Vs Tigers

[Skram]

Nah. Manu's are "large, somewhat uncoordinated men find it difficult to catch rolling grubbers sometimes" issues. You take it or you leave it. I'm surprised he hasn't got more praise in recent weeks for how absolutely barnstorming his carries have been. I think the big change is not Manu but in people only seeing the negative because they have almost become blind to the positive.

Agreed completely, he absolutely skittled a few of the Tigers forwards on his runs, smashed Moltzen and Ryan in defence and caught some difficult kicks.
The error off the grubber was lazy in that he should have dived on it like he had done for a previous kick, he didn't and we paid the price. The error on the high ball near the end was unfortunate, he's been catching a very high percentage of the cross field kicks that come his way these days and he muffed that one at the wrong time, it happens. It was made a lot worse by the fact that it was followed by some sh*t defence by Maloney (who slipped on what was a horrible playing surface) and Hurrell on the back of the scrum play.

Even with the two errors he had a direct hand in creating two tries through his work in the air and, as always, got a lot of our sets off to a great start. The thought of dropping him for that game and the comparisons to Inu vs the Storm are absurd.

 

[hugzy]

From neutral pov, manus negatives (mistakes directly costing tries in attack or D) outweighs his postivtes (barnstorming carries). He should move away from the wing in defence and let someone else take those bombs and grubbers

 

[Rich102]

OK. Let me ask a question.

If Manu left and was picked, say for the Tigers, on the wing against us. Would we be really worried?

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Another thing- Manu gets criticized for dropping the odd bomb, but how often does he get praised (or his opposing winger get bagged) when Manu wins the jump and it leads to a try? Last night he won a contest against Beau Ryan and Henry scored. Innocuous kick--> Manu--> try: it happens all the time and yet somehow the blokes he beats to the ball don't get rubbished like he would if he was beaten by his opposing winger. He only gets to knock on so many bombs because he must have the highest % of winning the aerial contest of any winger in the comp. Most of the time he doesn't even give the guy he's marking a chance to knock-on.

 

[Fast Eddie]

The thought of dropping him for that game and the comparisons to Inu vs the Storm are absurd.

Well not really, Inu made a very bad error which was game turning. Manu made a bad error which was game turning. Difference is that Manu won't get dropped for his and his carrer at the Warriors written off. (and for the record I'm not saying he should)

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

btw personally I think there's very little comparison between Manu and T-Rex.

T-Rex is slower than Manu but more skillful and better on his feet. I've never seen any evidence that T-Rex poses a threat on the high ball. He was too sluggish to do a job on the wing but his skills are given full rein in the back row. Manu simply doesn't have these skills, his value is in his athleticism- speed + size + jumping ability. Unlike T-Rex he doesn't have footwork or ball-playing skills which would suddenly reveal themselves in the back row. We'd also be stuffed when it came to last tackle options and we'd be getting belted bringing it out of our own end with Bill Tupou and Fish's half-arsed 3 metre carries.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Also- T-Rex was a back-rower in the first place (2007 Junior Roos back rower). Manu has always been a wing/centre, since he was a kid. T-Rex was moved back to the back row because playing him on the wing never quite worked out- Manu has been a world class winger for years and has no back-row experience at all. It's a crap comparison all-round.

 

[Skram]

OK. Let me ask a question.

If Manu left and was picked, say for the Tigers, on the wing against us. Would we be really worried?

Very much so. Even more so if our wingers were then Fish and Tupou.

Well not really, Inu made a very bad error which was game turning. Manu made a bad error which was game turning. Difference is that Manu won't get dropped for his and his carrer at the Warriors written off. (and for the record I'm not saying he should)

Inu made an error which was entirely preventable with no pressure and no-one within 5-10 metres of him. Manu made an error which, while preventable if he dived on the ball, was a split second decision and with the pressure of the kicker chasing through only metres away, big difference.

 

[Fast Eddie]

Very much so. Even more so if our wingers were then Fish and Tupou.



Inu made an error which was entirely preventable with no pressure and no-one within 5-10 metres of him. Manu made an error which, while preventable if he dived on the ball, was a split second decision and with the pressure of the kicker chasing through only metres away, big difference.

Like I said Inu made a very bad error, Vatuvei made a bad error.

:lol: You don't have to try to justify his bad error to me, I'm not saying he should be dropped but lets be honest there was no one within 10 metres and he ran past a ball that was rolling pretty innocuously along the ground.

 

[Skram]

I'm not justifying it, it was stupid of Manu to try pick it up on the fly, I'm just saying the severity of an error that is dealing with a kick on the ground with a chaser coming through is vastly different from having gained possession and then turning it over immediately because you're carrying the ball in one hand. One is a poor error in split second judgement, the other a poor error in mental application and technique. The latter being more avoidable than the former.

 

[WarriorsFan4Life]

Do you think it could be a good idea to move Manu to the Second Row in a Tony Williams type role?. I think he would be great there, he's just too much of a liability on the wing now imo.

 

[Fast Eddie]

I guess the main difference being that one led to the guy having his career in a Warriors jersey written off and the other led to "same old Manu, he'll come back from this next week."

 

[Cheops]

The biggest problem I have with Manu is we don't actually use him in attack other than hit-ups off the ruck and Bomb to Manu. I can only think of once in the last three games where he's touched the ball that hasn't been straight from the dummy-half or a bomb(last night where he passed into Henry).

I can live with the fact he has a higher error rate than most if we use him as a strike weapon but for some reason we seem to think "damn, Manu is so hard to stop 5 metres out from our line, we better not give it to him 5 metres out from their line" :crazy::crazy:

 

[Izz]

Johnson looked a bit too confident tonight, alot of switching directions that didnt really work BUT this was probably the busiest i've seen him and its good to see him take control and get more involved, been wanting to see this from Shaun for a while.

To me he looked a bit lost after the first 25 minutes. Didn't appear to be talking or directing all that much, kept on drifting around with the ball looking for one-off plays rather than feeding one of his big men and charging at a retreating opposition after a quick play the ball. Kept putting up kicks that nobody had any idea were coming.

Also, why the hell can't we feed it to Manu when we're 5 meters from the opposition line. We've quickly cottoned onto the fact that giving Hurrell early ball is great, and that he's also hard to stop close to the line. That's great, but with Manu all we can do is kick to him. I can't remember the last pass to Manu at the line.

 

[R2Coupe]

There was a lot of dew on the ground last night. I am a Tiger supporter and feel we benefited from your hard game against the Roosters.

I would be asking why Packer and Matalino aren't playing more minutes. It seems to me one of your props has to play 60 or 70 minutes like Woods.

Mateo was always dangerous on the fringes and there is no doubt the Warriors will be in the finals and a genuine contender.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

We have more attacking options than we used to so don't need to rely on that play, we have the ability to create space now, which is better than lining him up against 3 defenders and the sideline.

 

[Izz]

Surely we can use him more effectively, though. 3rd tackle, on opposition 10, get Manu to cut inside off a short pass from center or half. Sucks 3 or more defenders across, gets a reasonably quick play the ball (if he doesn't score) because he's not fighting with the big men up the middle. Next tackle, work it across the park to where Hurrell can steam onto the ball with the little extra space and time provided by Manu's play.

We only ever see him playing as a 3rd prop when we're in our half, and contesting kicks.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Teams like to have their outside backs in position when near the opposition line, it keeps the defence as stretched as possible. I agree that Manu could be destructive in the middle near the try line, but while he's a winger, that doesn't seem to be an option.

 

[Izz]

Teams like to have their outside backs in position when near the opposition line, it keeps the defence as stretched as possible. I agree that Manu could be destructive in the middle near the try line, but while he's a winger, that doesn't seem to be an option.

I'm not saying have him in the middle, i'm saying move the ball towards his wing, center or half drifts toward the sideline and he cuts back inside--fairly standard center to wing play. His size alone means the defense will shove across to stop him, and he'll always suck in an extra tackler, thus giving us more space and time across the other side of the field.

 

[Cheops]

Yep, last week against the roosters, Mannering skips to the outside and drops Hurrell off on the inside who crashes over a couple of players and scores. There's no reason the exact same play couldn't be used with Manu, but it seems like he's only there to contest bombs at that end of the field.