2017.

How many times do I need to say it: based on our style of play we need TWO (2) hookers!! Cook + Farah = 2 hookers!! McInnes wasn't up to the cut and wasn't content with being 3rd choice so he left. It is not that complex seriously!

Farah DID NOT kick up a fuss about being a bit-time player at the Tigers; his issues were strictly regarding conflicts with Jason Taylor. It was well-reported and I think even Farah admitted it himself in one of the post-match pressers that he was enjoying coming off the bench. In any case, its not as if he was only playing the last 10 minutes - he was getting pretty decent game time, similar to what he will get with us!

Again concerning the coaches not rating Cook, these sorts of things happen all the time in rugby league. Just because a premiership winning coach releases a player doesn't automatically mean that he is rubbish. For god sake, just ask any Parramatta fan out there - they have release stacks of talent that their coaches over the years have deemed not worthy of a place at the club. I remember a few years ago, Manly were playing Parramatta at Parra Stadium and went in something like 30-0 at half time with every point being scored by players Parramatta had let go! Similarly, look at the likes of BJ Leilua and Jordan Rapana for the Raiders this season - both of them rejects from other clubs and both of them are playing great footy! Similarly, Josh Mansour was released from Souths and look how good he is! You need to accept that footy coaches are not fortune tellers and miracle workers; they make mistakes too. Sometimes, you cannot even class them as mistakes because while they may have had problems at one club, for one reason or another, they may fit in well at another club. Basically, the best and fairest thing do when analysing and evaluating a footballer's abilities is to look at their on field performances.

 

[DiegoNT]

How many times do I need to say it: based on our style of play we need TWO (2) hookers!! Cook + Farah = 2 hookers!! McInnes wasn't up to the cut and wasn't content with being 3rd choice so he left. It is not that complex seriously!

Farah DID NOT kick up a fuss about being a bit-time player at the Tigers; his issues were strictly regarding conflicts with Jason Taylor. It was well-reported and I think even Farah admitted it himself in one of the post-match pressers that he was enjoying coming off the bench. In any case, its not as if he was only playing the last 10 minutes - he was getting pretty decent game time, similar to what he will get with us!

Again concerning the coaches not rating Cook, these sorts of things happen all the time in rugby league. Just because a premiership winning coach releases a player doesn't automatically mean that he is rubbish. For god sake, just ask any Parramatta fan out there - they have release stacks of talent that their coaches over the years have deemed not worthy of a place at the club. I remember a few years ago, Manly were playing Parramatta at Parra Stadium and went in something like 30-0 at half time with every point being scored by players Parramatta had let go! Similarly, look at the likes of BJ Leilua and Jordan Rapana for the Raiders this season - both of them rejects from other clubs and both of them are playing great footy! Similarly, Josh Mansour was released from Souths and look how good he is! You need to accept that footy coaches are not fortune tellers and miracle workers; they make mistakes too. Sometimes, you cannot even class them as mistakes because while they may have had problems at one club, for one reason or another, they may fit in well at another club. Basically, the best and fairest thing do when analysing and evaluating a footballer's abilities is to look at their on field performances.

If we need 2 hookers, then why did our run of wins at the end of the year come with 1 hooker? You contradict yourself there. We need 1 good hooker in our team and a back up. You can't honestly say mcinnes couldn't do the job as a back-up hooker and play maybe 2 or 3 games if cook suffers an injury or suspension.
Yes you've mentioned players that have moved fron one club to another, ONE coach didn't rate them or they found themselves being stuck behind One player and have to move on for a chance. But when THREE coaches have overlooked players in favour of FOUR very average hookers. Surely a pattern is being developed.
Robbie Farah being happy being a bit time player and only has problems with Jason Taylor? Has your head been under a rock for 5 years? He has had problems with both Sheens and Mick Potter over the direction of the team and his role in it. What a player says in the press doesn't always reflect his true feelings. Case in point cook. He said in the press he relishes the challenge that farah brings yet he is now seeking a release. You say the best way to judge a player is on the field and thats exactly what I've done. Out of the 17 games he played for us he was good in 3. He had a mixed game against the storm with some good work mixed up some bad mistakes. He had a shocker in our last win against newcastle making a tonne of mistakes but that went unnoticed as we won easily. In his other 12 games for us he was very average, if he was any good in those games then he would of replaced mcinnes a lot earlier.

 

[DiegoNT]

Cook needs a whole game to be effective, the 47 minutes a game he averaged in the early part of this season wasn't enough for him to thrive.
What worked amazingly well souths was cook playing 80 minutes and mcinnes in bears.
Farah is a happy go lucky character who only had problems with Jason Taylor. He enjoys taking a backseat and playing a bit part.
Splitting the cook 80 minutes, mcinnes at bears dynamic that worked for us well for a farah and cook combo is great.
Farah will enjoy his bit part. He'll get good game time, more then 10 minutes at the end of games. Lets say 30-35 minutes.
That means cook, who did amazingly as an 80 minute player and for who 47 minutes match wasn't enough for him to get into a match and stamp his authority will now go back to 45-50 minutes to accommodate farahm this will work out amazingly.
Players always say what they mean to the media , cook both relishing the challenging of farah coming and seeking a release to sharks is soundly logical.
All this is sound logically.

 

[Newcastlerabbit]

http://www.rabbitohs.com.au/news/2016/09/20/as_a_club_we_finishe.html

 

[Rsag85]

We must have a lot of room under the cap if we are chasing someone like Foran

 

[souths_reborn]

If we need 2 hookers, then why did our run of wins at the end of the year come with 1 hooker? You contradict yourself there. We need 1 good hooker in our team and a back up. You can't honestly say mcinnes couldn't do the job as a back-up hooker and play maybe 2 or 3 games if cook suffers an injury or suspension.
Yes you've mentioned players that have moved fron one club to another, ONE coach didn't rate them or they found themselves being stuck behind One player and have to move on for a chance. But when THREE coaches have overlooked players in favour of FOUR very average hookers. Surely a pattern is being developed.
Robbie Farah being happy being a bit time player and only has problems with Jason Taylor? Has your head been under a rock for 5 years? He has had problems with both Sheens and Mick Potter over the direction of the team and his role in it. What a player says in the press doesn't always reflect his true feelings. Case in point cook. He said in the press he relishes the challenge that farah brings yet he is now seeking a release. You say the best way to judge a player is on the field and thats exactly what I've done. Out of the 17 games he played for us he was good in 3. He had a mixed game against the storm with some good work mixed up some bad mistakes. He had a shocker in our last win against newcastle making a tonne of mistakes but that went unnoticed as we won easily. In his other 12 games for us he was very average, if he was any good in those games then he would of replaced mcinnes a lot earlier.

Honestly, I think you better follow another sport because some of the things you say are just completely ignorant and show that you just do not understand rugby league! For starters, we could play one hooker but based on our style of play, playing a reserve hooker is much more effective! Moreover, what do we do if Farah gets injured or called up for origin duty! We need a back up! Again, I thought that was pretty obvious.

There are plenty of players out there who have been overlooked or released by more than one coach! Cheyse Blair is a living, breathing example at the Storm right now! Farah's problems with Taylor and his other coaches had absolutely nothing to do with him being a bit-time player. I don't know where on earth you got that idea from - under both Sheens and Mick Potter, Farah was playing the entire game so that completely discredits you argument. The problems Farah had with those coaches were do with the direction of the team, coaching methods and god knows what else but no one with tuppence worth of brains can honestly come out and say that is was over him being a bit-part player when he is playing the whole game or the majority of it.

No you are not analysing Cook's performances in games. You have this perpetual agenda against him and have had it for some time. Regardless of how logical an argument is put forward to you, you are never going to cut Cook any slack. Any one who understands rugby league and how our team plays will tell you that Cook has done well since he came back into the team and if you'd like I'll take you through each one of them and show you all the good things he did! Yes, a moment of stupidity on his part cost us the game against the Storm but his performance was otherwise very very strong. Against the Knights, I thought he was fine. I mean to say he had a shocker is way, way of the mark. Like I've said countless times already, while he was not necessarily our best player in our winning streak, the way that he plays and his style of play enabled others around him to excel! With regards to him replacing McInnes earlier on if he was any good, I'm just going to counteract your argument by saying that if McInnes was such a success then why has he been granted a release? I think its pretty obvious that he has been tapped on the shoulder and told that he better look elsewhere to play his footy because he will be third-choice hooker if he chooses to stay! I'd say that is a pretty clear indirect concession from Madge (or someone at the club with authority) that he made a mistake in not selecting Cook earlier in the season and that McInnes simply wasn't up to standard.

