The Roosters main rivals for 2004

[miccle]

Look - all the odds have more to do with simply 2003. The roosters are favourites because they have been consistent performers over the past few years, playing in 3 of the 4 last grand finals. Also, the Broncos have shorter odds than they probably should because of the perennial performers/favourites tag. If a team like the Storm or Raiders (two other good sides) had finished '03 so poorly, they'd be looking at much longer odds than the broncs. Simple as that. Sheesh i don't know why any people would be complaining that they're team has long odds - i'd say whack a lazy $50 on 'em if you have that much faith, and cash in kiddies!!!

 

[League Freak™]

As for the lack of depth the Panthers are supposed to have......name on Panthers player that is VITAL to the team winning games.

They dont have one of those players, and thats their strength.

Well, you don't know, because they haven't been tested yet w/out key players.

But I would hazard a guess that if Gower or Priddis were to spend a long time on the sidelines in 2004, Penrith's chances would suffer tremendously. It's okay to say, well, if Gower gets injured we can play Campbell at half and Girdler at five-eighth, but it doesn't quite work that way ... it alters the chemistry of the team, the patterns, and all kinds of things.

I have a good friend who says the same thing about Canterbury, how they don't rely on just one player. But we all saw how their season derailed this year as soon as Sherwin's injury began to incapacitate him.

I think in his own way, Gower is just as important to Penrith as Fittler, Johns, Lockyer and co are to their respective teams.

I cant agree with you there.


I would say Priddis is probably the only player we really cant replace easily. Then again....didnt we win a game against the Broncos in the first week of the finals without him?

As for Gower, Campbell EASILY would fill in there. Slot Girdler in at 5/8th (Not a problem) and then move Lewis into the centers....where he played most of the season!

Gower isnt half as important to Penrith as you make him out to be.

 

[Renowned League Expert]

As for the lack of depth the Panthers are supposed to have......name on Panthers player that is VITAL to the team winning games.

They dont have one of those players, and thats their strength.

Well, you don't know, because they haven't been tested yet w/out key players.

But I would hazard a guess that if Gower or Priddis were to spend a long time on the sidelines in 2004, Penrith's chances would suffer tremendously. It's okay to say, well, if Gower gets injured we can play Campbell at half and Girdler at five-eighth, but it doesn't quite work that way ... it alters the chemistry of the team, the patterns, and all kinds of things.

I have a good friend who says the same thing about Canterbury, how they don't rely on just one player. But we all saw how their season derailed this year as soon as Sherwin's injury began to incapacitate him.

I think in his own way, Gower is just as important to Penrith as Fittler, Johns, Lockyer and co are to their respective teams.

I cant agree with you there.


I would say Priddis is probably the only player we really cant replace easily. Then again....didnt we win a game against the Broncos in the first week of the finals without him?

As for Gower, Campbell EASILY would fill in there. Slot Girdler in at 5/8th (Not a problem) and then move Lewis into the centers....where he played most of the season!

Gower isnt half as important to Penrith as you make him out to be.

It's very difficult these things; yes, Penrith did win their semi final against Brisbane w/out Priddis, but I'm talking about long term injuries.

Sure, Campbell could "easily fill in" (at half), but filling in isn't the same as excelling.

Campbell doesn't give the team anywhere near the same direction as Gower does.

 

[bubs]

Dear dear dear. Mr CockBurn is bored. Whenever he is bored, he goes a fishin. And catches a lot of people with the bait.
The best thing to do with Mr Cockburn's posts is to ignore them. One day he might actually GO AWAY.
Go and drown in a Latte, you PELICAN.

 

[TRANSLATION]

let see.. Their main Rivals. ????

Their Fickle Fans !!! .. It will be a challenge to get them up after a LOSS.. Especially after they all expected a Win.

Their Fickle fans is another Drawback. As well as their Fickle Fans.

The 20 or so odd that turned up to greet the players outside the club after the LOSS.... LOL


Fickle Fickle Fickle.

This Post should be moved to the Who Gives a #$%& Board on the Roosters section.

YOUR LOSESRS

 

[ozzie]

yeah a fickled little lot we are - now lets see

the most money on a jumper in sponsorships - crowds up last year - made the grand final - yep and the crowds will be back again this year...

are you the clown that wanted the joint venture disolved or am I getting you mixed up with someone else who used to post on WORL.

