Non-Manly Games [Round 4, 2016]

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
I don't with we have the players to constantly punch holes up the middle. We can though always work on defence and line speed and hopefully the better our D the other areas can be built on the back of that. If we don't have the players to continually rack up 150-200m, we can be smarter with the ball, with variations with short balls and lateral passing and offloads/second phase play when warranted and the opportunity presents itself.

Roosters will be a very good test as we our down 2 key forwards and roosters pack is still very good.
Melbourne play smarter to make up for deficiencies in other areas and Manly have had to do so especially from 2013 onwards to remain competitive.
 
I have no idea what is available in the other grades but always thought we are still lacking in the forward department from what was the expected first grade lineup. (during posts made about the line up from last years threads)

There is an improvement over last year lets take that as a positive which needs to be added to.

I would be letting go a fair few forwards back and front row as they don't fit the right physical build to sustain a constant physical presence.

I think Manly recognize this and is why we will be looking at players like klemmer, tamou, that big bopper from Melbourne etc. Still one gun Front rower and middle forward/back rower to be real genuine contenders. Im glad we signed Marty, think he is a real weapon
 
I don't with we have the players to constantly punch holes up the middle. We can though always work on defence and line speed and hopefully the better our D the other areas can be built on the back of that. If we don't have the players to continually rack up 150-200m, we can be smarter with the ball, with variations with short balls and lateral passing and offloads/second phase play when warranted and the opportunity presents itself.

Roosters will be a very good test as we our down 2 key forwards and roosters pack is still very good.
It's obvious we don't have the cattle to punch through the middle all day so we have to extract as much as we can from our pack, i still think there is room for improvement in this area but nowhere near enough to be a force.
 
Melbourne play smarter to make up for deficiencies in other areas and Manly have had to do so especially from 2013 onwards to remain competitive.
They have one of the top 3 props in the world in brommwich, two NZ rep back rowers, the best hooker in the game and a very underrated pack. They all do a good job and are very good defensively.
 
They have one of the top 3 props in the world in brommwich, two NZ rep back rowers, the best hooker in the game and a very underrated pack. They all do a good job and are very good defensively.
I am talking in terms of Melbs history, they have never been an overly forward dominant physical presence but play smarter than most.
 
Not a fan of Tamou
What?? He regularly runs for 150-200m and is very fit, good D, and gets a very quick play the ball while carrying 3 defenders. Last week ran for 240m, 39 tackles and 1 clean line break. I would have him any day of the week. Watch tonights game and let me know what you think, I bet he has another cracker
 
Good point. We look good when we get away a few offloads, and forwards play out the back

Still not as good as a monster pack, filled with mongrel and skillful. But you have to play what your got, and I think the absorbtion defense and 2nd phase attack will be our go. Done well it will win games.
 
Still not as good as a monster pack, filled with mongrel and skillful. But you have to play what your got, and I think the absorbtion defense and 2nd phase attack will be our go. Done well it will win games.
Lets not get overly attached to "size" yes we need it(sometimes there is no substitute for size) but it is the style of player also.

When you have Matai taking up hitups running hard, straight, with purpose, a decent step combined with sharpness it at least offers something/potential more than trundling and rolling over repeat predictable go forward sets.
 
Lets not get overly attached to "size" yes we need it(sometimes there is no substitute for size) but it is the style of player also.

When you have Matai taking up hitups running hard, straight, with purpose, a decent step combined with sharpness it at least offers something/potential more than trundling and rolling over repeat predictable go forward sets.
That can be ok out of dummy half late in the game, we do it well, but doesn't compare to a harden prop putting his hand up to make the hard runs 5 m out from their own line, or mixing it with the opposition's biggest forwards, putting their body on the line in defence in the middle, or attracting 2-3 defenders while still getting a ball away, putting the opposition on the back foot with a 20m run up the guts, getting that quick play the ball so the half back has room to run to the line. If we had that, DCE and a running walker would have a field day
 
"Fluffy" people tend to struggle in most areas of life so i'm glad i am broadening my appeal to a demographic that usually ignores or can't comprehend me.

Please use your hindsight to try and sound smart using vague statements that can be read many ways depending on who agrees with you and what they say. Of course you will need to include the mandatory ignore any examples that make it sound otherwise.

Its the same method those who claim to have telepathetic powers use.

I don't want more of Matai running hard and getting Turtled most times he ran the ball last week causing a slow play the ball. To me this is dumb
 
Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom