We Need An Established Halfback

[DanOz]

Actually, I take back my comment with sticking with Lui. Whilst Lui the fly has potential, we need to get back to what worked for us. Moltz and Benj at 6 and 7. That's first and foremost and go from there.

100% agree with you on that.

 

[b.bear]

Thing is, they didn't HAVE to play up front. They were CHOSEN to play up front. Laurie and Schirnack were both available for selection, were they not?

The blame for that falls on none other than Sheens. Sick of seeing f**king second rowers and "utilities" replacing injured props. It's pathetic.

the ego aka the kingmaker aka god strikes again,dont you just love this guy

 

[Vicious]

Hahaha....youre comparing flegg forwards to NRL forwards?
You really dont have a clue sometimes vish.

Who cares?
I think his mummy will care when he comes off with a busted shoulder...but as long as he applies himself he'll be sweet, righht?

I`ve got no idea what you`re talking about, but the bloke i`m talking about is usually running past the tired forwards well before they get a chance to put a shot on him, it`s called anticipation and it`s something all good fullbacks have. A fullback certainly isn`t a position in which it`s essential to have plenty of size about you, that`s for sure and certain.

Who knows how much the kid will grow over the off season in any case, kids his age can possibly grow much taller and it`s certainly not out of the question to put on a good 5kgs of muscle.

Back to the topic, Moltzen IMO has shown enough to suggest he suits our style of play at halfback and as i`ve said on many occasions, as long as we have centres and back rowers that run onto the ball hard and aggressively much like Gareth Ellis and Chris Lawrence do, we won`t have any problems scoring enough points to win any game with Gallant at Fullback, Benji at 6, Moltzen at 7 and Farah at 9.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Did we lose a game with Timmy at 7?

He would be my first choice at 7 for 2010.

The team looked much, much better than anything I've seen since Prince left when Molzten was at 7.

 

[westie]

As I said at the time, we played sh*te teams or teams in sh*t form. We've run into a couple of gooduns and been shown up. I'd expect the same to have happened against the Eels and Titans regardless of which of the two nuffies were involved. Moltzen looks flash when we're good, but how many times have we said that about players who didnt turn up when we needed them.

 

[DanOz]

I agree with EA - no-one has shown as much potential in the halfback jumper as Moltzen since Prince left us.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Moltzen wasn't at 7 for the last 2 games, so how you make that judgment is beyond me Westie.

When he was at 7 we won games, and plenty of them. I'm not for a second suggesting he's the be all and end all of halfbacks, but there was a spark with him there that we haven't had since Princey left.

geniused thinking by Sheens, when you have a winning combination you don't f**king change it, we had a spine that was working really well. He quite simply should have replaced Gallant with someone other than Moltzen.

 

[AussieSmithy]

Moltzen should definitely be our half back next year. He is a half back. He organises, he has a solid kicking game, he's not afraid of running the line. Plus, being so quick, it offers a non-conventional HB aspect to his game.

I think Sheens view must be that he is a good support player and he's been desperate to replace Hodgo with another Hodgo. Unfortunately, good half backs are much harder to find than good full backs.

My view is that having an adequate half back and a good full back is not where near as valuable as having a good half back with an adequate full back. Look at the Bulldogs this year!

P.S. Note I said "good" full back. So, the Haynes, Stewarts and Slaters don't really count. They are freakish talents. Moltzen probably could be one day, but he'll be a much greater half back than full back.

 

[Reek_Havoc]

If Moltzen did not make that try saving tackle on Minicello a few weeks ago against the Roosters, Moltzen would still be playing at 7. I reckon that try saving tackle gave the supercoach a chubby. Mini has lost a yard or 2 in pace. Mini a couple of years ago would probably have burnt Moltz. I reckon that was the sealer to put him back to fullback.

 

[AussieSmithy]

If Moltzen did not make that try saving tackle on Minicello a few weeks ago against the Roosters, Moltzen would still be playing at 7. I reckon that try saving tackle gave the supercoach a chubby. Mini has lost a yard or 2 in pace. Mini a couple of years ago would probably have burnt Moltz. I reckon that was the sealer to put him back to fullback.

Possibly...but I hope not! I was never a one-eyed supporter of Gallant but he was good enough in his games this year to give him the 1. Then, it's his to keep or lose based on his form. He certainly showed he's got the defensive mustard when he ran down Bowen...that still makes me smile!

 

[madunit]

The only reason why Moltzen was shiften to Fullback was because Gallant got injured and Moltzen was the only player in the side to have played a fair few games this year in the 1.

That's all it was, nothing else.

 

[DanOz]

Moltzen has NO IDEA about positional play as a fullback -he was BADLY exposed against the Titans and to a lesser extent the Eels. Gallant is a very good fullback, Moltzen has shown the signs of being able to develop into a very good halfback. Which bit is hard to work out Tim???

