Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

lathami said:
There u go again, the Sheens bashing. Years before it?? 2010&2011 were also good years should of really won in 11. But before 2005?? I think your drinking the cool aid again!
Totally don’t agree on this year so far, last year yes, but that was always a train wreck with the Maguire free fall that was only going one way since he got here.
This year we have won a truck load of stats in games that should of won us a lot more games if it wasn’t for poor halves. I think this year has been ok considering that, mostly because of api. Klemmer and Bateman have also been great. Look with all the injuries to key players we could finish the year of poorly. Sheens was always planning to get a controlling half so brooks can play his natural game as a ball runner. It’s amazing that in 10 years of various lame coaches could not recognise that brooks doesn’t have the ability to control a team/game.
With us stinking it up for so long and the rarity is great controlling halves these days, it’s hardly surprising that we can’t land one!
Look at the flogs they are one win ahead of us with a hundred more points against. With the great Gus gold buying all the best players and coaches in the comp, not doing much better than us. So just stop going from topic to topic bringing up all your hate!
Click to expand...
It won’t be long and API Bateman Klemmer etc will be sick of creating great stats that are turned into nothing and will be looking to move on + our youngsters won’t be far behind
 
tigertragic said:
It won’t be long and API Bateman Klemmer etc will be sick of creating great stats that are turned into nothing and will be looking to move on + our youngsters won’t be far behind
Click to expand...
Wrong , they know why they are here it was clear to them the club would be investing in their juniors with the help of these guys when they signed on,not trying to buy a premiership like the Dogs
 
I think everyone's version of success this season is quite interesting.

For many, I expect that making the playoffs would be success. Or no less than winning a premiership perhaps?

But in reality- are the current Tigers anywhere near that level?

For some, I expect this season was always going to be a fail.

I don't THINK Api, Klemmer, Bateman etc will actually win a premiership with us.

But, if Tallyn Da Silva, Pole, Utoikamanu, Matamua, Bula etc learn how to compete from these guys, then it's money well spent.

I think if we view success in terms of how much closer we get with the squad's ability to a premiership challenging squad- I think we are ahead on last year. Tupou, Bula, Pole, Da Silva all look like long term GOOD players. If we can add Fainu, excellent. To'a looks to be stepping into that group. There are a promising handful of forwards at the club in their early 20's. there's an even larger handful coming through the next level of junior ranks.

Sheens came into the job saying 'development club' & that his job was to get the squad ready for Benji. I honestly believe he has the squad heading in that direction.
 
jadtiger said:
How quickly you forget,Johny Cronk aka John Morris was a backup hooker from Newie who Sheens claimed would be our "Cooper Cronk" and be a great half for us.The poor bloke was completely unsuited to the position but for 3 years Tim kept on banging the square peg into the round hole hoping it would work.It was destroying Morris as a player and our team at the time.
For me and many others that was the end of the honeymoon for Tim not because he got it wrong but because he was so stubborn and pig headed he would not admit he was wrong and make adjustments.I was pleased for Morris when he finally went to the sharks and played in his correct position and did a decent job.
I will always appreciate 2005 and his years before it but i will never give him plaudits for his many stuffups.This year is looking like one of his worst years because he has learned nothing and still will not admit to his mistakes
Click to expand...
Exactly

And this is why brooks had to go

Because sheens kept playing him as a half back - saying “it doesn’t matter what number 6 or 7”

He keeps justifying that -

Which is why the tigers never succeeded with brooks

He was a running 6

And why sheens only success was when we had an actual 7 - in prince and lui

Every time he has tried to make a 6 into a 7 we have never had success

I don’t know why he doesn’t see this

And for everyone saying 6 and 7 are the same

They aren’t

You need a controlling 7 - every successful team has a loud, controlling, organizing half

it just confuses players otherwise

Why doesn’t Cleary, Hughes, DCE, Hunt, moses etc wear 6? Because they control. They are the 7.

This is tim sheens biggest flaw

And why brooks will probably kill it at manly

And everyone saying he won halfback of the year - was when benji played at 6, but was the actual 7.
 
