TC's JT Discussion Thread

[maxta]

Can I quickly chime in with....its the unstructured players with the vision to break down these so called ( structured) defensive lines who are the standout players....& love him, hate him or simply rate him...THIS is Thurston, truth is, if he was at Manly....we would ALL claim him as a superstar.
I will add TC , after your last comment, all on here would get on in person, make no mistake about that.

 

[Technical Coach]

Can I quickly chime in with....its the unstructured players with the vision to break down these so called ( structured) defensive lines who are the standout players....& love him, hate him or simply rate him...THIS is Thurston, truth is, if he was at Manly....we would ALL claim him as a superstar.
I will add TC , after your last comment, all on here would get on in person, make no mistake about that.

I will take structured brilliance over predominantly unstructured players any day of the week until the fatigue factor comes back into league again.

A player like Cronk under the current structured not enough induced fatigue environment will win more premierships and offer more consistent results than an unstructured off the cuff player.

Great structured players break down structured defences with well thought out plays, unstructured players tend to take high risk options that offer less return.(not relating this point to Thurston as he is not all that high risk at all and not as off the cuff as people make him out to be)

Thurston leading Manly the last two years would of had have zero impact. Without the forward grunt to create enough back pedaling for unstructured off the cuff plays to flourish Thurston lacks the ball skills and creative kicking game to beat an in your face defensive line.

And no i don't accept "assist" stats as evidence of ball playing, ballplaying is more than just delivering the simple final pass when it is a two or three on one scenario.

 

[Technical Coach]

Can I quickly chime in with....its the unstructured players with the vision to break down these so called ( structured) defensive lines who are the standout players....& love him, hate him or simply rate him...THIS is Thurston, truth is, if he was at Manly....we would ALL claim him as a superstar.
I will add TC , after your last comment, all on here would get on in person, make no mistake about that.

I feel the Manly supporter base would have less chance of getting along with each other compared to other clubs for a variety of reasons so i don't agree with you on that point.

 

[maxta]

Players who are MATCH WINNERS in the big games ARE the unstructured....you see if you have 2 perfectly balanced teams playing....with the game on the line....it will be your Inglis, Thurston, Hayne types who change the game.
Every team needs certain structure..no doubt.
But its the ability to play unstructured within a structure that creates unpredictability, without this any team (player) is doomed.

 

[Rex]

So why bring the so called "pattern" up if you feel patterns in general never "proves any theory"

Large patterns prove enough in my eyes in many areas of life and business to make better informed, more efficient calculated decisions.

Your pattern and consistent style of replies proves to me that we would not get along, i think i have enough of a sample size just within this one thread to come to that conclusion don't you think?

Patterns are patterns. Conclusions are conclusions. I described a perceived pattern and you (incorrectly) assumed I drew a firm conclusion. I am totally fallible and only see appearances. You appear to believe you see indisputable truths. Truths that others do not see. And then state them as absolute truths. Was wondering if you had any doubts or could see other possible explanations for your conclusions. Like maybe some bias in your perceptions?

 

[Deleted member 24974]

I feel the Manly supporter base would have less chance of getting along with each other compared to other clubs for a variety of reasons so i don't agree with you on that point.

Agree with you Technical Coach.
Unfortunately even some Manly fans are incapable of being influenced be the media and watching players for what they actually do on the field instead on what the media wants you to believe.

 

[Technical Coach]

Players who are MATCH WINNERS in the big games ARE the unstructured....you see if you have 2 perfectly balanced teams playing....with the game on the line....it will be your Inglis, Thurston, Hayne types who change the game.
Every team needs certain structure..no doubt.
But its the ability to play unstructured within a structure that creates unpredictability, without this any team (player) is doomed.

There is always room for unstructured plays/players this is not the point being debated it is that without structure you are rarely any chance.

Look at Inglis he shines when there is good structures around him in Melb and Souths (both teams winning premierships) Hayne as brilliant as he can be has not won a premiership due to not playing in a quality structure at the level of Melb, Manly, Roosters,Souths even Dragons.

The unstructured brilliant players tend to not be as consistent and successful in the modern era where professionalism can suffocate the best of unstructured brilliance with disciplined game plans. (Benji Marshall had one high moment)

If you want prolonged success polished structured halves with a well rounded skillset and at their very core are thinking players tend to have more success than unstructured players---there will always be exceptions to the rule though like Langer.(in a less professional era i may add)

On an individual per player basis i might rate one player over another but pick the "lesser" player who i rate higher in the structured sense, it's all about winning premierships and consistent results in the top 4.

I wouldn't say Brett is a better player than Hayne but a far more consistent structured player that is more likely to win premierships in a structured team environment and is more of a thinking player.

 

[Technical Coach]

Patterns are patterns. Conclusions are conclusions. I described a perceived pattern and you (incorrectly) assumed I drew a firm conclusion. I am totally fallible and only see appearances. You appear to believe you see indisputable truths. Truths that others do not see. And then state them as absolute truths. Was wondering if you had any doubts or could see other possible explanations for your conclusions. Like maybe some bias in your perceptions?

1) Zero bias in relation to skin colour.

2) My replies have never been about trying to change other peoples opinions but offer my own reasoning behind my opposing views that i know for 95% are totally left field and make no sense, unlike others who reply in the style of "these are his stats you are wrong, this is what other people say about X,YZ player you are wrong, this is his Dally M record you are wrong"

 

[HoldenV8]

I'm not rating Langer above Ricky i was more a fan of Ricky Stuart who changed the game in the skillset area.

Stuart more refined it than changed it. His skillset wasn't really much different to what Wally Lewis was using 10 years earlier. And both got a lot of their skills, especially the long passing, from their junior union days.

But like you I definitely rate Stuart as a better player than Langer. It seems Bozo did too because each time the test team selection was his and nothing to do with the selectors (1990 and 1994 Kangaroo Tours), Bozo dropped Langer like a bad habit and brought Stuart into the team.

 

[Rex]

1) Zero bias in relation to skin colour.

2) My replies have never been about trying to change other peoples opinions but offer my own reasoning behind my opposing views that i know for 95% are totally left field and make no sense, unlike others who reply in the style of "these are his stats you are wrong, this is what other people say about X,YZ player you are wrong, this is his Dally M record you are wrong"

Fair enough TC

 

[Technical Coach]

Stuart more refined it than changed it. His skillset wasn't really much different to what Wally Lewis was using 10 years earlier. And both got a lot of their skills, especially the long passing, from their junior union days.

But like you I definitely rate Stuart as a better player than Langer. It seems Bozo did too because each time the test team selection was his and nothing to do with the selectors (1990 and 1994 Kangaroo Tours), Bozo dropped Langer like a bad habit and brought Stuart into the team.

The passing ability and strength of pass was way above Wally Lewis in both directions and also the variety to his passing was a major leap.
Consistency in his long kicking with good kicking technique was way above Wally.(Wally had his big kick moments but not at the same level of consistency as Ricky)

Under Sheens the Raiders were the first team that started pushing semi professionalism into the fully professional age, the Broncos soon after. The attention to detail in training methods, structures and analyzing opponents weaknesses was pushed to a new level which suited Stuarts thinking game.

 

[maxta]

There is always room for unstructured plays/players this is not the point being debated it is that without structure you are rarely any chance.

Look at Inglis he shines when there is good structures around him in Melb and Souths (both teams winning premierships) Hayne as brilliant as he can be has not won a premiership due to not playing in a quality structure at the level of Melb, Manly, Roosters,Souths even Dragons.

The unstructured brilliant players tend to not be as consistent and successful in the modern era where professionalism can suffocate the best of unstructured brilliance with disciplined game plans. (Benji Marshall had one high moment)

If you want prolonged success polished structured halves with a well rounded skillset and at their very core are thinking players tend to have more success than unstructured players---there will always be exceptions to the rule though like Langer.(in a less professional era i may add)

On an individual per player basis i might rate one player over another but pick the "lesser" player who i rate higher in the structured sense, it's all about winning premierships and consistent results in the top 4.

I wouldn't say Brett is a better player than Hayne but a far more consistent structured player that is more likely to win premierships in a structured team environment and is more of a thinking player.

Yes, theres room for unstructured players & even more room for structured players who make up the majority of the NRL...but this is very relevant to the point....because this is the bracket of player Thurston fits into- unstructured (within a structure).
As stated, these other players such as Hayne & Inglis play what they see, not from a generic handbook.
The point is....most NRL players ARE structured....& could never replicate these players, as they lack the natural abilities these STAR players offer.
The structured players COMPETE, but the unstructured players win the big games & this is why they are on the big bucks.
As for Hayne not winning a comp, he was only 1 game away from the it in possibly the best example of an unstructured natural player, the structured defence simply had no answer for.
I certainly agree some of these flamboyant players in the next category down like Barba, young Bird ect offer brilliance that can quickly be replaced by frantic, dumb plays - but Thurstons consistency is top notch.
Yes he gets ridiculous praise where media simply bandwagon, but I find this just as annoying as you.
I rate him up in the top few players personally, but again its all opinion & I respect most...boring if we all agreed on everything.
Like you, I take Snake over Hayne or anyone....but some of the freaky stuff he adds to his structure would have Hayne scratching his head....plus I'm bias as hell....

