Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[ElleryHanley]

Finucane outside of the Melbourne system at his age no thanks not for 4 years on that money. He looks good surrounded by good players at the Storm
TPJ stands out in a crap team worth the gamble at the age, we buy him for some xfactor

The info is he leads the standards of those players around him, maybe they look good because of the standards he sets.

he has very good players around him, not the case here
bad Signing over 4 years, 2 years ok not 4

I don't want him for 4 either and I don't want him at $800k

It is hard as you need to offer something to get that first bloke across the line...he has played seven grand finals and is the ultimate pro. You need 'something' extra to convince a bloke to give up that to fight for 8th spot and rebuild a club.

4 years at 800 and he rebuilds our culture = a bargain.

4 years at 800 and his body breaks down after tons of battles = a disaster.

It is a tough one.

Then being 50/50 about a player is not enough to get him to Wests Tigers imo.

It is, sadly, reality.

Let's say Parra offered him 3 times 600. That is 1.8 mill and finals every year. Maybe gets them to a GF in that time.

Let's say we offered 3 years 800...that is 2.4 but not much difference after tax...and no shot at a GF, likely lots of internal issues and instability.

Clubs like us basically have to throw in year 4 to have any hope.

 

[BZN]

**Debate erupts over signing that could ‘transform’ Tigers; Raiders ‘keen’ on half: Transfer Whispers**

The Wests Tigers are in the mix to sign Melbourne Storm forward Dale Finucane but there are doubts over one of the terms his manager is after.
Finucane is off-contract at the end of the season and while Melbourne is keen to keep him, the reality is he may be squeezed out.
Fox League’s James Hooper reported on Friday that the Tigers are preparing to go all-in on Finucane.
Speaking on Triple M on Sunday, Hooper added that Finucane’s manager is currently looking for four years for his client - causing a debate on whether he was worth the Tigers pursuing on that kind of deal.
“For where they are as a club and what they require, he is the type of circuit-breaker signing that could completely transform the joint,” Hooper said.
Gorden Tallis though was not convinced a long-term deal was the right move.
“I don’t think there is much left in the orange,” he said.
“That’s because he’s played every week and that’s why you want him. But Melbourne wouldn’t be letting him go. Their roster management is unbelievable. They probably know he has 12 months of good footy and then he is on the other side.
“When you squeeze the orange and play how he does, there is a moment it all slows down.”
Hooper saw merit in that argument but went further to explain that the Tigers have little choice at the moment.
“I agree but for the Wests Tigers and where they are at, they need something different,” he said.
“I’m not saying sign him. I know he’s closer to the end than the beginning but you don’t sign him for what he can do on the field, you sign him for everything he brings to the organisation from the professionalism, the habits, the one-percent areas he teaches the rest of the dressing room.
“They’re in... they’re going to have a crack. They’re not going to go crazy and bend their salary cap out of proportion. The Tigers should be prepared to go further than other clubs will. They’re going to have to pay overs.”
Fox League’s Paul Kent though warned the Tigers have to “go in with caution”, adding “there is no silver bullet” that will immediately solve all their problems.

4 years? No chance.

Nofo just got that.

Yes he did, and I nearly fell of the chair when I heard we had re-signed him for 4 years.
But yuh never know, if we get a **good** centre that can get him into the open more often, we may just get value out of him.

 

[WT46]

Need a POM or cctw update

 

[cochise]

Finucane outside of the Melbourne system at his age no thanks not for 4 years on that money. He looks good surrounded by good players at the Storm
TPJ stands out in a crap team worth the gamble at the age, we buy him for some xfactor

The info is he leads the standards of those players around him, maybe they look good because of the standards he sets.

he has very good players around him, not the case here
bad Signing over 4 years, 2 years ok not 4

I don't want him for 4 either and I don't want him at $800k

It is hard as you need to offer something to get that first bloke across the line...he has played seven grand finals and is the ultimate pro. You need 'something' extra to convince a bloke to give up that to fight for 8th spot and rebuild a club.

4 years at 800 and he rebuilds our culture = a bargain.

4 years at 800 and his body breaks down after tons of battles = a disaster.

It is a tough one.

It's too high risk. That is how you got to look at it. Is the risk worth it. We've just bet on JTJ and BJ but those risk were time boxed and haven't impacted us long term.

