Which teams Suffer from the One man Band

[TRANSLATION]

Which teams in your opinion suffer the most.

Knight - Joey
Sharks - Kimm
Broncos - Locky
Roosters - Fitler

Knights have impressed the hell out of me the way they are playing without joey, But without him, they can not win the Comp, nor can they make the top 8.

Sharks - Brett does everything from scoring and setting up the tries to conceding them, To adopt to a new game without him, would take something, although in the mid term, it could benefit the sharks.

broncos - They could not possibly win many games without this guy. he is the worlds best player by the length of the Doomben Straight. No creative players in the squad outside Locky.

Roosters - are a better team without Fitler than they used to be IMHO, but they are yet to test it out too often lately. Would make the top 8 without Fitler, But would struggle to win the comp.

Dogs, have too many classy ball playing, creative players. Dont particularly rely on 1 to win a game. Although Sherwin would be a big loss, they can cover it.

Tigers, are not a 1 man band, neither are the Rabbits, Dragons, Storm, Eels, Panthers, Cowboys, Warriors.


Your Thoughts ?

 

[Kiwi]

All the teams have a player that they can't win a premiership without.

The Dragons can't win without Barrett, Storm without Orford, Panthers without Gower can't take the tittle either.

Bulldogs wouldn't win without Sherwin, whilst they have alot of stars, take the key player out, and you get over taken by teams that still have theirs.

Simple fact is teams, all teams have a key player, a player they base their attack around, when they lose that player for the season, they lose their best chance of winning the premiership. there is no set one man team anymore, they all have a player they could not win the tittle without.

I don't give a toss what anyone tries to say about their club, it's bullshit. I'm a Broncos fan, and I know without Lockyer our chances of winning the tittle are very slim, just like everyone elses if they lose their key play maker.

 

[Rudolph]

I feel the Warriors can be. They rely on S.Jones when nothings happening but when other players step up they are far from being a one man band

 

[Kiwi]

I feel the Warriors can be. They rely on S.Jones when nothings happening but when other players step up they are far from being a one man band

I think when the whole team steps up and performs it's hard to say it wouldn't happen as much without Stacey, But it wouldn't.

Players like Lockyer, Jones, ect do more than just create plays. They lead the team, everything revolves around them, they are protected to a degree in defense, they control the attack, they are the centre of that performance. Without them, then that performance wouldn't be as good, and chances are higher it wouldn't win them the game.

 

[Raider_69]

Im not sure about the raiders
Schif would go close to the player we cant do without but i think we could cover him and still win a fair share of games

 

[Disco]

Helloooooooooooo

Parramatta for sure


They are rubbish without hindmarsh

 

[Kiwi]

Im not sure about the raiders
Schif would go close to the player we cant do without but i think we could cover him and still win a fair share of games

I actually think the Raiders are the perfect example of a team with no play maker. They have players in the halves where ALL playmakers are and should be, that are sub standard in terms of consistancy or skill or both compared to the like of Lockyer, Gower ect. For this reason they struggle, sure they compete, but they have no chance of taking the title. Every other position is covered when the team is in form, but they lack the edge, the edge that the likes of Barrett, Lockyer, Johns, Orford, Sherwin, Gower, Kimmorley ect give their teams. take away these players and you have the Raiders, a strong team on paper in every position bar the ones that matter, the halves or play makers.

This isn't an attack at the Raiders either.

 

[mickdo]

Helloooooooooooo

Parramatta for sure


They are rubbish without hindmarsh

Sometimes we are rubbish with him :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[twistedbydesign]

i agree with you in a sense kiwi, i often feel that we are one star playmaker short of a premiership.

however i think mark mclinden is underrated and over that last year and a half has consistently performed in big games for us. his not quite in the same league at gower, johns, lockyer etc but is a quality playmaker who with the benefit of a great pack and continued improvement i think can take us a long way. rest assured we arent a hope in hell without him.

 

[Dogaholic]

Bulldogs wouldn't win without Sherwin, whilst they have alot of stars, take the key player out, and you get over taken by teams that still have theirs.

Sherwin is our Lynch pin, but I do think that we could be competitive without him **knock on wood** With Thurston playing half and Anasta at 5/8.

An injury to 2 of those players at once will have us in trouble.

 

[TRANSLATION]

Im not sure about the raiders
Schif would go close to the player we cant do without but i think we could cover him and still win a fair share of games

you could cover scif no problem, its wiki im worried about

 

[ouwet]

Bulldogs wouldn't win without Sherwin, whilst they have alot of stars, take the key player out, and you get over taken by teams that still have theirs.

Sherwin is our Lynch pin, but I do think that we could be competitive without him **knock on wood** With Thurston playing half and Anasta at 5/8.

An injury to 2 of those players at once will have us in trouble.

I agree... Sherwin, Anasta & Thurston... If one goes the other two can cover, but if two go then we are in trouble (Especially if Olivier from Premier League is injured).

 

[Dogaholic]

Bulldogs wouldn't win without Sherwin, whilst they have alot of stars, take the key player out, and you get over taken by teams that still have theirs.

Sherwin is our Lynch pin, but I do think that we could be competitive without him **knock on wood** With Thurston playing half and Anasta at 5/8.

An injury to 2 of those players at once will have us in trouble.

I agree... Sherwin, Anasta & Thurston... If one goes the other two can cover, but if two go then we are in trouble (Especially if Olivier from Premier League is injured).

Im not too sure how Oliver would go if he was asked to step up and cover halfback for us. He has covered hooker well in the past when he has been called upon. Hopefully we won't need to find out for a long time or until he is ready to challenge Shifty for a first grade position.

 

[Kiwi]

Bulldogs wouldn't win without Sherwin, whilst they have alot of stars, take the key player out, and you get over taken by teams that still have theirs.

Sherwin is our Lynch pin, but I do think that we could be competitive without him **knock on wood** With Thurston playing half and Anasta at 5/8.

An injury to 2 of those players at once will have us in trouble.

I think alot of teams would be "competitive" without the key play maker, but like the other teams, the Dogs tittle chances would nose dive with a season ending injury to Sherwin. Could a Sherwinless Dogs outfit over come say an inform Broncos, Roosters, Panthers or Knights outfit at full strength in the finals? There is a chance sure, but you'd have to admit it'd be a very very small chance.

 

[Kiwi]

Bulldogs wouldn't win without Sherwin, whilst they have alot of stars, take the key player out, and you get over taken by teams that still have theirs.

Sherwin is our Lynch pin, but I do think that we could be competitive without him **knock on wood** With Thurston playing half and Anasta at 5/8.

An injury to 2 of those players at once will have us in trouble.

I think alot of teams would be "competitive" without the key play maker, but like the other teams, the Dogs tittle chances would nose dive with a season ending injury to Sherwin. Could a Sherwinless Dogs outfit over come say an inform Broncos, Roosters, Panthers or Knights outfit at full strength in the finals? There is a chance sure, but you'd have to admit it'd be a very very small chance.

 

[Edwahu]

Croker is close to our one man band. He is our best defensive player and he takes alot of pressure of Macca, especially defensively. We had a solid and consistent halves pairing when he was at 6 and Macca at 7 but as soon as he was injured we really struggled.

 

[bluesbreaker]

St's are as much a one man team as the Knights, Roosters and Brisbane... The statistics speak for themselves.

I can't remember the exact percentages of wins without key player (Knights - Johns, St's - Barrett, Brisbane - Lockyer etc etc), but i'm sure someone else can.

 

[hybrid_tiger]

The Tigers would look miserable without Prince and/or Sattler.

 

[Iafeta]

I feel the Warriors can be. They rely on S.Jones when nothings happening but when other players step up they are far from being a one man band

They've done alright without Stace. Notably in '02 Motu Tony and Lance Hohaia stepped up for two tough away games. In 2003, the team gelled together well at the back end of the season and pulled off some upset victories (Broncos, Roosters, Dragons notable games) without Stacey.

 

[Hoggy]

Essendon without Hird.

Me bitter? :evil: