Orford to win the Clive Churchill this year

[Ryan]

I don't agree there Mata. We now have players like Hall / Afamasaga / Wells - hell, throw in Hargreaves who in my opinion all add more than slow-mo (value for money or not).
Is it worth putting Vaeliki in the backrow on the bench? A big call, but someone who could rip the guts with speed out of the opposition around the middle of the ruck. Espescially in a 10 man interchange system?

Put it this way.
11. Watmough
12. Menzies
13. Stewart

should be the backrow, with at a minimum Hall as backrow cover on the bench. Impact.

There's a reason the club said Willow could look around, and take up an offer if a better one came along. He's not really in the 08 plans...and I'm glad for it (as a nice of a guy as he is).

 

[Canteen Worker]

One has to balance workrate, metres etc versus impact. Willo and Beaver do a lot of the defensive work along with Kite. Other plays are there for workrate, busts etc.

In 2007 many of the players were delighted to be BK free as there was a feeling that he took more hitups than warranted. In 2007 the workload was evenly shared successfully and the pack played well together in both attack and defence. Players like Glen Stewart and Watmough stood up. However, how good would it have been to have the impact of Kennedy in the GF.

The old adage of a good big pack always beating a good little pack stands true in big games.

 

[Matabele]

Afamasag is crap.  A liability in defence.  I'd far rather Willow than big Jack.  The only thing you can say about him is the jury is out a little bit - he may improve with a decent off season under his belt.  But if anyone added *nothing * in the GF it was halfasanga, who was supposedly there to add impact.  LOL

Willow also added far more to the side than Hall did last year.

Wells impressed me and he might step up this year and claim a place.  But we have to be realistic and realise that Beaver is not going to start all year.  '

As for Hargreaves, it's way too early to be pinning big predictions on him.  I saw quite a bit of him in the Australian Rugby Shield.  He's enthusiastic and mobile but he was also very raw.

I'll come back to it - where we have gained impact from this year to last is the addition of Perry.  If he can get fit and do it several times a game we will be the better for it. 

 

[Canteen Worker]

Agreed Mata!

 

[Noodler93]

I think the forwards have aenough depth their to ensure it's competitive. It's the backline I'm not yet 100% settled on. If Lyon can step up as 5/8 this year, it would solve some problems.

The raps on Wells is a little too premature. He's been ok in PL, but his efforts in 1st grade were sound at best. Still, he's got this year to prove me wrong, but if he doesn't, how much longer do we pay this bloke?

 

[The Wheel]

All in all, I believe with need some new blood to step up to add something to our current squad if we want to win this year

 

[Fluffy]

the majority of the pack is young, the exeption being beaver and willo.

Our props are hitting their best years at 26 - 28 ish

The younger players with a few games under their belt will be better for it and train all that much harder after an off season. Cuthbo did it last year, glenn stewart the year before.

From what i have seen of halfasanga in PL he has a lot to offer when he gets his act together, i feel he is the most likely to follow cuthbo and stewy2.

 

[Matabele]

Wheel gets an ealry nomination for the 2008 Captain Obvious Award!

 

[Canteen Worker]

Oi - that's my territory and coveted title!

 

[Ryan]

But that's just it Mata. We DO need something different, but Des will go with what he knows. Slow-Mow would struggle to get a spot in any other NRL 1st grade team. We can't have the 04/05 attitude that hey, we have been "pretty" successful, so we can stop the improvement.

I agree with you re: Perry. I personally think he will be one of the buys of the season.
King: I admit I was wrong after being shown stats.
Willow - Willow HAS no improvement in him, and seems to be getting slower and slower each year.

You watch this year. As our forwards start to get momentum, and belt their way upfieild, Slow-Mo gets the ball, and makes his customary 2 metres, breaking the roll.

To be honest mate, we are now in a position to almost be arrogant about the club we follow. We are just that damned good. All it takes is a small tweak, a little bit of ruthlessness, and an abundance of power, speed and aggression - and we are premiers in 08.

Interchange Willow for Kennedy in the GF, I reckon we almost win it.I tell you this. Crocker would think twice about cracking Stewart is BK was standing near by. If not, Crocker would know that his time would come AFTER that point when BK would get square.

Willow just drops the shoulders, waddles back into line, and boom...2 metres.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Hey Ryan,

Re : Slow Mo stats.

Obviously its his tackling workrate thats his best assett. He is on the field at around 60% of Choc & Stewy2 but his average tackles per game are comparable to theirs.
Average minutes per game (Willow 51, Choc 79.6, Stewy2 78.1)
Average tackles per game (Willow 26.5, Choc 26.9, Stewy2 32.1)

In attack his runs, metres & line breaks tell a different story and they strongly support your stance. his stats are very very ordinary.
Runs (Willow 6.1, Choc 16.4, Stewy2 15.5)
Metres (Willow 39.2, Choc 144.7, Stewy2 110)
LBs (Willow 2, Choc 18, Stewy2 7)

Stats are not the be all and end all but the case for his relacement has merit. And really, the question is if we were to always put our best 13 on each week, does Willow deserve to be there ?

