Round 1 Team

[Jedi_Tiger]

I'd have simpkin on the bench given liddle a rest and then simpkin move to a lock role like what Harry did last year


Not having a go at you specifically Jedi but I see this suggestion pop up almost daily and IMO it is a terrible idea.

I get it that last year it was done (only a couple of times) and Grant looked good doing it, but it was only done a few time, when we were losing and chasing points and for a very short period of time and in a FAR inferior pack to what we have this year.

Put it this way, if we have Simpkin playing lock for the last 20mins of a game, that mean we have a 19yo who would be 90kg wringing wet out there pretending to be a lock, whilst we have Joffa, Twal or Tuki sitting on the bench which is insane and a total waste with the depth of pack we have this year.

I think they who suggest this just mean on the field at the same time...Grant wasn't really playing lock hit up wise more roving 1st receiver sometimes 2nd receiver others...Hookers/Locks still defend in the middle tho so that's the issue for me..

Plus when was the last time you saw a Lock pack in the scrum at Lock...Props pack in at hooker ..

Agree just meant on the field at the same time would be beneficial not play lock in traditional sense

 

[turkeytiger03]

Incidentally what was the go with the inferior Leluia brother on the weekend?
Was he craving some maccas or something or did he have a twinge somewhere?

Was in a moonboot.

So is our ex skipper a chance for the centre’s then ?

 

[cochise]

Incidentally what was the go with the inferior Leluia brother on the weekend?
Was he craving some maccas or something or did he have a twinge somewhere?

Was in a moonboot.

So is our ex skipper a chance for the centre’s then ?

I believe it was just a precaution, just like the ex skipper's hamstring.

 

[Needaname]

I'd have simpkin on the bench given liddle a rest and then simpkin move to a lock role like what Harry did last year


Not having a go at you specifically Jedi but I see this suggestion pop up almost daily and IMO it is a terrible idea.

I get it that last year it was done (only a couple of times) and Grant looked good doing it, but it was only done a few time, when we were losing and chasing points and for a very short period of time and in a FAR inferior pack to what we have this year.

Put it this way, if we have Simpkin playing lock for the last 20mins of a game, that mean we have a 19yo who would be 90kg wringing wet out there pretending to be a lock, whilst we have Joffa, Twal or Tuki sitting on the bench which is insane and a total waste with the depth of pack we have this year.

I think they who suggest this just mean on the field at the same time...Grant wasn't really playing lock hit up wise more roving 1st receiver sometimes 2nd receiver others...Hookers/Locks still defend in the middle tho so that's the issue for me..

Plus when was the last time you saw a Lock pack in the scrum at Lock...Props pack in at hooker ..


Defence is a big issue, but even though I take your point that Grant (or Simpkin/Liddle) wouldnt be playing a traditional lock role in attack, it still means you have one less big strong body on the field, and THIS year it is a comparative strength of ours IMO and it will waste if we have Twal/Joffa/Tuki sitting out while we have two small bodies on the field.

What if our massive pack has dominated the opposition and worn them out and we have two small, quick, willing runners of the football through the middle?

But the other way to look at it is. If you keep the middle bigs fresh. They will be able to make more solid contact and keep defence better in check. This would be achieved by having 4 props or forwards on the bench.
This also makes the Hookers job easier in defence and it could be argued in attack.

If you have 3+ Hooker replacement. Your keep t your little man fresh but your not going to get the same impact from your forward pack.

What becomes the priority? Solid service all game or forwards that are always fit and fresh to keep making meters?

 

[turkeytiger03]

Incidentally what was the go with the inferior Leluia brother on the weekend?
Was he craving some maccas or something or did he have a twinge somewhere?

Was in a moonboot.

So is our ex skipper a chance for the centre’s then ?

I believe it was just a precaution, just like the ex skipper's hamstring.

A moon boot is a moon boot though...
We don’t play til Sunday right ?
But it’s gonna be a doozy of a rd 1 team select on Tuesday evening!

 

[TrueTiger]

Laurie is the better player than Mbye. Games are won by selecting & playing your best 17, not by picking someone who’s more experienced. You don’t get game time under your belt if you aren’t getting picked

Laurie maybe a better player in your opinion,but Madge is the coach,if he picks Mbye over Laurie sobeit,,he would know a heck of a lot more than you and I...

