Reds 2016

[Micheal]

Having just watched a bit of that Brothers vs. Wests game, whilst I was skimming through it, I was pretty concerned with Tongan Thors play.

His scrummaging wasn't convincing, and his general play was less so. His involvements were few and far between, he oft finds himself in very, very wide channels and seemed apprehensive to get involved at all. Whenever he found himself at the base of a ruck after a pick and drive, he preferred to play halfback and dish the ball off rather than truck it up himself.

Further, he got involved in a huge amount of off the ball niggle in the way that many players who want to come off tough, but aren't prepared to play tough, often do.

Perhaps they should consider playing him down a few grades, or in colts? He certainly didn't seem comfortable at that level, and I think the off the ball stuff reflected it.

For a kid I was very excited by, I was quite disappointed with his performance in the first 60 or so minutes.

Do we have any Brother's supporters than can comment on other games, and the general trend of how he's playing this year? I've certainly seen footage of a few midfield breaks, but, whilst you can't complain about your prop doing such things, it really shouldn't come at the expense of the core skill set and role that he is supposed to play.

 

[RugbyReg]

Like I've said, I've seen him play a few games now and I've seen the opposite from what you have (didn't watch the Wests games).

1) Scrums - he has been part of a very strong scrum most times I've seen him. He has been challenged and hasn't had things all his own way, but I've seen him be involved at least a handful of tight heads.

2) Tight play - this was one of the elements that really pleased me. He was active in defence in all these aspects. A number of times he stood over his tackled player even and a couple of opposition tried to move him and just couldn't.

3) Defence - nothing concerning, nothing stand out. He's down the work in tight and is busy to get in position. Seen a couple of hits.

4) Attack - there is no doubt this is a real strength. He has ridiculous acceleration for someone his size. His footwork is equally disproportionate. Add to that his off-loading ability and I have no problems with Brothers wanting to run him out wider. He also has a nice eye for the right line to run and when to run it.

This guy is 18! Straight out of school. He is far from the finished product but I think he is a fantastic player. He will play NRC on form, not on reputation.

 

[Scrubber2050]

fair call. He's very matey with a lot of the Tahs and we know they are likely to be looking for another hooker next year.

Yeah - he was fairly friendly with Kurtley, if I remember correctly.

If he goes it may be to Rebels. At the Tahs he would be fighting for the spot.

IF that happens, it would be a huge loss for the Reds.

 

[RedsHappy]

mate I was talking about Chibba - it concerns me that HE hasn't re-signed ?????

You're right to be concerned. There are many, many Reds players deeply worried over the state of the team's management.

The recent vacillations from the QRU re Graham's position from the (a) 4 weeks ago 'he's staying for sure' to the (b) 2-3 weeks ago 'he just may be going so listen to Knuckles' to the (c) 'he might well be staying as something else' of this week has just deepened the disillusionment and cynicism.

It's absolutely clear that QRU Chairman McCall is, at this stage, determined to keep Graham as either HC or in some senior Reds coaching role. (Horan is also constantly lobbying in support of this.)

We've all read last week's media report of a major senior players' meeting with Jim Carmichael last Wednesday. The Reds CEO was left in no doubt as to the views of the players in relation to the head coach, and other aspects of the Reds HPU.

Earlier in that same week McCall hosted a session with the players wherein he essentially blamed the players and 'their attitudes' for the w-l % and told them how their performances were now damaging crowd levels and sponsor engagement.

 

[Train Without a Station]

F**king ease up RH. (Lets try to keep it civil) FP

"It's absolutely clear that QRU Chairman McCall is, at this stage, determined keep Graham as either HC or in some senior Reds coaching role."

That'll just about do me. What is clear is that now they are actually contemplating a future without RG. Over time his support has gradually diminished to the point where they are now looking reportedly looking at options that involve him in a lesser capacity or not at all.

 

[Highlander35]

Yeah - he was fairly friendly with Kurtley, if I remember correctly.

If he goes it may be to Rebels. At the Tahs he would be fighting for the spot.

IF that happens, it would be a huge loss for the Reds.

We've signed Siliva Siliva for next season, I think we'll re-sign one of Sexton or Whittaker as the 3rd Stringer and keep him and Leafa fighting for number 1 spot.

 

[RedsHappy]

Fucking ease up RH.

"It's absolutely clear that QRU Chairman McCall is, at this stage, determined keep Graham as either HC or in some senior Reds coaching role."

That'll just about do me. What is clear is that now they are actually contemplating a future without RG. Over time his support has gradually diminished to the point where they are now looking reportedly looking at options that involve him in a lesser capacity or not at all.

It fascinates me TWAS that you roam these pastures more than occasionally giving instructions to other posters as to how they should post, what they should say, and the sort of tone they should say it in. You're kind of a 'self-appointed adviser of what is permissible to be said about what I think is important'. From where, and on what basis, does the self-entiltled arrogance arise?

You can disagree - no problem there, even though I stand by what I said - but to tell me to 'fucking ease up' (at one stage I was 'a fucking idiot', though you guiltily deleted that later) is invoking a need on your part to (a) obey the forum rules please and (b) perhaps consider an anger management course for internet posters (such things are available these days).

 

[Train Without a Station]

I didn't guiltily delete it. The Mods did. Personally I stand by my remark at the time.

If you want to jump to conclusions all day long then fine go ahead. Don't expect us to gobble it up.

You continue to come on here with these detached from reality conspiracy theories that have come from one public quote (the truth of which we cannot be sure of because what people will say on record and actually think can be two completely different things) and then bounded along to the final conclusion that the evil board just want to push Richard Graham onto the unwilling fans for more time.