There is no way a club like ours should take that risk.

We shouldn't sign players on culture or leadership or anything like that either. We should be signing tackle busts, offloads, try assists, tackle efficiency etc.

I can't agree with that, we need to sign guys on culture and leadership, otherwise they come here and fit into the bad culture we have and all the tackle busts, offloads, try assists and tackle efficiency etc disappears.

 

[Don Kershane]

Rumour that Quentin Tarantino to direct a movie about our recent history called "The Hateful Eight 2". Thankfully not "Nofo Unchained".

 

[Lauren]

Is there even a mutual vision from Madge, Hartigan and the club on what type of team they wish to be identified as?

If we're attempting to buy players based on their leadership skills only, then this looks problematic to what we've been trying to establish and move away from for the past couple of years - and it perhaps highlights that there may be issues with certain personnel.
Looks like we've been filling gaps with no clear picture of what we wish to become or we're no closer to it.
I dont see much wrong with the player's abilities but more the directive they're playing under - tactical game plans - isn't working effectively or isn't modified to suit us.
Yes they're young with limited experience and there's leadership problems but there's this great big disconnect between them and without correcting this, buying a player for their leadership skills only isn't going to change this.
We just look like we can't find any rhythm as a team and all be on the same page.
I know some people dont wish to hear it but the fact some of our most influential and experienced players are unable to consistently perform to task (in our seasoned NRL players) and are most susceptible to being our poorest, that we're still not working well together, show an inability to adhere to game plans and our players look to lack awareness, this should really bring the techniques and strategies being applied to motivate the team into question.

 

[BZN]

Finucane outside of the Melbourne system at his age no thanks not for 4 years on that money. He looks good surrounded by good players at the Storm
TPJ stands out in a crap team worth the gamble at the age, we buy him for some xfactor

The info is he leads the standards of those players around him, maybe they look good because of the standards he sets.

he has very good players around him, not the case here
bad Signing over 4 years, 2 years ok not 4

I don't want him for 4 either and I don't want him at $800k

It is hard as you need to offer something to get that first bloke across the line...he has played seven grand finals and is the ultimate pro. You need 'something' extra to convince a bloke to give up that to fight for 8th spot and rebuild a club.

4 years at 800 and he rebuilds our culture = a bargain.

4 years at 800 and his body breaks down after tons of battles = a disaster.

It is a tough one.

It's too high risk. That is how you got to look at it. Is the risk worth it. We've just bet on JTJ and BJ but those risk were time boxed and haven't impacted us long term.

There is no way a club like ours should take that risk.

We shouldn't sign players on culture or leadership or anything like that either. We should be signing tackle busts, offloads, try assists, tackle efficiency etc.

I can't agree with that, we need to sign guys on culture and leadership, otherwise they come here and fit into the bad culture we have and all the tackle busts, offloads, try assists and tackle efficiency etc disappears.

:100: agree on the Leadership and Culture @cochise,
but we also need that player/those players to be able to provide the tackle busts etc that @earl mentioned.

 

[cochise]

Is there even a mutual vision from Madge, Hartigan and the club on what type of team they wish to be identified as?

If we're attempting to buy players based on their leadership skills only, then this looks problematic to what we've been trying to establish and move away from for the past couple of years - and it perhaps highlights that there may be issues with certain personnel.
Looks like we've been filling gaps with no clear picture of what we wish to become or we're no closer to it.
I dont see much wrong with the player's abilities but more the directive they're playing under - tactical game plans - isn't working effectively or isn't modified to suit us.
Yes they're young with limited experience and there's leadership problems but there's this great big disconnect between them and without correcting this, buying a player for their leadership skills only isn't going to change this.
We just look like we can't find any rhythm as a team and all be on the same page.
I know some people dont wish to hear it but the fact some of our most influential and experienced players are unable to consistently perform to task (in our seasoned NRL players) and are most susceptible to being our poorest, that we're still not working well together, show an inability to adhere to game plans and our players look to lack awareness, this should really bring the techniques and strategies being applied to motivate the team into question.

Of course that vision exist, it goes further than that, they have actually developed the archetypes of the players they want in each position.

 

[cochise]

Finucane outside of the Melbourne system at his age no thanks not for 4 years on that money. He looks good surrounded by good players at the Storm
TPJ stands out in a crap team worth the gamble at the age, we buy him for some xfactor

The info is he leads the standards of those players around him, maybe they look good because of the standards he sets.

he has very good players around him, not the case here
bad Signing over 4 years, 2 years ok not 4

I don't want him for 4 either and I don't want him at $800k

It is hard as you need to offer something to get that first bloke across the line...he has played seven grand finals and is the ultimate pro. You need 'something' extra to convince a bloke to give up that to fight for 8th spot and rebuild a club.

4 years at 800 and he rebuilds our culture = a bargain.

4 years at 800 and his body breaks down after tons of battles = a disaster.

It is a tough one.

It's too high risk. That is how you got to look at it. Is the risk worth it. We've just bet on JTJ and BJ but those risk were time boxed and haven't impacted us long term.

There is no way a club like ours should take that risk.

We shouldn't sign players on culture or leadership or anything like that either. We should be signing tackle busts, offloads, try assists, tackle efficiency etc.

I can't agree with that, we need to sign guys on culture and leadership, otherwise they come here and fit into the bad culture we have and all the tackle busts, offloads, try assists and tackle efficiency etc disappears.

:100: agree on the Leadership and Culture @cochise,
but we also need that player/those players to be able to provide the tackle busts etc that @earl mentioned.

That is what I am saying, you go after the guys that provide those things, but there is no point signing them if they are followers and will just adapt to poor systems and cultures.

 

[Lauren]

Is there even a mutual vision from Madge, Hartigan and the club on what type of team they wish to be identified as?

If we're attempting to buy players based on their leadership skills only, then this looks problematic to what we've been trying to establish and move away from for the past couple of years - and it perhaps highlights that there may be issues with certain personnel.
Looks like we've been filling gaps with no clear picture of what we wish to become or we're no closer to it.
I dont see much wrong with the player's abilities but more the directive they're playing under - tactical game plans - isn't working effectively or isn't modified to suit us.
Yes they're young with limited experience and there's leadership problems but there's this great big disconnect between them and without correcting this, buying a player for their leadership skills only isn't going to change this.
We just look like we can't find any rhythm as a team and all be on the same page.
I know some people dont wish to hear it but the fact some of our most influential and experienced players are unable to consistently perform to task (in our seasoned NRL players) and are most susceptible to being our poorest, that we're still not working well together, show an inability to adhere to game plans and our players look to lack awareness, this should really bring the techniques and strategies being applied to motivate the team into question.

Of course that vision exist, it goes further than that, they have actually developed the archetypes of the players they want in each position.

Thanks Garry. Know that it's the underperforming from the team which makes me question this but the cohesiveness of the team or effort isn't really improving, so it's bugging me more than it should.

I only want us to buy the most skilful, athletic and competitive players but without fixing this (getting this team to perform to their best) seems like it'll mean very little and it looks more like we're not taking the correct measures or don't have the right resources.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

Finucane outside of the Melbourne system at his age no thanks not for 4 years on that money. He looks good surrounded by good players at the Storm
TPJ stands out in a crap team worth the gamble at the age, we buy him for some xfactor

The info is he leads the standards of those players around him, maybe they look good because of the standards he sets.

he has very good players around him, not the case here
bad Signing over 4 years, 2 years ok not 4

I don't want him for 4 either and I don't want him at $800k

would rather risk buying TPJ and try and get Brandon Smith over than 4 years of Finucane

 

[JC99]

I think Tamou has been pretty disappointing on field. I'm not talking about his leadership or the other intangibles he brings, which i'm sure are very valuable, but as a player I think he's quite a bit off the pace. 82m from a starting front rower isn't good enough imo. He's also been pretty suspect in defence.

It's 82 metres in limited minutes though, Madge keeps him off the field for over half the game normally. His output for the time he's out there is fine

I agree. He's doing exactly what we signed him for - decent first output and leadership qualities, not some rampaging metre-eater that he has possibly never been in his career.

Is Tamou the best prop in the side? I say he is. Alex Twal is a workhorse and some of the other guys have had good stints during the year, but reliable go-forward and defence from the first minute - that's Tamou.