At the moment I am leaning towards no. Im still giving thought as to the lineup if he wasnt there.

 

[Matabele]

As our forwards start to get momentum, and belt their way upfieild, Slow-Mo gets the ball, and makes his customary 2 metres, breaking the roll.

Willow just drops the shoulders, waddles back into line, and boom...2 metres.

It must remind you of your glory days supporting Norths.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

FYI Ryan,

Heres some of Kings stats (average per game) compared to BK last 3 years.

2007 King :  Minutes 47.5 Runs 13.1 Metres 112.2 Tackles 21.5
2007 Kite :  Minutes 53.6 Runs 15.7 Metres  130.8 Tackles 24

2006 King :  Minutes 41.1 Runs 10.5 Metres 92 Tackles 18
2006 Kite :  Minutes 49.5  Runs 15.5 Metres 128.5 Tackles 22  

2005 King :  Minutes 33.2 Runs 7.4 Metres 67.4 Tackles 18.5
2005 Kite :  Minutes 49.5 Runs 13.6 Metres 110.2 Tackles 20.8

So Kings stats are good in 07 and importantly he has made up a lot of ground over the last 3 years (particularly in attack) to come close to Kite. Looking at the 05 stats he bloody well had too didnt he !

But, i wouldnt be writing him off just yet. Real test is if matas description of him as pea heart and chicken legs is accurate when Perry turns on the competitive pressure valve, this year.

 

[The Wheel]

Be buggar if I can remember those 2 line breaks of Willos

 

[Matabele]

Be buggar if I can remember those 2 line breaks of Willos

Probably both came against Souths in the wet.

 

[Kiwi Eagle]

Willows lack of work with the ball in hand doesn't concern me really, because if he started taking more of them, then that would take away some of Watmough, Stewart and Menzies work with the ball in hand. The balance is quite good at the mo

 

[Ryan]

But Kiwi, why can't I hope and expect for a back rower to add another dimension that Slow-Mo clearly doesn't. I'm not saying he's not a great guy, and obviously the club love having him around, but IMO, it's all about what do we need to do, to be minor premiers, and grand final winners.

You mentioned that it's ok that Willow adds nothing in attack, as it leaves more time for Choc / G Stewy to add more with ball in their hand. Imagine on the flipside, another back rower that actually adds to the attack, letting Beaver / Stewart / Choc able to PICK their mark, and not have to carry a forward who can't add any X factor to the attack ! That's where I believe Manly can improve to win a premiership mate.

Mata - Fairleigh / Larsen / Moore / Morrison / O'Meley / Stringer & co. were actually pretty good forwards that during the mid to late 90's did pretty well for The Bears. To be fair - they churned out a few decent one's I'm sure you could agree. That said, yeah, they had some plodders as well (most teams do in fact), but that doesn't discount the fact that here is our obvious deficiency, and I hope Des has the belly to change it up a bit.

Jeez Jatz, when you look at King's stats, and reflect on what a lot of the media said this year about G Stewart being the most improved at our club, you'd have to think twice given Kings numbers. Exponential comes to mind. I'm definitely won over here. Lets hope the improvement continues. Depth means it will have to I guess.

 

[Matabele]

That said, yeah, they had some plodders as well (most teams do in fact), but that doesn't discount the fact that here is our obvious deficiency, and I hope Des has the belly to change it up a bit.

Do you realise how dumb your last post is?  You've spent the best part of 3 days whining about your latest bug bear.  Yet here you concede it's not possible to sign the entire Australian pack just for the hell of it.

And remember that in the days where you concede your beloved losers had plodders was also a time when there was no salary cap!

Kiwi is right.  Don't look at the player in isolation.  Look at balance. 

 

[Garts]

Every team needs a player that does a big chunk of the defensive work to keep the other forwards fresh for attack, I know there are better ones out there (ie Johnson)  but Willow does the job for us pretty well.  If someone comes along who can do that job and add a little more to the attack that would be great but at the moment Willow is our man.

 

[Ryan]

In that case Mata - it makes about 80% of your posts about Micheal Monaghan just as dumb. What's good for the goose as they say. Not only did you isolate his performances, you took action to directly dislodge him from the team.

Now, in regards to what you claimed as the dumb paraphrase:- I seriously don't give one hoot about who other clubs put on the field. What matters is who Manly presents on the park, and what we need to do to improve. You took the WHOLE argument out of context (no surprises there).

If you took the time to read the whole thread, I made mention of the fact that I thought we ALREADY have better replacements at our call, NOT, as you are incorrectly pointing out that I expect us to have  "the entire Australian pack" as you say.

That's balance.

You call The Bears losers. Yeah, I loved them @ the time, but I don't quite understand your hatred generated by their existance @ one time. It's an unatural dislike. If your upset about the merger, how about escaping the micro thinking, and think outside the square as to why the merger had to happen in the 1st place.

Maybe then you'll realise it just may not have been in The Bears power to stop it, and tangibly may not have been their fault.

PS: I don't want this detracting into a slanging match either.