What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who would you rather?

1eyedeel

Juniors
Messages
552
I don't think its possible to go onto a thread and not see someone complain about Daniel Wagon playing at five-eighth. It's been said about a million times that Wagon despite wearing number six is playing lock. Cayless plays second receiver more often than Wagon does! So when are people going to get over it??

The issue then gets down to the fact do we want a traditional five-eighth and right now, I'd say no thank you. Why play a game based on spreading the ball to the outside back when the three quarters are the team's glaring weakness. Ask yourself this. There's 1 minute left in the game and we've got one throw of the dice left, do you want to rely on Junior Langi to make a break or would you prefer to see Hindy or Cayless bust them open. Give me Hindy or Cayless any time. We have the best attacking forwards of any team in the competition so its natural that a lot of our playmaking needs to go through dummy half and first receiver. When there is a chance out wide Morris drops back into the attacking line and plays that five-eighth role.

I definitely don't want to see Dykes at five-eighth. Almost every break he has made has been through the centre of the ruck and his unpredictability has been his strength. When he gets out wide he tends to confuse everyone including his team mates.

I've yet to hear one good argument why we need to change this style of play. We do after all have the third best attack in the comp and although we only scored 14 last week, we should have scored at least double that..

All this said, I think its imperitive we have another attacking backline option come off the bench. Whether its Webster, Thorman or Witt I don't care, but I think Smith needs that option to take some pressure of Dykes when needed.
 

Pazza

Coach
Messages
10,005
I dont think anyone wants to see Dykes at 5/8, lets face it his best year was in 2001 where he was wearing the number 6 but mostly was playing first receiver while campbell was given a roving commison. Dykes is a very unorthadox playmaker who holds onto the ball and runs side ways alot, looking for a lazy defender. Dykes isnt suited to 5/8 where your decision time is cut down dramatically because of on coming defence. I think most people on the board want to see another player in 5/8. I understand that Parramatta are a very good attacking side but when Dykes has a off day there is only Morris who has any kind of play making ability. Morris had a average game and that affected our attack alot against the Sharks. A third option is what most Parra supporters are asking for. I personally don't mind seeing Wagon playing at 5/8 but ONLY for the first 20 minutes to absorb the hard stuff then having Witt or Thorman coming off the bench to open up the game. Parramatta has a ton of good attacking outside backs, Grothe, Burt and Petersen can really find the tryline, it is just a matter of getting the ball to these players.
 

Kornstar

Coach
Messages
15,578
Parra have a great attack against poorly organised defence, if you look at when we played the dogs and also the raiders we had nothing at all, we could barely penetrate them. I know against the raiders we had our chances BUT we stuffed them up because we were frustrated that we couldn't break the line.

This week we will probably put alot of points on the Cowboys, again a poor defensive structure, if we don't improve our attack i.e another attacking half then when we come up against saints in a few weeks we are going to get slaughtered (especially if they play the way they have in the past few weeks).

I am a massive Witt supporter and he is getting better, i have seen it myself but if BS puts Thorman in i would be just as happy because we just need something, i think we need that extra bit of creativity.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
154,125
The recent International game between Australia and NZ used the second reciever (Lockyer) very well. It gave them more scope in attack and the ability to change the direction of the attack, mid stream.

This showed me what we are missing by having just the "first reciever only policy".

Our attack could do with a conventianal 5/8. Wags can stand at 5/8 in defence, but our attck could do with another option.
 
Messages
19
Fair enough comments filthy_spammers- our outside backs are definately our weakness at this point in time- and they get very limited opportunities in attack.

Fact of the matter is, they are also very weak in defence- especially Matt "I'll move in and take nobody" Petersen. So using your theory, why are they in the team at all??? If they're not there to get the ball and attack, they're sure as hell not there for their defence- thus they are a complete waste of space.

We definately need a zippy little guy who can come on when the opposition tires and get the team rolling forward- Allowing Dykes and Morris more space with the ball. I'm not a big fan of Webster- I think he's too small to play First Grade...so I don't really know what our options are. Ideally I think we'd like to play Wagon at lock, Morris at 5/8 and Dykes at half with the nippy guy on at dummy half at certain stages of the game- The only person that really comes to mind is Thorman.
 

yy_cheng

Coach
Messages
18,734
To be honest, DvdHntr, Burt has the ability to be like Mclinden or Lockyer but I still think he lacks the confidence or authority.

If Grothe wants the ball, he gets in there and gets it, same with the two nathans and morris.

Burt needs to just go get the ball rather than waiting for it to come his way which obviously hardly does
 

The Colonel

Immortal
Messages
41,992
DvdHntr said:
Burt needs to be closer to the action, play him at 5/8 and let Morris rove around and create.


And then watch the opposition forwards target him in defence...... Its better than your Vella at centre call but only just. Brett Hodgson was moved from the halves to fullback when his career started for the same reason.
 

Freak

Juniors
Messages
1,394
:clap: 1 eyedeel - At last someone who can actually see past the numbers on their backs!!
I think the risk at playing Burt at 5/8 is his defence.
Unfortunately I have noticed Dykes move back into his 2003 form where he simply is trying to do too much, and because of this our outside guys and moving forwards are not reading the play and it all looks way to sloppy.
Im not sure if there is a simple solution either. Perhaps Big Cay back to the front row and play wags at 2nd row and bring in a creating back rower like Pai or even Witty. Deano looks OK but is really missing that connection he had with Killer in attack. #-o Our last third options need to improve if we are to be a force!!
 

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
17,428
filthy_spammers said:
I've yet to hear one good argument why we need to change this style of play. We do after all have the third best attack in the comp and although we only scored 14 last week, we should have scored at least double that..

This style of play will not beat Bulldogs, Roosters, Penrith or the Raiders and we would struggle to beat the Storm and on current form the Dragons. If we cant beat these teams then we cant win the comp, if we cant win the comp then we need to change something. If you cant win the comp and dont want to change things, then we might as well give up now!!!
 

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
17,428
Milhouse Van Outen said:
Fair enough comments filthy_spammers- our outside backs are definately our weakness at this point in time- and they get very limited opportunities in attack.

I still maintain if our Centres were Lyon and Vaeliki we still wouldnt be getting them the ball because we dont have enough players who can pass them the ball in quality situations.

Milhouse Van Outen said:
Fact of the matter is, they are also very weak in defence- especially Matt "I'll move in and take nobody" Petersen. So using your theory, why are they in the team at all??? If they're not there to get the ball and attack, they're sure as hell not there for their defence- thus they are a complete waste of space.

I am not a Petersen fan, but in fairness to him playing inside Junior "I have to go infield to put a hand on nobody in defence" Langi he is being left cold out on the wing. He was doing the same when he was playing Centre mind you. If he has to be in the team, I say keep him in the team but leave him on the wing.

As for the Centres, if we arent going to have the players who have the ability to get them quality ball in good situations then we might as well play players with a bit more defensive ability. I think I would rather go with Grothe at Left Centre with Burt Left Wing once Graham is ready to return at Fullback and I would look at moving Wagon to Right Centre and bringing Thorman or Witt into Five-Eighth.
 
Messages
19
How do you pick a side- do you pick your best 13 and fit them somewhere? Who are the best 13 players in our squad? That's the question-
I think that without doubt the best 13 players in our squad (baring possibly Witt) are all in the team this week (of course other than those who are out injured).

Problem is- none of our best 13 players except Grothe are outside backs. Therefore, it is clear to me that our weakness is definately our numbers 1, 2, 3, 4. These are the strike players at most clubs- until we get some punch out of these guys- who plays 5/8th is the least of our worries. Might as well have a solid defender there seeing as though someone has to be there. We really do lack genuine pace and power in the backs. Jamie Lyon you Wanker!!!

Personally I would pick the team each week on performances over the last month- in which case Michael Vella would be the 8th string prop.
 

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
56,227
filthy_spammers said:
I don't think its possible to go onto a thread and not see someone complain about Daniel Wagon playing at five-eighth. It's been said about a million times that Wagon despite wearing number six is playing lock. Cayless plays second receiver more often than Wagon does! So when are people going to get over it??

When it changes.
Cayless plays second receiver more than Wagon does he?? What is the point in that when we are up against second receivers like Lockyer, Barrett, Campbell, Fittler etc.........



filthy_spammers said:
Why play a game based on spreading the ball to the outside back when the three quarters are the team's glaring weakness.

Defence.....third worst in the league - and our backs are our glaring weakness?? Come on now.

filthy_spammers said:
We have the best attacking forwards of any team in the competition

Really?? Matter of opinion wouldn't you think?

filthy_spammers said:
I definitely don't want to see Dykes at five-eighth. Almost every break he has made has been through the centre of the ruck and his unpredictability has been his strength. When he gets out wide he tends to confuse everyone including his team mates.

Thats because there is no organised and practiced pattern of what to do in those situations. Refer to my comment on what happened before and after halftime in the Canberra game. The organisation was and generally is a shambles.

filthy_spammers said:
I've yet to hear one good argument why we need to change this style of play. We do after all have the third best attack in the comp

So Wagon is 5/8th for his defence. Why do we have the third worst defensive record then. Something ain't working.

filthy_spammers said:
All this said, I think its imperitive we have another attacking backline option come off the bench.

If it is that imperative, why don't we just have a second receiver then?????

An argument well thought out but full of holes.
But hey, thats just my opinion.

Suity
 

thedux

Juniors
Messages
728
I just want to go back in time a little to when the 10m was closer to 13 and we had an abundance of ball-players in the side e.g. Dymock, Smith, Moran, Bell etc. Where did we rank in terms of attack? My guess would be about middle of the table. The answer to scoring against good sides is not how many ball-players you have; it was they are capable of doing when they have the ball. You cannot tell me that Witt will be able to create many more opportunities for the outside backs when we are playing against fast defensive lines such as roosters, panthers and saints. It took him most of the year just to learn to run at the line, did it for a couple of games, then went back into his shell. The only player that looks to have the raw ability we are talking about at the moment is Thorman but he needs to adjust to the pace. Hopefully, he will get a chance this week but not being able to score points against GOOD sides is not a new concept, otherwise they wouldn't be called good sides.
 

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
56,227
Agreed.

But wouldn't you like to be talking about us Eels as being "One of those good sides"?

There has to be a resaon why you don't?

Suity
 

thedux

Juniors
Messages
728
Not at the moment Suity. We are winning more than losing but not by much and not against top-ranked sides. Hopefully a couple of more wins will raise the confidence stakes which should help the team gel a little better. That is what we are missing, cohesion, not ball-players. 2001 was not without its hiccups early-on but the side began to gel after about 7-8 weeks and the rest is history. I say give it another two weeks and see how we run against the cowboys and storm. Both sides can cause plenty of probs so it should be a good guide.
 

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
56,227
thedux said:
Not at the moment Suity. We are winning more than losing but not by much and not against top-ranked sides. Hopefully a couple of more wins will raise the confidence stakes which should help the team gel a little better. That is what we are missing, cohesion, not ball-players. 2001 was not without its hiccups early-on but the side began to gel after about 7-8 weeks and the rest is history. I say give it another two weeks and see how we run against the cowboys and storm. Both sides can cause plenty of probs so it should be a good guide.

Fair enough, I accept that.

But you have said" lets give then another two weeks.
I'll give them another 4 or 5. I'm quite happy to do that.
But my patience is wearing thin when I can see no REAL improvement over the last 30 months.

We'll see what is happening in July, and I'll be happy to say so if things have improved.
And before you play the same broken record HJ, this is NOT a "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE" card. You always seem to forget, I want the SAME success as you do.

Suity
 

parra pete

Referee
Messages
20,683
Suity, your answer seems to be Sack SMITH and Sack Fitzy, instal someone like Chris Anderson and Bob Hagan. Keep ALL the current stars, plus all the ones we have released and give all the kids a run in FIRST GRADE quickly to see if they are good enough. Am I reading you right? You are a WHITE FLAG WAVER.
No nerve. A nappy wearer.
 

Eelectrica

Referee
Messages
21,134
Parra Pete, I don't see what's wrong with people questioning whether or not the club is on the right track. This IS a discussion board after all.
I believe that Brian has a long term plan for the season and some of the things that don't seem to make much sense now will later.

As for the original topic, I understand Wagons role, I just wish when he received the ball he would at least hit the line with venom. Right now he seems to either stare at the defence dumbfounded and throw a bad pass or goes down meekly in a tackle. Someone should tell him to hit the line Martin Lang style.
 

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
56,227
parra pete said:
Suity, your answer seems to be Sack SMITH and Sack Fitzy, instal someone like Chris Anderson and Bob Hagan. Keep ALL the current stars, plus all the ones we have released and give all the kids a run in FIRST GRADE quickly to see if they are good enough. Am I reading you right? You are a WHITE FLAG WAVER.
No nerve. A nappy wearer.

Cut and paste from any thread I've EVER WRITTEN where I have said that I want Smith or Fitzgerald sacked.
Then I'll talk to you.

"Am I reading you right? I hear you ask?
Your'e not even close.
And by resorting to name calling, you are only showing yourself to be weak in argument.

Suity
 
Top