Wheres Your Loyalty?

[Tiger Hawk]

Are you happier for us not to have won the comp in 2005 just to make the 8 in the seasons thereafter (only to discover we wouldnt win anyway)?

I've re-read this post about 10 times and just don't understand what it has to do with anything? Would you kindly explain it to me please. We won the comp in 2005, so it's impossible for HT, or anyone else, to be "happier for us not to have won the comp".

And you didn't answer HT's question. Are you happy to win the comp and then be mediocre afterwards? You yourself admit that "our performances since 2005 have been below par" and that we've "had the cattle to go the distance".

Everybody was new here once, but I think if you had been here 3-4 years ago, you would see that most put things in perspective at one stage. Bottom line is, it's hard to find a new perspective to the things we've been seeing for the last 4 years.

 

[Mr Saab]

Are you happier for us not to have won the comp in 2005 just to make the 8 in the seasons thereafter (only to discover we wouldnt win anyway)?

Who cares about 2005. Its in the past. Welcome to the past 4 seasons and complete mediocrity!
And 2010 is shaping up the same as the past 4 yrs. Tigers fans should not accept this...no other club would and neither should the Tigers.
Sheens is a complete joke of a coach and he needs to be fired.

 

[TigerLoyalty]

Tiger Hawk - it was in response to Hybrids Question which was:

Are you happy for us to win the comp and then wallow in mediocrity after it?

Can I ask the following question. What are the top five gripes you and Hybrid have with Sheens' decisions since 2005.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

Hybrid Tiger - if you havent noticed we lost probably our most valuable player for the season. His name is Tim Moltzen.

Its not Tim Moltzen himself that represents that value. Its what having him in the side means for the team. Moltzen allows Benji & Farah to play their NATURAL game. This has a domino effect on the whole team.

It wasnt forseen we would loose him for the season. Now Sheens is having to make a decision on who he plays and where. Hes tried Lui at halfback which was a great hit, Lazarus at halfback (a similar result).

A side doesnt just click in to place when you have doubts in stability over 1, 6, 7 & 9. Patience my friend.

Blaming injuries, how predictable and pathetic. We've blamed injuries for the past five years, when will that excuse wear thin?

Other clubs manage their injuries, why can't we? Because our dinosaur in charge move players out of position to cover for injuries and reshuffles the entire side causing us to lose balance and stability.

And don't kid yourself - I guarantee you if Lui didn't get injured Moltzen still would have been at fullback. Sheens is a stubborn old man.

Can I get your comment on the following:

- Playing 16 players in 30 degree heat
- Picking Daniel Fitzhenry every week
- Naming wingers on the bench and playing them for 2 minutes (or sometimes not at all)
- Moving Farah to half after this FAILED two years ago
- Persisting with John Morris in the halves for more than two years when it was obviously a failure
- Naming benches with less impact than my pillow
- Playing players out of position (hookers at half, halves at hooker, second rowers at hooker etc. etc. etc.)

Mate, wake up. Players have come and gone. We've gone through support staff. We've changed CEO's. We've signed players like Ellis and Tuqiri. One thing remains the same and that is our myth of a coach and his useless gnome sidekick and of course our results which have been the same in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and now 2010.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

Can I ask the following question. What are the top five gripes you and Hybrid have with Sheens' decisions since 2005.

I've named 7 above, I'm sure others can add plenty more.

 

[Tiger Hawk]

Tiger Hawk - it was in response to Hybrids Question which was:

Are you happy for us to win the comp and then wallow in mediocrity after it?

Can I ask the following question. What are the top five gripes you and Hybrid have with Sheens' decisions since 2005.

Yeah, I get answering a question with a question, which is usually done when the person doesn't have an answer to the original question - but I digress. I don't understand the relevance of your question. We won the comp and have had 4 straight losing seasons. What's your question got to do with anything?

I won't speak for HT, but my main issues are:

1. Manufacturing a halfback. John Morris, Benji & Farah to name 3. The most critical position on the field, and as Gus Gould said yesterday during the Rabbits / Manly game, you cannot manufacture a halfback. I sincerely hope Gus points this out to Sheens next time they meet.

2. Other positional selections. There's many to name here but off the top of my head there's the Corey Payne / Danny Galea front-row pairing from the Eels game in 2008 (amongst other games). Two small back rowers being used as ineffectively as possible. Bronson Harrison another.

3. Use of the Interchange. From the selection of players on the interchange bench - usually 1 prop (if we're lucky), 1 back rower, 1 utility cum back rower & 1 winger - to the actual use of the interchange during the match. We named a winger on the bench (Brown) that didn't play one second of the match yesterday. As I've said elsewhere, I just don't get this and would love to hear Sheens explain it - honestly.

That's really it for me. These are things that have been happening for the past 4 years, they are not unique to this year. As I said, it's difficult to put these into perspective, but please, do put them in perspective for me. What's your perspective on them?

Injuries have had an impact on this year, without question, which is why I haven't been one to just randomly berate Sheens like some others this year. The three things I've mentioned above however are mistakes that have been made in the past, and we're seemingly making them again this year.

 

[TigerLoyalty]

Blaming injuries, how predictable and pathetic. We've blamed injuries for the past five years, when will that excuse wear thin?

Other clubs manage their injuries, why can't we? Because our dinosaur in charge move players out of position to cover for injuries and reshuffles the entire side causing us to lose balance and stability.

And don't kid yourself - I guarantee you if Lui didn't get injured Moltzen still would have been at fullback. Sheens is a stubborn old man.

Can I get your comment on the following:

- Playing 16 players in 30 degree heat

Dont agree unless, of course, Fitzhenry is left on the bench.

- Picking Daniel Fitzhenry every week

Dont think Fitzhenry is a 1st Grader or ever was. He was fortunate to play in a team that made him look like one.

- Naming wingers on the bench and playing them for 2 minutes (or sometimes not at all)

If your referring to Mitch Brown hes a utility player rather than a specialist winger. No I dont agree. He should be playing more than 2 minutes. I think Sheens benched him to give us more options if our reshuffles dont work.

- Moving Farah to half after this FAILED two years ago

I never agree with Farah playing at half. Unfortunately we need to weight up the alternatives of him not playing and compare the 2. Like I said injury is an unfortunate thing and it forces your hand to make certain decisions).

- Persisting with John Morris in the halves for more than two years when it was obviously a failure

I can guarantee that John Morris was more commited from game to game more than 90% of our players. Do you agree? Although he slow as a wet week he would pull off alot of defensive work. Should commitment not be rewarded?

- Naming benches with less impact than my pillow

Who do you refer to. One that I can think of this year is definately Cayless. Why dont you name some and then tell me who the alternative would have been.

- Playing players out of position (hookers at half, halves at hooker, second rowers at hooker etc. etc. etc.)

I dont agree. Ive made that point but you have to assess the alternative options (we are running out of those). Why dont we try another U20's player with no experience in first grade that we are just gonna drop anyway after a game because people like you scrutinise every move they make.

Mate, wake up. Players have come and gone. We've gone through support staff. We've changed CEO's. We've signed players like Ellis and Tuqiri. One thing remains the same and that is our myth of a coach and his useless gnome sidekick and of course our results which have been the same in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and now 2010.

See above comments.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

If your referring to Mitch Brown hes a utility player rather than a specialist winger. No I dont agree. He should be playing more than 2 minutes. I think Sheens benched him to give us more options if our reshuffles dont work.

Mitch Brown is not a utility. He if a winger or fullback, if that's the definition of a utility then every winger in the comp is a utility.

I never agree with Farah playing at half. Unfortunately we need to weight up the alternatives of him not playing and compare the 2. Like I said injury is an unfortunate thing and it forces your hand to make certain decisions).

We have two NSW Cup sides to pick players from, as well as an NYC side. You do not move our best hooker to cover one position, that is just weakening one position to strengthen another. It is ridiculous and has already been tried and failed before. So why do we do it again?

I can guarantee that John Morris was more commited from game to game more than 90% of our players. Do you agree? Although he slow as a wet week he would pull off alot of defensive work. Should commitment not be rewarded?

John Morris was a serial overlap murderer who absolutely slaughtered our attack for more than two years. And last time I checked a HALFBACKS job was to attack, not defend.

There is simply no way you can logically argue that persisting with Morris in the #7 for so long was warranted.

Who do you refer to. One that I can think of this year is definately Cayless. Why dont you name some and then tell me who the alternative would have been.

Any of our benches this year, but take the past one as an example:

14. Fifita
11. Flanagan
16. Brown
17. Waters

A rookie prop, a small second rower, a winger and a halfback.

I dont agree. Ive made that point but you have to assess the alternative options (we are running out of those). Why dont we try another U20's player with no experience in first grade that we are just gonna drop anyway after a game because people like you scrutinise every move they make.

How about when we pick a 20s player who is a halfback our myth of a coach plays him AT HALFBACK, instead of at fullback, on the wing, or any other f**king position he played?

How about when we pick a State Cup HALFBACK he plays HALFBACK not hooker for 20 minutes off the bench?

Mate it is not that hard to pick a halfback to play halfback, or a hooker to play hooker, I don't give a f**k how many injuries we have, it is no longer a valid excuse.

 

[TigerLoyalty]

Wow your such a psycho. So instead of his last bench what would your bench have been? Instead of John Morris who would you have played at half? Who would you have played at half over the weekend?

 

[TigerLoyalty]

By the way you didnt tell me whether you reward commitment or not. I can tell you a player with less promise and more commitment will play better than a player with more promise and less commitment.

I think Flanagan off the bench has been quite promising. Hes broke the line many times and Im happy to see him come off the bench with Fifita. I really dont have a problem with them. You swear too much.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

Wow your such a psycho. So instead of his last bench what would your bench have been? Instead of John Morris who would you have played at half? Who would you have played at half over the weekend?

I apologise for apparently being a "psycho" when I pay good money year in year out to follow this side and they dish up the same sh*t over and over and over again, and in spite of this people like you come here and try to justify it.

Instead of his last bench, I would have gone:

14. Fifita
15. Shirnack
16. Moors
17. Flanagan

Flanagan is the utility.

Instead of John Morris at half for two year I would HAVE PLAYED A HALFBACK AT HALFBACK. ANYONE.

I would have played Waters at half this weekend, or even Lazarus. The difference is I would have played them at HALFBACK not fullback, hooker or any other position Sheens wants to throw them in at.

You say you disagree with all these selections then ask me what I would have done as if there are no alternatives? FMD.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

By the way you didnt tell me whether you reward commitment or not. I can tell you a player with less promise and more commitment will play better than a player with more promise and less commitment.

Using that logic I think I should have put my hand up to play halfback.

Like John Morris, I will always give 110%, i will bust my gut every week, put the effort in and in the end you'll get the same result - both myself and Morris are absolute sh*t halfbacks.

Let me ask you something - Morris was signed as a halfback. A blind dog could see he never was and never will be a halfback. Despite this Sheens stuck with him and blindly persisted with him in the #7 for over two years. You tell me where the slightest bit of logic is in that. Go on.

I think Flanagan off the bench has been quite promising. Hes broke the line many times and Im happy to see him come off the bench with Fifita. I really dont have a problem with them. You swear too much.

See my bench above, I have no problem with Flanagan or Fifita. I do have a problem with a winger getting a sun tan for 80 minutes and a NSW Cup halfback picked on the bench but ending up at hooker for 20 minutes while our #1 hooker is playing halfback.

 

[TigerLoyalty]

I apologise for apparently being a "psycho" when I pay good money year in year out to follow this side and they dish up the same sh*t over and over and over again, and in spite of this people like you come here and try to justify it.

Instead of his last bench, I would have gone:

14. Fifita
15. Shirnack
16. Moors
17. Flanagan

Flanagan is the utility.

Instead of John Morris at half for two year I would HAVE PLAYED A HALFBACK AT HALFBACK. ANYONE.

I would have played Waters at half this weekend, or even Lazarus. The difference is I would have played them at HALFBACK not fullback, hooker or any other position Sheens wants to throw them in at.

You say you disagree with all these selections then ask me what I would have done as if there are no alternatives? FMD.

When has he played a halfback at fullback? He played a halfback at halfback this year (Robert Lui). It just happened that another halfback played fullback at the same time - Moltzen. He then played Moltzen at Halfback (hes a halfback) when Lui got injured. Then he played Lazarus at halfback (a halfback) when Moltzen was injured. HES RUNNING OUT HALFBACKS CHAMP IF YOU HAVENT NOTICED. There comes a point where the decision needs to be made as to whether our hooker may be a better half back then out 5th choice Halfback do you not agree?

 

[TigerLoyalty]

Using that logic I think I should have put my hand up to play halfback.

Like John Morris, I will always give 110%, i will bust my gut every week, put the effort in and in the end you'll get the same result - both myself and Morris are absolute sh*t halfbacks.

Let me ask you something - Morris was signed as a halfback. A blind dog could see he never was and never will be a halfback. Despite this Sheens stuck with him and blindly persisted with him in the #7 for over two years. You tell me where the slightest bit of logic is in that. Go on.



See my bench above, I have no problem with Flanagan or Fifita. I do have a problem with a winger getting a sun tan for 80 minutes and a NSW Cup halfback picked on the bench but ending up at hooker for 20 minutes while our #1 hooker is playing halfback.

So USING YOUR LOGIC he then goes and plays the NSW Cup Halfback at Halfback and we loose (as was done with Lui & Lazarus who are both IMO lacking experience similar to Waters). What the hell is Sheens to do - choose another inexperienced Halfback and loose again. Hes tried Lazarus and Lui and they had no impact - He tried something difference and you crucify him?

 

[hybrid_tiger]

When has he played a halfback at fullback? He played a halfback at halfback this year (Robert Lui). It just happened that another halfback played fullback at the same time - Moltzen. He then played Moltzen at Halfback (hes a halfback) when Lui got injured. Then he played Lazarus at halfback (a halfback) when Moltzen was injured. HES RUNNING OUT HALFBACKS CHAMP IF YOU HAVENT NOTICED. There comes a point where the decision needs to be made as to whether our hooker may be a better half back then out 5th choice Halfback do you not agree?

Lazarus played FULLBACK against the Panthers. That is a halfback playing fullback, is it not? If Lui didn't get injured, Moltzen (a halfback) still would have been playing fullback.

No, I do not agree. Under no circumstances should Farah ever be moved to halfback. Lazarus and Waters were two options that could have been utilised at half. You never weaken one position to strengthen another.

Yesterday was a perfect example of why Sheens is past his used by date. It was a baking hot day, and from sitting in the sun, I would hazard a guess to say it must have been pushing 28 or 30 degrees. Our coach went into the game with our great hooker at halfback, a back rower at hooker, a halfback on the bench (who played hooker when he came on) and a winger on the bench who played as many minutes as I did.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

So USING YOUR LOGIC he then goes and plays the NSW Cup Halfback at Halfback and we loose (as was done with Lui & Lazarus who are both IMO lacking experience similar to Waters). What the hell is Sheens to do - choose another inexperienced Halfback and loose again. Hes tried Lazarus and Lui and they had no impact - He tried something difference and you crucify him?

You just don't get it do you.

Go and watch the Bulldogs game again. Lazarus was named at half, attacked at half but did not play a traditional halfback game. Lazarus then played FULLBACK against Penrith.

Waters played hooker off the bench yesterday, despite being a natural halfback, all while our hooker was playing halfback.

HOW IS PLAYING FARAH AT HALF SOMETHING DIFFERENT WHEN HE TRIED THE SAME THING IN 2007?

As they say, if you always do what you always did then you always get what you always got.

 

[TigerLoyalty]

Decisions need to be made. He tried Lazarus and Lui at halfback. They didnt have an immediate impact so he changed to Farah at Halfback.

When Farah played halfback last time Benji was not the predominent playmaker (he is now) & our backline wasnt half as potent as it is now. Thats whats changed and thats why the decision to play Farah at Halfback until we find another solution may have been worthwhile. Our halfback is essentially only a pivot for our backline (Moltzen is a hole runner) and Benji, although he carries the No. 6, acts as a Halfback just cant perform when he gets called one.

I think you two guys think that I think Sheens is God however you cant be further from the mark. I have continually critisiced him for naming Fitzhenry in the side, I disagreed with playing Moltzen at fullback, I disagreed with persisting with Cayless off the bench.

Fact is that we have a hole in our side and it needs to be filled. The variables were different when we tried Farah at Half last time.

Your calling for this guys head as our coach. I disagree with that I can tell you that.

 

[Mr Saab]

As Warren Ryan said...you dont weaken a strength to strengthen a weakness. Moving Farah from hooker to half is stupid and has been proven stupid many times.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

Decisions need to be made. He tried Lazarus and Lui at halfback. They didnt have an immediate impact so he changed to Farah at Halfback.

Who says Lui didn't work? He was fine there, the problem was with Moltzen at fullback, not Lui at half.

When Farah played halfback last time Benji was not the predominent playmaker (he is now) & our backline wasnt half as potent as it is now. Thats whats changed and thats why the decision to play Farah at Halfback until we find another solution may have been worthwhile. Our halfback is essentially only a pivot for our backline (Moltzen is a hole runner) and Benji, although he carries the No. 6, acts as a Halfback just cant perform when he gets called one.

Yet the same results were achieved. It doesn't work. Farah is simply a hooker, not a halfback.

Your calling for this guys head as our coach. I disagree with that I can tell you that.

I am, and I've been calling for it since the end of 2007 after that loss against Newcastle and absolutely nothing I've seen since has changed my mind.

Calling for his head is also not a knee jerk reaction to yesterday’s loss, or any other loss this year. This is a reaction to five seasons of continued failure by Sheens to take the side to a top 8 finals series in a 16 team competition. The 2005 premiership should not be a justification for ensuing seasons of mediocrity and used to uphold his continued employment.

I am not preaching a change of coach for changes sake. I am preaching it because we have a coach whose record is ordinary at best in a decade and a half, a coach who doesn’t learn from (and in fact, repeats) his mistakes, a man who won’t have his records in the modern era credentialed by an all too easily appeased media, and whose message(s) to the players are obviously falling on deaf ears. The facts are a highly talented group of players have not responded to his coaching in a decade and a half, apart from 16 glorious weeks at the back end of 2005.

 

[TigerLoyalty]

Who says Lui didn't work? He was fine there, the problem was with Moltzen at fullback, not Lui at half.



Yet the same results were achieved. It doesn't work. Farah is simply a hooker, not a halfback.



I am, and I've been calling for it since the end of 2007 after that loss against Newcastle and absolutely nothing I've seen since has changed my mind.

Calling for his head is also not a knee jerk reaction to yesterday’s loss, or any other loss this year. This is a reaction to five seasons of continued failure by Sheens to take the side to a top 8 finals series in a 16 team competition. The 2005 premiership should not be a justification for ensuing seasons of mediocrity and used to uphold his continued employment.

I am not preaching a change of coach for changes sake. I am preaching it because we have a coach whose record is ordinary at best in a decade and a half, a coach who doesn’t learn from (and in fact, repeats) his mistakes, a man who won’t have his records in the modern era credentialed by an all too easily appeased media, and whose message(s) to the players are obviously falling on deaf ears. The facts are a highly talented group of players have not responded to his coaching in a decade and a half, apart from 16 glorious weeks at the back end of 2005.

No problems - lets agree to disagree because im exhausted. Anyway I look forward to reading about your continual frustrations with Sheens's decisions throughout the year. It provides alot of entertainment. While your whinging ill be supporting - as i should.