 

[souths_reborn]

Cook needs a whole game to be effective, the 47 minutes a game he averaged in the early part of this season wasn't enough for him to thrive.
What worked amazingly well souths was cook playing 80 minutes and mcinnes in bears.
Farah is a happy go lucky character who only had problems with Jason Taylor. He enjoys taking a backseat and playing a bit part.
Splitting the cook 80 minutes, mcinnes at bears dynamic that worked for us well for a farah and cook combo is great.
Farah will enjoy his bit part. He'll get good game time, more then 10 minutes at the end of games. Lets say 30-35 minutes.
That means cook, who did amazingly as an 80 minute player and for who 47 minutes match wasn't enough for him to get into a match and stamp his authority will now go back to 45-50 minutes to accommodate farahm this will work out amazingly.
Players always say what they mean to the media , cook both relishing the challenging of farah coming and seeking a release to sharks is soundly logical.
All this is sound logically.

You are being ANYTHING BUT logical! Again, where did you get the average of 47 minutes a game in the first part of the season from? In the first six rounds, he averaged approximately 28 minutes a game. From there, he played a couple of games where he played approx. 70 minutes before going out of the side. That would bump his average up to around 40 minutes a game. However, I think its important that we don't lose sight of the fact that in the first six games he wasn't being used properly. When he was given a start and wasn't coming on at the back of games, when we were 18+ points down, he did very well. So in a sense, the amount of game time he was being given is not as important as the context in which he is being introduced into the game. Like I said, hookers need to be given time to build pressure and work towards a plan. 10-15 minutes at the back end of the game when the result is pretty much a forgone conclusion makes it impossible to do this. In saying that, I think approx 40 minutes is ample time to inject yourself into the game and have an effect.

With Farah, I don't know where you are getting your information from but it is common knowledge now that Farah has had problems with 3 coaches now - that is part of the reason why the Tigers were willing to let him go! Tim Sheens came out and admitted that player power was the reason why he was let go from the Tigers and implied at a breakdown between himself and Farah (amongst others) was the primary cause behind his sacking. Similarly, Farah criticised Mick Potter behind his back about his ability to coach etc and Jason Taylor has obviously had his issues with him as well. I wouldn't say that he is happy go lucky character - that implies that he is someone who is cheerfully unconcerned about the future. Farah's biggest problem is that he has a persecution complex and comes into conflict with anyone who speaks out against him! The Tigers would have become a farce of a club if they had sacked ANOTHER coach because of Robbie! Moreover, who would have possible even considered taking the job if this had occurred? It would have been very hard to find a replacement!

 

[DiegoNT]

Honestly, I think you better follow another sport because some of the things you say are just completely ignorant and show that you just do not understand rugby league! For starters, we could play one hooker but based on our style of play, playing a reserve hooker is much more effective! Moreover, what do we do if Farah gets injured or called up for origin duty! We need a back up! Again, I thought that was pretty obvious.

There are plenty of players out there who have been overlooked or released by more than one coach! Cheyse Blair is a living, breathing example at the Storm right now! Farah's problems with Taylor and his other coaches had absolutely nothing to do with him being a bit-time player. I don't know where on earth you got that idea from - under both Sheens and Mick Potter, Farah was playing the entire game so that completely discredits you argument. The problems Farah had with those coaches were do with the direction of the team, coaching methods and god knows what else but no one with tuppence worth of brains can honestly come out and say that is was over him being a bit-part player when he is playing the whole game or the majority of it.

No you are not analysing Cook's performances in games. You have this perpetual agenda against him and have had it for some time. Regardless of how logical an argument is put forward to you, you are never going to cut Cook any slack. Any one who understands rugby league and how our team plays will tell you that Cook has done well since he came back into the team and if you'd like I'll take you through each one of them and show you all the good things he did! Yes, a moment of stupidity on his part cost us the game against the Storm but his performance was otherwise very very strong. Against the Knights, I thought he was fine. I mean to say he had a shocker is way, way of the mark. Like I've said countless times already, while he was not necessarily our best player in our winning streak, the way that he plays and his style of play enabled others around him to excel! With regards to him replacing McInnes earlier on if he was any good, I'm just going to counteract your argument by saying that if McInnes was such a success then why has he been granted a release? I think its pretty obvious that he has been tapped on the shoulder and told that he better look elsewhere to play his footy because he will be third-choice hooker if he chooses to stay! I'd say that is a pretty clear indirect concession from Madge (or someone at the club with authority) that he made a mistake in not selecting Cook earlier in the season and that McInnes simply wasn't up to standard.

I think the big difference between me and you is that I've accepted mcinnes isn't what the club wants, but you can't accept that by signing farah the club is saying that cook isn't the answer either.
You contradict yourself massively. 47 minutes wasn't enough for cook to establish himself in a team, yet now that farah is coming cutting back on the minutes is going to be great for him. You say we made a drastic change in the team whem we went for cook and played him for 80 minutes it was a great change, yet now you are saying souths don't suit playing 1 hooker for 80 minutes. If you are saying souths playing with 1 hooker player doesn't suit our game plan then surely the last 5 games of the season were a disaster because that's exactly what we done. The last 5 weeks show that we can play with just 1 hooker, but because that hooker won't be cook suddenly a 1 hooker system for souths just doesn't work. You speak so much nonsense you are starting to contradict yourself.
Yes you say cook has done well since coming back into the team, you and r20 says he is great, i merely say he is ok, but yes he has done well. Which makes the decision to go out and buy farah seem weird. If he was the answer to all our problems we don't buy farah. It's not that hard to understand. Because i think 1 hooker works I'm ignorant. Well so must maguire because that's what he did for last 5 weeks of the season so must mal meninga because he only plays 1 hooker in the Australian side. So must both origin coaches and 14 club coaches because they mostly prefer a 1 hooker system. Anyone who disagrees that cook is a great hooker is ignorant. The coaching and recruitment staff off 3 clubs are all ignorant. You are so much smarter then everyone else, because you arr caucasian and the rest of us are coconuts. Only Caucasians are smart enough to play rugby league right? Yea everyone else is ignorant.
You say I'm ignorant because i don't accept cook is a superstar, yet you won't listen to any flaw that cook has. Surely his flaws are what are holding him back from having an extended run in first grade, but i guess it's just more logical to say the coaching staff of 3 clubs are ignorant.

 

[DiegoNT]

You are being ANYTHING BUT logical! Again, where did you get the average of 47 minutes a game in the first part of the season from? In the first six rounds, he averaged approximately 28 minutes a game. From there, he played a couple of games where he played approx. 70 minutes before going out of the side. That would bump his average up to around 40 minutes a game. However, I think its important that we don't lose sight of the fact that in the first six games he wasn't being used properly. When he was given a start and wasn't coming on at the back of games, when we were 18+ points down, he did very well. So in a sense, the amount of game time he was being given is not as important as the context in which he is being introduced into the game. Like I said, hookers need to be given time to build pressure and work towards a plan. 10-15 minutes at the back end of the game when the result is pretty much a forgone conclusion makes it impossible to do this. In saying that, I think approx 40 minutes is ample time to inject yourself into the game and have an effect.

With Farah, I don't know where you are getting your information from but it is common knowledge now that Farah has had problems with 3 coaches now - that is part of the reason why the Tigers were willing to let him go! Tim Sheens came out and admitted that player power was the reason why he was let go from the Tigers and implied at a breakdown between himself and Farah (amongst others) was the primary cause behind his sacking. Similarly, Farah criticised Mick Potter behind his back about his ability to coach etc and Jason Taylor has obviously had his issues with him as well. I wouldn't say that he is happy go lucky character - that implies that he is someone who is cheerfully unconcerned about the future. Farah's biggest problem is that he has a persecution complex and comes into conflict with anyone who speaks out against him! The Tigers would have become a farce of a club if they had sacked ANOTHER coach because of Robbie! Moreover, who would have possible even considered taking the job if this had occurred? It would have been very hard to find a replacement!

47 is the average minutes he played taking out the 2 games he left early due to be knocked out. His poor defence led to that, no wait i'm being ignorant, he is perfect. In the games he was coming on in, we kicked out to an early lead against roosters and Knights, dragons was a tight game, we were getting flogged by bulldogs so I'll give you that one, we kicked out to an early lead against manly and the roosters game was a tight one. So the 'he only came on when we were down 18+' is complete bullshit. Half the games he came on we were leading, 2 games were in the balance, and in only 1 game were we being flogged. He missed the Cowboys game, but was given a starting role in the next 2 games, a 30-8 loss to brisbane and a 30-22 loss to the tigers, we were dominated up the middle and scored a late try to make the score look respectable. He was dropped the next week, against the eels, in a game we won. He missed the next game against the dragons which we won ( yet you somehow saw him set up tries in that match) and we pushed the Titans to golden point. We then had our run of losses until the storm game and the rest is history.

 

[DiegoNT]

You are being ANYTHING BUT logical! Again, where did you get the average of 47 minutes a game in the first part of the season from? In the first six rounds, he averaged approximately 28 minutes a game. From there, he played a couple of games where he played approx. 70 minutes before going out of the side. That would bump his average up to around 40 minutes a game. However, I think its important that we don't lose sight of the fact that in the first six games he wasn't being used properly. When he was given a start and wasn't coming on at the back of games, when we were 18+ points down, he did very well. So in a sense, the amount of game time he was being given is not as important as the context in which he is being introduced into the game. Like I said, hookers need to be given time to build pressure and work towards a plan. 10-15 minutes at the back end of the game when the result is pretty much a forgone conclusion makes it impossible to do this. In saying that, I think approx 40 minutes is ample time to inject yourself into the game and have an effect.

With Farah, I don't know where you are getting your information from but it is common knowledge now that Farah has had problems with 3 coaches now - that is part of the reason why the Tigers were willing to let him go! Tim Sheens came out and admitted that player power was the reason why he was let go from the Tigers and implied at a breakdown between himself and Farah (amongst others) was the primary cause behind his sacking. Similarly, Farah criticised Mick Potter behind his back about his ability to coach etc and Jason Taylor has obviously had his issues with him as well. I wouldn't say that he is happy go lucky character - that implies that he is someone who is cheerfully unconcerned about the future. Farah's biggest problem is that he has a persecution complex and comes into conflict with anyone who speaks out against him! The Tigers would have become a farce of a club if they had sacked ANOTHER coach because of Robbie! Moreover, who would have possible even considered taking the job if this had occurred? It would have been very hard to find a replacement!

Jesus f**king Christ, that was exactly what o was trying to say about farah. You said he only had problems with Taylor. He of course has had problems with his last 3 coaches. He can't handle not having control of the team. He can't handle taken a back seat to anyone. He couldn't handle being dropped or benched. Now with all that in mind, when Farah was making the decision on which club to join, and with tigers paying the way money isn't an issue, Do you really think Farah would overlook 2 clubs where he is guarenteed a starting hooking role to join a club where he'll be a bit part player or number 2? He has said he still thinks he has something to offer the blues and with his blues jumper in jeopardy do you really think he would risk it by coming to a club where he might only play 40 odd minutes a week? Farah doesn't come to souths unless he is very confident he'll be one of the main men. With his brother on the coaching staff he'll know what their plans are for cook and whether he will be seen as number 1 or number 2 for next season.

 

[souths_reborn]

I think the big difference between me and you is that I've accepted mcinnes isn't what the club wants, but you can't accept that by signing farah the club is saying that cook isn't the answer either.
You contradict yourself massively. 47 minutes wasn't enough for cook to establish himself in a team, yet now that farah is coming cutting back on the minutes is going to be great for him. You say we made a drastic change in the team whem we went for cook and played him for 80 minutes it was a great change, yet now you are saying souths don't suit playing 1 hooker for 80 minutes. If you are saying souths playing with 1 hooker player doesn't suit our game plan then surely the last 5 games of the season were a disaster because that's exactly what we done. The last 5 weeks show that we can play with just 1 hooker, but because that hooker won't be cook suddenly a 1 hooker system for souths just doesn't work. You speak so much nonsense you are starting to contradict yourself.
Yes you say cook has done well since coming back into the team, you and r20 says he is great, i merely say he is ok, but yes he has done well. Which makes the decision to go out and buy farah seem weird. If he was the answer to all our problems we don't buy farah. It's not that hard to understand. Because i think 1 hooker works I'm ignorant. Well so must maguire because that's what he did for last 5 weeks of the season so must mal meninga because he only plays 1 hooker in the Australian side. So must both origin coaches and 14 club coaches because they mostly prefer a 1 hooker system. Anyone who disagrees that cook is a great hooker is ignorant. The coaching and recruitment staff off 3 clubs are all ignorant. You are so much smarter then everyone else, because you arr caucasian and the rest of us are coconuts. Only Caucasians are smart enough to play rugby league right? Yea everyone else is ignorant.
You say I'm ignorant because i don't accept cook is a superstar, yet you won't listen to any flaw that cook has. Surely his flaws are what are holding him back from having an extended run in first grade, but i guess it's just more logical to say the coaching staff of 3 clubs are ignorant.

I'm not saying that at all. If you go back a few pages, I made a comment about everyone assuming that Farah would walk straight into the team and how it is wrong to assume that. All I am saying is that we, like every club, need two hookers at the very least because it is such a key position and if one gets injured then we can't afford to be fielding a make-shift hooker - that is the reason why we signed Farah. Now as to whether Farah's is the ideal choice is another debate altogether. As I've said a few pages back, I'm definitely open to discuss other options if you are prepared to name some viable alternatives? Similarly, whether we play 2 hookers in the match day 17 is again, another issue altogether. I'm happy for Cook to play the full 80 but I think the more likely scenario will be that we will play 2 hookers - its as simple as that! I PERSONALLY believe that playing two hookers could work well but as I just stated in the PREVIOUS SENTENCE, I'm happy for Cook to play the full 80.

I do not contradict myself. I never said that 47 minutes was not enough for Cook to establish himself - you are not reading what I have written. What I said was that I think it is unfair to judge Cook on his performances when you introduce him into the game for the last 10-20 minutes of games when we are 18+ points down. Also, where did I say that Farah wouldn't be given ample time to impact the game? Let me explain it to you this way: the way I would work the hooker rotation is to have hooker no. 1 play the first 25-30 minutes, then bring on the reserve hooker for the next 25-30 and then bring back on the starting hooker for the last 20-30. That is just a rough idea on how it should work. I'm not saying that the scaffold I've given you is set in stone because a lot depends on the context of the game. However, notice how in each stint the hooker has a decent amount of time to build pressure and the opportunity to affect the match? At the very least, you are giving each hooker half an hour or their abouts to have an impact on the game while it is still in the balance.

I'm not making out that Cook is a superstar and I have never said so. I have commented in the past, that at present, he is the number one hooker at the club but that doesn't mean that he is a superstar. As I've said countless times already, Cook coming into the team enabled players around him to play well. While he may not have done much himself in terms of statistics, his style of hooker suits our style. That's all I'm suggesting - nothing about him being a superstar, nothing about him being the best hooker in the comp or about coconuts, Caucasians or anything along those lines, just that Cook did the job that we need our hooker to do based on the needs of other players in the squad. With regards to his 'flaws', I'm happy to discuss them with you. The reason why I have not being that critical of Cook this season is because McInnes hasn't been up to first grade standard. Hence, for most of the season I have tried to be pragmatic in my suggestions about the hooking role. If we had Issac Luke and Cook in the squad and Cook was playing hooker and we were losing then I'd be just as critical of Cook as I have been of McInnes - its nothing personal about Cameron. I've just made critiques based on our dismal on field performances for much of this season. I've also said numerous times that I hope he does well at the Dragons.

 

[DiegoNT]

I'm not saying that at all. If you go back a few pages, I made a comment about everyone assuming that Farah would walk straight into the team and how it is wrong to assume that. All I am saying is that we, like every club, need two hookers at the very least because it is such a key position and if one gets injured then we can't afford to be fielding a make-shift hooker - that is the reason why we signed Farah. Now as to whether Farah's is the ideal choice is another debate altogether. As I've said a few pages back, I'm definitely open to discuss other options if you are prepared to name some viable alternatives? Similarly, whether we play 2 hookers in the match day 17 is again, another issue altogether. I'm happy for Cook to play the full 80 but I think the more likely scenario will be that we will play 2 hookers - its as simple as that! I PERSONALLY believe that playing two hookers could work well but as I just stated in the PREVIOUS SENTENCE, I'm happy for Cook to play the full 80.

I do not contradict myself. I never said that 47 minutes was not enough for Cook to establish himself - you are not reading what I have written. What I said was that I think it is unfair to judge Cook on his performances when you introduce him into the game for the last 10-20 minutes of games when we are 18+ points down. Also, where did I say that Farah wouldn't be given ample time to impact the game? Let me explain it to you this way: the way I would work the hooker rotation is to have hooker no. 1 play the first 25-30 minutes, then bring on the reserve hooker for the next 25-30 and then bring back on the starting hooker for the last 20-30. That is just a rough idea on how it should work. I'm not saying that the scaffold I've given you is set in stone because a lot depends on the context of the game. However, notice how in each stint the hooker has a decent amount of time to build pressure and the opportunity to affect the match? At the very least, you are giving each hooker half an hour or their abouts to have an impact on the game while it is still in the balance.

