Rumours and Stuff

[The Colonel]

Oh look, Sims took a massive pay cut to play under Wayne. What. A. Surprise. Not.

https://www.triplem.com.au/sport/nrl/news/newcastle-knights-release-korbin-sims/?station=sydney

 

[hineyrulz]

Oh look, Sims took a massive pay cut to play under Wayne. What. A. Surprise. Not.

https://www.triplem.com.au/sport/nrl/news/newcastle-knights-release-korbin-sims/?station=sydney

So a bloke who was on 400k is now able to get squeezed into a second tier deal at another club??? What a f**king joke, Bronco dollars are amazing.

 

[The Colonel]

So a bloke who was on 400k is now able to get squeezed into a second tier deal at another club??? What a f**king joke, Bronco dollars are amazing.

If Foran is allowed play at the Warriors it's pretty much the same thing. Close to half of what he was paid with us and what Manly were prepared to pay to keep him. It's hypocrisy at its best with the NRL.

 

[hineyrulz]

If Foran is allowed play at the Warriors it's pretty much the same thing. Close to half of what he was paid with us and what Manly were prepared to pay to keep him. It's hypocrisy at its best with the NRL.

The cap at play, so great it's such a level playing field..........

 

[hindy111]

Nrl makes the rules up as go. Foran-Roberts-Sims....
The barba fiasco - First assault then drugs and nothing while carney is canned for peeing on someone and himself.

 

[lingard]

Yeah.

Now that Bigfella has stopped posting I can agree with this without copping a pasting (although some smart arse will probably do this now that I have written this).

Putting it into perspective though, he did have to point out that a playmaker probably has to make some plays to be considered a playmaker. Why was anyone ever trying to question this?

Nobody was. I was merely pointing out that the term 'play-maker' is often used without a lot of thought as to what it really means. I guess it would be very easy for you to name the playmakers in the Parramatta side so that we could get a better idea of what one really is?

 

[The Colonel]

The cap at play, so great it's such a level playing field..........

And even better - Integrity Commission has been denied footage of the Roberts nightclub incident.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ld-coast-nightclub-video-20170119-gtv2wp.html

Sweeping it under the rug....

 

[Bazal]

Nobody was. I was merely pointing out that the term 'play-maker' is often used without a lot of thought as to what it really means. I guess it would be very easy for you to name the playmakers in the Parramatta side so that we could get a better idea of what one really is?

I really enjoy people who try to make ridiculously stupid arguments out of single words on the internet. Such a worthwhile endeavour that really contributes to the forum as a whole!

 

[The EELiminator]

And even better - Integrity Commission has been denied footage of the Roberts nightclub incident.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ld-coast-nightclub-video-20170119-gtv2wp.html

Sweeping it under the rug....

bloody queue jumpers let them watch it on nine news like the rest of us

 

[Twizzle]

well they do have a point, if its not an official investigation they dont have to hand it over to any one who wants to get a look at it, they are answerable to the liquor and gaming cops

I wonder how long till the media get hold of it

 

[hineyrulz]

And even better - Integrity Commission has been denied footage of the Roberts nightclub incident.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ld-coast-nightclub-video-20170119-gtv2wp.html

Sweeping it under the rug....

"Move along people nothing to see here"

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Nobody was. I was merely pointing out that the term 'play-maker' is often used without a lot of thought as to what it really means. I guess it would be very easy for you to name the playmakers in the Parramatta side so that we could get a better idea of what one really is?

Compare it to the term 'tackler' then. Who are the tacklers in our side? The technical answer is all of them, though obviously some players are better tacklers than others, which is a statement about capability. Then there is also the question of roles - a winger or fullback who would be lucky to attempt half a dozen tackles in a match is obviously not in the team for his tackling. However a middle forward who goes two or three sets of six without a single carry (but makes 0.5 or even 0.6 tackles per minute) is clearly being used as a 'tackler'.

It's the same for playmakers. Every player has some playmaking ability (they can all draw and pass) but the difference between two given players could be vast. The best playmakers are used at first and second receiver, meaning they wear jerseys 6 and 7 (and sometimes jersey 1 - i.e. Coote and Moylan). Some other players have some decent playmaking ability but they are needed more for their running (e.g. Ma'u, Edwards, Takairangi), so they play wider. They are therefore not in a playmaking role, and any playmaking they happen to do is incidental, contingent on opportunity.

I understand you know all this and are just pissing about terminology. You need to accept the game has changed, and talking about playmakers and primary kickers and so on is more useful these days than old fashioned terms like 'five-eight(h)', that straitjacket one's thinking about the game. It's the same when talking about 'props' and 'locks' - it leads to the expectation that there must be two of one and one of the other on the field at all times, and it doesn't reflect the way the game is any more. It was the same again with Glenn Stewart being heralded as a 'ball-playing lock' (because he wore jersey 13 and had obvious playmaking ability and remit) even though Stewart was playing the same position (right edge forward) as a bunch of merkins wearing jersey 11 or 12.

 

[Ivor]

I really enjoy people who try to make ridiculously stupid arguments out of single words on the internet. Such a worthwhile endeavour that really contributes to the forum as a whole!

Not at all. I really do think 'playmaker' is an over-used term and I thought it would be interesting to get other people's views on what they thought it meant. If you don't, then fair enough.

 

[Ivor]

Compare it to the term 'tackler' then. Who are the tacklers in our side? The technical answer is all of them, though obviously some players are better tacklers than others, which is a statement about capability. Then there is also the question of roles - a winger or fullback who would be lucky to attempt half a dozen tackles in a match is obviously not in the team for his tackling. However a middle forward who goes two or three sets of six without a single carry (but makes 0.5 or even 0.6 tackles per minute) is clearly being used as a 'tackler'.

It's the same for playmakers. Every player has some playmaking ability (they can all draw and pass) but the difference between two given players could be vast. The best playmakers are used at first and second receiver, meaning they wear jerseys 6 and 7 (and sometimes jersey 1 - i.e. Coote and Moylan). Some other players have some decent playmaking ability but they are needed more for their running (e.g. Ma'u, Edwards, Takairangi), so they play wider. They are therefore not in a playmaking role, and any playmaking they happen to do is incidental, contingent on opportunity.

I understand you know all this and are just pissing about terminology. You need to accept the game has changed, and talking about playmakers and primary kickers and so on is more useful these days than old fashioned terms like 'five-eight(h)', that straitjacket one's thinking about the game. It's the same when talking about 'props' and 'locks' - it leads to the expectation that there must be two of one and one of the other on the field at all times, and it doesn't reflect the way the game is any more. It was the same again with Glenn Stewart being heralded as a 'ball-playing lock' (because he wore jersey 13 and had obvious playmaking ability and remit) even though Stewart was playing the same position (right edge forward) as a bunch of merkins wearing jersey 11 or 12.

No, I just thought it might be interesting to have a look at what we all thought a 'playmaker' was. It's got nothing to do with 'the old days' or five-eights or anything like that. I was just interested in exploring the idea. Naturally it's not hard to see that most halves are playmakers. And, of course - if you count drawing and passing as playmaking - then almost any footballer is a playmaker. But we don't call all footballers playmakers. So, is it simply a question of frequency or consistency? And why would it be that a player with high LBA's would be more readily classed as a playmaker than a half who, by manoeuvring the team around, sets up 'scoring 'plays' several rucks ahead? Why would he not be called a playmaker as well? Or a half or hooker with a very good kicking game. I just think the term is a bit broader than its general use would suggest.

 

[The Colonel]

well they do have a point, if its not an official investigation they dont have to hand it over to any one who wants to get a look at it, they are answerable to the liquor and gaming cops

I wonder how long till the media get hold of it

I agree with the point, to a point. Footage and photos of the Broncos doing the wrong thing rarely make the media as quickly, if ever, like it does with other clubs.

Mitchell Pearce and the chick in the yellow dress was in the media quite quickly. I doubt this one will be seen anytime soon. Can't be many more days left of the 28.....

 

[Noise]

If Foran is allowed play at the Warriors it's pretty much the same thing. Close to half of what he was paid with us and what Manly were prepared to pay to keep him. It's hypocrisy at its best with the NRL.

Just because we were over paying dickhead Foran and theUseless Knights were overpaying Sims (and a host of others) doesn't mean every other team has to

 

[parra-matters]

If James Roberts isn't made sit a few weeks and go to rehab by the NRL then every other player ever fined or suspended should sue the NRL for any lost income.
Roberts has had enough chances it's time the NRL stood in.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

No, I just thought it might be interesting to have a look at what we all thought a 'playmaker' was. It's got nothing to do with 'the old days' or five-eights or anything like that. I was just interested in exploring the idea. Naturally it's not hard to see that most halves are playmakers. And, of course - if you count drawing and passing as playmaking - then almost any footballer is a playmaker. But we don't call all footballers playmakers.

I guess you could if you wanted to. But most people seem to be in broad agreement as to where the cutoff line is for who is and isn't a playmaker. Are Corey Norman and Cooper Cronk playmakers? Absolutely. How about Brad Takairangi and the late Jamie Lyon? I think so (though it isn't/wasn't their primary role) - more than most non-spine players anyway.

It is probably helpful to think of it (like most things) as a continuum rather than a binary (i.e. playmaker vs not).

So, is it simply a question of frequency or consistency? And why would it be that a player with high LBA's would be more readily classed as a playmaker than a half who, by manoeuvring the team around, sets up 'scoring 'plays' several rucks ahead?

If he can't set up the plays himself what f**king use is he? The game plan is set by the coach before the team even gets on the field, so it's not up to any player to make it up as he goes along. Some have the freedom to capitalise on opportunities - every coach would have a player or two in the team who has the authority to call the ball when he sees an opportunity, and these are usually playmakers. If you're going to call the ball you need to do something with it. If you're just going to catch and pass to a better playmaker then maybe he should be the one calling it. In that case anyone can step in and catch-pass him the ball if he feels he should be staying a pass wider (rather than coming into first receiver). We see middle forwards catch and pass to a half at second receiver all the time. I'm certain that in every case it was the half that overcalled the play. That vision is part of why they're in the team.

But as for it happening several rucks ahead, you can't rely on defences making a mistake that far in advance. They train full time to make sure their defence stays organised, and if they start getting rolled you'll usually see them concede a penalty rather than give up a quick play-the-ball. But when they do concede a quick ruck that's when the playmaker needs to capitalise, because they can't rely on the opportunity being there on the next tackle or the one after that. Like I said, some experienced defender will see the quick play-the-ball looming and just lay in the ruck and concede the penalty. Then they can reset their line. It's usually safer than letting some merkin play the ball while your defensive line is all over the place.

Why would he not be called a playmaker as well? Or a half or hooker with a very good kicking game. I just think the term is a bit broader than its general use would suggest.

I just think in the modern game there isn't much room for players with vision but not the skill to capitalise on opportunities. If they do exist they are probably playing at dummy half and bringing a massive defensive workload to their team as well, e.g. IDG or Andrew McCullough.

 

[miatch]

hey all, Forty and I just updated The Cumberland Throw - gave the old girl a facelift.

let us know what you think - www.thecumberlandthrow.com

ps - happy new year etc.

 

[miatch]

ps - I made sure you guys got a shoutout in the footer too.