Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

tigermate said:
thats a fair point

but they then thought that his "baggage" was worth more than putting up with it and winning more games.

I don't know what the right answer is...

but we are last.

if the point is to win more games than you lose -- than if we win more games with hastings but have to deal with his sh*t... is that better than letting him go and losing more games?

i don't know... but my problem is they didnt have an answer -- and they still didn't play brooks at 6.

after ten years they couldn't see it.

well now they can deal with it...
Click to expand...
Hastings wanted to go to Newcastle. The club's decision was best for both parties as Hastings received a very good contract and a chance to re-establish his career in Newcastle.

We were always on a poor trajectory this year and perhaps next. That was admitted. The umbilical cord to the past has been cut now with Brooks' departure.

We must have plenty of money to either buy the very best young halves waiting for an opportunity - Walker or Sanders or, buy Williams and Welsby plus a young half or two.
 
Tucker said:
Latrell killed it at the Roosters at centre winning back to back GFs. He has been ok at Souths but nowhere near as effective. All his rep footy has been at centre.
GI was an absolute weapon as a centre for many years at club level and rep level winning a Clive Churchill, RLIF centre of the year, 2 x Dally M rep player of the year awards, the Wally Lewis Medal, Harry Sunderland Medal, Ron Macauliffe Medal and a Golden Boot playing there.
I’ve seen you say you coach footy before. I pray it’s not kids, they don’t deserve such an unknowledgeable boofhead poisoning their formative years.
Click to expand...

I could delve into an analysis as to why Inglis was in the centres at the Storm (Slater fullback) and Latrell centre at the Roosters (Tedesco), but I know it will fall on deaf ears. Instead, since you mention my coaching, I will ask one simple question. When Latrell comes back for souths, would you play him in the centres and keep Taafe at fullback or would you put Latrell back to fullback?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 851
pawsandclaws1 said:
Hastings wanted to go to Newcastle. The club's decision was best for both parties as Hastings received a very good contract and a chance to re-establish his career in Newcastle.

We were always on a poor trajectory this year and perhaps next. That was admitted. The umbilical cord to the past has been cut now with Brooks' departure.

We must have plenty of money to either buy the very best young halves waiting for an opportunity - Walker or Sanders or, buy Williams and Welsby plus a young half or two.
Click to expand...
sorry -- i don't agree with the first part.

hastings only wanted to go when sheens said he would pay him at Lock and didn't see him as a 7.

if sheens had wanted to keep him at 7 -- we would've let brooks go -- like Newcastle wanted.

Newcastle only turned their attention to Hastings -- when Sheens wouldn't let Brooks leave.

Now Sheens has neither Brooks or Hastings.

That's my point.
 
tigermate said:
sorry -- i don't agree with the first part.

hastings only wanted to go when sheens said he would pay him at Lock and didn't see him as a 7.

if sheens had wanted to keep him at 7 -- we would've let brooks go -- like Newcastle wanted.

Newcastle only turned their attention to Hastings -- when Sheens wouldn't let Brooks leave.

Now Sheens has neither Brooks or Hastings.

That's my point.
Click to expand...

I think what you say here is correct.

Hastings has been poor at 7 though for Newy, I'm not confident he would have been the answer for us in that position.
 
426Tlgerland said:
You would hope club has some good news soon
Brooks going
Tommy Going
Joffa Gone
Nofo , offered up
Blore , Offered up ( big mistake )
Laurie Offered up

we the punters need some good news Now
Click to expand...
Front loading contracts like last year it seems.

We must be the leaders in front loading contracts, and yet Brooks was on a heavily back ended contract. Go figure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 851
Why is everyone so stressed about Tommy Talau officially signing for Manly in 2024 and thinking that'll jepordise the Fainu swap, if anything it just increased it.

Manly will try to get him over ASAP for this year as they're making a push for finals and needs as many outside backs as possible as they're dropping like flies.
 
426Tlgerland said:
You would hope club has some good news soon
Brooks going
Tommy Going
Joffa Gone
Nofo , offered up
Blore , Offered up ( big mistake )
Laurie Offered up

we the punters need some good news Now
Click to expand...
Many on this forum argued that they would be more than happy to see some of those players gone, go figure 🤔
 
king_sirro said:
king_sirro said:
I could delve into an analysis as to why Inglis was in the centres at the Storm (Slater fullback) and Latrell centre at the Roosters (Tedesco), but I know it will fall on deaf ears. Instead, since you mention my coaching, I will ask one simple question. When Latrell comes back for souths, would you play him in the centres and keep Taafe at fullback or would you put Latrell back to fullback?
Click to expand...

I could delve into an analysis as to why Inglis was in the centres at the Storm (Slater fullback) and Latrell centre at the Roosters (Tedesco), but I know it will fall on deaf ears. Instead, since you mention my coaching, I will ask one simple question. When Latrell comes back for souths, would you play him in the centres and keep Taafe at fullback or would you put Latrell back to fullback?
Click to expand...
That’s not analysis, it’s common sense. Slater and Tedesco were so much better at fullback than Inglis and Mitchell, that they may as well have been playing different sports.
Sure Inglis and Mitchell can play fullback when required. They can both play 5/8 as well....and wing.

Mitchell will return at fullback for the bunnies because they have no other decent options. If they did, he would be in the centers because he is not a great fullback:
At fullback, his win rate in 79 competition games is 63%, in 3 rep games his win rate is 33%.
At centre, his win rate in 77 competition games is 82%, in 18 rep games his win rate is 72%.

Im sure we can agree he has an impact on games in both positions, but the stats do not lie...his teams perform better with him in the centres as his involvements are more purposeful, direct and damaging, which is what this whole discussion has been about.
 
Tucker said:
That’s not analysis, it’s common sense. Slater and Tedesco were so much better at fullback than Inglis and Mitchell, that they may as well have been playing different sports.
Sure Inglis and Mitchell can play fullback when required. They can both play 5/8 as well....and wing.

Mitchell will return at fullback for the bunnies because they have no other decent options. If they did, he would be in the centers because he is not a great fullback:
At fullback, his win rate in 79 competition games is 63%, in 3 rep games his win rate is 33%.
At centre, his win rate in 77 competition games is 82%, in 18 rep games his win rate is 72%.

Im sure we can agree he has an impact on games in both positions, but the stats do not lie...his teams perform better with him in the centres as his involvements are more purposeful, direct and damaging, which is what this whole discussion has been about.
Click to expand...

So you would put Mitchell at fullback when he returns rather then in the centres where you say he is better and centres can have more influence on games then people think? Enough said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 783 (members: 21, guests: 762)
Back
Top