Who has the better forward pack?

[Lambretta]

Another idiot , putting down Sutton and Sandow.
As Lang points out , when Sutton is out injured , Sutton's form becomes inconsistent.

I would suggest that when Sutton is out, Suttons form becomes non existant.

You can't have form sitting on the doctors table.

If you're going to call people names, then what you write in response should actually make a modicom of sense.

 

[macavity]

Lockyer is an ordinary defender as well but he can still win a game and he also usually has a back rower to defend inside him to somewhat protect him...doesnt seem to happen with Sandow and Souths

Sandow has forwards next to him too - its just that most of Souths forwards have no lateral movement - particularly Dave "ManBaby" Taylor. Hence they can't cover for him very well.

 

[aqua_duck]

Sandow's problem isn't heart it's technique, you can't tackle like he tries to when you weigh 80kg. The bloke tries to hit like he's Sonny Bill Williams, except someone forgot to tell him he's not 6'4 and 108kg of chiseled muscle

 

[aqua_duck]

Sandow has forwards next to him too - its just that most of Souths forwards have no lateral movement - particularly Dave "ManBaby" Taylor. Hence they can't cover for him very well.

Shhhhhhh, don't say that aloud otherwise Bunniesman (Taylor's manslave) might cry

 

[Galeforce]

I would suggest that when Sutton is out, Suttons form becomes non existant.

You can't have form sitting on the doctors table.

If you're going to call people names, then what you write in response should actually make a modicom of sense.

Exactly.

A lot of critics of Sutton , are based on Souths missing the finals. i.e. souths missed finals , due to their halves. If they made the finals , both last two years , they just missed out. you look at the record , Souths have missed finals coincides with losses when Sutton is out. So what i am saying , is a lot of you dumbies are blaming Sutton's form , based on justification that he can not get them to Finals. His form shows otherwise and only when he has been out have Souths lost the games needed to get to finals.

Sure Sutton has some ordinary games, however i also put this on the successful defence focus of other teams to negate a specific playmaker. He is not a FLASH player , he is a very strong playmaker and before being injured last year , was one of try assist leaders.

 

[Galeforce]

Sandow's problem isn't heart it's technique, you can't tackle like he tries to when you weigh 80kg. The bloke tries to hit like he's Sonny Bill Williams, except someone forgot to tell him he's not 6'4 and 108kg of chiseled muscle

Agree, and this is something positive that can be worked on. especially as he is still young.
Give me a player with heart and work on their technique anyday.
A lot more potential then a half who goes hiding and or has to be hidden.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

As Lang points out , when Sutton is out injured , Sutton's form becomes inconsistent..

I'm not surprised.

Souths loss rate when Sutton not playing has been high.
..

Especially over the last 40 years.

Also i love the inconsistency of the dopey haters.
First argument like this one is Souths do not have one of the best pack of forwards. Then second argument is Souths cannot win competition with Sutton and Sandow . The second argument implies Souths have the forwards but not the halves.

No it doesn't, it implies that Souths have neither the forwards or halves.

Fact,Souths did not lose many games last year when they had majority of their forwards and halves playing

Fact, injuries are a fact of life. Get over it

Fact,Souths were inconsistent in some games ,Fact so were most teams

Fact, but not much of one. Here's a better one - Zebras' stripes aren't black, they're white!!!!! Just as relevant as your fact.

in the finals ( Souths beat Tigers twice and Canberra only game played)..

Fact, Canberra and the Tigers made the finals. Fact, souths didn't. Fact, you were more inconsistent then them.

Winning a premiership requires the players, consistency and luck with injuries especially at the backend of the season.

In the Finals ,who were the key players that Saints and Roosters had missing due to injury?

Souths had Sutton, Lowe , Stuart ,Champion all with season ending injuries going to backend of the season. Sutton playmaker,Lowe workrate forward.

In addition to three quarter season having Luke , Lowe , Crocker,Stuart, Taylor,Clarke ,Sutton,Faloon ,Burgess out for key games.

Again, sh*t happens and so do injuries. Instead of spending up big on a few players and then discarding others like yesterday's fashion souths should look to consolidate their depth.

In conclusion, Haw Haw Haw.

 

[Iafeta]

Another idiot , putting down Sutton and Sandow.
As Lang points out , when Sutton is out injured , Sutton's form becomes inconsistent. Souths loss rate when Sutton not playing has been high.
As for Sandow,he had a good season and performance was better than average half.He is still young with more improvement to come.

Also i love the inconsistency of the dopey haters.
First argument like this one is Souths do not have one of the best pack of forwards. Then second argument is Souths cannot win competition with Sutton and Sandow . The second argument implies Souths have the forwards but not the halves.
Fact ,Souths did not lose many games last year when they had majority of their forwards and halves playing .Fact ,Souths were inconsistent in some games ,Facts so were most teams in the finals ( Souths beat Tigers twice and Canberra only game played).
Winning a premiership requires the players, consistency and luck with injuries especially at the backend of the season.

In the Finals ,who were the key players that Saints and Roosters had missing due to injury?

Souths had Sutton, Lowe , Stuart ,Champion all with season ending injuries going to backend of the season. Sutton playmaker,Lowe workrate forward.

In addition to three quarter season having Luke , Lowe , Crocker,Stuart, Taylor,Clarke ,Sutton,Faloon ,Burgess out for key games .

This is the problem I have with you and Bunniesman. Everything is an excuse. It seems to be ok never to have the guts and courage to overcome adversity.

Other teams who DID make the finals had large injury tolls at various poinst in the season. The closest one to me obviously is the Warriors... lost Steve Price for the year, Brent Tate was out for a large part, lost Manu Vatuvei and their starting halfback Brett Seymour for an extended period, lost Sam Rapira for an extended period, lost their captain Simon Mannering for an extended period... others had decent lengths of injury tolls like Jerome Ropati... but you know what, they didn't back down.

And they became better for it. Ben Matulino through injuries overcame a lethargic year to being one of the better interchange props going around, rightly being rewarded with a 4 nations berth. Other youngsters like Bill Tupou, Sione Lousi, Issac John... they came in and performed critical roles at critical times of the season. The best example of some of those blokes was in the game against Penrith when Shayne Hayne was as pathetic as they come in blowing the pea out of it against us, but they stood up to be counted.

There would be other clubs who had good seasons who had to overcome adversity at several points in their seasons. Souths had every chance to do the same. The fact is they didn't. They played like gutless wonders at times. Its a fair call for a club not to go on and win the Grand Final due to injuries, and there seems to be a lot to the argument that the fittest team at the end of the year is a great chance. However, to not make the finals at all was symbolic of the inconsistent rabble your club is.

 

[Galeforce]

AlwaysGreen

If you read and consider versus trying to pick points apart like a dope.
My point is INJURIES are key for any club and their season.

Look at Saints and Roosters and answer the question posed , how many key players did they have missing finals time?

I make the point , that injuries and the timing of those injuries cost Souths a finals place. period. This is a fact of life , as you say . So is point that Saints and Roosters were fairly injury free finals time.

My point is not a whinge as you say , rather pointing out the facts of life.Which is a response to folks blaming specific players in the Souths team for missing the 8. I do not accept this point for 2010. We had the players , however we had key players missing and screwed some games eg. second round losses to Manly , Roosters , Bulldogs , Warriors and Storm were all winnable games , however we had key players missing , fact of life.

 

[Galeforce]

This is the problem I have with you and Bunniesman. Everything is an excuse. It seems to be ok never to have the guts and courage to overcome adversity.

Other teams who DID make the finals had large injury tolls at various poinst in the season. The closest one to me obviously is the Warriors... lost Steve Price for the year, Brent Tate was out for a large part, lost Manu Vatuvei and their starting halfback Brett Seymour for an extended period, lost Sam Rapira for an extended period, lost their captain Simon Mannering for an extended period... others had decent lengths of injury tolls like Jerome Ropati... but you know what, they didn't back down.

And they became better for it. Ben Matulino through injuries overcame a lethargic year to being one of the better interchange props going around, rightly being rewarded with a 4 nations berth. Other youngsters like Bill Tupou, Sione Lousi, Issac John... they came in and performed critical roles at critical times of the season. The best example of some of those blokes was in the game against Penrith when Shayne Hayne was as pathetic as they come in blowing the pea out of it against us, but they stood up to be counted.

There would be other clubs who had good seasons who had to overcome adversity at several points in their seasons. Souths had every chance to do the same. The fact is they didn't. They played like gutless wonders at times. Its a fair call for a club not to go on and win the Grand Final due to injuries, and there seems to be a lot to the argument that the fittest team at the end of the year is a great chance. However, to not make the finals at all was symbolic of the inconsistent rabble your club is.

I agree with your points RE overcoming adversity. However i think you are fitting your own selfish interest when you state , admirable to overcome injuries to make finals however OK if they miss winning the GF. Well i would argue the opposite. A team with injuries can pull off an unexpected win ( example Souths versus Balmain last year) and rise for a oneoff GF versus win a sequence of games with key players out. The latter suggests that backup players are indeed NRL finals standard.
Youre last line says it all about you. A cheap hater.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

AlwaysGreen

If you read and consider versus trying to pick points apart like a dope.
My point is INJURIES are key for any club and their season.

Look at Saints and Roosters and answer the question posed , how many key players did they have missing finals time?

I make the point , that injuries and the timing of those injuries cost Souths a finals place. period. This is a fact of life , as you say . So is point that Saints and Roosters were fairly injury free finals time.

My point is not a whinge as you say , rather pointing out the facts of life.Which is a response to folks blaming specific players in the Souths team for missing the 8. I do not accept this point for 2010. We had the players , however we had key players missing and screwed some games eg. second round losses to Manly , Roosters , Bulldogs , Warriors and Storm were all winnable games , however we had key players missing , fact of life.

Galeforce, yes you had some crucial injuries but Souths didn't have the players to make the finals last year. Your captain went missing, he didn't step up when he was needed. Your younger brigade looked lost at the back end of the season, where was Roy? Burgess, for all his brilliance at times is still inconsistent. Sandow can count himself lucky that there were no alternative halfbacks at your club because he deserved to be dropped midway throught the season.

Having said that last year should be a good learning experience for Sandow, Burgess and the other young players. If you don't make the top 8 this year then heads will have to roll. FTR, I believe souths will make the top 8 this year, probably 5th.

As I have said before, paper packs mean nothing. I'm a raiders fan and I like the look of our forward pack but I'm not calling them the best until they prove it THIS year. Last year we were OK, but last year counts for nothing as far as judging this pack is concerned.

 

[snoozer]

galefarce=baby crying

 

[soc123_au]

Lol @ Taylor, best forward for the next decade held up by Ben Barba.

 

[WaznTheGreat]

Dave Taylor is absolute rubbish as already mentioned in this thread

 

[soc123_au]

Dave Taylor is absolute rubbish as already mentioned in this thread

No sh*t, just pointing it out for Bunniestard in case he missed it. It is Saturday night he will be out smoking blokes & chugging down a few cruisers.

 

[snoozer]

No sh*t, just pointing it out for Bunniestard in case he missed it. It is Saturday night he will be out smoking blokes & chugging down a few cruisers.

he'll be doing that tomorrow night win, lose or draw.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I wonder how many of those 151 missed tackles from Sandow led to tries or line breaks.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I wonder how many of those 151 missed tackles from Sandow led to tries or line breaks.

 

[skeepe]

Lowe was 18th man for QLD last year. I could see him making his origin debut this year. Bronson Harrison has played 7 tests for NZ since 2005.

A QLD 18th man >>> someone who can't be a kiwi regular.

Here's a challenge for you: since the 2008 world cup, find me a test match that a fully fit Bronson Harrison has not played in.

I won't embarrass you further by mentioning the fact that he's played more like 12 or 13 test matches... Oops.

 

[Southern Rooster]

Souths pack has a couple of "ifs" that will determine how good it is.

Asotasi and Crocker are those "ifs". IF they play well and "if" they have no injuries alongside Burgess, Lowe and Stuart and Luke it starts to look good for Souths. The other "if" is if Dave Taylor becomes a consistent performer.

As for Canberra I like there fowards a lot. I like the way they actually hunt as a pack as well.

But I have to laugh at this thread as will some raiders fans i am sure. But for 5 of the last 7 seasons i reckon the only poll Canberra won was the "Who will spoon this year"