Team versus Cheetahs
- Thread starter Pfitzy
- Start date
- Status
James Buchanan
Trevor Allan (34)
NTA said:
That makes for a seriously good lineout.
waratahjesus
Greg Davis (50)
why not sure up a win and a bonus point that we need then replace the guys early and give em half an hour break if its possible. Or being that its an off week, we need our top guys to grind out a victory.
Newb
Trevor Allan (34)
i think i'm with the conservative crowd on this. i think those with injuries should be given a rest, maybe put on the bench. but to play the B squad.... the cheetahs are still capable of decent defense even if they aren't a very good team overall. and the tahs have a habit of playing down to lesser teams' levels (see sharks and force games). they should be looking to work out any lingering kinks and put a bonus point spanking on the cats. anything less is not worth the rest the starters will be given.
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
Blue:
Exactly. But we'll never know if the fringe candidates are any good if they don't get time on the park. We have a brilliant bench and a good squad, but they are the most under-used in the comp.
Nadolo is a classic case. When he scored four tries Mitchell was the greatest winger ever to pull on the sky blue. Nadolo scores four tries and "the opposition was weak". It was the QLD reserves. From reports he had a lesser game against the Brumby Runners. Opinions on this site range from "absolute shite" to "not good enough", with those at the game less anti. But if they are all true then why did he get a contract in the first place? He's only holding a spot someone else should have. And is it fair to cancel someone before they have a chance to prove themselves? This is not the best game to give him some time. That was two weeks ago against the Lions. But its the next best. There will be no more opportunities after this one - Crusaders away, Brumbies home, Highlanders away, Chiefs away, Hurricanes home. All crucial games, and only the Highlanders against a bottom team but its away.
The same goes for McCaffrey (a disaster he has had no game time, less experienced guys have done well in the other three Aussie franchises when given a run, look at last week) and if Palu and Waugh are out he will have to be at least on the bench this week with zero S14 experience. Kane Douglas, like most first year graduates, is looking a bit worn down and needs freshening up. A week on the bench this week with 20 minutes on the park and the bye only two weeks away would keep him ready to go for the final push.
Same goes for McKibbin, who could give us some different style at 9, and neither of the current 9's have covered themselves in glory, week in - week out. I am assuming Betham has gone to the Rebels, if not he has an even stronger case for a start this week than Nadolo, his run in the trials was almost as good as Davies effort against the Crusaders (see you tube posting on G&GR).
Baxter is playing injured, Palu is playing injured, Barnes is playing injured (and boy does he look like it!), everyone wants Waugh to play injured and for what? To ensure a bonus point? I would GLADLY give up a bonus point for four points at Christchurch and without Baxter, Waugh and Palu fully fit we are going there under-strength. This is a 15 game comp, not a one-off elimination final each week. You have to plan ahead and use the whole squad well to win.
So, I want Baxter, Palu, Waugh and Barnes all rested, with Baxter on the bench. If someone puts their hand up at 12 next week, Barnes can rest till after the bye. At the moment he is being carried, and that's not good for the team.
Exactly. But we'll never know if the fringe candidates are any good if they don't get time on the park. We have a brilliant bench and a good squad, but they are the most under-used in the comp.
Nadolo is a classic case. When he scored four tries Mitchell was the greatest winger ever to pull on the sky blue. Nadolo scores four tries and "the opposition was weak". It was the QLD reserves. From reports he had a lesser game against the Brumby Runners. Opinions on this site range from "absolute shite" to "not good enough", with those at the game less anti. But if they are all true then why did he get a contract in the first place? He's only holding a spot someone else should have. And is it fair to cancel someone before they have a chance to prove themselves? This is not the best game to give him some time. That was two weeks ago against the Lions. But its the next best. There will be no more opportunities after this one - Crusaders away, Brumbies home, Highlanders away, Chiefs away, Hurricanes home. All crucial games, and only the Highlanders against a bottom team but its away.
The same goes for McCaffrey (a disaster he has had no game time, less experienced guys have done well in the other three Aussie franchises when given a run, look at last week) and if Palu and Waugh are out he will have to be at least on the bench this week with zero S14 experience. Kane Douglas, like most first year graduates, is looking a bit worn down and needs freshening up. A week on the bench this week with 20 minutes on the park and the bye only two weeks away would keep him ready to go for the final push.
Same goes for McKibbin, who could give us some different style at 9, and neither of the current 9's have covered themselves in glory, week in - week out. I am assuming Betham has gone to the Rebels, if not he has an even stronger case for a start this week than Nadolo, his run in the trials was almost as good as Davies effort against the Crusaders (see you tube posting on G&GR).
Baxter is playing injured, Palu is playing injured, Barnes is playing injured (and boy does he look like it!), everyone wants Waugh to play injured and for what? To ensure a bonus point? I would GLADLY give up a bonus point for four points at Christchurch and without Baxter, Waugh and Palu fully fit we are going there under-strength. This is a 15 game comp, not a one-off elimination final each week. You have to plan ahead and use the whole squad well to win.
So, I want Baxter, Palu, Waugh and Barnes all rested, with Baxter on the bench. If someone puts their hand up at 12 next week, Barnes can rest till after the bye. At the moment he is being carried, and that's not good for the team.
waratahjesus
Greg Davis (50)
i think its very easy to say give this guy a run and that guy a run, fact of the matter is they train week in week out with each other. if there not as good as the players in front of them then why should they get a run? if we rest three or four players and we dont get a bonus point then the shit will well and truly be on, worse yet, what if we lose, disrespecting the opposition is the first sign a team is going to hell. When dwyer rested the whole team a week before the semis it did no oe any good at all.
more players come in and out of aussie squads without getting a run than those that do, if Nadalo got a contract for being the forth best winger out of four then good on him, if he isnt good enough or versatile enough to break into the match day 22 then come the end of the contract he should be wished well. It isnt always about give him the opportunity and he will rise to it, he should be rising to it now and making it hard not to pick him not the other way round.
i still say the problem isnt rotation for game time in the backs but the fact that betham and nadalo sit behind Anesi, what doers a marquee player actually mean? he aint going to draw a crowd unless he has quite a large family living in sydney and he is taking the spot of an aussie. same all round, we have no back up for Palu or Pocock if they get injured yet we have a kiwi playing seven for the reds doesnt make sense to me at all.
more players come in and out of aussie squads without getting a run than those that do, if Nadalo got a contract for being the forth best winger out of four then good on him, if he isnt good enough or versatile enough to break into the match day 22 then come the end of the contract he should be wished well. It isnt always about give him the opportunity and he will rise to it, he should be rising to it now and making it hard not to pick him not the other way round.
i still say the problem isnt rotation for game time in the backs but the fact that betham and nadalo sit behind Anesi, what doers a marquee player actually mean? he aint going to draw a crowd unless he has quite a large family living in sydney and he is taking the spot of an aussie. same all round, we have no back up for Palu or Pocock if they get injured yet we have a kiwi playing seven for the reds doesnt make sense to me at all.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Good posts Hawko and wj. I didn't agree with all of it but that is probably more to your credit than debit.
You are drawing a long bow Hawko with NN if you saw a lot of him in the Shute Shield last year and the JWs this year. Why was he given a contract? Sometimes you have to take a punt and he had the raw materials at the time when he got his contract almost 2 years ago IIRR. But if you had to think of another good club winger then, or even now, you'd be scratching your head. I had a thing for Andrew Smith at that time because he was a goal kicker but not too many were on his bandwagon.
Betham - ditto. You wouldn't have made your remarks had you seen him against the Runners. Nor would I have to be honest.
Pocock's back up? After his game against the Tahs Hodgson will do me. It wasn't a crunch test match I know but I'll back him. You have a point about Braid holding one spot and it is apt since Smith is holding down another and Waugh is more like a tight forward who can play 7 these days. So we shouldn't have any marquee players in case this crops up again in another position? Maybe so - worthy of another thread sometime.
Palu's back up? There isn't a no.8 in the S14 who is not first choice for his country like him, let alone Oz. Only Spies has the quantum of impact he has in a big game and even Kankowski has been found wanting when he's had a chance for the Boks.
The point is we don't have anybody on the horizon in Oz rugby who is anybody like him unless Higginbotham has an epiphany to go with his natural talents; so the marquee players don't affect it. There were two good schools players last year who look like they could be contenders in several years time but they didn't play the 8 position and I won't name them anyway. One is still at school.
I'm all for the limit of hiring marquee players for only 1 year and not more than 2 in total for a Super squad. I'm all for the ARU giving approval also before Oz Super teams can dish out a marquee contract. Imagine 4 guys in any position, let alone key positions, not available for the national team.
I have mentioned my suggested changes above and stand by them for now. (To be honest I forget what I said but they were probably righteous.)
You are drawing a long bow Hawko with NN if you saw a lot of him in the Shute Shield last year and the JWs this year. Why was he given a contract? Sometimes you have to take a punt and he had the raw materials at the time when he got his contract almost 2 years ago IIRR. But if you had to think of another good club winger then, or even now, you'd be scratching your head. I had a thing for Andrew Smith at that time because he was a goal kicker but not too many were on his bandwagon.
Betham - ditto. You wouldn't have made your remarks had you seen him against the Runners. Nor would I have to be honest.
Pocock's back up? After his game against the Tahs Hodgson will do me. It wasn't a crunch test match I know but I'll back him. You have a point about Braid holding one spot and it is apt since Smith is holding down another and Waugh is more like a tight forward who can play 7 these days. So we shouldn't have any marquee players in case this crops up again in another position? Maybe so - worthy of another thread sometime.
Palu's back up? There isn't a no.8 in the S14 who is not first choice for his country like him, let alone Oz. Only Spies has the quantum of impact he has in a big game and even Kankowski has been found wanting when he's had a chance for the Boks.
The point is we don't have anybody on the horizon in Oz rugby who is anybody like him unless Higginbotham has an epiphany to go with his natural talents; so the marquee players don't affect it. There were two good schools players last year who look like they could be contenders in several years time but they didn't play the 8 position and I won't name them anyway. One is still at school.
I'm all for the limit of hiring marquee players for only 1 year and not more than 2 in total for a Super squad. I'm all for the ARU giving approval also before Oz Super teams can dish out a marquee contract. Imagine 4 guys in any position, let alone key positions, not available for the national team.
I have mentioned my suggested changes above and stand by them for now. (To be honest I forget what I said but they were probably righteous.)
waratahjesus
Greg Davis (50)
agree with you to an extent lee.
but the word marquee to me, means a player that can draw. there are only a few players like that in the world. While braid is a great player, no one sitting at home is ever going to go "what, braid is playing for the reds, this ive got to see" and i wont even bother to come up with a sentence to illustrate the impact anesi has had on sydney. I dont get the concept at all. i would prefer, and i will keep this with the team i support the Tahs so no one calls me biased, i would prefer to have a young bloke have a chance than a marquee player on the pitch. The ARU should only sign them if the country has a complete lack of talent in a specific position. i would even be happy if the one year rule was met with a, you can have the marquee player for a year but the year after an australian must be signed to his squad position so it was year on year off if were going to do it at all.
but the word marquee to me, means a player that can draw. there are only a few players like that in the world. While braid is a great player, no one sitting at home is ever going to go "what, braid is playing for the reds, this ive got to see" and i wont even bother to come up with a sentence to illustrate the impact anesi has had on sydney. I dont get the concept at all. i would prefer, and i will keep this with the team i support the Tahs so no one calls me biased, i would prefer to have a young bloke have a chance than a marquee player on the pitch. The ARU should only sign them if the country has a complete lack of talent in a specific position. i would even be happy if the one year rule was met with a, you can have the marquee player for a year but the year after an australian must be signed to his squad position so it was year on year off if were going to do it at all.
P
PhucNgo
Guest
Lee Grant said:
But to give the guy credit he was ripping it up at the U7's coaching clinic before the game last Saturday. Couldn't lay a hand on him. :lmao:
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
waratahjesus said:
Totally agree. Marquee players are pointless. They're are only few players that would actually be capable of being successful marques. Players like Johnny wilkinson, sonny bill williams who will actually bring in crowds. Thats the only time i would like to see a marque player signed, unless their is injury problems and the club is desperate. WJ is spot on with the anesi and braid case. Why hold back developing aussies for pointless marquees. I hope next year the reds sign Hodgson so he can play 7. Would be good for the depth of the position, we would then have Pocock V Hodgson V Salvi V Waugh.
apologies for going off topic.
More on topic I think they should give Nadolo a go, at least off the bench. Why him a go and not other guys that are more skillfull? Because he has the MOST potential. Anyone with his genetics (Big, strong, fast) should be given detailed attention and development. Starting off the bench will be good for him, The tahs have nothing to lose doing so, if he becomes successful at super 14 level he has the potential of being another lomu. Im an optimistic person and id like to think that if that if he has 50% chance of succeeding 50% of being a Dud, Id take that chance. Plus its only a winger, it would be hard for a poor performance by him to lose us a game, but a good performance by him could certianly win it!
P
PhucNgo
Guest
NTA said:
Dennis for me, but otherwise agreed. Damn, everyone else seems to have an 18 year old fetcher in the cupboard except the Tahs.
P
PhucNgo
Guest
fatprop said:
You have got to be joking. It was his loopy droopy passing that directly resulted in the Tahs not scoring in the Paddo corner early on in the game. Take a look a Chris O'Young for the Force last Saturday and then have a re-think.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Re: Mowen and Burgess:
- Mowen has played 7 for Randwick so has had a bit of experience there and Dennis is already in the team. The long term successor to Waugh may be McCutcheon but he is away with the 7s. McCaffrey is in the stable and could get promoted but he is not a 7 either; nor is Alcock.
If Mowen starts, and there is no specialist fetcher, the imperative should be to counter-ruck to win ball and not fetch. Counter-rucking has more currency for defenders these days and it keeps them more on their feet as well. Thus refs love love it. Plus with the referees having a hair trigger in regards to attackers with hands in and not releasing, the percentages no longer favour fetchers so much.
- Burgess was better against the Blues than he was against the Force because he didn't wander across the park so much before he passed, not because the passes themselves had lipstick and makeup on.
- Mowen has played 7 for Randwick so has had a bit of experience there and Dennis is already in the team. The long term successor to Waugh may be McCutcheon but he is away with the 7s. McCaffrey is in the stable and could get promoted but he is not a 7 either; nor is Alcock.
If Mowen starts, and there is no specialist fetcher, the imperative should be to counter-ruck to win ball and not fetch. Counter-rucking has more currency for defenders these days and it keeps them more on their feet as well. Thus refs love love it. Plus with the referees having a hair trigger in regards to attackers with hands in and not releasing, the percentages no longer favour fetchers so much.
- Burgess was better against the Blues than he was against the Force because he didn't wander across the park so much before he passed, not because the passes themselves had lipstick and makeup on.
Jethro Tah
Bob Loudon (25)
and v the Reds.Newb said:
Newb said:
I agree. First priority is the win so put on the A team until they get the four try bonus point then bring the bench on. I would suggest keeping Barnes on for the whole game to get the rust out of him.
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
Lee:
I now live in Adelaide so I only have access to Fox + G&GR you tube. ABC here does not show Shute Shield (which I miss a lot). So I have to live vicariously on the feedback of others - hence no actual vision of Betham or Nadolo. I can't wait to get home to the SFS. If anyone can tell me how to get more access (is justintv a poss?) I would appreciate it. AFL sucks! The only good thing is I get to see the Sevens.
I now live in Adelaide so I only have access to Fox + G&GR you tube. ABC here does not show Shute Shield (which I miss a lot). So I have to live vicariously on the feedback of others - hence no actual vision of Betham or Nadolo. I can't wait to get home to the SFS. If anyone can tell me how to get more access (is justintv a poss?) I would appreciate it. AFL sucks! The only good thing is I get to see the Sevens.
- Status