Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

The game plan - if they were following one - was appalling. All they needed to do was play simple footy and someone to take control and they win the game. How hard is it to find a player in the squad who can lead an attacking play against a 12 man team? Api and Papalii are not going to play well in this system - there is zero organisaton on the field and two halves who think that's what they are, but trade off the back of individual plays that make them look good - and still after that some will defend them. They make everyone around them look bad.
 
Telltails said:
The game plan - if they were following one - was appalling. All they needed to do was play simple footy and someone to take control and they win the game. How hard is it to find a player in the squad who can lead an attacking play against a 12 man team? Api and Papalii are not going to play well in this system - there is zero organisaton on the field and two halves who think that's what they are, but trade off the back of individual plays that make them look good - and still after that some will defend them. They make everyone around them look bad.
Click to expand...
We literally only had to hold possession, whilst shifting focus to both sides of the field, and Newcastle fatigue would have got us home.
Our playmakers can’t think on their feet…but neither can our coaching staff.
Massive, massive failure losing that game and what do we get in the presser? REFS FAULT!!!!
Get stuffed.
 
Telltails said:
The game plan - if they were following one - was appalling. All they needed to do was play simple footy and someone to take control and they win the game. How hard is it to find a player in the squad who can lead an attacking play against a 12 man team? Api and Papalii are not going to play well in this system - there is zero organisaton on the field and two halves who think that's what they are, but trade off the back of individual plays that make them look good - and still after that some will defend them. They make everyone around them look bad.
Click to expand...
All we have to do was have our decent forward pack run strait and hard off api then shift the ball once we gained momentum. Then get to our kicks and keep the ball in play for as long as possible. the simplest known game plan to man kind and we couldn’t even do that
 
Telltails said:
The game plan - if they were following one - was appalling. All they needed to do was play simple footy and someone to take control and they win the game. How hard is it to find a player in the squad who can lead an attacking play against a 12 man team? Api and Papalii are not going to play well in this system - there is zero organisaton on the field and two halves who think that's what they are, but trade off the back of individual plays that make them look good - and still after that some will defend them. They make everyone around them look bad.
Click to expand...
It’s like when Benji was playing.
 
liltiger said:
This, I tell all my tigers supporters mates if ever theres another superleague war screw the NRL and do what's best for us. What did the ARL teams who stayed loyal get for they're loyalty. Manly and North's, St George and Illawarra, Wests and Balmain got to merge and South's got kicked out of the comp, while the teams who defected are probarbly still counting the money. Next time screw loyalty show me the money. The ARL were lying pricks the 7 clubs who were affected were treated like crap. In the end North's copped it the worst.
Click to expand...
That's not actually what I mean though.

Several Super League teams were sacrificed as well - Mariners, Rams and the Reds. There wasn't a single foundation club that sided with Super League, but that's because News Ltd only wanted to pick the eyes out of the Sydney clubs and take the strongest teams over. For a good period it may have been Dragons or Roosters that sided with Super League, but they ended up securing Bulldogs and Sharks.

After the Super League war concluded, it was agreed that there needed to be consolidation in the competition, i.e. too many Sydney teams. And I don't think that was wrong - many of the Sydney teams (and others) were borderline broke.

So yes - do what is best for your club, but I wouldn't blame the ARL for the fact that Balmain and Wests were horrible teams with broke clubs in 1997. Had the SL War occurred in 1988, Balmain may have been at front of the queue to take News or ARL monies.

The fact is however that the Roosters management smelled the opportunity, after all war does create opportunity, and went all-in with the ARL and signed up all the key pieces. Roosters were the true winners of the Super League war and it encouraged all their well-heeled supporters to bolt themselves on to protect the club in future.

My Grandma followed Roosters - she was born in Paddington in 1934 and Roosters were renowned then as an inner-city working-class club, quite like Souths. But in the 90s Roosters made a pivot to elite-level backing and business ties, and the Super League war gave them that opportunity to buy themselves a level of domination. I am both annoyed by and in respect of what they achieved, because they essentially smelled the winds of change and have left the other foundation clubs way way behind. Souths have essentially copied the blueprint the past 10 years and done very well for it.

This probably means Tigers need to go balls-deep with private ownership, or at least heavy private backing, to become more like Roosters and Souths. The money is surely there, if Wests Ashfield would give up some authority. But unfortunately WA are very rich themselves, so there's no reason for them to relinquish control.

Also going "more private" means more dudes like Lee Hagipantelis calling the shots, and already he gets up enough people's noses. You need to be careful what you wish for, because for every Uncle Nick there is a Nathan Tinkler.
 
Brooks was our best, AD was one of the worst. Api still short on fitness and game time with the team. Stains should have been fullback. Lauri should get time in the cup side in the halves,. Wakeham needs to partner Brooks.. Steff needs a severe talking to, or dropped. TT and Blore as yet have done crap all. The second trial showed the agression and speed needed, and we were good, - Titans was poor discipline, the knights was a disgrace. I wish Desi was here to motivate the side, something is wrong with the attitude.
 
Earl said:
Ridiculous comment. Brooks was better than Hastings on the weekend.

Brooks is an issue but Hastings was an issue when he was with us as well.
Click to expand...
Not ridiculous for that reason. Brooks was horrible in doing his job as a halfback. Hastings was ordinary but not horrible.

Ridiculous because speculating on what might have happened had the situation been significantly different is pointless.
 
crazycat said:
Man was thinking about the Newcastle vs WT game.

Swap Hastings for Brooks. Not an impossibility, if we punted Brooks last year and Kept Hastings....

Tell me would we have won that game?
14-12, Hastings is a lot less money then Brooks.

The more I think about it, the more I go, WHAT ARE WE DOING!
Click to expand...
Let's all repeat ourselves again, but we cannot simply assume it was a 1-1 swap.

Newcastle wanted Tigers to subsidise Brooks, so it would not have been "a lot less money" because we would still have been paying a large part of Brooks' salary.

It's not as if Tigers had the choice to release Brooks or Hastings, at our sole discretion.

And Hastings wanted to play halves, but the coach wanted him at lock. On this one I side with the coach - I think Newcastle are going to struggle with Hastings as their playmaker all season. I respect Hastings as a footballer but he is tremendously slow for a halfback and puts on very few line breaks or try assists. You could afford to have a Hastings if you also have a big threat at #6 or #1, which Newcastle really don't have (Ponga in theory, but he's always hurt and goes missing anyway).
 
Individually Brooks does good things most games - doesn't translate to being an effective 7

Can't blame him when we are starved of ball and dominated but there was no better opportunity for a seasoned FG 7 to take that game by the scruff of the neck and not only win but give his players some direction to destroy the opposition. Think DCE Hunt Reynolds Hinds Townsend Cleary Hughes Moses -.that's what they get the big bucks for.
You either are happy to see Brooks do good things in games and see that as reason to persist it wasn't his fault and all, or you are past that and want the team to win - with or without him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 1,337 (members: 12, guests: 1,325)
Back
Top