I'm not making out that Cook is a superstar and I have never said so. I have commented in the past, that at present, he is the number one hooker at the club but that doesn't mean that he is a superstar. As I've said countless times already, Cook coming into the team enabled players around him to play well. While he may not have done much himself in terms of statistics, his style of hooker suits our style. That's all I'm suggesting - nothing about him being a superstar, nothing about him being the best hooker in the comp or about coconuts, Caucasians or anything along those lines, just that Cook did the job that we need our hooker to do based on the needs of other players in the squad. With regards to his 'flaws', I'm happy to discuss them with you. The reason why I have not being that critical of Cook this season is because McInnes hasn't been up to first grade standard. Hence, for most of the season I have tried to be pragmatic in my suggestions about the hooking role. If we had Issac Luke and Cook in the squad and Cook was playing hooker and we were losing then I'd be just as critical of Cook as I have been of McInnes - its nothing personal about Cameron. I've just made critiques based on our dismal on field performances for much of this season. I've also said numerous times that I hope he does well at the Dragons.

We already had 2 hookers. Cook and mcinnes. If cook was seen as a viable option to build a first grade side around then having mcinnes as back-up works. If you think Mcinnes isn't good enough to play for bears and possibly play for Souths when cook is unavailable then you are being the ignorant one. If cook is the answer then we don't sign farah fullstop. You say it's unfair to judge cook on being introduced into a game when when we are down 18+ and only play him for the last 20 minutes. This happened just once in the first 10 games. He came into games when we were winning easily, he came into games when they were in the balance, he came into games where we were hanging onto a lead, he started a couple of games. He was average. You keep trying to make out he only came onto the field in hopeless situations and it just doesn't fit reality. Without the 2 games he knocked himself out with his poor defence he was getting decent minutes.
Farah isn't coming to be back-up. Any notion that he'll happily accept a limited role or as a back/up number 2 does not mesh with reality. Farah would not come to a club without the confidence that he'll be number 1, especially if he had that choice at 2 other clubs. If a club was happy with cook as their number 1 hooker, then having a young hooker like mcinnes makes a lot more sense then signing an aging hooker who causes problems when he doesn't get what he wants. Farah is coming as number 1 or he wouldn't come at all.

 

[souths_reborn]

Farah is a happy go lucky character who only had problems with Jason Taylor.

That is exactly what you typed!!

Jesus f**king Christ, that was exactly what o was trying to say about farah. You said he only had problems with Taylor. He of course has had problems with his last 3 coaches. He can't handle not having control of the team. He can't handle taken a back seat to anyone. He couldn't handle being dropped or benched. Now with all that in mind, when Farah was making the decision on which club to join, and with tigers paying the way money isn't an issue, Do you really think Farah would overlook 2 clubs where he is guarenteed a starting hooking role to join a club where he'll be a bit part player or number 2? He has said he still thinks he has something to offer the blues and with his blues jumper in jeopardy do you really think he would risk it by coming to a club where he might only play 40 odd minutes a week? Farah doesn't come to souths unless he is very confident he'll be one of the main men. With his brother on the coaching staff he'll know what their plans are for cook and whether he will be seen as number 1 or number 2 for next season.

I never said he only had problems with Jason Taylor!! For god-sake! Do you need help reading or something? In regards to the reason why he joined Souths, I think there could be multiple reasons behind his decision. First and foremost, there is the issue concerning the second year of his contract. Given that the Tigers are only paying him for 2017, there is the chance that we may be offering him more than what other clubs were prepared to. Secondly, the players he would be playing along side would have come into his considerations. For instance, I think the possibility of playing along side Greg Inglis and Sam Burgess would still appeal to a lot of players as would the chance of forming a combination with your NSW halfback team mate. Lastly, his allotted game time would have definitely impacted upon his decision - I'm not denying that for one second. It is for this reason that I believe we will be playing 2 hookers in 2017. Also, don't think for one second that just because he doesn't start the game that he is an inferior player. Many team start their no. 1 hookers off the bench these days i.e. the cowboys so as to take advantage of tired defenders.