Rabbitohs signings, rumours and injuries 2015-16 Part 2

[DiegoNT]

In reply to me saying farah has always had problems in the past with taking a back seat and being a bit part player.

'his issues were strictly regarding conflicts with Jason Taylor.'
Again so much nonsense you contradict yourself.

Your saying whether farah starting as hooker or being on the bench is beneficial to the team. That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the reason farah would be coming to our club over the sharks or dragons. While having farah as a bench hooker may be good for us, would it be good for robbie? Would it be good for robbie to play 30 minutes a week when he desperately wants to prove tigers and jason taylor wrong. Would it be good for farahs bid to keep his blues jumper if he was playing a reduced role? I'm not saying playing 2 hookers isn't bad or wouldn't work, I'm asking would robbie really come if that was going to be the case? Especially if dragons and sharks are guaranteeing 80 minutes a week. I don't think for the second that robbie is coming to a club with the intention of playing less minutes.

 

[souths_reborn]

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.

We keep going around in circles I swear! I personally don't think McInnes is good enough to play for Souths when Cook is unavailable and so does Michael Maguire along with other officials at the club whose opinions matter! That is the whole reason why we signed Robbie Farah - because the club deemed that he is an upgrade on McInnes! If you don't agree with that and would rather that we have kept McInnes and gotten rid of Cook, that is your opinion and one of the many things that people have debated on these forums. However, the fact remains that South Sydney have obviously deemed that Cook and Farah are their top 2 hookers and Cameron McInnes would have been third choice.

You are just rattling off these statements about Cook that factually incorrect and categorically untrue. I've got the statistics right in front of me and I have watched him and McInnes closely. In the first two games, we flogged the Roosters and Newcastle respectively, so you can't really accuse him of being ordinary. How can you when you beat opposition 42-10 and 48-6. Cook did not come into games when we were winning easily or when we were hanging on to the lead. In the Dragons and Manly games he went off concussed. In the Roosters game, he played the last half hour against a Roosters side that was in the ascendancy - that game was played in torrid conditions where a 7 point lead is pretty terminal. However, given that he got half an hour he could have done better. In the Broncos game I thought he played well and we were competitive for much of that game; the scoreline flattered the Broncos! That was one of those matches where we had a shocking night with the referees - have a look back at the match day thread and read some of the comments made from other members on it if you don't believe me. I'm not saying that he a world beater, I'm just saying that I thought he did a better job that what McInnes had done up until that point. He then played against the Tigers and had a large part in our second half come back. I'm not saying he was perfect that game but he did a lot of good things on a very poor night for the club. Put is this way: there were plenty of others that night who were more culpable for the loss than Cook.

Fast forward to round fifteen against the Eels and he plays roughly the last 15 minutes of that game when we are beaten 30-12. Similarly, I remember him playing the last 24 minutes against the Broncos when we are down against the Broncos and end up getting beat 30-10. Lastly, he came on the second half against the Raiders after the game was over inside the first half hour - that one is not even debatable! That was the last game before McInnes was dropped and Cook came into the side! Its no coincidence that as soon as he is injected into the run on team our fortunes change. He didn't those games single handled - his style of play enabled those around him to excel.

Again you make these broad, generalisations about Farah. Who says that playing 50 minutes is a limited role? You assume that he wouldn't be happy with that! The guy is 32 and he is playing in the toughest rugby league competition in the world. You need to take into account that he is no spring chicken! Additionally, I've outlined the additional reasons that may have impacted upon his decision to join Souths - if you don't accept them then that if your problem. In terms of whether McInnes being preferable over Farah, I think that it is beyond a matter of opinion now; it is now pretty much fact that South Sydney rated the prospect of having Robbie Farah the club much higher than they did of having McInnes. The club has made a decision to let McInnes go and they obviously share the same feeling that I do about McInnes ability or they would never have released him!

 

[souths_reborn]

In reply to me saying farah has always had problems in the past with taking a back seat and being a bit part player.

'his issues were strictly regarding conflicts with Jason Taylor.'
Again so much nonsense you contradict yourself.

Your saying whether farah starting as hooker or being on the bench is beneficial to the team. That's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the reason farah would be coming to our club over the sharks or dragons. While having farah as a bench hooker may be good for us, would it be good for robbie? Would it be good for robbie to play 30 minutes a week when he desperately wants to prove tigers and jason taylor wrong. Would it be good for farahs bid to keep his blues jumper if he was playing a reduced role? I'm not saying playing 2 hookers isn't bad or wouldn't work, I'm asking would robbie really come if that was going to be the case? Especially if dragons and sharks are guaranteeing 80 minutes a week. I don't think for the second that robbie is coming to a club with the intention of playing less minutes.

Farah's issues regarding Taylor extend well beyond him becoming a bit-part player. He openly said that he was happy coming off the bench and he was getting good game time. If he so unhappy with the role that he was getting then why was he so reluctant to leave? Under other coaches he was never a bit-part player so any discussion concerning that is wrong.

The reason why we deviated to Farah being a starting/bench hooker was for a number of reasons - because you raised points about Cook playing 80 minutes, McInnes' value to the team etc. I was also making the point about hookers needing ample to time to exert their influence over games. It was certainly relevant to what we were talking about.

With regards to Farah's reasons for joining the club, I made a post on it earlier. You might have missed it. This is what I said:
"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."
To answer your question, I think Robbie would be happy to accept a 'reduced' role. I put the word reduced in inverted commas because I do not regard playing 45-50 minutes a game as being a reduce role, a bit-part player on anything of the like. Like I said, Robbie is 32 years old and is no spring chicken. He is also starting to become a bit injury prone and when you are in the twilight of your career as a forward, you need to accept that you won't be playing the full 80 every week. Whether or not the Sharks or other clubs were prepared to offer him a role in which he would play the full 80 is just speculation. We do not know what they were or were not intending to do with Robbie. You may be right and I may be wrong and vice versa. What is certain though is that it is all academic now because he is joined us.

 

[DiegoNT]

We keep going around in circles I swear! I personally don't think McInnes is good enough to play for Souths when Cook is unavailable and so does Michael Maguire along with other officials at the club whose opinions matter! That is the whole reason why we signed Robbie Farah - because the club deemed that he is an upgrade on McInnes! If you don't agree with that and would rather that we have kept McInnes and gotten rid of Cook, that is your opinion and one of the many things that people have debated on these forums. However, the fact remains that South Sydney have obviously deemed that Cook and Farah are their top 2 hookers and Cameron McInnes would have been third choice.

You are just rattling off these statements about Cook that factually incorrect and categorically untrue. I've got the statistics right in front of me and I have watched him and McInnes closely. In the first two games, we flogged the Roosters and Newcastle respectively, so you can't really accuse him of being ordinary. How can you when you beat opposition 42-10 and 48-6. Cook did not come into games when we were winning easily or when we were hanging on to the lead. In the Dragons and Manly games he went off concussed. In the Roosters game, he played the last half hour against a Roosters side that was in the ascendancy - that game was played in torrid conditions where a 7 point lead is pretty terminal. However, given that he got half an hour he could have done better. In the Broncos game I thought he played well and we were competitive for much of that game; the scoreline flattered the Broncos! That was one of those matches where we had a shocking night with the referees - have a look back at the match day thread and read some of the comments made from other members on it if you don't believe me. I'm not saying that he a world beater, I'm just saying that I thought he did a better job that what McInnes had done up until that point. He then played against the Tigers and had a large part in our second half come back. I'm not saying he was perfect that game but he did a lot of good things on a very poor night for the club. Put is this way: there were plenty of others that night who were more culpable for the loss than Cook.

Fast forward to round fifteen against the Eels and he plays roughly the last 15 minutes of that game when we are beaten 30-12. Similarly, I remember him playing the last 24 minutes against the Broncos when we are down against the Broncos and end up getting beat 30-10. Lastly, he came on the second half against the Raiders after the game was over inside the first half hour - that one is not even debatable! That was the last game before McInnes was dropped and Cook came into the side! Its no coincidence that as soon as he is injected into the run on team our fortunes change. He didn't those games single handled - his style of play enabled those around him to excel.

Again you make these broad, generalisations about Farah. Who says that playing 50 minutes is a limited role? You assume that he wouldn't be happy with that! The guy is 32 and he is playing in the toughest rugby league competition in the world. You need to take into account that he is no spring chicken! Additionally, I've outlined the additional reasons that may have impacted upon his decision to join Souths - if you don't accept them then that if your problem. In terms of whether McInnes being preferable over Farah, I think that it is beyond a matter of opinion now; it is now pretty much fact that South Sydney rated the prospect of having Robbie Farah the club much higher than they did of having McInnes. The club has made a decision to let McInnes go and they obviously share the same feeling that I do about McInnes ability or they would never have released him!

Jesus Christ this isn't about mcinnes, he has been moved on and i can live with that. If you think farah was signed as a replacement for mcinnes and to be behind cook i feel sorry you. Farah has come to be number 1, cook number 2 and mcinnes is now surplus to requirements and is gone. The bizarre notion that the current nsw hooker, who left the club he loves dearly, has come to souths to be behind a guy who has struggled to despose of mcinnes and ln the past has lost out to rein and lichaa is pure fantasy. I have come to accept that the club doesn't see mcinnes as the answer to out hooking problems, he is gone case closed, but after writing all year how great cook is and how much an effect he has had on the team, you can't seem to accept that the club signing farah will see cook demoted. You contradict yourself to make it all work out in your mind. Cook playing 40 minutes wasn't good enough in 2016, but playing 40 minutes in 2017 with farah will some how workout. Farah not handling losing control and being benched has seen him fall out bitterly with the club he loves, but he'll happily take on that role for souths depite offers from sharks and dragons to be the main man.

 

[DiegoNT]

Farah's issues regarding Taylor extend well beyond him becoming a bit-part player. He openly said that he was happy coming off the bench and he was getting good game time. If he so unhappy with the role that he was getting then why was he so reluctant to leave? Under other coaches he was never a bit-part player so any discussion concerning that is wrong.

The reason why we deviated to Farah being a starting/bench hooker was for a number of reasons - because you raised points about Cook playing 80 minutes, McInnes' value to the team etc. I was also making the point about hookers needing ample to time to exert their influence over games. It was certainly relevant to what we were talking about.

With regards to Farah's reasons for joining the club, I made a post on it earlier. You might have missed it. This is what I said:
"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."
To answer your question, I think Robbie would be happy to accept a 'reduced' role. I put the word reduced in inverted commas because I do not regard playing 45-50 minutes a game as being a reduce role, a bit-part player on anything of the like. Like I said, Robbie is 32 years old and is no spring chicken. He is also starting to become a bit injury prone and when you are in the twilight of your career as a forward, you need to accept that you won't be playing the full 80 every week. Whether or not the Sharks or other clubs were prepared to offer him a role in which he would play the full 80 is just speculation. We do not know what they were or were not intending to do with Robbie. You may be right and I may be wrong and vice versa. What is certain though is that it is all academic now because he is joined us.

You put so much stock in farah saying he was happy to play on the bench. Like it's impossible for players to say one thing and feel another. Like cook relishing the farah challenge while seeking a release to the sharks. Of course farah was reluctant to leave. He was still hoping that tigers would fail without him at hooker, that taylor would be disgraced and sacked, and that coming into 2017 with a new coach he'd be back to being top dog again. That's not the way it unfolded. Without him tigers had their best season in 5 years and Taylor earnt himself more time as coach. He can't handle not being control, so to think he is coming to be second fiddle to cook is laughable.
You may not regard playing to 50 odd minutes as being reduced to a bit part, but would robbie see it that way? He has always beem an ego driven player who see himself as an elite player, he has stated his desire to continue on with the blues, so playing 50 minutes a game does not suit farah personally. He has always had problems ceding control of a team to others, i don't see him placing himself in that position on purpose at souths.
Which brings me to why sign robbie at all. Cook can play 80, so all that's needed is a back-up. That is unless of course you don't have faith in cook, in which case you try by the best hooker available, which is what a current origin hooker is.

