Why Persist With The 40 Minute Hooker Plan?

[Sportsjock]

I am curious as to why the Sharks continually persist with this ridiculous 40 minute plan for two hookers?

It was a concept originally bought in by Brian Smith when he had PJ Marsh and Brad Drew carving up teams in 2001, but it doesnt work anymore!

Michael Sullivan is one of the more fitter guys in your club and can handle a full 80 minutes in the 9.

Look at all the top teams in the game, and all of them have a 80 minute hooker. In 2004, you simply cant afford to plan out a game with one hooker playing the first 20 and last 20 , and the other playing the 40 in the middle.

Craig Wing , Danny Buderus, Luke Priddis, Simon Woolford are all examples of hookers who can play the full game, and its no secret their teams are successful last year and also in 2004.

Sure some teams can use a Motu Tony or Shaun Berrigan to slot into dummy half as a change up, but they arent using up replacements to do so , and I personally feel gaining two extra replacements enchances your forward pack.

I think its time for this dated concept to be put back in the cupboard and its time for Michael Sullivan or someone else to step into the 9 for the full 80 minutes - because it won't work anymore and is half the reason you haven't won many games in 2003 or 2004.

The sooner if changes, the more successful you guys will be for sure.

Hope someone sees it soon because there is too much talent in your squad to not be pushing the 8.

 

[Genius Freak]

I'd say the majority of Sharks fans agree with you. For mine Sully should start, and I imagine he will sooner or later. When we get a couple dozen wins under our belts, then we can start playing around with Super Subs.

 

[Sportsjock]

I'd say the majority of Sharks fans agree with you. For mine Sully should start, and I imagine he will sooner or later.

Well how long is it going to take Raper to do it? Until its too late and you've missed the 8 again?

Its already 0 from 2 , and I notice alot of you are saying keep Vagana for a later time instead of rushing him back etc, but its not beyond the realms of possibility that Manly could potentially make it 0 from 3 this weekend, all the while this stupid 40 minute hooker concept remains.

 

[wittyfan]

Yep, Sully has been far more impressive than Bosnich this year. In fact Sully has arguably been our best player in the first two rounds. The team has been searching for a regular hooker since Triester left, and I think Sully can definitely make the no.9 jersey his own.

 

[Sportsjock]

I think I know the answer to my question actually... the main reason Michael Sullivan isnt the 9 full time is because defensively he a bit small, and his passing game from dummy half isnt always really that accurate.

I just think you guys lack a genuine 9.

Bear in mind, Sully is actually a long term halfback anyway and only started playing 9 last year on any sort of regular basis.

As a running half he is great. As a running hooker he is great, but when compared to Priddis, Wing , Buderus, Woolford and some of the better teams hookers, he is obiously lacking in the defensive game to play the full 80.

It is hard to hide a hooker in defence. They already hide Noddy.

 

[millersnose]

i would put swap sully and bird

 

[Macca]

:roll: I almost wish they did swap them for a game so it could prove once and for all how stupid an idea it would be.

 

[SirShire]

Too right.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Sully & Bird is a great swap.
I don't think they have the position right yet.
& sports Jock, your idea about a dated style of play, is well, very dated in itself/
The reason Bosnich starts is so as too ensure there are no early points. Sully, at 85 kg is far too light & our biggest defensive liability. Bosnich can play close to a full match, so he can be rotated to the forwards when sully takes to the feild.
At the same time, starting Sully, takes him off the bench, leaving us with nobody who play all the position he can in the scenario of an early injury to perhpas BK, Bird, peach etc with a slight reshuffle.

Sorry Jock, but Rapes is way ahead of you. The benfits of doing this far exceed the benefits of starting Sully at hooker or even 5/8.

 

[cheese]

Craig Wing , Danny Buderus, Luke Priddis, Simon Woolford are all examples of hookers who can play the full game, and its no secret their teams are successful last year and also in 2004.

The players above are sensational defenders. Sullivan isnt...............yet

1+1=2

 

[Special K]

Sully isn't a 80 player either. Well not at hooker. He was stuffed after half an hour there against the dogs(as you could see when he made that half break and just couldn't run anymore)

 

[Macca]

Bird is certianly not a hooker! I'd rather see Hilder at hooker than Bird. Sully is doing a perfect job out of dummy half at the moment, why would you want to change it.

 

[Sportsjock]

Sully & Bird is a great swap.
& sports Jock, your idea about a dated style of play, is well, very dated in itself/


Sorry Jock, but Rapes is way ahead of you.

As seen by the brilliant performances in 2003 and 2004 by the most prominent teams that use this style - Parramatta and Cronulla :lol:

 

[King of the Hill]

Forty minutes? Bludgers. I thought hookers usually charged by the hour.

 

[NthCronullaLocal]

I agree with blacktip. We need the stability of Bosnich's defence. This isnt your usual dummy half swap. While they will be swapping between hooker most of the time Bosnich is able to play any where in the backrow, while Sully is able to play anywhere in the halves. Both players have a certain utility value and can cover a variety of positions if the need arises. It should persist at this stage.

 

[chili pepper]

I totally agree Sportsjock that this tactic is outdated and a waste of a valuable interchange. I see Reefy's point about Bosnich there for his defence in the opening 20 min but then he is basically a waste for the remaining 60min. He doesn't have an impact out of dummy half and he not a good enough backrower to have an impact from that position either.

If Sully's defence is not upto scratch for the opening 20 min then I think there must be a better option such as starting Hilder there then using him as a backrower for the remaining hour.

BTW I think Langy may have introduced this tactic before Smith - although I'm not entirely sure of it.

 

[NthCronullaLocal]

Langy employed this in about 1995 interchanging triester and dykes.

 

[chili pepper]

Langy employed this in about 1995 interchanging triester and dykes.

Thanks for that. I was sure we had been using the tactic for a lot longer than 2001.

Been using it for too long now. Time to move on.

 

[drratoxic]

i like sully but i agree. We need to find a permanent number 9 who plays eighty minutes. I dont think its bosnich though, he is a good player but just not creative enough to really be a game breaker like cam smith, buderus, wing etc... Do we have any good specialist hookers other than gibson in the lower grades??? or otherwise i think its time to give sully a go at starting and playing eighty minutes. We could use the interchange spot for another forward. What do u guys think

 

[Booyah]

i like sully but i agree. We need to find a permanent number 9 who plays eighty minutes. I dont think its bosnich though, he is a good player but just not creative enough to really be a game breaker like cam smith, buderus, wing etc... Do we have any good specialist hookers other than gibson in the lower grades??? or otherwise i think its time to give sully a go at starting and playing eighty minutes. We could use the interchange spot for another forward. What do u guys think

Kevin Kingston

I'm waiting for him to get a run in firsts, because he was on fire last year, but never got a call up. Haven't seen him play this year yet though, so I'm not sure.