Also Tamou playing in a young and low-success forward pack, not some star-studded pack that share the workload. I don't know how anyone just ignores his role for Penrith last year and the fact that he was both starting prop and captain in an undefeated regular-season side.

Interesting bit of analysis too if you break it down to the concept of minutes. Tamou averages 41.7 minutes per game. Why? Is he really gassed? If he is gassed, is that because he's doing all the hard work? Is it just the coach's strategy and he could go longer? I don't think you can answer any of that without being the coach.

And then the reverse - for players that stay on for long minutes, does their output drop because of the workload toll, and then it becomes another avenue of criticism for what I feel are often pre-conceived ideas. So if a player you are going after plays low minutes "he isn't fit enough" and if he plays high minutes but his output plateaus "he should be having a breather".

Anyway Tamou specifically

* 625 minutes played all season, 15 matches (all starting), 41.7 minutes per game.
* 1244 total run metres, 2.0 metres per minute on-field
* 9 tackle breaks, 0.014 TB per minute
* 117 hitups, average 7.8 hitups, av 0.012 hitups per minute, av. 10.62m per hitup.
* Post-contact metres 463 = 37.2% of his run metres are post-contact.
* 412 tackles, 0.66 tackles per minute, 96.5% efficiency

By comparison to a top-tier prop JWH
* 680 minutes played, 14 matches (8 off the bench), 48.6 min per game. 13.
* 2133 total run metres, 3.1 metres per minute
* 6 tackle breaks, 0.009 TB per minute
* 183 hitups, average 13.1 hitups, av 0.019 hitups per minute, av. 11.66 m per hitup
* PCM 787.8m = 37.3% of run metres
* 422 tackles, 0.62 tackles per min, 92.5% efficiency

So JWH plays more minutes but has started less than half his matches. Makes less tackles per minute and is less efficient in tackles.

Both players make more than 10m per run. JWH makes 1m more but he takes more runs per match (68% more), so his total metres is substantially bigger. JWH makes 1m more ground for every minute he is on the field. Both players make the same amount of post-contact ground for the total ground they make.

Overall therefore JWH starts far less often and makes less tackles, and is less good at defending. But he makes up for that with more run efforts and a little more yardage per run. Even when you take into account minutes played, JWH still makes more ground from more efforts, but he's substantially less likely to bust a tackle.

Now I would say JWH is a better prop than Tamou, no argument, but his output is not so clearly better than you can't wipe Tamou aside without some consideration of context. For example, JWH starts less than half his matches and that must surely impact his ability to increase his minutes by avoiding the early contest.

Tamou also makes his defensive attempts from the outset and at the death (he is on early and late) and is still a better defender than JWH.

A few other comparisons. If the focus is on metres per match for starting props, there are some other comparable outputs from props in the top-tier teams: Jesse Bromwich averages 100m per match, Moses Leota makes 109m, Junior Paulo makes 126m, Junior Tatola 97m, Liam Knight 93m.

Then you have to start asking about some less tangibles - is JWH aided by a superior pack and a superior overall roster? Does he have more "space" to make his runs when Roosters are on top in matches.

Do Tigers forwards in general struggle for metres gained because we lose so many of our matches and several of those losses are hidings? For example can you truly measure the output of a forward in the Melbourne Storm match when we barely touched the football for the first 20 minutes, then the starting props were subbed off?

I think the only thing you can really say, by way of comparison, is Tamou's output is alright, without being horrible. He doesn't make as many metres as a top-level prop, but I don't think that has ever been his role and you need to consider his output in context of the team he plays for and what's being asked of him on the field.

Excellent post mate

 

[BZN]

Is there even a mutual vision from Madge, Hartigan and the club on what type of team they wish to be identified as?

If we're attempting to buy players based on their leadership skills only, then this looks problematic to what we've been trying to establish and move away from for the past couple of years - and it perhaps highlights that there may be issues with certain personnel.
Looks like we've been filling gaps with no clear picture of what we wish to become or we're no closer to it.
I dont see much wrong with the player's abilities but more the directive they're playing under - tactical game plans - isn't working effectively or isn't modified to suit us.
Yes they're young with limited experience and there's leadership problems but there's this great big disconnect between them and without correcting this, buying a player for their leadership skills only isn't going to change this.
We just look like we can't find any rhythm as a team and all be on the same page.
I know some people dont wish to hear it but the fact some of our most influential and experienced players are unable to consistently perform to task (in our seasoned NRL players) and are most susceptible to being our poorest, that we're still not working well together, show an inability to adhere to game plans and our players look to lack awareness, this should really bring the techniques and strategies being applied to motivate the team into question.

