Reece Robson Leaving

[AyiosYiorgos]

Millward let our young junior Garrick go and signed the likes of Maratnta, Ravalawa and Pearson instead. Mary failed to persist with Garrick's development as is the case for many young juniors tht he doesn't like.

We need a broom though our system of incompetent management staff and coaching staff. At Manly Hasler has recognised Garrick's potential and it looks like he has found a way to get the best out of him.

Your constant biased bashing of Millward is laughable, no matter who he wants to sign up again, they will not sign if they're not given a chance, doesnt matter if he gives an extra $50k at him he was going, played 1/2 a game in a trial match and that was it sure he didnt play flash but doesnt get a look in again, same as Robson, Field these guys WANT to play 1st grade, they would take less to go play at another club, no matter what , there is no doubt Millward has farked up with Aitken/Lafai etc but to constantly blame him for everything is absurd...

 

[getsmarty]

It is very clear that there was plenty of coin in the kitty for season 2019 so, it has to be said that there was enough there to at least field a good first string 17. But Millward decided two inexperienced wingers and two top level five-eights were what was needed. Just imagine if Widdop was allowed to go when he first asked for a release, in a similar way that Ah Mau and Macdonald were allowed to leave.

I'm sure we would have had the dollars to compete for top grade players to fill the positions of fullback, wingers, centre and a forward. I feel sure we could have also extended the likes of Lomax, Robson and Field.

Widdop plus Macdonald's salary alone would have been approx. 1.3m.

You are making a number of assumptions........Macdonald's money may have gone to upgrading a few players...Widdop is still on the books this year......How do you know that their combined salary is $ 1.3 mill. ? Do you have access to the books....

Re Morris..we were only offering 1 year if my memory serves me correctly...Roosters offered 2...Morris is no spring chicken , although he is still playing well has just re injured his knee again which comes with age.

 

[RufusRex]

if only some decent wingers had come onto the market last off season ...

 

[Dragonslayer]

Speaking of Garrick, he has great pitential hut his defense is his achilles heal.
His 1st game for Manly was down at 20% effective rate, thats not 1st grade or even CC grade level. Last night that improved to 80%.
Jury out for mine.

 

[hazzbeen]

Speaking of Garrick, he has great pitential hut his defense is his achilles heal.
His 1st game for Manly was down at 20% effective rate, thats not 1st grade or even CC grade level. Last night that improved to 80%.
Jury out for mine.

See your point but , young bloke that is big and strong , OK has problems in defense , but getting rid of him and signing some unknown wingers to play 1st grade , that ain't that much better ....

 

[possm]

Your constant biased bashing of Millward is laughable, no matter who he wants to sign up again, they will not sign if they're not given a chance, doesnt matter if he gives an extra $50k at him he was going, played 1/2 a game in a trial match and that was it sure he didnt play flash but doesnt get a look in again, same as Robson, Field these guys WANT to play 1st grade, they would take less to go play at another club, no matter what , there is no doubt Millward has farked up with Aitken/Lafai etc but to constantly blame him for everything is absurd...

I completely agree with you and that is why it was a foolish thing for the club to do - split pathways/recruitment/retention management away from the head coach. Sure Mary is not up to managing such duties but Millward could always report to Mary couldn't he. Or better still SGI could sack Mary and have Millward report directly to the new head coach.

In this way the head coach would have the final say and would assume responsibility for all.

 

[Como Connection]

I completely agree with you and that is why it was a foolish thing for the club to do - split pathways/recruitment/retention management away from the head coach. Sure Mary is not up to managing such duties but Millward could always report to Mary couldn't he. Or better still SGI could sack Mary and have Millward report directly to the new head coach.

In this way the head coach would have the final say and would assume responsibility for all.

Or appoint Millward as head coach.
CC

 

[Dennis Papaioannou]

I didn't see the game so can't make a comment on the quality of his performance, but one half decent game does not make a quality retention or make him 'first rate'

I watched the game the week before and he did absolutely nothing the whole game. In fact, his defensive positioning was all over the place.

Your memory of last years ISP and his appearance in our trials seems to have been conveniently forgotten when you want to put down the club. He was far from consistent and his trial form was diabolical. Nobody complained when we let him go.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
The point is pathways and how the club brings younger players through.
Stop focusing on the perception that my comments "put the club down" and be objective.
Try and do that by comparing the way we handle our juniors compared to other clubs.
Melbourne is the perfect example of what I'm talking about.
In a short space of time they lost Slater and Cronk.
Two of the games greats.
They planned their departure and brought through Hughes and Croft who are already performing at FG level.
Munster is another example of how Bellamy nurtures his young players and makes them into first graders.
So now compare that with what we do.
No halves being developed and brought through even though the lower grades perform pretty well and usually contest the finals.
Instead we have to pay big money for Hunt and even Widdop's replacement is from outside the club.
Look at the recruitment of our wingers.
McDonald leaves and we buy a swag of second rate wingers to replace him - Why?
Because the don't take up much salary cap? Shot gun approach to finding a solution?
Whatever the reason it doesn't hold water.
So all I was saying re Garrick was that he is just as good if not better than the players we bought.
As a junior he should get priority not be an after thought.
I also saw last week's game and considering it was his FG debut he did OK.
One week later and he played really well.
Sorry if you can't see it.
Hasler is on the money and has already developed him into a FG winger.
Look at our three quarter line...

 

[Dennis Papaioannou]

I completely agree with you and that is why it was a foolish thing for the club to do - split pathways/recruitment/retention management away from the head coach. Sure Mary is not up to managing such duties but Millward could always report to Mary couldn't he. Or better still SGI could sack Mary and have Millward report directly to the new head coach.

In this way the head coach would have the final say and would assume responsibility for all.

Or Sack Mary and Millward and let a competent Head Coach do his job.

 

[True_Believer]

I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
The point is pathways and how the club brings younger players through.
Stop focusing on the perception that my comments "put the club down" and be objective.
Try and do that by comparing the way we handle our juniors compared to other clubs.
Melbourne is the perfect example of what I'm talking about.
In a short space of time they lost Slater and Cronk.
Two of the games greats.
They planned their departure and brought through Hughes and Croft who are already performing at FG level.
Munster is another example of how Bellamy nurtures his young players and makes them into first graders.
So now compare that with what we do.
No halves being developed and brought through even though the lower grades perform pretty well and usually contest the finals.
Instead we have to pay big money for Hunt and even Widdop's replacement is from outside the club.
Look at the recruitment of our wingers.
McDonald leaves and we buy a swag of second rate wingers to replace him - Why?
Because the don't take up much salary cap? Shot gun approach to finding a solution?
Whatever the reason it doesn't hold water.
So all I was saying re Garrick was that he is just as good if not better than the players we bought.
As a junior he should get priority not be an after thought.
I also saw last week's game and considering it was his FG debut he did OK.
One week later and he played really well.
Sorry if you can't see it.
Hasler is on the money and has already developed him into a FG winger.
Look at our three quarter line...

OK so I'll take you view.

How do we handle our juniors differently?

Let's take Garrick for example. We have kept him through the grades and brought him to the cusp of first grade. Now as I said, he was inconsistent and his NRL trials were poor - nobody bemoaned his departure.

So in essence, Millward has done his job. Now whether he was ready for first grade, is not Millward's call. Preparation for first grade was the ISP coaching staff and the NRL coaching staff. Not something Millward has any final say in. If someone comes along and offers him a first grade debut and secures a spot in a different team, what is Millward to do? Pay extra out of the cap to keep him with no guarantee that he's going to get that opportunity? That's not good business sense.

He's done the same with Lomax and Robson and a host of other juniors. He's resigned them and brought them to within a step of first grade. He's even said in interviews that the focus is on retaining juniors and making sure we identify the ones we need to retain etc. So where, at least in these instances, has he done something wrong?

And as for "not seeing he did OK in his debut", I don't know what game you watched, but he didn't do anything in that game. As I said in my first post and others have subsequently said, his defence is poor and that's exactly what I saw in that game. I'm sorry you neglected to see that.

 

[possm]

Or appoint Millward as head coach.
CC

The St George faction would never approve however, if Dean Young was made recruitment Director, the may be a chance.

 

[Old Timer]

if only some decent wingers had come onto the market last off season ...

Come on we got 2 while the Eels took that clown Ferguson who isn't even up to SOO level according to the great Freddy.

 

[Old Timer]

Or appoint Millward as head coach.
CC

That has been my belief forever and a day.
Coach has moved Millward to the edge of the footpath to try and push him under the bus but Millward IMO might very well take coach's legs out from under him.

 

[Crush]

You can’t say that! Millward is doing a FANTASTIC job!

Always remember to toe the company line.

The record is stuck

 

[Dennis Papaioannou]

OK so I'll take you view.

How do we handle our juniors differently?

Let's take Garrick for example. We have kept him through the grades and brought him to the cusp of first grade. Now as I said, he was inconsistent and his NRL trials were poor - nobody bemoaned his departure.

So in essence, Millward has done his job. Now whether he was ready for first grade, is not Millward's call. Preparation for first grade was the ISP coaching staff and the NRL coaching staff. Not something Millward has any final say in. If someone comes along and offers him a first grade debut and secures a spot in a different team, what is Millward to do? Pay extra out of the cap to keep him with no guarantee that he's going to get that opportunity? That's not good business sense.

He's done the same with Lomax and Robson and a host of other juniors. He's resigned them and brought them to within a step of first grade. He's even said in interviews that the focus is on retaining juniors and making sure we identify the ones we need to retain etc. So where, at least in these instances, has he done something wrong?

And as for "not seeing he did OK in his debut", I don't know what game you watched, but he didn't do anything in that game. As I said in my first post and others have subsequently said, his defence is poor and that's exactly what I saw in that game. I'm sorry you neglected to see that.

I find it interesting that your response revolves around Millward who I didn't even mention in my post.
You also seemed to be focused on Garrick in his first game so no latitude from you for the debutant.
Garrick wasn't guaranteed a FG spot at Manly nor did he go for big money. He went to get a chance under an experienced coach so he could develop his game.
Hasler obviously saw something in him which just reinforces my argument.
I don't know how these youngsters are ever going to develop without a quality mentor (coach) and without significant minutes playing first grade.
What has Millward got to do with that?
If you want to tangent this discussion that's fine but let's get back to what I actually posted and the points I made:
1. Compare the way we bring juniors through to how Melbourne does it. Hughes and Croft replacing Cronk and Slater. Big shoes to fill and yet Melbourne look just as well drilled and imposing as they did with their big stars.
2. Why are we not promoting talent to fill the wingers positions and why was it necessary to recruit 4 run of the mill players from outside the club?
I'm not saying Garrick was the answer but he is certainly no worse then what we currently have.
I also want to take this opportunity to point to some other development blunders which maybe you can explain as you seem quite happy with what's going on.
(a) Aitkin - he was brought into FG by McGregor.
Has not improved or developed his game one iota during his time in FG.
Is usually an automatic selection and has never lived up to his touted potential.
All this under a coach who was an elite centre during his playing days.
Why?
(b) Lomax - thrown in the deep end at the end of 2018 and played with great temperament, courage and skill.
Defensively much more reliable than Aitkin and clearly made a statement that he was ready for FG.
Instead he was dicked around and played on the wing during the trials which ultimately gave McGregor the excuse to banish him to reserve grade.
How do you think that kid feels? His confidence has had to have taken a beating.
(c) Need I mention Bird?
(d) Fonoa Blake - was let go due to indiscretions off the field. Was given a chance at Manly and is now a great FG prop.
Why would it be OK to recruit Dugan and Packer and rehabilitate them and not offer that same opportunity to one of our own juniors?
So who's next - Robson?
Based on your most recent post, you have definitely missed the point.

 

[Walpole]

if only some decent wingers had come onto the market last off season ...

I know, it's a pity someone like Corey Oates wasn't off contract...

 

[Frank Facer]

I know, it's a pity someone like Corey Oates wasn't off contract...

How high in $ terms would you have gone to secure Oates's signature to play wing for us?

 

[possm]

I know, it's a pity someone like Corey Oates wasn't off contract...

He was off contract and could have been signed for 2019 but wasn't. Millward instead let go Garrick and released Macdonald and then recruited a few average outside backs.

 

[possm]

How high in $ terms would you have gone to secure Oates's signature to play wing for us?

The market price. At least he would have been an upgrade on what we had during the 2018 season however, with the prospect of having to play outside Aitken would put off any high profile winger.

 

[True_Believer]

I find it interesting that your response revolves around Millward who I didn't even mention in my post.

Exibit A

It defies logic and just shows the ineptitude of the pathways managers.
I believe we will lose more young talent while McGregor is the Head Coach.​

Millward = Director of Pathways - I'd say that falls into the category of Manager.​

You also seemed to be focused on Garrick in his first game so no latitude from you for the debutant..

Exibit B

I just watched Garrick play on the wing for Manly...
The kid was brilliant!.

You are using Garrick as an example of where we are poor at 'pathways'. I just continued that discussion. My point is that Garrick is a poor example. I also stated I didn't watch the last game and I mentioned his performances with us. Far from 'no latitude'.
​

Garrick wasn't guaranteed a FG spot at Manly nor did he go for big money. He went to get a chance under an experienced coach so he could develop his game.

How do you know?

(a) Aitkin - he was brought into FG by McGregor.
Has not improved or developed his game one iota during his time in FG.
Is usually an automatic selection and has never lived up to his touted potential.
All this under a coach who was an elite centre during his playing days.
Why?
(b) Lomax - thrown in the deep end at the end of 2018 and played with great temperament, courage and skill.
Defensively much more reliable than Aitkin and clearly made a statement that he was ready for FG.
Instead he was dicked around and played on the wing during the trials which ultimately gave McGregor the excuse to banish him to reserve grade.
How do you think that kid feels? His confidence has had to have taken a beating.

My thoughts on these players and their retention/opportunities is document elsewhere. I'm not going to repeat them.

(d) Fonoa Blake - was let go due to indiscretions off the field. Was given a chance at Manly and is now a great FG prop.
Why would it be OK to recruit Dugan and Packer and rehabilitate them and not offer that same opportunity to one of our own juniors?.

It would have been in his contract. He breached his contract and we let him go. Just as Raiders would have and just as every team does when a player does something outside of their contract. Dugan and Packer were new contracts and I am guessing they would have had the same clauses in theirs and we would have done the same thing had they breached them. It's a poor example and doesn't fit with the point you are apparently trying to make.

Based on your most recent post, you have definitely missed the point.

I don't think I have. I don't think everything is good, but I just don't like to twist every action the club takes into a negative view.