 

[souths_reborn]

Jesus Christ this isn't about mcinnes, he has been moved on and i can live with that. If you think farah was signed as a replacement for mcinnes and to be behind cook i feel sorry you. Farah has come to be number 1, cook number 2 and mcinnes is now surplus to requirements and is gone. The bizarre notion that the current nsw hooker, who left the club he loves dearly, has come to souths to be behind a guy who has struggled to despose of mcinnes and ln the past has lost out to rein and lichaa is pure fantasy. I have come to accept that the club doesn't see mcinnes as the answer to out hooking problems, he is gone case closed, but after writing all year how great cook is and how much an effect he has had on the team, you can't seem to accept that the club signing farah will see cook demoted. You contradict yourself to make it all work out in your mind. Cook playing 40 minutes wasn't good enough in 2016, but playing 40 minutes in 2017 with farah will some how workout. Farah not handling losing control and being benched has seen him fall out bitterly with the club he loves, but he'll happily take on that role for souths depite offers from sharks and dragons to be the main man.

In all honesty, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'contradict.' I have not contradicted myself once. Rather these supposed 'contradictions' are more to do with your inability to read and comprehend the arguments that I am making. The point I made about McInnes being moved on was in response to your remark that "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." I argued that the South Sydney regime don't think McInnes is good enough to play back up to our first choice hooker!! That is why he was released!! I think its become apparent that I am dealing with a special needs person here, so I will spell thing out for you in point form and in language so simple that anyone could understand it. Ok here goes:

1. I NEVER said that Farah was going to be no. 1. nor did I say that he was going to be no. 2. All I said was that there is a strong possibility that we would be playing two hookers. Whether that is Farah starting and Cook off the bench, I'm not sure. That doesn't mean it is going to happen; I'm just offering my views on what I THINK will happen! Moreover, I have given you a few reasons as to why he may have wanted to join Souths other than his desire to be a starting hooker. I have a few more ideas as to why he potentially joined and if you'd like I'd be happy to explain them.

2. Cook may be happy to play 40 minutes. That WAS NOT the point I was making. All I was saying was that I think it is harsh to judge him on his performances where he was thrown on at the back end of games with the result already decided. This did happen quite a few times before the game against the Storm.We've been through it, I've outline the minutes he played along with the time that he was introduced in the games until that point that he started regularly against the Storm. Hence, that is why I think it is fairer to judge him on games in which he has STARTED! That's the big issues here - him STARTING games. Now if Farah does get the starting gig then Cook may want to play his football elsewhere if he wants to play the full 80. HOWEVER, that DOES NOT mean that Maguire doesn't plan on giving him decent game time or using him in proper bench rotation with Farah which would see both hookers get decent minutes.

3. Farah DID NOT fall out with the Tigers specifically over his reduced role! He openly said that he enjoyed coming off the bench and thought that it was working well! Moreover, he was actually playing quite well too! Farah fell out with Taylor over numerous other off the field issues and he was released from the Tigers because the club probably thought that it was the last straw with him given that he fell out with the two previous coaches.

4. The reasons FOR Farah joining the club are numerous and until more information is revealed, your reasons for him joining are probably as good as mine. Hence, at this point we can only SPECULATE as to why he has joined! I made a post outlining the reasons and re-quoted it for you. There may be OTHER reasons as to why he joined, including the fact that he would be along side his brother!