 

[cochise]

Incidentally what was the go with the inferior Leluia brother on the weekend?
Was he craving some maccas or something or did he have a twinge somewhere?

Was in a moonboot.

So is our ex skipper a chance for the centre’s then ?

I believe it was just a precaution, just like the ex skipper's hamstring.

A moon boot is a moon boot though...
We don’t play til Sunday right ?
But it’s gonna be a doozy of a rd 1 team select on Tuesday evening!

Yes a moon boot is a moon boot, but what is in them changes.

 

[tigerballs]

I'd have simpkin on the bench given liddle a rest and then simpkin move to a lock role like what Harry did last year


Not having a go at you specifically Jedi but I see this suggestion pop up almost daily and IMO it is a terrible idea.

I get it that last year it was done (only a couple of times) and Grant looked good doing it, but it was only done a few time, when we were losing and chasing points and for a very short period of time and in a FAR inferior pack to what we have this year.

Put it this way, if we have Simpkin playing lock for the last 20mins of a game, that mean we have a 19yo who would be 90kg wringing wet out there pretending to be a lock, whilst we have Joffa, Twal or Tuki sitting on the bench which is insane and a total waste with the depth of pack we have this year.

I think they who suggest this just mean on the field at the same time...Grant wasn't really playing lock hit up wise more roving 1st receiver sometimes 2nd receiver others...Hookers/Locks still defend in the middle tho so that's the issue for me..

Plus when was the last time you saw a Lock pack in the scrum at Lock...Props pack in at hooker ..


Defence is a big issue, but even though I take your point that Grant (or Simpkin/Liddle) wouldnt be playing a traditional lock role in attack, it still means you have one less big strong body on the field, and THIS year it is a comparative strength of ours IMO and it will waste if we have Twal/Joffa/Tuki sitting out while we have two small bodies on the field.

What if our massive pack has dominated the opposition and worn them out and we have two small, quick, willing runners of the football through the middle?

But the other way to look at it is. If you keep the middle bigs fresh. They will be able to make more solid contact and keep defence better in check. This would be achieved by having 4 props or forwards on the bench.
This also makes the Hookers job easier in defence and it could be argued in attack.

If you have 3+ Hooker replacement. Your keep t your little man fresh but your not going to get the same impact from your forward pack.

What becomes the priority? Solid service all game or forwards that are always fit and fresh to keep making meters?

That means you're expecting the 9 to play 80 mins and if injured.......

 

[BAGNF05]

I'd have simpkin on the bench given liddle a rest and then simpkin move to a lock role like what Harry did last year


Not having a go at you specifically Jedi but I see this suggestion pop up almost daily and IMO it is a terrible idea.

I get it that last year it was done (only a couple of times) and Grant looked good doing it, but it was only done a few time, when we were losing and chasing points and for a very short period of time and in a FAR inferior pack to what we have this year.

Put it this way, if we have Simpkin playing lock for the last 20mins of a game, that mean we have a 19yo who would be 90kg wringing wet out there pretending to be a lock, whilst we have Joffa, Twal or Tuki sitting on the bench which is insane and a total waste with the depth of pack we have this year.

I think they who suggest this just mean on the field at the same time...Grant wasn't really playing lock hit up wise more roving 1st receiver sometimes 2nd receiver others...Hookers/Locks still defend in the middle tho so that's the issue for me..

Plus when was the last time you saw a Lock pack in the scrum at Lock...Props pack in at hooker ..


Defence is a big issue, but even though I take your point that Grant (or Simpkin/Liddle) wouldnt be playing a traditional lock role in attack, it still means you have one less big strong body on the field, and THIS year it is a comparative strength of ours IMO and it will waste if we have Twal/Joffa/Tuki sitting out while we have two small bodies on the field.

Problem is we’re rarely in total control of a game in the last decade, even when we’re in front it’s a stressful watch. Hopefully with the side being more well rounded this season we will get a few good leads and then you can afford to ‘play small’ and take your bigs off who are more inclined to be found out in defense later in halves.

 

[Needaname]

I'd have simpkin on the bench given liddle a rest and then simpkin move to a lock role like what Harry did last year


Not having a go at you specifically Jedi but I see this suggestion pop up almost daily and IMO it is a terrible idea.

I get it that last year it was done (only a couple of times) and Grant looked good doing it, but it was only done a few time, when we were losing and chasing points and for a very short period of time and in a FAR inferior pack to what we have this year.

Put it this way, if we have Simpkin playing lock for the last 20mins of a game, that mean we have a 19yo who would be 90kg wringing wet out there pretending to be a lock, whilst we have Joffa, Twal or Tuki sitting on the bench which is insane and a total waste with the depth of pack we have this year.

I think they who suggest this just mean on the field at the same time...Grant wasn't really playing lock hit up wise more roving 1st receiver sometimes 2nd receiver others...Hookers/Locks still defend in the middle tho so that's the issue for me..

Plus when was the last time you saw a Lock pack in the scrum at Lock...Props pack in at hooker ..


Defence is a big issue, but even though I take your point that Grant (or Simpkin/Liddle) wouldnt be playing a traditional lock role in attack, it still means you have one less big strong body on the field, and THIS year it is a comparative strength of ours IMO and it will waste if we have Twal/Joffa/Tuki sitting out while we have two small bodies on the field.

What if our massive pack has dominated the opposition and worn them out and we have two small, quick, willing runners of the football through the middle?

But the other way to look at it is. If you keep the middle bigs fresh. They will be able to make more solid contact and keep defence better in check. This would be achieved by having 4 props or forwards on the bench.
This also makes the Hookers job easier in defence and it could be argued in attack.

If you have 3+ Hooker replacement. Your keep t your little man fresh but your not going to get the same impact from your forward pack.

What becomes the priority? Solid service all game or forwards that are always fit and fresh to keep making meters?

That means you're expecting the 9 to play 80 mins and if injured.......

Glass half full or glass half empty.
I get it. I’m not sure what would be the best decision, I’m open to discussion, beauty of a forum.
Say we go into the season with a backup plan for our starting 9 by having another on the bench.
What happens if they are injured in game then the replacement hooker has only had a total of 30 mins a game in match fitness. Wouldn’t it be better for them to get a set of full games in the lower comp?
I think MBye will be more valuable than any other on that basis. But where to play him?

 

[TrueTiger]

I just want to get one thing clear,Laurie looks like being a very good player for us,a very good recruitment.
But having said that he played very well in the trial against a second/third rate Manly side...
Madge knows what he is doing and wont put Laurie in against a hardened tough Raiders side at HOME..
Madge has said that Mbye has been very good over the preseason playing fullback,I think thats the way he will go,but then again Im not there training with them so I probably dont know who he selects...
A wise coach said to me once...the young guys full of go can be like a wet stick of dynamite...You light the fuse waiting for the big bang and sometimes you end up with just a fizzz...
Give the kid a chance to settle in and let Madge guide him in his steps to NRL glory,he seems to be to talented to injure or burnout before he has time to show his true talent for long periods of time...

 

[tigerballs]

I'd have simpkin on the bench given liddle a rest and then simpkin move to a lock role like what Harry did last year


Not having a go at you specifically Jedi but I see this suggestion pop up almost daily and IMO it is a terrible idea.

I get it that last year it was done (only a couple of times) and Grant looked good doing it, but it was only done a few time, when we were losing and chasing points and for a very short period of time and in a FAR inferior pack to what we have this year.

Put it this way, if we have Simpkin playing lock for the last 20mins of a game, that mean we have a 19yo who would be 90kg wringing wet out there pretending to be a lock, whilst we have Joffa, Twal or Tuki sitting on the bench which is insane and a total waste with the depth of pack we have this year.

I think they who suggest this just mean on the field at the same time...Grant wasn't really playing lock hit up wise more roving 1st receiver sometimes 2nd receiver others...Hookers/Locks still defend in the middle tho so that's the issue for me..

Plus when was the last time you saw a Lock pack in the scrum at Lock...Props pack in at hooker ..


Defence is a big issue, but even though I take your point that Grant (or Simpkin/Liddle) wouldnt be playing a traditional lock role in attack, it still means you have one less big strong body on the field, and THIS year it is a comparative strength of ours IMO and it will waste if we have Twal/Joffa/Tuki sitting out while we have two small bodies on the field.

What if our massive pack has dominated the opposition and worn them out and we have two small, quick, willing runners of the football through the middle?

But the other way to look at it is. If you keep the middle bigs fresh. They will be able to make more solid contact and keep defence better in check. This would be achieved by having 4 props or forwards on the bench.
This also makes the Hookers job easier in defence and it could be argued in attack.