Now if it is you - talk about fickled...hows the illawarra soxs looking?

 

[Southernsaint]

Doesn't matter how rich a club is, most of them still can only spend $3.25 million a year on players...

Cheers,
Ben S.

Be careful southernsaint. Wouldnt want to make an unsubstantiated comment about something that you have absiolutely no proof on now would we. ;-)

I was talking about the Bulldogs cap breach the other year, of which there is piles of evidence.

...But does someone have a guilty conscience/persecution complex (delete as appropriate)??

Cheers,
Ben S.

 

[Roosterphin]

Doesn't matter how rich a club is, most of them still can only spend $3.25 million a year on players...

Cheers,
Ben S.

Be careful southernsaint. Wouldnt want to make an unsubstantiated comment about something that you have absiolutely no proof on now would we. ;-)

I was talking about the Bulldogs cap breach the other year, of which there is piles of evidence.

...But does someone have a guilty conscience/persecution complex (delete as appropriate)??

Cheers,
Ben S.

No not at all mate. Just get sick of hearing the same old presumed jokes thats all.

 

[League Freak™]

As for the lack of depth the Panthers are supposed to have......name on Panthers player that is VITAL to the team winning games.

They dont have one of those players, and thats their strength.

Well, you don't know, because they haven't been tested yet w/out key players.

But I would hazard a guess that if Gower or Priddis were to spend a long time on the sidelines in 2004, Penrith's chances would suffer tremendously. It's okay to say, well, if Gower gets injured we can play Campbell at half and Girdler at five-eighth, but it doesn't quite work that way ... it alters the chemistry of the team, the patterns, and all kinds of things.

I have a good friend who says the same thing about Canterbury, how they don't rely on just one player. But we all saw how their season derailed this year as soon as Sherwin's injury began to incapacitate him.

I think in his own way, Gower is just as important to Penrith as Fittler, Johns, Lockyer and co are to their respective teams.

I cant agree with you there.


I would say Priddis is probably the only player we really cant replace easily. Then again....didnt we win a game against the Broncos in the first week of the finals without him?

As for Gower, Campbell EASILY would fill in there. Slot Girdler in at 5/8th (Not a problem) and then move Lewis into the centers....where he played most of the season!

Gower isnt half as important to Penrith as you make him out to be.

It's very difficult these things; yes, Penrith did win their semi final against Brisbane w/out Priddis, but I'm talking about long term injuries.

Sure, Campbell could "easily fill in" (at half), but filling in isn't the same as excelling.

Campbell doesn't give the team anywhere near the same direction as Gower does.

I would suggest that Gower isnt the great commanding halfback that even some Panthers fans make him out to be.

If I had to pick Gower or Campbell to run the team....Campbell would be my choice.

 

[ozzie]

Roosters main rivals? For what?

Maybe Latte week at Double Bay, an exhibition of nuveau lesbian artwork from muslin transvestites with epilepsy at a Paddo duplex, or maybe the mardi gras.

Traditionally, it's been Canterbury. BUt only with the chequebook.

OIn the field, they will get flogged by Parra. Moreley schmoreley. Hindy will EAT THE POMMY FOR BREAKKY!!!

does hindy come in cans?? is that like hidny beans?? hindy the had been - never was never beans!!

 

[Macca]

Whether it was the emotional build up to the Canterbury game the week before and the following let down after our win or the miserable weather on GF night we will never know

Could also be that the better team won.

 

[*Sandy*]

I have enjoyed reading your sarcasm nospam49 and notice that it had to be a cafe latte sipping fan to take you seriously!!! :lol:

I have pretty much agreed with most of what you said...except for that last post. I would not take Campbell over Gower to run a team.

In my opinion:
Campbells brilliance is that he goes anywhere, does anything on the spur of the moment. Gowers brilliance is that it is all methodically planned.
I think that not only do we have Gowers expertise of leadership on field that has directed the team around brilliantly but you have back-up in Priddis, Girds and we use to have Satts. Taking Satts out of the picture leaves a small dent. But we still have Priddis and Girds who are all in there directing along with Gowie. Give him time and if he happens to take over the lock position permanently Swain may fill that dent.

At the moment and until the rookies get more 1st grade experience i cannot see immediate leadership roles in them but i can definately see them developing.

