The Guru

[macnaz]

He hogs the ball because he is never paired with anyone else that can actualy do something with the ball.

 

[joel caine number 1 fan]

He hogs the ball because he is never paired with anyone else that can actualy do something with the ball.

sironen went alright but got hardly any touches :crazy:
Moltzen when he was at half didnt do anything cause he never got any ball

 

[hybrid_tiger]

moltzen to half would be crazy
i think if he goes anywhere its to 5/8 and why not give him a shot there and let him have more control of the game and benji less

the big problem is benji will never let anyone in the halfs play well cause he basically hogs the ball

Half/five-eighth, same shit these days.

My point was that Sheens could have left Moltzen in the halves, where he had trained all off-season, instead of moving him to fullback to cover the loss of Tedesco.

Sheens did tell us all Moltzen and Benji were the fastest halves pairing in the comp...:crazy:

 

[851]

Half/five-eighth, same shit these days.

My point was that Sheens could have left Moltzen in the halves, where he had trained all off-season, instead of moving him to fullback to cover the loss of Tedesco.

Sheens did tell us all Moltzen and Benji were the fastest halves pairing in the comp...:crazy:

Agree with everything in both your posts,Sheens also said Moltzen was a future origin half,and then he moves him after 3 games,negating a whole off season of combinations,a mistake a rookie coach wouldn't make.

 

[madunit]

Half/five-eighth, same shit these days.

My point was that Sheens could have left Moltzen in the halves, where he had trained all off-season, instead of moving him to fullback to cover the loss of Tedesco.

Sheens did tell us all Moltzen and Benji were the fastest halves pairing in the comp...:crazy:

When Moltzen is in the halves, there's not much difference between the two roles. Moltzen likes and enjoys having control of plays etc, something he doesn't get much chance of doing at fullback.

Benji is better at 6 because he plays on the other side of the field more often, when he prefers defensively.

A lot of his plays and combinations are derived from his time at five-eighth.

 

[R2Coupe]

See, what makes me laugh is that you have automatically pegged me as an irrational Sheens hater just because I often criticise him. But if you've read any of my posts I'll always explain my thoughts rather than just criticise for the sake of it.

Perfect example is Lui. I don't know why you are telling me the value of Lui, I've always defended him on here, there's no doubt that he was a massive loss, he is a huge talent and the side really misses him. I've always rated him and defended him on here despite the bagging he copped.

Back to your comparison, there is no doubt Lui is a loss and so is Tedesco and neither are the fault of Sheens. However, you've compared them to Thurston/Bowen and Slater/Cronk. The reason this doesn't make any sense is that those players are the best in those sides. Thurston and Bowen are without a doubt the Cowboys two most important and best players, while Slater and Cronk are part of the big three, so let's say second and third best players after Smith.

Tedesco and Lui aren't two of our best players. They are good players but our most important players and our two best players are Marshall and Farah. They've been on the field for most of the year, bar a few games without Robbie. And while Tedesco is a huge talent, he's played one first grade game.

Now its not Sheens' fault that these two guys are gone. However, it IS his fault and he is ultimately responsible for the mess that's happened in replacing them. My main gripe with Sheens has always been about team selection and playing players out of position. We may have lost Lui due to sacking and Tedesco due to injury but Sheens WAS NOT forced to:

- Play Farah at halfback
- Move Moltzen from halfback
- Play Ayshford at five eighth
- Play Lawrence at five eighth

In all of these cases, Sheens could have easily picked a player to replace the injured/unavailable player without moving players out of position. Whether it be Humble, Miller, Chisholm or whoever, the point is he had the option to keep players in their natural position but ultimately chose not to.

Now you can spin that whichever way you like but to blame injuries and injuries alone is little more than a cop out. Just admit Sheens could have managed the situation better. He could have avoided so much tinkering and chopping and changing if he just picked like for like replacements in these positions.

But feel free to tell me how I'm wrong and I'm an irrational Sheens hater.

A does of paranoia always goes down well!

The problem with your case is the options you propose in the halves are just not NRL calibre at this time. Miller needs more time in U20s to see if he can gain the confidence of the Coach. Humble has not demonstrated in his NRL appearances that he is a half or even fullback. Chisholm may have all the talent in the world but at present isn't he languishing on the interchange for BRET? The fact is none of your options measure up.

Moltzen is clearly the best fullback option and also happens to be the best option at half in replacing Lui. A case of strengthening one position by weakening another. I'll leave the call to Sheens and that is where our views differ.

 

[R2Coupe]

What do you know Hybrid!! your just flotsam.

Value adding again Macknob!

 

[macnaz]

How about answering my question ? Instead of resorting to childish username changing.

 

[macnaz]

And while you are busy answering the question asked in this thread you can answer the other one i have mentioned countless times. In what way are you linked to Sheens, Friendship, relationship or through your employment ?
No one that has any idea about rugby league could blindly support Tim Sheens and find him faultless on every single issue without having some connection.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

A does of paranoia always goes down well!

No paranoia, just find it funny that anyone who questions a decision by Sheens is automatically classed as an irrational hater.

The problem with your case is the options you propose in the halves are just not NRL calibre at this time. Miller needs more time in U20s to see if he can gain the confidence of the Coach. Humble has not demonstrated in his NRL appearances that he is a half or even fullback. Chisholm may have all the talent in the world but at present isn't he languishing on the interchange for BRET? The fact is none of your options measure up.

How would time in the 20s for Miller gain the confidence of the coach? The only way he can gain the confidence of the coach is if he gets a chance, an extended chance, in the first team. He is yet to get this.

I agree with you that Humble is not a long term option (i.e beyond this year) in the halves but IMO he demonstrated he is a good enough fill in until we have a better option. We did win a few games with him at 7 and he did a decent job, did he not? And from all accounts, under an orthodox, traditional structure, he is playing very well for BRET in the halves.

My argument is that Humble in the halves, even if clearly not a world beater, is better than moving Farah away from 9, Lawrence away from the centres, Ayshford away from the centres or Fulton away from lock. Of course he's no superstar but IMO the balance of the side is better with Humble in the halves than it is weakening any other position.

The point of buying players like Humble in the first place is depth to cover for injuries, is it not? What is the point of buying these players in the first place if they don't fill in when injuries occur?

Moltzen is clearly the best fullback option and also happens to be the best option at half in replacing Lui. A case of strengthening one position by weakening another. I'll leave the call to Sheens and that is where our views differ.

How does the saying go? "Never weaken one position to strengthen another". Sheens could easily have picked a replacement for injured/unavailable players but chose to weaken other positions instead. That's not to blame on injuries, that was his decision.

Where our views differ is that you refuse to attribute any responsibility to Sheens for the events that have occurred this year and instead offer excuses. To suggest that Sheens has not made any mistakes or poor calls this year in regards to team selection etc. is absolutely laughable.

 

[macnaz]

Great points mate.

 

[851]

No paranoia, just find it funny that anyone who questions a decision by Sheens is automatically classed as an irrational hater.



How would time in the 20s for Miller gain the confidence of the coach? The only way he can gain the confidence of the coach is if he gets a chance, an extended chance, in the first team. He is yet to get this.

I agree with you that Humble is not a long term option (i.e beyond this year) in the halves but IMO he demonstrated he is a good enough fill in until we have a better option. We did win a few games with him at 7 and he did a decent job, did he not? And from all accounts, under an orthodox, traditional structure, he is playing very well for BRET in the halves.

My argument is that Humble in the halves, even if clearly not a world beater, is better than moving Farah away from 9, Lawrence away from the centres, Ayshford away from the centres or Fulton away from lock. Of course he's no superstar but IMO the balance of the side is better with Humble in the halves than it is weakening any other position.

The point of buying players like Humble in the first place is depth to cover for injuries, is it not? What is the point of buying these players in the first place if they don't fill in when injuries occur?



How does the saying go? "Never weaken one position to strengthen another". Sheens could easily have picked a replacement for injured/unavailable players but chose to weaken other positions instead. That's not to blame on injuries, that was his decision.

Where our views differ is that you refuse to attribute any responsibility to Sheens for the events that have occurred this year and instead offer excuses. To suggest that Sheens has not made any mistakes or poor calls this year in regards to team selection etc. is absolutely laughable.

Waste of time Hybrid,logic and valid arguments have no place in the Tim Sheens cult,I am so over this idiot it isn't funny,rookie mistakes every year from the longest serving coach,makes no sense.
I have seen Kearney a rookie sacked for making mistakes,the Dogs and Souths moved their coaches along last year for not performing,and look at them now,Souths put a rookie halfback in and he will win the Dally M rookie,as Manly did 2 years in a row,yet we get stuck with Teflon moving 3 or 4 players to plug 1 hole,whilst making a whole off season of training and combinations redundent after 3 games.:x

 

[R2Coupe]

No paranoia, just find it funny that anyone who questions a decision by Sheens is automatically classed as an irrational hater.



How would time in the 20s for Miller gain the confidence of the coach? The only way he can gain the confidence of the coach is if he gets a chance, an extended chance, in the first team. He is yet to get this.

I agree with you that Humble is not a long term option (i.e beyond this year) in the halves but IMO he demonstrated he is a good enough fill in until we have a better option. We did win a few games with him at 7 and he did a decent job, did he not? And from all accounts, under an orthodox, traditional structure, he is playing very well for BRET in the halves.

My argument is that Humble in the halves, even if clearly not a world beater, is better than moving Farah away from 9, Lawrence away from the centres, Ayshford away from the centres or Fulton away from lock. Of course he's no superstar but IMO the balance of the side is better with Humble in the halves than it is weakening any other position.

The point of buying players like Humble in the first place is depth to cover for injuries, is it not? What is the point of buying these players in the first place if they don't fill in when injuries occur?



How does the saying go? "Never weaken one position to strengthen another". Sheens could easily have picked a replacement for injured/unavailable players but chose to weaken other positions instead. That's not to blame on injuries, that was his decision.

Where our views differ is that you refuse to attribute any responsibility to Sheens for the events that have occurred this year and instead offer excuses. To suggest that Sheens has not made any mistakes or poor calls this year in regards to team selection etc. is absolutely laughable.

The difference is I don't pretend to know the answers to what has been an ongoing issue at the Tigers. The loss of Lui has been devastating.

Our team tried hard last night but mistakes were made. Most mention Moltzen's dropped ball but the reality is Beau Ryan's poor decision to come in on Reynolds and leave his man unmarked was a crucial error. Ryan from way back is a centre and should have known this play. Why has not more been made of this major error?

The fact is also Moltzen's running at the back caused problems for the Bulldog's defence. It was unlucky his ball to Korobeite went astray.

 

[Tiger05]

Our team tried hard last night but mistakes were made.

The thing is mistakes get made every game. Farah was great but at the end of that game he should have closed it out or possibly given Benji the option to kick it.

Sheens put a good team out there and they played well.

Sheens though has to make some tough decisions. He needs to get Benji playing better throughout the whole game as well as Robbie in the clutch. He needs to sort out his backline and his pack. Moltzen has been good but Simona showed the value of a hard running fullback. A back 3 of Simona or Tedesco, Koro and Utai are dangerous. Where does that leave Ryan ?

As for the pack - where do you play Anasta ? What about Blair ? We need a pack that can match the top teams. Our props are weapons. BMM and Moors both looked great. Fulton has had a great year but can you play him Anasta, Heighno and Blair in the pack at the same time ? I think they are all basically lock forwards and I would prefer to keep Moors and BMM out there for longer - these are the guys that bust the line and get us going forward.

 

[Leaguelegend20]

Good points made Tiger05, I agree Sheens has to make tough decisions, but if I was him I would be moving Ayshford on. Ryan works well in the centres, allowing Utai and Koroibete to be a mix of pace and power on the wings. The halves I would play either Moltzen/Anasta and Marshall, with either Tedesco or Simona at fullback. I am stuck on the forwards, but I think if we give the effort we gave last night we will go a long way in this comp, because the talent is definately there.

 

[Ron's_Mate]

Most mention Moltzen's dropped ball but the reality is Beau Ryan's poor decision to come in on Reynolds and leave his man unmarked was a crucial error. Ryan from way back is a centre and should have known this play. Why has not more been made of this major error?

Because it only happened last night and many people are yet to comment on the game?
Because it was one of his few mistakes and he did a lot of good things?
Because others made far more costly mistakes?

 

[madunit]

Just because Ryan was a centre in juniors doesn't mean he's good at it now.

I've been saying it for weeks, but Ryan is a winger first, fullback second and centre last

Utai would make a better centre than Ryan.

 

[benched tiger]

It was ordinary defence,first by Marshall than compounded by Ryan, who left his man unmarked because he had no faith or confidence in his inside team mates defence,really showed up his inexperience in the centre position.

 

[gronkathon]

The problem is we have defenders in lawrence and Ayshford who have had to , at varying stages, make up for the abhorent defence of one B. Marshall. In defence and attack you never know which Benji is showing up

 

[Tiger05]

The problem is we have defenders in lawrence and Ayshford who have had to , at varying stages, make up for the abhorent defence of one B. Marshall. In defence and attack you never know which Benji is showing up

It was Ryan that stuffed up there though. Nothing to do with Ayshford and Lawrence.