If you have 3+ Hooker replacement. Your keep t your little man fresh but your not going to get the same impact from your forward pack.

What becomes the priority? Solid service all game or forwards that are always fit and fresh to keep making meters?

That means you're expecting the 9 to play 80 mins and if injured.......

Glass half full or glass half empty.
I get it. I’m not sure what would be the best decision, I’m open to discussion, beauty of a forum.
Say we go into the season with a backup plan for our starting 9 by having another on the bench.
What happens if they are injured in game then the replacement hooker has only had a total of 30 mins a game in match fitness. Wouldn’t it be better for them to get a set of full games in the lower comp?
I think MBye will be more valuable than any other on that basis. But where to play him?

I'm sort of agreeing with you, and I understand the Mbye thing, and I know the Roosters trial was only a reserve grade deal, but Liddle and Simpkin on at the same time looked very good. So my answer is I don't know.

 

[Dallas]

A wise coach said to me once...the young guys full of go can be like a wet stick of dynamite...You light the fuse waiting for the big bang and sometimes you end up with just a fizzz...

That’s right but sometimes you get an almighty bang

 

[BAGNF05]

I just want to get one thing clear,Laurie looks like being a very good player for us,a very good recruitment.
But having said that he played very well in the trial against a second/third rate Manly side...
Madge knows what he is doing and wont put Laurie in against a hardened tough Raiders side at HOME..
Madge has said that Mbye has been very good over the preseason playing fullback,I think thats the way he will go,but then again Im not there training with them so I probably dont know who he selects...
A wise coach said to me once...the young guys full of go can be like a wet stick of dynamite...You light the fuse waiting for the big bang and sometimes you end up with just a fizzz...
Give the kid a chance to settle in and let Madge guide him in his steps to NRL glory,he seems to be to talented to injure or burnout before he has time to show his true talent for long periods of time...

From my experience with hamstrings Mbye should give it 2 weeks longer than what the doctor recommends. They are never 100% when you think they are. And he would have missed a few weeks of fitness, so I’d be inclined to give the kid the first crack myself. I see both sides though.

 

[Needaname]

I'd have simpkin on the bench given liddle a rest and then simpkin move to a lock role like what Harry did last year


Not having a go at you specifically Jedi but I see this suggestion pop up almost daily and IMO it is a terrible idea.

I get it that last year it was done (only a couple of times) and Grant looked good doing it, but it was only done a few time, when we were losing and chasing points and for a very short period of time and in a FAR inferior pack to what we have this year.

Put it this way, if we have Simpkin playing lock for the last 20mins of a game, that mean we have a 19yo who would be 90kg wringing wet out there pretending to be a lock, whilst we have Joffa, Twal or Tuki sitting on the bench which is insane and a total waste with the depth of pack we have this year.

I think they who suggest this just mean on the field at the same time...Grant wasn't really playing lock hit up wise more roving 1st receiver sometimes 2nd receiver others...Hookers/Locks still defend in the middle tho so that's the issue for me..

Plus when was the last time you saw a Lock pack in the scrum at Lock...Props pack in at hooker ..


Defence is a big issue, but even though I take your point that Grant (or Simpkin/Liddle) wouldnt be playing a traditional lock role in attack, it still means you have one less big strong body on the field, and THIS year it is a comparative strength of ours IMO and it will waste if we have Twal/Joffa/Tuki sitting out while we have two small bodies on the field.

What if our massive pack has dominated the opposition and worn them out and we have two small, quick, willing runners of the football through the middle?

But the other way to look at it is. If you keep the middle bigs fresh. They will be able to make more solid contact and keep defence better in check. This would be achieved by having 4 props or forwards on the bench.
This also makes the Hookers job easier in defence and it could be argued in attack.

If you have 3+ Hooker replacement. Your keep t your little man fresh but your not going to get the same impact from your forward pack.

What becomes the priority? Solid service all game or forwards that are always fit and fresh to keep making meters?

That means you're expecting the 9 to play 80 mins and if injured.......

Glass half full or glass half empty.
I get it. I’m not sure what would be the best decision, I’m open to discussion, beauty of a forum.
Say we go into the season with a backup plan for our starting 9 by having another on the bench.
What happens if they are injured in game then the replacement hooker has only had a total of 30 mins a game in match fitness. Wouldn’t it be better for them to get a set of full games in the lower comp?
I think MBye will be more valuable than any other on that basis. But where to play him?

I'm sort of agreeing with you, and I understand the Mbye thing, and I know the Roosters trial was only a reserve grade deal, but Liddle and Simpkin on at the same time looked very good. So my answer is I don't know.

Probably why Chee Kam is being considered by some as a bench spot.
He doesn’t waste an 80min position in reserve grade and can be valuable cover for injuries to our backs whilst able to be used in the middle forward rotation.
Looking forwards we probably should be getting Talau in the forwards off the bench so he can assume this role in the future. Edit in Reserves I mean.

 

[sleeve]

With options available,who we play will depend on the opposition i think,. Wighton will our main threat,and having players in his face that can tackle will be a priority. He is a strong body. Stewart coached sides rely on a strong kicking game, and our flanks will be tested. Our big advantage is that Madge has their games on film to study, where we are an unknown quantity.

 

[Goldust]

I sound Nasty but I don’t think Chee Kam should be anywhere near our 17.Mbey is our utility.Can cover Centre,Fullback,Hooker,5/8.
I the thought of Chee Kam coming on for an injured centre still gives me Nighmares.Zero attack out wide once he comes on.not to mention how easily he gets burnt in defence.
I like the dude I just don’t think he adds much to our current squad.

 

[diedpretty]

Aj might be quicker but Talau breaks tackles easy and great finisher! He averaged 2nd most metres behind Alioia last year. Talau over Aj for me.

If Gebbie ever gets here I’d put him on the wing.
Heaps faster and more elusive than both of them.

Can he catch and tackle?
Too many forget this part of the game

I think people are also worried we won't score points..Brooks sucks blah blah Benji gone..

Well for the only team to concede 20+ point per game 10+ weeks in a row (NRL record)..i would say defence will determine our fate more than anything in 2021..if that is not dramatically improved ..forget it..

Well umm we scored points..Brooks didn't suck and Benji who..

Still 2 of Manly's TRIES were soft..need better against better opposition..that is everyone else bar Dragons..

1 was a mistake , the other a magic ball , and the third an individual run. Really 2 moments of brilliance and a garbage try . Still the hole wasn’t filled so Joe o had to sprint across to fill the void . And got stepped inside . Joe was in the tackle , so I don’t know what side of the defence was doing .

The "magic ball" was a misread by Roberts who had a good game except for that

How’s it a misread if the backrower goes through, and you’re looking at your opposite centre ? Other than he didn’t jam in. Every magic ball ever passed is a misread somewhere.


Its a misread because he dosent adjust to a backrow forward coming into his area of defence which he would be coached to do.Apart from that as i said he had a good game

How do you know what their defensive structures are ? He went through just slightly left of the centre corridor , to me it was a lack of communication from all involved , especially AD (I believe it was him). The way I read it , was roberts stayed out , AD was sliding with his inside man , and stopped dead at schuster , where he should have kept going to Turbo junior .

I’m not saying Roberts shouldn’t have jammed , but that’s I read it in the moment , not 1 persons error , but a lack of communication when sliding .

AD got Shuster - which was his man ... what happened after that was not his fault.

Not really man , as the backrower was now on the outside of schuster , so his man is now turbo jnr . So he has to slide onto him . So schuster now has to be covered by the inside man , who should be the backrower, I believe it was Tuilagi . And a lot of the time defences get the centre and winger to jam in at that point , to force the cutout ball to the winger . I have no idea , whether that’s the structure Madge is running . I was just saying .

Thats what i said earlier - Tuilagi was too slow to slide and pickup schuster which left AD in 2 minds as to whether to continue to slide and pickup Ben T or jam in and take Schuster. Roberst was left in no mans land marking 2 players.

 

[Tiger5150]

***People forget*** Dene Halatau and Robbie Farah.

It was one of the few times at this club where the coach was ahead of the game. Maguire may be the next with Simpkin off the bench

People forget that that was 16 years ago. Game has changed a lot since then. Compare that pack to this years pack.

 

[Tim Sheens]

What if our massive pack has dominated the opposition and worn them out and we have two small, quick, willing runners of the football through the middle?

To quite our Muslim friends - inshallah!

So God willing I am assuming, rather than the slang ain't gonna happen version?