 

[Rex]

Yes, theres room for unstructured players & even more room for structured players who make up the majority of the NRL...but this is very relevant to the point....because this is the bracket of player Thurston fits into- unstructured (within a structure).
As stated, these other players such as Hayne & Inglis play what they see, not from a generic handbook.
The point is....most NRL players ARE structured....& could never replicate these players, as they lack the natural abilities these STAR players offer.
The structured players COMPETE, but the unstructured players win the big games & this is why they are on the big bucks.
As for Hayne not winning a comp, he was only 1 game away from the it in possibly the best example of an unstructured natural player, the structured defence simply had no answer for.
I certainly agree some of these flamboyant players in the next category down like Barba, young Bird ect offer brilliance that can quickly be replaced by frantic, dumb plays - but Thurstons consistency is top notch.
Yes he gets ridiculous praise where media simply bandwagon, but I find this just as annoying as you.
I rate him up in the top few players personally, but again its all opinion & I respect most...boring if we all agreed on everything.
Like you, I take Snake over Hayne or anyone....but some of the freaky stuff he adds to his structure would have Hayne scratching his head....plus I'm bias as hell....

Structure is vital. Essentially structure is strict repetition of what's been learned in memory. And there is only so far structure will take you. Eventually other teams work out your structures and how to respond.

To excel, the 20/20 bowler needs solid stock balls (which batsmen might expect), and also needs to continually find the new, unexpected, unpredictable ball. Same thing in footy.

Some players have an intuition way above average. They sense what's required in the moment. It is not a memory thing, even though memories may be called up and used. It's not a thinking thing - in terms of simple repetition of past thoughts. It's a sensing thing. It may be sensing, in the moment, which structures (memories) to enact.

The great players have both. A library of learned behaviours which have worked in the past. And an ability to sense what is called for right now.

 

[Technical Coach]

Yes, theres room for unstructured players & even more room for structured players who make up the majority of the NRL...but this is very relevant to the point....because this is the bracket of player Thurston fits into- unstructured (within a structure).
As stated, these other players such as Hayne & Inglis play what they see, not from a generic handbook.
The point is....most NRL players ARE structured....& could never replicate these players, as they lack the natural abilities these STAR players offer.
The structured players COMPETE, but the unstructured players win the big games & this is why they are on the big bucks.
As for Hayne not winning a comp, he was only 1 game away from the it in possibly the best example of an unstructured natural player, the structured defence simply had no answer for.
I certainly agree some of these flamboyant players in the next category down like Barba, young Bird ect offer brilliance that can quickly be replaced by frantic, dumb plays - but Thurstons consistency is top notch.
Yes he gets ridiculous praise where media simply bandwagon, but I find this just as annoying as you.
I rate him up in the top few players personally, but again its all opinion & I respect most...boring if we all agreed on everything.
Like you, I take Snake over Hayne or anyone....but some of the freaky stuff he adds to his structure would have Hayne scratching his head....plus I'm bias as hell....

Other than lightening fast tap ons and the odd behind the back or under the legs pass Brett doesn't offer much freaky stuff to be honest, Brett is a solid, consistent, safe, tough reliable player who picks his moments.

In saying that i would take Slater over Brett even though Slater lacks the mental toughness of Brett when taking bombs under pressure situations in relation to kicking out his feet to protect himself, should of had several long suspension periods.

 

[maxta]

That's fair enough, theres been times in Slaters career where NO other fullback was close to him, though injuries have really hampered his profile in recent seasons.
Like Slater, the thing I like about the Stewart brilliance is timing....showing up at the split milisecond & also execution with not only blindly knowing where the support player is, but hitting them on the chest....both do this consistently.

 

[rifraff]

Cronk is more important to Qld than Thurston. Thurston is is the better football player...

As a Qld supporter, Honestly Cronk, Thurston or Lockyer.. I would pick Lockyer by a long way