Team v Titans

[Meth]

Yeah I don’t think I see plodder as a slur.

 

[Matua]

The thing to me about being a plodder, and an effective one, is that's replicatable each week. You can be a freak like an Ali Lauitiiti, but you take the good with the bad.

Micheal Luck was a fan favourite because mainly his attitude but also his consistency. You could build a side about his 50 tackles that shut down the middle. Similarly, we can build a game plan around Ford making 40 + 150m or so metres - it allows us more flexibility with bench rotations and so on. OK, his minutes might be a touch high, but it makes our side better. I would say across his Warriors career, he has been seldomly injured, too? Unless my memory is off.

You need freaks and whole-hearted plodders. We have both. You need Jackson Fords at training, those physical freaks who set the standard for the group to chase

That works as kong as he doesn't return to type and start leading the NRL in errors.

Weirdly, the more time he spends on the field the less errors he makes (small sample size though).

 

[Matua]

Yeah I don’t think I see plodder as a slur.

I took it to mean more of a slur than someone who is a hard worker, but I might have completely misinterpreted @SpaceMonkey. Edit: Just read his thread above, and I did interpret it correctly.

 

[Thatwasnthighref]

Arguably players with high enough work rates shed the plod tag - I tend to reserve it for players who are consistently mediocre and never offer much in the way of attacking threat. Pompey at his best is a bit better than plod when he runs good lines for tries, and Ford sheds it on sheer workrate. Mannering wasn’t a plodder for the same reason.

He's got a massive left foot step too. On the (far too) rare occasion he finds himself 1v1 and puts that step on, he's threatening.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I don't consider Luck a plodder at all. He was class. The Warriors have had some iffy selections trying to replicate him.

I don't think the dictionary definition of plodder is what we're really discussing TBH.

Well yeah we literally are talking semantics now but FWIW I think the concept of a "plodder" actually does pretty much derive from the dictionary definition. It's not so much a bad player as a player without a great degree of talent. And for me Luck was like a 10/10 on the plod meter- but that may simply be a difference of opinion on his talent level rather than a difference of opinion on what "plodder" means.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Pompey at his best is a bit better than plod when he runs good lines for tries, and Ford sheds it on sheer workrate. Mannering wasn’t a plodder for the same reason.

Mannering wasn't a plodder to me because he was a physical/athletic specimen. Tall, fast, strong. I don't see him as very similar to a Luck or a Ford at all. However, as he got older, suffered more injuries, and was given the plodder role, all of that compounded and he got increasingly plodderish. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy if you take a fast, athletic forward and tell them to do more work than everyone else - Hindmarsh syndrome.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

In no, NO world was Simon Mannering a plodder.

He was an out and out jet on both sides of the ball pre 2012, then had to carry the side on his back from 2012 onwards. We'd have got spoons without him in the side. He was absolutely worn out but just kept going. A vastly underrated player on the other side of the Tasman who suffered from our club being a basket case post Ivan. He was a beast, at NRL and Test level

 

[TheDMC]

Arguably players with high enough work rates shed the plod tag - I tend to reserve it for players who are consistently mediocre and never offer much in the way of attacking threat. Pompey at his best is a bit better than plod when he runs good lines for tries, and Ford sheds it on sheer workrate. Mannering wasn’t a plodder for the same reason.

The clearest way to explain plod is quite simply "Dane Nielsen"

 

[TheDMC]

And I don't think workhorses (such as Jackson Ford and Michael Luck) should be described as plod. Plod is of relatively useless stock, of little benefit, uninspiring, and certainly not mercurial (I loathe that Union beaten to death word). Plod = Meh. Teams shouldn't have plod on their rosters. Workhorses, up and comer workhorses and dynamos, rocks and diamonds (Krisnan Inu) yes, and then of course as many top shelf stars of various functions and levels that you can fit under a sombrero.

 

[JJ]

It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy if you take a fast, athletic forward and tell them to do more work than everyone else - Hindmarsh syndrome.

I like the Hindmarsh reference - people seem to forget he was such a dynamic backrower, who transformed/or was transformed to a workaholic... both were great players, but the younger version much more exciting

 

[Penrose Warrior]

We need big game players as well and Ford's best three this year have been Roosters, Raiders and Storm. Can't hate on that

 

[SpaceMonkey]

The clearest way to explain plod is quite simply "Dane Nielsen"

I’ll see your Dane Nielsen and raise you a Jonno Wright, haha.

But yeah, Nielsen was most definitely Mr. Plod.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

And I don't think workhorses (such as Jackson Ford and Michael Luck) should be described as plod. Plod is of relatively useless stock, of little benefit, uninspiring, and certainly not mercurial (I loathe that Union beaten to death word). Plod = Meh. Teams shouldn't have plod on their rosters. Workhorses, up and comer workhorses and dynamos, rocks and diamonds (Krisnan Inu) yes, and then of course as many top shelf stars of various functions and levels that you can fit under a sombrero.

Now you’ve got me thinking of an all-time Warriors Plod 13.

1.
2. Jonno Wright
3. Dane Neilsen
4.
5. Ed Kosi
6. Cliff Beverley
7. Thomas Leuluai
8. Charlie Gubb
9:
10. Jeremy Latimore
11.
12.
13.

Im sure I’ve forgotten some forgettable players, haha

 

[Big Marn]

Its a bit of a tricky one as you need to differentiate between shit and plod. Like is plod a player that actually played quite a number of games but were plod?

Todd Byrne, Anderson Brothers, Koopu, Todd Lowrie, Albert Vete i would all consider plod.

Is Blake Ayshford the cut off line? Did just enough to not be considered plod?

 

[Thatwasnthighref]

Now you’ve got me thinking of an all-time Warriors Plod 13.

1.
2. Jonno Wright
3. Dane Neilsen
4.
5. Ed Kosi
6. Cliff Beverley
7. Thomas Leuluai
8. Charlie Gubb
9:
10.
11.
12.
13.

Im sure I’ve forgotten some forgettable players, haha

Putting Tommy Leuluai in there is a bit rough isnt it? Just on the strength of his defence alone.. he hit harder than most backrowers. I remember Ryan Hoffman saying he was one of his favourite guys to play alongside cos he literally never had to worry about that defensive channel.

 

[Rich102]

Danan Kemp comes to mind.

 

[Big Marn]

Danan Kemp comes to mind.

see, this is where we need some clarification for the above spacemonkey team. I could clarify Denan Kemp as shit which means he doesnt even qualify for plod.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

I had a visceral reaction to Thomas Leuluai (who honestly has an argument for being a modern day Kiwi great) being described as "plod" but then I realised I was being a bit hypocritical given my own definition of plodder. He was a guy who (aside from tackling hard) had relatively modest skill/talent levels in most of the areas you'd expect from a half but made the absolute most out of that. You could argue he's sort of a plod ubermensch.

Not sure about the Anderson bros being plod as I felt like Vinnie in particular was deceptively dangerous on attack, but again the argument could be made. Koopu, I struggle with plod because he was really fast for a backrower and being fast is almost an instant disqualifier (same arguably goes for Kemp).

 

[hitro]

could John Kirwan and Andy Capp make the side?

 

[hitro]

is Kane Evans a contender or is that a different criteria?