Clearly we all agree the bloke has to go and the Reds are best going forward with him at Ballymore in no capacity. I don't think that can be debated. But the mail in the press has been Graham is staying, then it was Connolly will come in as a Coaching Director (which he did), and now it's they are looking at a number of options, most include Graham stepping back, some completely gone. To me that looks like they are (too) slowly coming around to the reality (Perhaps the success after one game with Connolly has them confident if a replacement can't be sourced that can replace him with who they have around him now - who cares really) that the less involvement Graham has, the better the Reds will be.

You insist on claiming that they are hell bent on keeping him in absolutely any way they can when the (admittedly unreliable) evidence we have suggests otherwise.

 

[TOCC]

Albert Anae isn't signed to the Reds, he is returning to Brisbane because it's his home and he is out of contract..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Train Without a Station]

So he will likely play Premier Rugby then potentially NRC as he lines up a new deal for 2015/2016?

 

[TOCC]

So he will likely play Premier Rugby then potentially NRC as he lines up a new deal for 2015/2016?

I expect he will be playing a few games for Sunnybank trying to earn NRC selection


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RedsHappy]

I didn't guiltily delete it. The Mods did. Personally I stand by my remark at the time.

If you want to jump to conclusions all day long then fine go ahead. Don't expect us to gobble it up.

You continue to come on here with these detached from reality conspiracy theories that have come from one public quote (the truth of which we cannot be sure of because what people will say on record and actually think can be two completely different things) and then bounded along to the final conclusion that the evil board just want to push Richard Graham onto the unwilling fans for more time.

Clearly we all agree the bloke has to go and the Reds are best going forward with him at Ballymore in no capacity. I don't think that can be debated. But the mail in the press has been Graham is staying, then it was Connolly will come in as a Coaching Director (which he did), and now it's they are looking at a number of options, most include Graham stepping back, some completely gone. To me that looks like they are (too) slowly coming around to the reality (Perhaps the success after one game with Connolly has them confident if a replacement can't be sourced that can replace him with who they have around him now - who cares really) that the less involvement Graham has, the better the Reds will be.

You insist on claiming that they are hell bent on keeping him in absolutely any way they can when the (admittedly unreliable) evidence we have suggests otherwise.

Just please read my post carefully. I noted that not 'they' but one QRU senior board member was, at this stage, determined to keep RG on in some capacity or as HC. And my contentions, be assured, do not as you say arise 'from one public quote'. I did not talk of an 'evil board'. These are all merely distortions of what I said so you can move the debate to a place whereby you sense you can better justify your own arrogant dismissal of my post.

This is not 'a conspiracy theory' as you claim I said (I did not advance one), rather it's an observation regarding what is taking place within the current dynamics of the QRU board. And I think that's very important at this time.

All this is stated in the overall context of an intriguing (or depressing) fact: why, despite so much compelling evidence to the contrary since at least mid-season 2014, has the QRU, relentlessly almost and without any reasoned justification, kept RG on and on and is seemingly still thinking of keeping him on (in some form)?

 

[Braveheart81]

Now seems like a good time to invoke whichever forum rule involves building a bridge and getting over it.

 

[Train Without a Station]

At a guess. Probably because they don't have a high quality replacement, and don't want to pay him out and end up with a disaster anyway.

Remember this is the same organisation that certainly did not benefit from treating the head coach like a turnstile.

It's not an exact science. Either your ruthless and you end up sacking somebody you probably should have kept, or your patient and may end up keeping somebody you should have sacked earlier.

The further it goes this year, the closer Graham seems to get to the door. The last 2 games, and the new discussion of multiple coaching options (it's as though they've changed their tune from "he will be here for a very long time") seems to point this way.

 

[RugbyReg]

Yep as BH said. Move on both of you. It's tedious.

 

[RedsHappy]

At a guess. Probably because they don't have a high quality replacement, and don't want to pay him out and end up with a disaster anyway.

Remember this is the same organisation that certainly did not benefit from treating the head coach like a turnstile.

It's not an exact science. Either your ruthless and you end up sacking somebody you probably should have kept, or your patient and may end up keeping somebody you should have sacked earlier.

The further it goes this year, the closer Graham seems to get to the door. The last 2 games, and the new discussion of multiple coaching options (it's as though they've changed their tune from "he will be here for a very long time") seems to point this way.

That's (as highlighted) a very interesting point/observation re the QRU.

Persevere or sack. Were they consistently poor in picking HCs, or were they consistently 'too short term' in assessing the coaches they did sack after one or two seasons?

IMO, as I've said here before, the recent data is generally clear. If we take the coaches we know have either succeeded in gaining the SXX title or got damn close, eg Link, White, Cheika, Rennie, a notable fact is that (a) they have made immediate relative improvements in the team's achievement rate and playing quality in their Year 1s and (b) they have 'broken through' to very much higher levels of achievement in their Year 2s.

To me this points to the simple fact that you better pick the right coach to start with (easier said than done) and secondly if that coach makes no real achievement gains in Year 1 and then pretty much ditto in Year 2, the comparative data would tend to suggest he will not alter the fundamental trend and will likely never 'break through' to a much higher level of team attainment.

 

[TOCC]

fellas if you want to talk coaching options or issues then go to the thread 'Coaching Options for QLD Rugby' and stop having the same argument across multiple threads.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/coaching-options-for-qld-rugby.15284/page-29

 

[Highlander35]

While he's not been selected in the full squad yet (Missed out on Caps in November because he was suspended) Anae has been selected in the preliminary squad for the Samoan World Cup campaign.

Would that not mean he would be classified as a foreign Marquee, similar to Mafi at the Force?

 

[RugbyReg]

Not until he's played I guess.

 

[Jagman]

New rules say a player is captured when he is present at a test match as part of the squad. Not necessarily in the 23 he could be sitting in the stands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk