TYS Oz Player of the Year: le frogs

[RugbyReg]

Dunno on this one. I guess:

3 Morty - kept his head and led well.
2 Gits - impressed how he controlled things when much was going to shit around him.
1 hmmmmm. Sharpe. Could have been Palu, Mitchell, Moore, MMM, Mumm or Hynes. Ione too I guess. But I though Sharpe was strong and physical which we needed.

 

[naza]

3 Giteau - goal kicking determined the match
2 Moore
1 Palu

Mortlock & Sharpe in the mix as well. Curious to see if anyone nominates Burgess. While he had a couple of howlers, his orchestration of the Hynes try was masterful.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

I don't hink Burgess is going to feature anywhere here today. It was great to see the difference Cords make as soon as he came on.
IMO:
1: Gits for controlling the game so well under pressure
2: Sharpie
3: Mitchell - very solid

 

[Sully]

Giteau
Mortlock
Hynes

But there wasn't much to choose from! Cordingly seems to have learnt a bit from burgess and sped up his delivery. good to see.

Edit; I changed my mind Hynes had a good game.

 

[Pfitzy]

3 Hynes - he did some very important things on attack and defence. I wouldn't trade his solid play for x-factor any time.
2 Ioane - a couple of small incidents he could have done better but always looked dangerous on attack
1 Burgess - besides the awful pass, he was instrumental in the quick delivery that gave us two tries

 

[cyclopath]

Giteau
Moore
Sharpe

Honourables to Hynes, Digby.
Nick, you are kidding with Burgess surely? He's a half back, quick passing is what he's supposed to do. He almost fucked the first one up with his almost falling over at the back of the breakdown routine. He needs to take a breath sometimes and just settle. A bit headless chook at times.

 

[Pfitzy]

You take away that one bad pass, and look at the rest of his errors for what they were - poor forward play - and he had a good game.

 

[Spook]

You take away that one bad pass, and look at the rest of his errors for what they were - poor forward play - and he had a good game.

Come on NTA, he was poor. If it was Gregan, you'd be thinking differently.

 

[Spook]

3. Gits
2. Mortlock
1. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)/Ioane

Sharpe was also good as was Moore.

 

[cyclopath]

Well, I guess we agree to disagree. He has been poorly protected at times, but his decision making at times is flawed, his pass inconsistent recently. I think he can get better, but it's not all down to the forwards. And he threw a few other big loopy passes, not just 1.
Good point Spook re Gregan.

 

[Pfitzy]

His passing in this game was the best I've seen him in a Wallaby jumper with one glaring error. Gregan is in the past so I'm not even going there.

Cordingley was good when he came on at a time when we needed to settle down.

 

[Spook]

His passing in this game was the best I've seen him in a Wallaby jumper with one glaring error. Gregan is in the past so I'm not even going there.

Cordingley was good when he came on at a time when we needed to settle down.

To give Burgess 1 point, you are saying that he was better than 12 of the other starting 15. :nta: He was fairly brutal and he missed tackles as well. I rate the bloke but he was BAD against the Frogs and is starting to dither for some reason. Before his passing was hit and miss but his speed of thought wasn't...now I'm not so sure.

 

[TOCC]

1. Hynes, seemed solid in defence and attack
2. Gits - good kicking, composed game
3. Ioane - played a composed match considering he was only thrown into the teama few hours earlier

there were no standouts, dissapointed by the performances of alexander and kepu, burgess had a schocker, but in his defense the forwards were not giving him any protection.

 

[Pfitzy]

To give Burgess 1 point, you are saying that he was better than 12 of the other starting 15.

In terms of his importance to the game, then yes. I can't give anything to our forwards who didn't front up at the scrum or ruck. The other backs did good things but not as much as these three. Yes you expect the halfback to be important always but his delivery for our tries was top notch, and his delivery overall to Giteau was great.

 

[Cutter]

1 - Mumm - seemed to work hard and took some good lineout ball
1 - Gits - goal kicking only
1- Morty - still our best go ahead
3 - Hynes - did his job well and covered up for others.

Ioane was good but made errors. Our forwards didnt really front up I thought. The aimless kicking almost hurt us tonight against a team that was prepared to run it back. I was half hoping they would slice us to pieces so we can ditch that ridiculous tactic.

 

[Spook]

To give Burgess 1 point, you are saying that he was better than 12 of the other starting 15.

In terms of his importance to the game, then yes. I can't give anything to our forwards who didn't front up at the scrum or ruck. The other backs did good things but not as much as these three. Yes you expect the halfback to be important always but his delivery for our tries was top notch, and his delivery overall to Giteau was great.

When he's good he's good. No mistake there. Just can't forgive some of the errors. He did have a much better second half and I agree he is important to the game.

 

[fatprop]

3 Mortlock
2 Mumm
1 Sharpe

Burgess was patchy, does great thing and then .......................... but as we have no one else ........................ Cordingly has what two more games for Aus and the other is Sheehan.

 

[RugbyReg]

Cmon Spook and Cutter. Make a decision! 3-2-1s!

 

[formeropenside]

Burgess was just plain poor. Gregan circa 2004-5 would probably have been better.

In addition, in the second half Chisholm was on for Palu, with Smith at 8, MMM at 7 and Mumm at 6. Deans figured out there was no point in "contesting" the rucks - hell, the plan by both sides was kick it to the opposition and wait for a penalty.

Gits (3), Mortlock (2)and Hynes (1) all had good games.

 

[Scotty]

3 Sharpe (accurate, good in defense and did the hard work)
2 MMM (work rate was very high)
1 Hynes (always there in defense, but needs to commit to contesting the high ball)