Depth. It was a question continually raised by our critics all year ... let me take you back to the Grand Final. Who was the team that challenged for the Premier Cup that day? I'm pretty sure it was a team called St.Marys Penrith Cougars but apparently it is DEPTH that we have trouble with...

Versatility is another valuable tool that Penrith hold. Many of our players can fill a variety of spots...the only time we had trouble with it was our 2nd game down in Melbourne last season where both our Centres were injured. It didnt take Lang long to find an answer for that one...

 

[roofromoz]

On behalf of all Penrith Rugby League fans I'd just like to say a few things.

First of all....we are no chance of winning the title in 2004. I mean, look at our lineup....we have got nothing!


We were just lucky to win the 2003 Minor Premier.

We just happened to fluke wins over Brisbane, a red hot Warriors side and the favoured Roosters side to win the 2003 Grand Final.

Our players are not good enough for rep football so please dont select them.

Ontop of all this....we havent got that many supporters. How can a little club in Western Sydney compete with the likes of Sydney and Brisbane? Its not like we have a massive League club, record breaking crowds and the worlds largers junior Rugby League base to fall back on.


Last but not least....us Penrith supporters are very bitter over the 2003 Grand Final. Alot of people called it the best Grand Final ever. A game between two in form teams, a game that saw one of those teams lift themselves and beat a more fancied opponent.

But us Penrith fans know the true story.

The Roosters just didnt turn up to play. They wernt even taking the game seriously. Infact most, if not all fans still believe that the Roosters are the true 2003 Premiers and nothing will ever change that.




People wrote Penrith off all year.

We couldnt win the minor premier and the Roosters would beat us to it.

We would fall apart in the finals against a experienced Broncos side.

Our defence would fail against a top form Warriors outfit.

We would have no answer for a red hot Roosters side in the Grand Final.



Penrith fans love it. Im sure penrith fans hope for more of the same in 2004.

nospam49

*applause*

Damn straight... I'm loving it!

A new force has emerged in the NRL, and they are the men in black from Sydney's greater west. We have a premiership trophy in the cabinet to prove it...



Write us off next year at your own peril. We will once again be up there next year. I think the Roosters are still the team to beat, and the Warriors may have a big chance too. And if they can remain injury free and be consistent, I'm predicitng the Dragons to fire up next year, and feature in the big games at the end of the season.

 

[Renowned League Expert]

let see.. Their main Rivals. ????

Their Fickle Fans !!! ..

You hear this quite a bit on the internet, but really, it can't be true, because Easts have averaged over 10,000 people per game for the last 46 years, since attendence figures were first kept in 1957.

Average home attendences for all clubs still in the competition:

Brisbane 24,110 (1988-2003)
Canberra 11,236 (1982-2003)
Canterbury 10,695 (1957-2003)
Cronulla 8,945 (1967-2003)
Easts 10,058 (1957-2003)
Manly 11,028 (1957-2003)
Melbourne 11,652 (1997-2003)
Newcastle 19,045 (1988-2003)
North QLD 16,303 (1995-2003)
Parramatta 11,569 (1957-2003)
Penrith 8,797 (1967-2003)
Souths 9,399 (1957-2003)
StGe-Illa 12,194 (1999-2003)
New Zealand 15,309 (1995-2003)
West Tigers 10,312 (1999-2003)

As you can see, apart from the one-team per town teams (Brisbane, Newcastle and Nth QLD, in particular), there is very little difference between all the other clubs.

Clubs with supposedly fanatical fans, such as Canterbury and Parramatta, barely average 1000 more fans per game than clubs with supposedly "fickle" supporters like Easts. In the case of Canterbury, it's a difference of only 637 people per home game.

Yet no one accuses Canterbury fans of being "fickle".

Same with Souths. Even allowing for Souths golden eras during the 50s, 60s and early 70s, their home crowd average is *still* lower than their bitter rivals, the Roosters.

Does this make Souths fans "fickle"? Surely it must ...?

The "Easts have no fans" mantra began during Super League when News Limited tried to destroy the club.

Unfortunately, few people bother to check the facts. They just repeat what they hear.

And the facts are, that Easts crowd support is comparable to any other Sydney club. No better, no worse.

 

[imasharkie]

Geez I'm happy I have never been to the roosters site.............I am bored just reading all the crap they put out here :lol:

 

[Maroubra Eel]

let see.. Their main Rivals. ????

Their Fickle Fans !!! ..

You hear this quite a bit on the internet, but really, it can't be true, because Easts have averaged over 10,000 people per game for the last 46 years, since attendence figures were first kept in 1957.

Average home attendences for all clubs still in the competition:

Brisbane 24,110 (1988-2003)
Canberra 11,236 (1982-2003)
Canterbury 10,695 (1957-2003)
Cronulla 8,945 (1967-2003)
Easts 10,058 (1957-2003)
Manly 11,028 (1957-2003)
Melbourne 11,652 (1997-2003)
Newcastle 19,045 (1988-2003)
North QLD 16,303 (1995-2003)
Parramatta 11,569 (1957-2003)
Penrith 8,797 (1967-2003)
Souths 9,399 (1957-2003)
StGe-Illa 12,194 (1999-2003)
New Zealand 15,309 (1995-2003)
West Tigers 10,312 (1999-2003)

As you can see, apart from the one-team per town teams (Brisbane, Newcastle and Nth QLD, in particular), there is very little difference between all the other clubs.

Clubs with supposedly fanatical fans, such as Canterbury and Parramatta, barely average 1000 more fans per game than clubs with supposedly "fickle" supporters like Easts. In the case of Canterbury, it's a difference of only 637 people per home game.

Yet no one accuses Canterbury fans of being "fickle".

Same with Souths. Even allowing for Souths golden eras during the 50s, 60s and early 70s, their home crowd average is *still* lower than their bitter rivals, the Roosters.

Does this make Souths fans "fickle"? Surely it must ...?

The "Easts have no fans" mantra began during Super League when News Limited tried to destroy the club.

Unfortunately, few people bother to check the facts. They just repeat what they hear.

And the facts are, that Easts crowd support is comparable to any other Sydney club. No better, no worse.

LOL funny stuff League Expert. Its common knowledge the rorters inflate their crowd figures, so don't get too excited.

 

[PB]

To true M.E. Not too mention the fact that their home games should attract more people because it is a ground which many away fans can travel a short distance to get to.

Add to that, the Roosters have been around for 50 years prior to the Eagles, Eels, Dogs etc... Thats 50 more years to develop a fan base, and when you consider how crap the eels and co were when they started, how they ever developed a fan base is amazing. Your figures show you are the tenth of fifteen current clubs. 10th! And for a club which is supposedly so wonderful, and so strong on the field, that is poo! The Wests Tigers fans were forced to support a new club made up of two clubs that were going nowhere fast in their declining years, and even they almost average as many people at home games.

And if your "fans" actually travelled to away games then everyone else's home crowds would be up also!

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Thats exactly right PB. Most of the crowd at the SFS are the away fans anyway. :lol: :lol:

 

[JJ]

let see.. Their main Rivals. ????

Their Fickle Fans !!! ..

You hear this quite a bit on the internet, but really, it can't be true, because Easts have averaged over 10,000 people per game for the last 46 years, since attendence figures were first kept in 1957.

Average home attendences for all clubs still in the competition:

Brisbane 24,110 (1988-2003)
Canberra 11,236 (1982-2003)
Canterbury 10,695 (1957-2003)
Cronulla 8,945 (1967-2003)
Easts 10,058 (1957-2003)
Manly 11,028 (1957-2003)
Melbourne 11,652 (1997-2003)
Newcastle 19,045 (1988-2003)
North QLD 16,303 (1995-2003)
Parramatta 11,569 (1957-2003)
Penrith 8,797 (1967-2003)
Souths 9,399 (1957-2003)
StGe-Illa 12,194 (1999-2003)
New Zealand 15,309 (1995-2003)
West Tigers 10,312 (1999-2003)

As you can see, apart from the one-team per town teams (Brisbane, Newcastle and Nth QLD, in particular), there is very little difference between all the other clubs.

Clubs with supposedly fanatical fans, such as Canterbury and Parramatta, barely average 1000 more fans per game than clubs with supposedly "fickle" supporters like Easts. In the case of Canterbury, it's a difference of only 637 people per home game.

Yet no one accuses Canterbury fans of being "fickle".

Same with Souths. Even allowing for Souths golden eras during the 50s, 60s and early 70s, their home crowd average is *still* lower than their bitter rivals, the Roosters.

Does this make Souths fans "fickle"? Surely it must ...?

