What's new
The Front Row Forums

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!

Rumours and Stuff

SneakyEel

Juniors
Messages
247
Also, I see Penrith, Souths, Manly and Storm go backwards. Penrith lose Momorovski, Capewell, Naden and Burton. Melbourne lose Addo-Carr, Hynes and Finucane. Souths lose Reynolds, Gagai, Benji, Su'a and Wayne Bennet is no longer coach. Regards to Manly I don't think Turbo can back up his 2021 form, he had an absolute blinder last year and absolutely carries their attack and their edge defence is average. If Turbo has a quiet year you'll probably see Manly have one too.
 

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
13,087
wasnt hagan supposed to get us over the line.

And Ricky ?

I am not talking about that level of coach. Neither are/were great when we signed them (they were questionable to say the least). I am talking about Bennett or Bellamy maybe Robinson - everyone else we might as well keep Arthur.
If some other club signs Bellamy ever, Eel heads should roll. We should be the club he leaves for if he does due us shamelessly begging him. No other club should be more desperate than us to win a premiership.
 

Obscene Assassin

First Grade
Messages
5,491
Also, I see Penrith, Souths, Manly and Storm go backwards. Penrith lose Momorovski, Capewell, Naden and Burton. Melbourne lose Addo-Carr, Hynes and Finucane. Souths lose Reynolds, Gagai, Benji, Su'a and Wayne Bennet is no longer coach. Regards to Manly I don't think Turbo can back up his 2021 form, he had an absolute blinder last year and absolutely carries their attack and their edge defence is average. If Turbo has a quiet year you'll probably see Manly have one too.

I remember hearing that Manly had statistically the worst first 4 rounds in NRL history. They were then lucky to beat the warriors by 1 point in round 5 and in round 6 tom t returned.

The dogs this year averaged 4 points per game in the opening 4 rounds this year, and yet manly had a worse points differential than them.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
68,162
I don’t think there is a blanket objective measurement you can use to compare the quality of rosters. There are a number of factors that have to be considered and alot of them can’t be quantified.
But some can right, so what are they? Anything else is just some merkin's opinion.

I assume you think Arthur's finals record is an objective fact that is meaningful. Are there any others?
I tend to put more weight into talent whereas it seems like you like to measure in terms of origin appearances and finals experience.
No I also think talent (or more accurately current footballing ability rather than potential) is of supreme importance, but how do you objectively demonstrate it when comparing rosters?

Of course I think Mahoney is a better player than McCullough, and to prove it I would point to their relative playmaking stats. But I'm also certain McCullough provides a cooler head in pressure situations, and to support this I would compare their big games history. For this I would use finals + Origin as the most objective measure, even if it isn't perfect.
 
Last edited:

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
68,162
We have tried to win with ordinary to goodish coaching since Jack Gibson.
And it worked when Monie had a good enough side.
The one thing we haven't tried since Jack is putting all the chips into the greatest coach we can get. Last time we tried it (Jack Gibson) it worked well.
I also think that BA has had the same amount of luck as others (I guess you mean Flanagan and Madgigan) - Flanagan was def lucky.
Is there a theory that BA has been unlucky?
Well nearly half his finals appearances have been against Melbourne. Another two have been against either the eventual premiers or the runners up.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
68,162
Ricky was a fraud from the start sharkie fans that i know warned me when he signed with us he wasn't going to get us anywhere especially after he demolished them in 2009-2010 with some questionable decisions and coaching.

Some would say he still is he hasn't won a comp in 20 years and is protected specics from his News ltd mates who will defend him to hilt hence he is never under pressure.

Give me BA over sticky anyday
I think he's done well with Canberra. Better than most coaches would have done. They have very few recruitment/retention advantages. Footy players don't care about the job market for arts graduates. There's nothing for them in Canberra.

And I say this as a person who likes Canberra.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
68,162
I am not talking about that level of coach. Neither are/were great when we signed them (they were questionable to say the least). I am talking about Bennett or Bellamy maybe Robinson - everyone else we might as well keep Arthur.
If some other club signs Bellamy ever, Eel heads should roll. We should be the club he leaves for if he does due us shamelessly begging him. No other club should be more desperate than us to win a premiership.
Coaches don't go where the clubs need to beg, they go where the clubs are able to commit a lot of money long term to build/maintain the 'development' (poaching) infrastructure required to field the best team year after year.
 

lucablight

Bench
Messages
4,331
But some can right, so what are they? Anything else is just some merkin's opinion.

I assume you think Arthur's finals record is an objective fact that is meaningful. Are there any others?
If you want me to tell you that there is a way to objectively compare teams/players by looking at a set number of statistics then you’re going to be disappointed. It’s like asking who is the best halfback of all time? Is it the one who has the most try assists? The most line break assists? The most kick metres? The most premierships? The most origin appearances? You can’t take one set of arbitrary criteria and apply it as a blanket to every other halfback to reach a conclusion. That’s not how it works. The same could be said when you compare teams.
I think you need to look at a whole range of aspects and use data to support your findings. Origin and finals experience can be one of those but not the be all and end all. I actually think it’s circular reasoning to say teams that win premierships have the most origin players because the majority of teams that make the grand final end up having the widest origin representation. For example in 2001 the Eels had 3 players picked for origin. In 2002 5 Eels were picked. Nobody is going to tell you that the 2002 Eels were better than the 2001 side. Similarly if we had made the grand final this season over Penrith I guarantee we would have higher origin representation and Penrith would have less. That’s why I don’t think the metrics of origin players is as meaningful as you might think. I give the most amount of weight to talent when it comes to comparing teams and that’s not something that can be easily quantified.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
68,162
If you want me to tell you that there is a way to objectively compare teams/players by looking at a set number of statistics then you’re going to be disappointed. It’s like asking who is the best halfback of all time? Is it the one who has the most try assists? The most line break assists? The most kick metres? The most premierships? The most origin appearances? You can’t take one set of arbitrary criteria and apply it as a blanket to every other halfback to reach a conclusion. That’s not how it works. The same could be said when you compare teams.
That might be true when comparing across different time periods, but in a given year it most certainly isn't true. If you think stats have no value why do you think NRL clubs pay so much money for analysts and access to statistical data?
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
68,162
For example in 2001 the Eels had 3 players picked for origin. In 2002 5 Eels were picked. Nobody is going to tell you that the 2002 Eels were better than the 2001 side.
No but you seem to think that is my argument. I've made clear that I would only say the 2002 team had more big game experience (although they did lose some very experienced players after 2001). Why did they get worse results than the 2001 team? We all no doubt have our theories, but we couldn't argue them effectively without providing some statistical evidence.
 

lucablight

Bench
Messages
4,331
That might be true when comparing across different time periods, but in a given year it most certainly isn't true. If you think stats have no value why do you think NRL clubs pay so much money for analysts and access to statistical data?
Now you’re strawmanning me. I never said stats don’t have any value. I’m saying you can’t use one particular set of stats and use them to do a blanket comparison across every other player/team and reach a conclusion. Using my earlier example which particular statistic would you use to rank the halfbacks this year? I’d be very surprised if you quantify it by using just one.
No but you seem to think that is my argument. I've made clear that I would only say the 2002 team had more big game experience (although they did lose some very experienced players after 2001). Why did they get worse results than the 2001 team? We all no doubt have our theories, but we couldn't argue them effectively without providing some statistical evidence.
They were a less talented team overall. Losing Jason Taylor and PJ Marsh was huge. The Premiers (Roosters) had talented players in Hegarty, Hodges, Minichiello, Wing, Jason Cayless, Morley, Crocker, Flannery who were either fringe origin players or had no origin experience at all and went on to be hugely influential in winning the competition that season. Using your metrics they would be non factors or “shoulda coulda wouldas”. I see our shoulda woulda coulda batch of players as no different except we can’t seem to make that breakthrough.
 

T-Boon

Coach
Messages
13,087
Coaches don't go where the clubs need to beg, they go where the clubs are able to commit a lot of money long term to build/maintain the 'development' (poaching) infrastructure required to field the best team year after year.

I think Bennett was like, that but has been the opposite of that the last 15 years. He hasn't stayed anywhere long term. He just wants to win immediately.
Maybe Bellamy is at the stage of his career now that Bennett was 15 years ago.

Anyway, What ever.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
68,162
Using my earlier example which particular statistic would you use to rank the halfbacks this year? I’d be very surprised if you quantify it by using just one.
No but I certainly wouldn't need to use all of them. Some solid heuristics:

Kick metres
Forced drop outs
TAs
LBAs
Win percentage
Team points
Plus probably tackle effectiveness to measure how much of a liability he is in defence.

This ignores some data in favour of others, but it would paint a very good picture of who the top halves are. If say most NRL fans would agree that the final output matched their idea of the best halves in the game.

For teams it would take even less to predict finals results. Besides the obvious wins (ladder position), I'd say points differential and combined finals + Origin representation would be predictive of results in the finals. This would match most fans' predictions of where teams would finish relative to each other. You know opposition fans don't really rate our squad, don't you? No different to the media. We are the ones who misjudge the ability of our players, and we do so because we are emotionally invested in them. It's like how parents are the last to know when their kid is a piece of shit.
 

Latest posts

Top