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!
My question to him wasnt specifically about last nights game, more so in general about what we are missing and why we continually lose the games we should win. I was trying to 'bait' him to see what his views on BA and Junior where but unfortunately someone else joined us and the conversation moved on.
So what is he in the team for? He doesn’t create, run the ball with any kind of effectiveness, doesn’t really kick long and we can agree to disagree regarding his defence. He’s playing one of the most important positions on the field FFS.
A couple of times. Didn't want to go too hard though because he was my lift home.
@Avenger could have picked a better time to start bragging about his watch collection.
When I was a kid my old man had a work car that he shared with a few colleagues. Whenever we'd drive around I'd sneak a few silent but deadlies into the passenger seat. Plan was working well until one of his colleagues complained that the car smelt of farts.
I guess it depends what you mean by scramble. Yes Gutherson and Drown are high effort defenders and both save a lot of tries but when I think of a team that scrambles well I think of the Panthers who are almost never outnumbered around ball because their middle defenders work so hard. Our middle absolutely doesn't look like that in defence, especially on the back of repeat efforts. The main effect is that Penrith recover very quickly from conceding a quick play-the-ball while we do not.
I think most times I have heard the word 'scramble' used its in relation to a defensive team recovering from initial f**k ups.
Belatedly? I responded when you asked. I didn't previously state it was rhetorical because I thought it was obvious. When I asked lucablight "Do you think they are all coming from outside the 20m zone?" I assumed he didn't think all our tries were scored from that far away, and it should've been obvious I didn't think they were either given I'm generally happy with our red zone attack. I certainly wasn't on Saturday though. I feel we started the game doing something differently, and by the time we got back to what works (in the second half) we were gassed and under scoreboard pressure.It was in response to you belatedly claiming your question was a rhetorical one... you're so high on keyboard fantasies you don't even know what argument you're trying to start or reply to any more
Look, if I was interested in my credibility as a thinker I wouldn't be postulating on footy forums. I would pick a topic that was more cerebral. I do this because I enjoy it, not to get bitches. I'm just like you.
Phantom could make a room full of fanny part from a 100m radius.
Here's a few examples just from the last two pages:
Well if I was would that be bad? Maybe a source of shame perhaps? Let me know what you're trying to imply mate, cheers.
Well it's good if you're not blaming him. My reply was public because it was to everyone, specifically those who blamed Jake Arthur for the loss and twisted themselves into knots trying to explain why the Darwin debacle proved anything about the player without saying anything about the rest of the squad that is supposedly as good as the Panthers and Storm if only we had a better coach.
When I say carves up I don't mean he is breaking tackles and scoring length of the field tries. I mean he is highly effective in attack.
I'd say the former is the most likely reason coaches get the arse. Relationships with certain players break down and there are no salary cap implications from sacking coaches mid-contract (or at least there wasn't until recently) so it's easier to axe the coach. At plenty of clubs there are a number of players more important than the coach. If they want him gone it wouldn't be hard to make it happen.
Sounds like a narrative, which usually means bullshit. It isn't hard to work out what tactics suit the rules. Then it's just a matter of building a team that suits those tactics. This isn't done in a vacuum. Other clubs want the same players so you can't just keep building until you have the perfect team because other teams are trying to take the players you've already got. It needs to happen all at once which takes superior resources (e.g. the big four or five EPL clubs) or the stars to align (e.g. Leicester City six years ago).
Sure but the guys who are smart enough to figure it out once are also smart enough to see when things change. Fans might talk about coaches being too dumb to notice <blah> because it helps us feel smarter but the reality is if a hundred merkins on a footy forum can see something then even the dumbest coach can see the same thing. I think the guys that get pushed out of the game usually just burn out, maybe coinciding with a change in squad dynamics eroding their relationships with certain important players. This would usually be the straw that broke the camel's back for coaches moving on or even retiring.
I think the importance of the position depends on the responsibilities given to the player at the time. So for a highly paid star like Moses that right side halfback spot is of massive importance because he does almost all of our kicking and has freedom to play eyes up and take risks. When Drown plays left side halfback it is slightly less important because he doesn't have much responsibility for kicking, but he is to look for opportunities to run the ball. When Arthur plays left side halfback he has even less responsibility because his job is just to get early ball to Lane and Drown, and occasionally finish sets inside the opposition 20 with his short kicking game when required.