The "Easts have no fans" mantra began during Super League when News Limited tried to destroy the club.

Unfortunately, few people bother to check the facts. They just repeat what they hear.

And the facts are, that Easts crowd support is comparable to any other Sydney club. No better, no worse.

One might check the standard deviations in those figures Expert - larger standard deviations might suggest more fickle fans... (I'm not suggesting Roosters fans are fickle - as a kiwi I don't know, I went to a series of Easts games in 90 or 91, and the crowds were small, but vocal and fun).

 

[Renowned League Expert]

let see.. Their main Rivals. ????

Their Fickle Fans !!! ..

You hear this quite a bit on the internet, but really, it can't be true, because Easts have averaged over 10,000 people per game for the last 46 years, since attendence figures were first kept in 1957.

Average home attendences for all clubs still in the competition:

Brisbane 24,110 (1988-2003)
Canberra 11,236 (1982-2003)
Canterbury 10,695 (1957-2003)
Cronulla 8,945 (1967-2003)
Easts 10,058 (1957-2003)
Manly 11,028 (1957-2003)
Melbourne 11,652 (1997-2003)
Newcastle 19,045 (1988-2003)
North QLD 16,303 (1995-2003)
Parramatta 11,569 (1957-2003)
Penrith 8,797 (1967-2003)
Souths 9,399 (1957-2003)
StGe-Illa 12,194 (1999-2003)
New Zealand 15,309 (1995-2003)
West Tigers 10,312 (1999-2003)

As you can see, apart from the one-team per town teams (Brisbane, Newcastle and Nth QLD, in particular), there is very little difference between all the other clubs.

Clubs with supposedly fanatical fans, such as Canterbury and Parramatta, barely average 1000 more fans per game than clubs with supposedly "fickle" supporters like Easts. In the case of Canterbury, it's a difference of only 637 people per home game.

Yet no one accuses Canterbury fans of being "fickle".

Same with Souths. Even allowing for Souths golden eras during the 50s, 60s and early 70s, their home crowd average is *still* lower than their bitter rivals, the Roosters.

Does this make Souths fans "fickle"? Surely it must ...?

The "Easts have no fans" mantra began during Super League when News Limited tried to destroy the club.

Unfortunately, few people bother to check the facts. They just repeat what they hear.

And the facts are, that Easts crowd support is comparable to any other Sydney club. No better, no worse.

LOL funny stuff League Expert. Its common knowledge the rorters inflate their crowd figures, so don't get too excited.

Well, this is the usual response I get when these figures are produced. The charge of inflating crowd figures first arose -- again -- during Super League, as part of News Limited's campaign to destroy the Roosters.

But, okay, I'll give it to you and say, "Yes, you're right, since 1995 Easts have continually inflated their crowd figures." So why don't we ignore all the crowds for the period 1995-2003. If we do that, the average Rooster crowd is still 10,000, so for your theory to hold up, it would have to mean Rooster's management has been inflating crowds since 1957. I think you'd be stretching credibility to suggest that.

It's easy to say, "Well, Easts inflate their crowds" but I can't for the life of me understand WHY they would do it; when the NRL criteria was being calculated, Yes, it would make sense. But what would be the value of doing it now?

Someone mentioned another old chestnut, ie. that Roosters home crowds are largely made up of the away teams supporters. Again, it would seem unlikely that that would be the case for 46 years, through all those decades of trends and different opsitions on the ladder. Also, it's interesting to note that Easts *away* crowds, for the last five or so years, have been consistently 1st, 2nd or 3rd -- so I could as easily argue that it is, in fact, rival teams crowds that are being swollen by Roosters supporters! Do I believe that? No. But nor do I believe that Easts home crowds are the result of a concentration of other clubs' supporters. It's just too far-fetched. Some games, it's possible. But not consistently for 46 years.

Another poster said -- amazingly -- that Easts should have larger home crowds because of the location of the SFS. Well, in my experience people are *less* likely to want to travel -- especially drive -- into the city. Not *more* likely.

It's an interesting debate w/ lots of variables, some solid facts, and waaay too much speculation.

It's easy to say Easts lie about their crowds, but that wouldn't score you many points in a real debate. You'd have to do way better than that.

Why don't we turn now to why Canterbury, Parramatta, Manly, Penrith, Cronulla and Souths have such terrible crowds?