 

[DanOz]

The only reason why Moltzen was shiften to Fullback was because Gallant got injured and Moltzen was the only player in the side to have played a fair few games this year in the 1.

That's all it was, nothing else.

Hanbury did as good a job as Moltzen in the number 1, and Lui was nowhere near as good as Moltzen in the number 7 imo. When you lose a fullback, it makes no sense to totally dismantle and reshuffle a winning combination instead of replacing the fullback.

 

[AussieSmithy]

The only reason why Moltzen was shiften to Fullback was because Gallant got injured and Moltzen was the only player in the side to have played a fair few games this year in the 1.

That's all it was, nothing else.

I'm afraid it isn't that simple. I agree that Moltzen only got moved due to Gallant's injury.

But, Hanbury played several games at Full Back in first grade. Lui had played NONE at half back in first grade. Hanbury may not have played a "fair few" games, but he'd played infinitely more than Lui.

Therefore, if your rationale (or view of Sheens rationale) is that he wanted to fill the spot with someone who had played some first grade games, Hanbury was the perfect, logical and now-we'll-never-know-but-could-have-made-the-difference choice.

 

[madunit]

Hanbury played 2 games at fullback, Moltzen played 12 (he now has 14). Gallant played 7.

Your argument is not convincing.

Thus, my argument is that simple, it is obvious and very damn close to fact.

 

[super_coach]

Well if the mail is correct and Gallant is a done deal with the cowboys, than that opens the no1 spot up for grabs, so their is every chance we will see Moltzon at the back come 2010. Although I think Tom Shines might give our marquee signing first grab--Mitch muscels brown

 

[AussieSmithy]

Hanbury played 2 games at fullback, Moltzen played 12 (he now has 14). Gallant played 7.

Your argument is not convincing.

Thus, my argument is that simple, it is obvious and very damn close to fact.

I can see you're still a little raw...and can't take anyone disagreeing with you.

My argument, that you don't rate as convincing, is still 100% fact. How many did Lui play? I'm sure you'll be able to trawl up that stat pretty quickly. Any experience is better than none. That won't show anywhere in your stats though.

And, the thread and discussion is around HALF BACKS. My point was around having an experienced half back staying put and using another player, who had some (rather than ZERO) NRL experience, how ever small, in the position they should have been put into (ie. Hanbury to 1 rather than Lui to 7).

 

[madunit]

Your opinion about keeping the current and in-form halfback (Moltzen) in the halves is something I completely agree with.

But any notion that he was moved to fullback based on a tackle is ludicrous. Which I pointed out.

Bringing Lui in when every match was practically do-or-die, I also agree was a dumb move.

But this comes froma coach who bought a utility hooker to replace a first grade halfback and Clive Churchill medalist.

The fact Sheens made this move backs up my point.

I sure as hell don't agree with it, but it was pretty obvious why he did it.

 

[AussieSmithy]

Your opinion about keeping the current and in-form halfback (Moltzen) in the halves is something I completely agree with.

But any notion that he was moved to fullback based on a tackle is ludicrous. Which I pointed out.

Bringing Lui in when every match was practically do-or-die, I also agree was a dumb move.

But this comes froma coach who bought a utility hooker to replace a first grade halfback and Clive Churchill medalist.

The fact Sheens made this move backs up my point.

I sure as hell don't agree with it, but it was pretty obvious why he did it.

Agree. Sheens found one piece of logic ie. "Moltzen has played half a season at 1" to justify the move, despite all common sense and other team considerations (like the question of the 7) belying such a move.

 

[Magpies Forever]

Moltzen wasn't at 7 for the last 2 games, so how you make that judgment is beyond me Westie.

When he was at 7 we won games, and plenty of them. I'm not for a second suggesting he's the be all and end all of halfbacks, but there was a spark with him there that we haven't had since Princey left.

geniused thinking by Sheens, when you have a winning combination you don't f**king change it, we had a spine that was working really well. He quite simply should have replaced Gallant with someone other than Moltzen.

I think what we saw was a perfect example of Teflons warped thinking exposing him for his ego and impaired judgement when his original decision is exposed to be wrong.

1/ His halfback theory (eg no longer specialist position etc) remains correct- in his view.

2/ Marshall still remains his favourite for #7 next season.

3/ The successful period where Moltzen was placed at 7 and Benji returned to 6 was merely a speedbump. The teams success was in no ways linked to that move- in his view.

4/ At first available opportunity Teflon will return the players to his preferred positions for them immaterial of the teams overall performace. His original judgement must always be deemed correct and returned to- ie Benji #7 and Moltzen #1.

If Sheens is to stay on for 2010 (and I hope not), WT desperately need someone to counterbalance him and stand up to him for commonsense selections and placement of players. Simmons is way too close to Sheens to do it and Gentle seems to have no profile / say.