IFR33K
Coach
- Messages
- 17,043
Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That's impressive. But I believe the term these days is 'vision impaired'.No. Blind builder and installer.
You won't often get a bigger sample from a rookie and in any case it was enough games to outperform Drown in creativity over a larger sample of games. Jake Arthur also had good output in a slightly larger sample in reserve grade. His ability to set up tries and his support play are no fluke. He has also attempted 175 tackles in first grade for an impressive 87% effective rate. That's enough tackles to tell whether he can defend or not. In a similar volume of defensive work in reserve grade he was tackling at 89%
*fired up
That might be true but he wasn't selected as a backup. And commenting on how he looks out there is just that, sharing an opinion.
How's he going to read your response FFS?
I assume he's got some kind of wonder dog.
I reckon he was. He's hardly an impact sub, and so far we've only seen him in the NRL as a replacement for injured players.
Sunday’s game is not what I’m worried about. We gambled on a reserve grader half on the bench on Sunday and we were lucky to hold on to the lead we had. The defence wasn’t his fault and I’m the first to admit it was shit. But even if we fix our defence, what does JA actually offer? He’s certainly a worse option than Brown in the halves. Has Brown shown anything to suggest he’s a revelation in the centres, enough to offset JA’s inability to score points? I certainly don’t think so and the points scored (or lack thereof) when he came on is at least some evidence that supports this. So why is he on the bench? The fact we couldnt score a try once he came on (and struggled to score last year when he was in the halves) gives me great concern for the future if Arthur senior keeps picking him.
A backup is a player who plays if the regular players are injured. JA was picked in the 17 in the first game of the season with plenty of other options left out. BA sees Junior as more than a backup.
We didn't score for the same reason we suddenly conceded so many on Sunday. Our effort dropped off.
Well obviously. Given no better option for the bench, why not play the young backup who will benefit from first grade experience against a weaker defensive team? I reckon it's the reason Russell was picked over the more reliable/experienced Opacic. I think if we'd kept the lead and Russell had stayed on the field, we would've seen Arthur given some minutes in the second half. But if it had remained as close at it was he probably would've stayed on the bench.
No better option for the bench? What changed from a week ago or what did you see on Sunday that changed your opinion from this comment referring to Arthur on the bench:
The Sharks side that completed at 68%, missed 44 tackles and made 12 errors….they were pretty average too…
But it was a problem
