the last 55 minutes proves we need to pick an actual half

User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 28909
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Re: the last 55 minutes proves we need to pick an actual half

Post by innsaneink » Sat 10 Apr, 2010 10:43 pm

ron burgandy wrote:well ink, the point is the linkage between marshall and his halves partner wasnt there once moltz went down and if the other half is gonna come from within the squad that played tonight we are in big trouble.

you seen to have forgotten how poor we have fared in the halves over the past 4 years because of sheens persistance with makeshift playmeakers partnering marshall. when have we ever looked this good in attack? 2005 maybe? when we had 2 halves in the halves positions
LOL...I havent forgotten anything...

But what happens in future wont be a reflection of tonites second half which is what you SEEM to be saying, not quite sure what youre saying, but there were a lot of other factors at play tonight you seem to be overlooking.


User avatar
Spartan117
Member
Member
Posts: 5863
Joined: Wed 07 Oct, 2009 4:22 pm
Location: Picnic Point, Sydney

Post by Spartan117 » Sat 10 Apr, 2010 10:49 pm

All Speculation Guys - Lets wait and see.

Arkums Razor - Simplest explanation etc .....
UTT - Up The Tigers

User avatar
bonstonker
Member
Member
Posts: 1420
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 2:14 am
Location: Louisiana,usa

Post by bonstonker » Sat 10 Apr, 2010 10:58 pm

innsaneink wrote:
ron burgandy wrote:well ink, the point is the linkage between marshall and his halves partner wasnt there once moltz went down and if the other half is gonna come from within the squad that played tonight we are in big trouble.

you seen to have forgotten how poor we have fared in the halves over the past 4 years because of sheens persistance with makeshift playmeakers partnering marshall. when have we ever looked this good in attack? 2005 maybe? when we had 2 halves in the halves positions
LOL...I havent forgotten anything...

But what happens in future wont be a reflection of tonites second half which is what you SEEM to be saying, not quite sure what youre saying, but there were a lot of other factors at play tonight you seem to be overlooking.
yeah,i'm not sure what he is saying either.

lui and now moltzen have been our halves through the whole off season yet somehow someone can just slot in there and bring cohesion to a team .
the points you and smeg brought up are more valid in my opinion.
i thought the cowboys for the most part played a more dominant forward game while we mainly relied on backs gaining yards in the 2nd half.

User avatar
851
Member
Member
Posts: 6230
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:38 pm

Post by 851 » Sat 10 Apr, 2010 11:19 pm

Fitzy should be no where near the halves,he actually should be no where near the team,Lazarus surely has to play,or Sheens is an idiot,we can't waste our start to the year on Fitzy or some other makeshift half.
Go hard or go home

ron burgandy
Member
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 4:24 pm

Post by ron burgandy » Sat 10 Apr, 2010 11:19 pm

bonstonker wrote:
innsaneink wrote:
ron burgandy wrote:well ink, the point is the linkage between marshall and his halves partner wasnt there once moltz went down and if the other half is gonna come from within the squad that played tonight we are in big trouble.

you seen to have forgotten how poor we have fared in the halves over the past 4 years because of sheens persistance with makeshift playmeakers partnering marshall. when have we ever looked this good in attack? 2005 maybe? when we had 2 halves in the halves positions
LOL...I havent forgotten anything...

But what happens in future wont be a reflection of tonites second half which is what you SEEM to be saying, not quite sure what youre saying, but there were a lot of other factors at play tonight you seem to be overlooking.
yeah,i'm not sure what he is saying either.

lui and now moltzen have been our halves through the whole off season yet somehow someone can just slot in there and bring cohesion to a team .
the points you and smeg brought up are more valid in my opinion.
i thought the cowboys for the most part played a more dominant forward game while we mainly relied on backs gaining yards in the 2nd half.
maybe they slot in and have cohesion because they are actual halves? if we go with what we did tonight when moltz went down welcome back 07-08, players running bad lines wrong pass selection players getting in each others way.

we need to select a half to partner marshall not fitzy or fulton thats what im saying
"Just let the haters hate"

shout out to kul and the rest of the admin and mods


User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 28909
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Sat 10 Apr, 2010 11:22 pm

Youre also saying they should have had a half on the bench
if we go with what we did tonight when moltz went down welcome back 07-08

Maybe we just chill a little, enjoy the win and see what Sheens comes up with on Tues huh?

ron burgandy
Member
Member
Posts: 1711
Joined: Thu 04 Feb, 2010 4:24 pm

Post by ron burgandy » Sat 10 Apr, 2010 11:34 pm

innsaneink wrote:Youre also saying they should have had a half on the bench
if we go with what we did tonight when moltz went down welcome back 07-08

Maybe we just chill a little, enjoy the win and see what Sheens comes up with on Tues huh?

im not saying that at all, im basing this on sheens history of picking fulton, fitzy or anyone else other then a half in that position when we lose 1 to injury.

and since moltz is gone for the year he may aswell give blake the shot while lui is out instead of going back to the proven failures of the past
"Just let the haters hate"

shout out to kul and the rest of the admin and mods

User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 28909
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Sat 10 Apr, 2010 11:39 pm

ron burgandy wrote:
innsaneink wrote:Youre also saying they should have had a half on the bench
if we go with what we did tonight when moltz went down welcome back 07-08

Maybe we just chill a little, enjoy the win and see what Sheens comes up with on Tues huh?

im not saying that at all, im basing this on sheens history of picking fulton, fitzy or anyone else other then a half in that position when we lose 1 to injury.

and since moltz is gone for the year he may aswell give blake the shot while lui is out instead of going back to the proven failures of the past
If youre basing this on Sheens selection history then why mention the injury riddled second half of this evenings match?
It just confuses you

southerntiger
Member
Member
Posts: 4392
Joined: Sun 12 Jul, 2009 6:24 pm
Location: Sydney

Post by southerntiger » Sun 11 Apr, 2010 10:49 am

I always agree with having a specialist half (which is one of the reasons I am not convinced Tim is the solution) however tonight our struggles in the second half had nothing to do with not having a specialist half. Rather, we struggled because of a lack of possession and a lack of go forward - pure and simple.

Undoubtedly, the Fitz was horrible. It truly was one of the worst first grade performances i have seen in recent memory. Almost Paul Carige like. When you combine the errors, the complete uselessness with the ball in hand and the weak defence you have one crappy performance.

User avatar
Tiger Watto
Member
Member
Posts: 10560
Joined: Mon 08 Mar, 2010 7:12 pm
Location: Maroochydore Qld

Post by Tiger Watto » Sun 11 Apr, 2010 11:06 am

"we'll have to manufactor a half for next week"...

Well done Tim. Knowing Blake will be up against Brett Kimmorely, I wouldnt of named him either. At least give him a few days to get his head around he will finally get his chance to play at NRL Level for his belovered Wests.

Tim will name Robbie at 9, Marshall at 7 and Lazarus at 6. Let Benji and Robbie deal with the hype of Kimmorely and Ennis. Come game day, I'm sure Blake will be at first reciever...
"Did someone buy you the internet hero play book for Christmas and you've only just started reading it?" - Nelson 21/04/2017

User avatar
hybrid_tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 4564
Joined: Sat 11 Jul, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Latchem Robinson Stand

Post by hybrid_tiger » Sun 11 Apr, 2010 11:09 am

Marshall won't be named at #7.

User avatar
willow
Member
Member
Posts: 32952
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: The Village

Post by willow » Sun 11 Apr, 2010 11:12 am

Tiger Watto wrote:"we'll have to manufactor a half for next week"...

Well done Tim. Knowing Blake will be up against Brett Kimmorely, I wouldnt of named him either. At least give him a few days to get his head around he will finally get his chance to play at NRL Level for his belovered Wests.

Tim will name Robbie at 9, Marshall at 7 and Lazarus at 6. Let Benji and Robbie deal with the hype of Kimmorely and Ennis. Come game day, I'm sure Blake will be at first reciever...
Lazarus is a specialist 7, why name him at 6 and Marshall at 7 when Marshall is a specialist 6? If Lazarus is named he will surely be first receiver on the right hand side in attack.

Year of the Tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 565
Joined: Mon 08 Mar, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Brisbane via Leichardt

Post by Year of the Tiger » Sun 11 Apr, 2010 11:13 am

southerntiger wrote:I always agree with having a specialist half (which is one of the reasons I am not convinced Tim is the solution) however tonight our struggles in the second half had nothing to do with not having a specialist half. Rather, we struggled because of a lack of possession and a lack of go forward - pure and simple.

Undoubtedly, the Fitz was horrible. It truly was one of the worst first grade performances i have seen in recent memory. Almost Paul Carige like. When you combine the errors, the complete uselessness with the ball in hand and the weak defence you have one crappy performance.
Fitzy was woeful!!
2 October 2005 was the greatest day of my life ...

User avatar
Tiger Watto
Member
Member
Posts: 10560
Joined: Mon 08 Mar, 2010 7:12 pm
Location: Maroochydore Qld

Post by Tiger Watto » Sun 11 Apr, 2010 3:58 pm

willow wrote:Lazarus is a specialist 7, why name him at 6 and Marshall at 7 when Marshall is a specialist 6? If Lazarus is named he will surely be first receiver on the right hand side in attack.
It was just a theory to distract the media and to take the pressure away from Blake. The media would thrive on the debate of Ennis v Farah & Kimmorely v Marshall. Lazarus would still play 7 come game day regardless what jumper was on his back...
"Did someone buy you the internet hero play book for Christmas and you've only just started reading it?" - Nelson 21/04/2017

User avatar
innsaneink
Member
Member
Posts: 28909
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....

Post by innsaneink » Sun 11 Apr, 2010 4:36 pm

Funny how people say the numbers on the backs mean nothing, but then other times they mean something...same people too.

User avatar
Sataris
Member
Member
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed 15 Jul, 2009 7:22 pm
Contact:

Post by Sataris » Sun 11 Apr, 2010 9:20 pm

Spartan117 wrote:All Speculation Guys - Lets wait and see.

Arkums Razor - Simplest explanation etc .....
It's actually Occam's Razor: and yes I agree with you, a half for a half seems like the simplest solution but what do we know?
cunno wrote:Ennis is the koala of the NRL.
Home of the Sataris

User avatar
MGB
Member
Member
Posts: 528
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 9:06 am

Post by MGB » Sun 11 Apr, 2010 9:27 pm

Have we ever lost a game with Fulton at 5/8?
Cant remember one but can remember a few good wins.

Post Reply