  • Love
Reactions: 851
gallagher said:
Shouldn't he have been doing that last year?
Click to expand...
To a degree. There were a number of players moved on & added during the course of last season & now though, so in some ways, he was- just not directly.

Could he have started coaching mid-way through last year? Yes he could. Kimmorley never stood a chance. Why didn't he? No idea. I have to believe there was a reason we are not privvy to. I'm ok with that.

I highly doubt that Sheens was 'hands-off' through last season after Maguire was moved on. He migt have been a step behind, but I'd say he was about as 'hands-off' as Gould is & has been at the Bulldogs.
 
tigermate said:
Exactly

And this is why brooks had to go

Because sheens kept playing him as a half back - saying “it doesn’t matter what number 6 or 7”

He keeps justifying that -

Which is why the tigers never succeeded with brooks

He was a running 6

And why sheens only success was when we had an actual 7 - in prince and lui

Every time he has tried to make a 6 into a 7 we have never had success

I don’t know why he doesn’t see this

And for everyone saying 6 and 7 are the same

They aren’t

You need a controlling 7 - every successful team has a loud, controlling, organizing half

it just confuses players otherwise

Why doesn’t Cleary, Hughes, DCE, Hunt, moses etc wear 6? Because they control. They are the 7.

This is tim sheens biggest flaw

And why brooks will probably kill it at manly

And everyone saying he won halfback of the year - was when benji played at 6, but was the actual 7.
Click to expand...
Foran, Cliff Lyons, Jason Smith, Scott Hill, Munster, Lockyer etc.

It's not ALWAYS the #7.

If you forget the number & look at the role- I believe that is more where Sheens is coming from. Yes, you need someone directing the team. But at 6 or 7 can be somewhat irrelevant. Does Ilias or Cody walker run the Bunnies attack?
 
The Chad said:
Foran, Cliff Lyons, Jason Smith, Scott Hill, Munster, Lockyer etc.

It's not ALWAYS the #7.

If you forget the number & look at the role- I believe that is more where Sheens is coming from. Yes, you need someone directing the team. But at 6 or 7 can be somewhat irrelevant. Does Ilias or Cody walker run the Bunnies attack?
Click to expand...
Dude

Cliff lyons had geoff toovey who was the 7

Foran had DCE as the 7

Muster has Hughes as the 7

Scott bill had kimorely at 7

Lockyer had Langer as the 7

They all have the right numbers on their backs!

Ilias is the 7 bc Cody can just float and create on the edges

Cody is not controlling the middle… he is on the outside.


All the players you mentioned are the guys who setup the backs …

So you’ve just proven my point lol…

And now that brooks wears the 6 and is outside DCE at 7 … you watch! He’ll go great and good luck to him
 
liltiger said:
What is mind boggling is why we didn't have these discussions with Sanders, Trindall, Cogger, Pezet after the first 8 weeks, why have we waited so long, blind Freddy could see the team had no attacking direction or onfield leadership. I couldn't see any of their respective clubs complaining if we talk to their 2nd or 3rd string halves. Couldn't our coaches see that Brooks wasn't the answer, our pack are generally eating through the metres and we are totally impotent in attack. Wtf were they waiting for.
Click to expand...
That’s the frustration of it all. A season wasted when it could’ve been sorted out much earlier, even pre-season! It took Brooks to finally have some self respect and move on and now the club is all in a tailspin because there was no preparation made for this possibility. Extremely incompetent, imo. Some of the most successful and experienced former players, coaches, trainers etc are onboard at our club, it boggles my mind too that they can all be so clueless 😞
 
Moh said:
Not singling you out - but this is the basis of everyones nuffie suggestions. Better than what we have could literally be anyone.

Realistic or not, we need an experienced half who has proven they can control a team. Not a reserve grader slotting into a nice system and looking decent.

Not Cogger. Not Metcalf. Not Volkman. Not any flavour of the month career first grader.
Click to expand...
Who then, tell me who this player is, Cogger is playing as well at 7 as Brooks has played this year.
Cogger is 26 this year, played 74 games, played 2 years in the ESL, he is not a rookie or a nuffie, he is not a star either, but him and Fainu could work together
 
Last edited:
tigermate said:
Dude

Cliff lyons had geoff toovey who was the 7

Foran had DCE as the 7

Muster has Hughes as the 7

Scott bill had kimorely at 7

Lockyer had Langer as the 7

They all have the right numbers on their backs!

Ilias is the 7 bc Cody can just float and create on the edges

Cody is not controlling the middle… he is on the outside.


All the players you mentioned are the guys who setup the backs …

So you’ve just proven my point lol…

And now that brooks wears the 6 and is outside DCE at 7 … you watch! He’ll go great and good luck to him
Click to expand...
Toovey was a 'running halfback'
Foran has played with several players. Who organises the GC attack? Bulldogs when he was there?
Munster again, runs the Storm attack. Just as Scott Hill did back in his day.
Lockyer had Berrigan & Peter Wallace mostly- not Langer (who was mostly with Walters). And I'll agree Wallace had organisational qualities, but Berrigan was, again, a running half.
Scott Hill had Kimmorley for 2 of his 8 years. Matt Orford, who was a 'running half' played 6 years next to Scott Hill.


I have no doubt Brooks might play well outside DCE. That doesn't disprove that the number 6 or 7 is mostly irrelevant. It's the role.
 
The Chad said:
Toovey was a 'running halfback'
Foran has played with several players. Who organises the GC attack? Bulldogs when he was there?
Munster again, runs the Storm attack. Just as Scott Hill did back in his day.
Lockyer had Berrigan & Peter Wallace mostly- not Langer (who was mostly with Walters). And I'll agree Wallace had organisational qualities, but Berrigan was, again, a running half.
Scott Hill had Kimmorley for 2 of his 8 years. Matt Orford, who was a 'running half' played 6 years next to Scott Hill.


I have no doubt Brooks might play well outside DCE. That doesn't disprove that the number 6 or 7 is mostly irrelevant. It's the role.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure who is controlling the titans attack. It could be why they are so inconsistent?
 
Last edited:
The Chad said:
Toovey was a 'running halfback'
Foran has played with several players. Who organises the GC attack? Bulldogs when he was there?
Munster again, runs the Storm attack. Just as Scott Hill did back in his day.
Lockyer had Berrigan & Peter Wallace mostly- not Langer (who was mostly with Walters). And I'll agree Wallace had organisational qualities, but Berrigan was, again, a running half.
Scott Hill had Kimmorley for 2 of his 8 years. Matt Orford, who was a 'running half' played 6 years next to Scott Hill.


I have no doubt Brooks might play well outside DCE. That doesn't disprove that the number 6 or 7 is mostly irrelevant. It's the role.
Click to expand...
Lol.

Ok.

Toovey was a running half back but still controlled the ruck, setup field position, so that lyons could play attacking football.

Matt orford same thing.

If numbers aren’t relevant then why doesn’t Munster and all the rest you named wear 7? Why didn’t Joey wear 6 or cronk or Nathan cleary?

Your argument like sheens states that there is ZERO difference to who wears 6 or 7.

For every one off you talk about - there is 100 that play conventionally.

Because their is implied and inherent qualities that each 7 and 6 have.

You can still be a running 7 if you can organize field position and call the plays.

Brooks doesn’t exude those qualities. He needs the 7 to set up the field position and tell the forwards what do to.

You’re arguing some extreme circumstances to argue your point like anyone can do.

Yes Johnathan thurston played 7 and 6 like they were the same. But he is a one off player.

Benji played both 6 and 7 - but ask anyone - he was a better 6 because he didn’t have the burden of the 7.

There are players that are more suited to either 6 or 7.

I am sure most coaches and league People agree… brooks is a running 6… and your controlling half should wear 7.

Numbers are relevant to the majority.

They’re only irrelevant to people who want to try and justify they aren’t relevant.

We agree to disagree.

Hope we win today lol.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 621 (members: 20, guests: 601)
Back
Top