The Pearce Problem

[RWB]

The loss was not all Pearce's fault. Another straw man argument.

Perhaps with your keen intellect and ability to analyze and break down the game of rugby league you will be able to answer the question that the other Pearce defenders on this forum can't.

What has Pearce done consistently well in origin?

He hasn't done anything consistently well in Origin and there's definitely an argument to be made that he shouldn't have been picked for this series. It's a fair and well rationalised argument but that's not my point.

Others will argue he has been picked after 22 months of exile in which he went away and improved on his game thus deserving another shot especially when considering the current dearth of other options genuinely available.

Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on though, in fairness he deserves to be judged on his Game 1 performance alone in which he wasn't bad (not great either) and a quiet second half was a reflection of opportunities presented rather than opportunities taken/missed. Something a lot seem to be forgetting when putting together an argument.

Had Blake Austin (the latest fad in the halves dilemma) put in exactly the same performance given the territorial dominance QLD had do you think he would've copped any criticism at all? I think not.

 

[DiegoNT]

best nsw form halfback in the competition this season by far, did you see the stats on halves combos last night, him and maloney are blowing the competition away with their try assists this season.

but still irrelevant because i've given facts to go back to the forwards being the reason we lost and your response is no i still don't think so. so you've said enough right there

Stats can be so deceiving sometimes. Pearce isn't the player that gets the roosters into winning positions, that's maloney, rts and friend ( and sbw in the past). Pearce is best when his forwards are completely dominating, the other 3 have taken control and mitchell can just inject himself wherever he wants with his energy and running game. That's when he runs up tries and try assists, if it's a close game he is ineffective.
There are things that there are no stats for like:
Closing out games for a win
Handling pressure situations
Being able to grind your way out of a hole when your forwards are dominated
Picking the right option in clutch moments
Executing a good game plan
Changing a game plan on the run when it's clearly not working
Kicking to control field position
All these things are important in origin and is what makes Thurston and cronk great players
They are the big flaws in Mitchell's game, these are more maloneys strengths for the roosters
If blues could dominate for long periods of the game mitchell would be great, but this rarely happens in origin, even for this great qld side
Pearce strengths are his energy and running game, his very similar yp josh reynolds or Blake Austin in that respect but arguably they are better at it

 

[DiegoNT]

Had Blake Austin (the latest fad in the halves dilemma) put in exactly the same performance given the territorial dominance QLD had do you think he would've copped any criticism at all? I think not.

Blake wouldn't of had the failure of 12 past games against him. Pearce played average to poor game last night, the fact people are calling it his best origin performance says a lot.

 

[RWB]

Stats can be so deceiving sometimes. Pearce isn't the player that gets the roosters into winning positions, that's maloney, rts and friend ( and sbw in the past). Pearce is best when his forwards are completely dominating, the other 3 have taken control and mitchell can just inject himself wherever he wants with his energy and running game. That's when he runs up tries and try assists, if it's a close game he is ineffective.
There are things that there are no stats for like:
Closing out games for a win
Handling pressure situations
Being able to grind your way out of a hole when your forwards are dominated
Picking the right option in clutch moments
Executing a good game plan
Changing a game plan on the run when it's clearly not working
Kicking to control field position
All these things are important in origin and is what makes Thurston and cronk great players
They are the big flaws in Mitchell's game, these are more maloneys strengths for the roosters
If blues could dominate for long periods of the game mitchell would be great, but this rarely happens in origin, even for this great qld side
Pearce strengths are his energy and running game, his very similar yp josh reynolds or Blake Austin in that respect but arguably they are better at it

:lol: What a load of crap. All Roosters fans know Maloney went missing last year when the finals came around and know who stood up. You're on your own there.

Let me guess you watched a handful of Roosters games last year?

 

[RWB]

Blake wouldn't of had the failure of 12 past games against him. Pearce played average to poor game last night, the fact people are calling it his best origin performance says a lot.

There's no way he was poor. He set up a try, his running game was direct and solid and his defence was excellent. He got very limited opportunity to create any points in the second half for his side (only one inside 20) in which he took a poor option but overall it was a solid game without being overly good or poor.

What he's done in the past 25 years is irrelevant when purely judging his performance in Game 1 on Wednesday night. That shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. Yet it seems like the reviews of his Game 1 performance are more like reviews of his entire Origin career. And that's driven from people who are either too lazy to form their own opinions or people who just like to follow a crowd.

If he had as many opportunities as Thurston did and didn't create any points for his team then I could understand criticism of his performance but that's just not a reality.

 

[SBD82]

He hasn't done anything consistently well in Origin and there's definitely an argument to be made that he shouldn't have been picked for this series. It's a fair and well rationalised argument but that's not my point.

Others will argue he has been picked after 22 months of exile in which he went away and improved on his game thus deserving another shot especially when considering the current dearth of other options genuinely available.

Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on though, in fairness he deserves to be judged on his Game 1 performance alone in which he wasn't bad (not great either) and a quiet second half was a reflection of opportunities presented rather than opportunities taken/missed. Something a lot seem to be forgetting when putting together an argument.

Had Blake Austin (the latest fad in the halves dilemma) put in exactly the same performance given the territorial dominance QLD had do you think he would've copped any criticism at all? I think not.

I agree. Blake Austin would not have been subject to the same level of criticism. But it's a somewhat unfair comparison. Austin would have been judged as a rookie. And the expectation would have been that the other half was responsible for the general kicking game and running the side. It's actually the reason why I would have said that Austin shouldn't be in the team.

I actually think that Soward should be in the side. I think we are sorely lacking the qualities that he brings to a team. If there is one half in NSW that would have directed the last 5 minutes for us I think it would have been him.

 

[DiegoNT]

:lol: What a load of crap. All Roosters fans know Maloney went missing last year when the finals came around and know who stood up. You're on your own there.

Let me guess you watched a handful of Roosters games last year?

I was actually going on 2013 when they won it, not last year when they fell a game short, same team but because maloney failed to stand up they fell short. You'd think with pearce playing in career best form that it'd cover maloney being down but obviously not.

 

[DiegoNT]

There's no way he was poor. He set up a try, his running game was direct and solid and his defence was excellent. He got very limited opportunity to create any points in the second half for his side (only one inside 20) in which he took a poor option but overall it was a solid game without being overly good or poor.

What he's done in the past 25 years is irrelevant when purely judging his performance in Game 1 on Wednesday night. That shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. Yet it seems like the reviews of his Game 1 performance are more like reviews of his entire Origin career. And that's driven from people who are either too lazy to form their own opinions or people who just like to follow a crowd.

If he had as many opportunities as Thurston did and didn't create any points for his team then I could understand criticism of his performance but that's just not a reality.

We are judging him by Wednesday game alone. It was his best game ever for the blues, but by anyone else's standards it was a poor game. When you factor in that's the best his ever performed in 13 origin matches, you can see why a lot of people don't consider him the answer going forward

 

[DiegoNT]

If he had as many opportunities as Thurston did and didn't create any points for his team then I could understand criticism of his performance but that's just not a reality.

He had as many opportunities as cronk
Also cronk is able to control a game so he is able to have more opportunities (through field position and repeat sets)

you act like cronk and Thurston were magically given their opportunities, they weren't. They had to earn it by playing controlled, not panicking, and by taking of advantage of their forwards hard work.

 

[roostersrule2]

Stats can be so deceiving sometimes. Pearce isn't the player that gets the roosters into winning positions, that's maloney, rts and friend ( and sbw in the past). Pearce is best when his forwards are completely dominating, the other 3 have taken control and mitchell can just inject himself wherever he wants with his energy and running game. That's when he runs up tries and try assists, if it's a close game he is ineffective.
There are things that there are no stats for like:
Closing out games for a win
Handling pressure situations
Being able to grind your way out of a hole when your forwards are dominated
Picking the right option in clutch moments
Executing a good game plan
Changing a game plan on the run when it's clearly not working
Kicking to control field position
All these things are important in origin and is what makes Thurston and cronk great players
They are the big flaws in Mitchell's game, these are more maloneys strengths for the roosters
If blues could dominate for long periods of the game mitchell would be great, but this rarely happens in origin, even for this great qld side
Pearce strengths are his energy and running game, his very similar yp josh reynolds or Blake Austin in that respect but arguably they are better at it

You obviously don't watch our games.

Pearce is our main organiser not Maloney, it's pretty obvious you're trolling or blinded by Pearce hate so any discussion on the matter is moot.

 

[RWB]

I was actually going on 2013 when they won it, not last year when they fell a game short, same team but because maloney failed to stand up they fell short. You'd think with pearce playing in career best form that it'd cover maloney being down but obviously not.

We fell short because SBW wasn't performing anywhere near where he was in 2013, same can be said about our forward pack. The halves weren't why we fell short, we were still the most lethal attacking side in the comp when we got into good ball zone.

You've come up with a conclusion and now you're just making up points to try and support it.

 

[RWB]

He had as many opportunities as cronk
Also cronk is able to control a game so he is able to have more opportunities (through field position and repeat sets)

QLD had 5 times as many inside 20's as NSW. So no NSW did halves did not have as many as QLD. Stop being so dishonest.

you act like cronk and Thurston were magically given their opportunities, they weren't. They had to earn it by playing controlled, not panicking, and by taking of advantage of their forwards hard work.

You act like Thurston & Cronk are the only players in the side. I agree QLD earnt their field position, I'm not arguing that but it was the performances of Chambers & Hodges out of their own end and Scott & Mcguire up the middle that saw them really get the upper hand in the territory battle.

 

[DiegoNT]

You obviously don't watch our games.

Pearce is our main organiser not Maloney, it's pretty obvious you're trolling or blinded by Pearce hate so any discussion on the matter is moot.

I only watch roosters when it's a big game, finals, vs rabbitohs and this year only the broncos, dragons and sharks games. he has never stamped himself in any of these games. In all these close, vital games he has failed to deliver. And in 13 origins, Wednesdays was his best! Im sure he steers the team around when the stress is off but he has never delivered in a big game.

 

[RWB]

I agree. Blake Austin would not have been subject to the same level of criticism. But it's a somewhat unfair comparison. Austin would have been judged as a rookie. And the expectation would have been that the other half was responsible for the general kicking game and running the side. It's actually the reason why I would have said that Austin shouldn't be in the team.

I actually think that Soward should be in the side. I think we are sorely lacking the qualities that he brings to a team. If there is one half in NSW that would have directed the last 5 minutes for us I think it would have been him.

I agree Austin isn't up to the requirements of playing in the halves yet (although I'd select him as a utility) and I agree again I'd also select Jamie Soward in the halves.

My point is when you break down the game and look at field position NSW didn't have anywhere near the same amount of opportunities as QLD. We only had 4 sets inside good ball zone (Qld's 20). That's absolutely nothing, anyone who knows the game knows you can't blame the halves for that. It was a combination of our lack of discipline, some poor play 2 & 3 carries from the submissive Hopoate & Tupou, some poor decision making, some silly errors and some great QLD play (3 forced drop outs in that second half) that dictated the game.

 

[RWB]

I only watch roosters when it's a big game.

:sarcasm: I would've never picked it.

 

[DiegoNT]

QLD had 5 times as many inside 20's as NSW. So no NSW did halves did not have as many as QLD. Stop being so dishonest.



You act like Thurston & Cronk are the only players in the side. I agree QLD earnt their field position, I'm not arguing that but it was the performances of Chambers & Hodges out of their own end and Scott & Mcguire up the middle that saw them really get the upper hand in the territory battle.

They got those 5 sets inside our 20 by something called 'gaining a repeat set' im sure this is a foreign concept to Pearce supporters. Those repeat sets are mainly due to the game control of cronk and Thurston.

No cronk and Thurston are not the only players in their team, both sets of forwards had their periods of dominance, qld halves took advantage by setting up tries or repeat sets, controlling the game by keeping the game in blues half. In contrast when we had dominance we weren't able to fully capitalize on it. They did get one try assist but we got no repeat sets, and we were never able to put slater under any pressure and he was able to get qld out of trouble at ease

 

[DiegoNT]

:sarcasm: I would've never picked it.

Im sure seeing roosters flog a team like the titans or parra would show me why pearce is an 'origin player' and not by how he performs in the big games against teams like souths, melbourne, brisbane, dragons or how he went in his past 13 origin games

 

[RWB]

Im sure seeing roosters flog a team like the titans or parra would show me why pearce is an 'origin player' and not by how he performs in the big games against teams like souths, melbourne, brisbane, dragons or how he went in his past 13 origin games

big games against teams like the Dragons & Broncos :lol:

Have you watched ANY foot since 2006?

You're a highlight watcher who catches the odd game and bases his opinions on generalisations and then tries to justify it later. It's not hard to pick, I called it from the start

 

[DiegoNT]

big games against teams like the Dragons & Broncos :lol:

Have you watched ANY foot since 2006?

You're a highlight watcher who catches the odd game and bases his opinions on generalisations and then tries to justify it later. It's not hard to pick, I called it from the start

Have you watched games this year, broncos and Dragons are 2 of the form teams of the comp, both games were tight. Both games needed a half to stand up and deliver and on both occasions pearce performed miserably. Same can be said for the close encounters between melbourne, Cronulla and souths this year, all close games were mitch has failed. But when roosters pumped cowboys and tigers he had good games, so maybe if nsw are ever pumping qld we might finally see the real mitchell pearce but considering most origins are tight and you need a half that can stay composed and control the game and make most of limited opportunities it's not very likely we will see the real pearce for the blues

 

[RWB]

Have you watched games this year, broncos and Dragons are 2 of the form teams of the comp, both games were tight. Both games needed a half to stand up and deliver and on both occasions pearce performed miserably. Same can be said for the close encounters between melbourne, Cronulla and souths this year, all close games were mitch has failed. But when roosters pumped cowboys and tigers he had good games, so maybe if nsw are ever pumping qld we might finally see the real mitchell pearce but considering most origins are tight and you need a half that can stay composed and control the game and make most of limited opportunities it's not very likely we will see the real pearce for the blues

Brisbane and St George have both had good starts to the season but that doesn't make them big games. That right is earnt through AT LEAST dominating over a full season if not longer.

It's a perfect example of coming up with a conclusion and then finding reasons to suit your argument later.

You're the local at the pub who thinks he knows it all despite never actually watching that many game. You speak in generalisations and never provide any analysis, you refute stats beause they prove you wrong, you use quotes like 'Player A isn't a big game play', whenever you're proven wrong it's because there was some other extenuating circumstance that just happened to occur.

The perfect example is how you harp on about big games yet deny Pearce any credit for his awesome game against the Cowboys where he single handedly dominated the game. Honestly just think about that for a second and maybe you'll wake up to how much shit you talk.