 

[souths_reborn]

You put so much stock in farah saying he was happy to play on the bench. Like it's impossible for players to say one thing and feel another. Like cook relishing the farah challenge while seeking a release to the sharks. Of course farah was reluctant to leave. He was still hoping that tigers would fail without him at hooker, that taylor would be disgraced and sacked, and that coming into 2017 with a new coach he'd be back to being top dog again. That's not the way it unfolded. Without him tigers had their best season in 5 years and Taylor earnt himself more time as coach. He can't handle not being control, so to think he is coming to be second fiddle to cook is laughable.
You may not regard playing to 50 odd minutes as being reduced to a bit part, but would robbie see it that way? He has always beem an ego driven player who see himself as an elite player, he has stated his desire to continue on with the blues, so playing 50 minutes a game does not suit farah personally. He has always had problems ceding control of a team to others, i don't see him placing himself in that position on purpose at souths.
Which brings me to why sign robbie at all. Cook can play 80, so all that's needed is a back-up. That is unless of course you don't have faith in cook, in which case you try by the best hooker available, which is what a current origin hooker is.

Ok at least now we are getting somewhere. I'll break my post down into points because I think that works well because there are a lot of ideas floating around in your post that need addressing:

1. Farah may have to accept that he has to play on the bench regardless of where he goes. There is no way of knowing how the Dragons or Sharks would have planned to use him. I'm not saying that he definitely WOULD NOT have been an 80 minute player, I just think its a bit hard to say that he conclusively would have played the entire game had he gone to either of those clubs. I also think it is extremely dangerous for a player to come out and say one thing, like "I'm happy in the role that I'm being given in coming off the bench" and then turning around and saying something different at another club. In any case, Farah would have known that he would have had at least SOME competition for the hooking spot. Lastly, Cook seeking a release is just pure speculation and should be treated as such until we here something concrete from the club.

2. I do agree that Robbie is an ego-driven player; that is a good point. However, I don't think he will be afford the same leeway that he was given at the Tigers for a number of reasons. I made a post about this where I provided a whole list of reasons in the Robbie Farah thread. Whether you agree with them or not is entirely up to you.

2. We signed Robbie because we need at least TWO hookers for a number of reasons. The two most basic reasons for having two hookers are: a) in the event that one gets injured and b) for variety, sustained impact and tactical reasons. We had Cameron McInnes and Damian Cook as our two hookers. I think that a combination of McInnes not being good enough and Farah coming on the open market prompted the club to make a move. I mean who wouldn't take an origin level hooker when you are only paying like a quarter of his salary. Its not a matter of Maguire not having faith in Cooks, its more a matter of having two capable players in a key position at the club.

 

[DiegoNT]

In all honesty, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'contradict.' I have not contradicted myself once. Rather these supposed 'contradictions' are more to do with your inability to read and comprehend the arguments that I am making. The point I made about McInnes being moved on was in response to your remark that "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." I argued that the South Sydney regime don't think McInnes is good enough to play back up to our first choice hooker!! That is why he was released!! I think its become apparent that I am dealing with a special needs person here, so I will spell thing out for you in point form and in language so simple that anyone could understand it. Ok here goes:

1. I NEVER said that Farah was going to be no. 1. nor did I say that he was going to be no. 2. All I said was that there is a strong possibility that we would be playing two hookers. Whether that is Farah starting and Cook off the bench, I'm not sure. That doesn't mean it is going to happen; I'm just offering my views on what I THINK will happen! Moreover, I have given you a few reasons as to why he may have wanted to join Souths other than his desire to be a starting hooker. I have a few more ideas as to why he potentially joined and if you'd like I'd be happy to explain them.

2. Cook may be happy to play 40 minutes. That WAS NOT the point I was making. All I was saying was that I think it is harsh to judge him on his performances where he was thrown on at the back end of games with the result already decided. This did happen quite a few times before the game against the Storm.We've been through it, I've outline the minutes he played along with the time that he was introduced in the games until that point that he started regularly against the Storm. Hence, that is why I think it is fairer to judge him on games in which he has STARTED! That's the big issues here - him STARTING games. Now if Farah does get the starting gig then Cook may want to play his football elsewhere if he wants to play the full 80. HOWEVER, that DOES NOT mean that Maguire doesn't plan on giving him decent game time or using him in proper bench rotation with Farah which would see both hookers get decent minutes.

3. Farah DID NOT fall out with the Tigers specifically over his reduced role! He openly said that he enjoyed coming off the bench and thought that it was working well! Moreover, he was actually playing quite well too! Farah fell out with Taylor over numerous other off the field issues and he was released from the Tigers because the club probably thought that it was the last straw with him given that he fell out with the two previous coaches.

4. The reasons FOR Farah joining the club are numerous and until more information is revealed, your reasons for him joining are probably as good as mine. Hence, at this point we can only SPECULATE as to why he has joined! I made a post outlining the reasons and re-quoted it for you. There may be OTHER reasons as to why he joined, including the fact that he would be along side his brother!

So mcinnes isn't even good enough to be a back up hooker so he was released ? That's geniused. With farah coming in we have a first choice hooker, and having cook and mcinnes means we had 2 back up hookers. That's an unneeded luxury. With mcinnes having interest from other clubs it makes sense to let him go as we only need 1 back-up. To say that a guy who 2 years ago was the captain of the junior kangaroos, and played 19 games this year isn't even good enough to be a back up hooker is easily the stupidiest thing I've read on here since 'only Caucasians are smart enough'.

1. It doesn't take much to figure Farah is coming as number 1. Cook obviously sees it that way which is why he asked for a release.

2. You said that early in the season cook was never getting a good chance to prove himself in the team. Once i proved that wrong you moved the goal post to just before the storm game. In his first 12 games for the club cook was given ample opportunity to prove himself.

3. Farah has fallen out repeatedly with coaches every time he loses power and control within the club. It's a long term pattern at the club. You seem to think that it's all to do with personal problems with Taylor, when it's obvious that this has been brewing for a long time. He has had problems with taylor for 2 years, he almost left last year, it's obvious that taylor putting farah on the bench then following through with his threat to put farah back to reserve grade has been the catalyst for farah finally leaving.

4. With so much at stake, i seriously doubt farah would take such a risk joining souths with the threat of benching or reserve grade being so high. With money not being a factor, the reassurance that he is a key part of the first grade side would had to be part of the process.

 

[souths_reborn]

So mcinnes isn't even good enough to be a back up hooker so he was released ? That's geniused. With farah coming in we have a first choice hooker, and having cook and mcinnes means we had 2 back up hookers. That's an unneeded luxury. With mcinnes having interest from other clubs it makes sense to let him go as we only need 1 back-up. To say that a guy who 2 years ago was the captain of the junior kangaroos, and played 19 games this year isn't even good enough to be a back up hooker is easily the stupidiest thing I've read on here since 'only Caucasians are smart enough'.

1. It doesn't take much to figure Farah is coming as number 1. Cook obviously sees it that way which is why he asked for a release.

2. You said that early in the season cook was never getting a good chance to prove himself in the team. Once i proved that wrong you moved the goal post to just before the storm game. In his first 12 games for the club cook was given ample opportunity to prove himself.

3. Farah has fallen out repeatedly with coaches every time he loses power and control within the club. It's a long term pattern at the club. You seem to think that it's all to do with personal problems with Taylor, when it's obvious that this has been brewing for a long time. He has had problems with taylor for 2 years, he almost left last year, it's obvious that taylor putting farah on the bench then following through with his threat to put farah back to reserve grade has been the catalyst for farah finally leaving.

4. With so much at stake, i seriously doubt farah would take such a risk joining souths with the threat of benching or reserve grade being so high. With money not being a factor, the reassurance that he is a key part of the first grade side would had to be part of the process.

1. No McInnes was not good enough to be a back up hooker. That is why he was released instead of Cook. If McInnes was good enough to be a back up hooker then the club would have sought to get rid of Cook and kept McInnes. McInnes had every right to stay if he wanted to fight for his spot but I think the club would have said to him something along the lines of "Listen you're 3rd choice and your probably facing an uphill battle to get a spot in the team. If the Dragons offer you a deal where you will be playing in first grade, then take it!" Secondly, there is a MASSIVE difference between junior football and first grade. There have been stacks of junior footballers who have excelled at that level but have failed to make the cut at first grade. Moreover, do not read too much into the NYC; that competition is a joke for numerous reasons and that is why it is being scrapped. In short, just because you are a good junior doesn't mean you are going to kill it at first grade.

2. I said that Cook was not getting a fair chance and I've explained why countless times. You didn't read properly. If you don't believe me, go back through the posts I've made about him earlier on in the year and read them again. I've explained myself thoroughly regarding Cook and him starting games. I'm not going to explain it again. If you are unsure of anything, I'll clarify. Other than that, it is up to you to go and read them again.

3. I don't necessarily disagree with you on Farah being power hungry. However, I have NEVER said that it was exclusive to Taylor. He has been this way for a while, so I'm not sure where you are getting this all from. Once again you are putting words in my mouth! Moreover, if Farah was unhappy with his bench role then why did he come out and say that he was enjoying it? The best thing to do would be to give a neutral response or not comment on it before. Realistically, you are right though about Farah almost leaving last year because of Taylor; why the club kept him, I do not know! I think from memory it was the board who elected to resign him. How much say Taylor had, I do not know but I can't imagine that he would have wanted him there.

4. Are you saying that on the assumption that Farah is going to muck up and give Maguire hell or him potentially falling behind Cook? With regards to Farah being high maintenance, I've already said that I think he will pull his head in because he is not a club legend here at Souths and doesn't have as much influence. Similarly, I think it he gives Maguire trouble, it will justify Taylor's decision to get rid of him and forever condemn Farah as being a trouble maker.

However, if you are talking about his form and playing reserve grade for tactical reasons, I think Maguire would have given him some reassurances that he would be playing first grade in a significant capacity. Like I stated before, I never said that Farah would or wouldn't not be starting. All I said was that we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves.

 

[Rabbit toes]

This is thread derailment of shadow proportions!

 

[DiegoNT]

Farah was signed because mcinnes isn't good enough to be backup? A player highly rated by the club and picked to play 19 games in 2016 finishing the year as 18th man suddenly isn't even good enough to be a back up?
Or maybe both cook and mcinnes aren't good enough to be 1st choice, farah is signed to be 1st choice. With cook and mcinnes both being back ups. With no need for 2 back ups, and with dragons offering to take mcinnes he is let go.
I may not agree with the arguement that mcinnes isn't first grade standard, but can understand the arguement, but to say he isn't even good enough to be a back-up, to be in a 25 man squad behind a good hooker is too much of a stretch.

 

[DiegoNT]

This is thread derailment of shadow proportions!

Oh jeez i haven't turned into shadow have i

 

[Rabbit toes]

Oh jeez i haven't turned into shadow have i

Youre a loooooooong way from being like him

 

[alien]

They can get lost the red necks.

They haven't really given us any of their players lately, so why do they expect to take them off us the morons.

Jones can have Nielsen and Tyrrell. What gifts they would be lol.

I hope the Sharks choke too.

red necks, lol

 

[DiegoNT]

red necks, lol

I didn't think you had rednecks in inner sydney

 

[alien]

I'd have Cook in the 14 and play him for 30mins.

Like this???: Farah starts the game and is replaced by Cook after around 30 mins, then Cook is replaced by Farah around the 60th minute

 

[alien]

I didn't think you had rednecks in inner sydney

maybe something to do with the Cronulla riot

 

[DiegoNT]

maybe something to do with the Cronulla riot

Ahh
I thought they were more bogan then redneck.
Did you join in alien.? Would of been right up your ally

 

[southsport]

Like this???: Farah starts the game and is replaced by Cook after around 30 mins, then Cook is replaced by Farah around the 60th minute

I'm not rapt in the idea of having a hooker take up a bench spot.

 

[alien]

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.

wow!