Of course that vision exist, it goes further than that, they have actually developed the archetypes of the players they want in each position.

[/QUOTE]

PLUS the **Ambush** You and others got going, it;s all good news.
Gees...some of the negative nellies may even start to get **that happy feeling** :hugging_face: :grinning: :hugging_face: :grinning: .

 

[cochise]

Is there even a mutual vision from Madge, Hartigan and the club on what type of team they wish to be identified as?

If we're attempting to buy players based on their leadership skills only, then this looks problematic to what we've been trying to establish and move away from for the past couple of years - and it perhaps highlights that there may be issues with certain personnel.
Looks like we've been filling gaps with no clear picture of what we wish to become or we're no closer to it.
I dont see much wrong with the player's abilities but more the directive they're playing under - tactical game plans - isn't working effectively or isn't modified to suit us.
Yes they're young with limited experience and there's leadership problems but there's this great big disconnect between them and without correcting this, buying a player for their leadership skills only isn't going to change this.
We just look like we can't find any rhythm as a team and all be on the same page.
I know some people dont wish to hear it but the fact some of our most influential and experienced players are unable to consistently perform to task (in our seasoned NRL players) and are most susceptible to being our poorest, that we're still not working well together, show an inability to adhere to game plans and our players look to lack awareness, this should really bring the techniques and strategies being applied to motivate the team into question.

Of course that vision exist, it goes further than that, they have actually developed the archetypes of the players they want in each position.

Thanks Garry. Know that it's the underperforming from the team which makes me question this but the cohesiveness of the team or effort isn't really improving, so it's bugging me more than it should.

I only want us to buy the most skilful, athletic and competitive players but without fixing this (getting this team to perform to their best) seems like it'll mean very little and it looks more like we're not taking the correct measures or don't have the right resources.

I think it is just going to take time, I think we need to build through youth as established stars are reluctant to come here due to decade of non finals appearances. We have been attracting good young players and I have been concerned about our ability to develop those players but I think the acquisition of Betsey, Kimmorley and Sheens, in pathways roles, shows this as an area the club was concerned about as well and is taking steps to rectify that issue. Ronny Palmer is also in a role in pathways as well so we are sending resources that direction.

 

[TrueTiger]

Is there even a mutual vision from Madge, Hartigan and the club on what type of team they wish to be identified as?

If we're attempting to buy players based on their leadership skills only, then this looks problematic to what we've been trying to establish and move away from for the past couple of years - and it perhaps highlights that there may be issues with certain personnel.
Looks like we've been filling gaps with no clear picture of what we wish to become or we're no closer to it.
I dont see much wrong with the player's abilities but more the directive they're playing under - tactical game plans - isn't working effectively or isn't modified to suit us.
Yes they're young with limited experience and there's leadership problems but there's this great big disconnect between them and without correcting this, buying a player for their leadership skills only isn't going to change this.
We just look like we can't find any rhythm as a team and all be on the same page.
I know some people dont wish to hear it but the fact some of our most influential and experienced players are unable to consistently perform to task (in our seasoned NRL players) and are most susceptible to being our poorest, that we're still not working well together, show an inability to adhere to game plans and our players look to lack awareness, this should really bring the techniques and strategies being applied to motivate the team into question.

Of course that vision exist, it goes further than that, they have actually developed the archetypes of the players they want in each position.

Thanks Garry. Know that it's the underperforming from the team which makes me question this but the cohesiveness of the team or effort isn't really improving, so it's bugging me more than it should.

I only want us to buy the most skilful, athletic and competitive players but without fixing this (getting this team to perform to their best) seems like it'll mean very little and it looks more like we're not taking the correct measures or don't have the right resources.

I think Lauren where some of the problem exists at the moment,and I will go to where you mention the cohesiveness of the players,is that our seasoned players are used to playing in various systems,Tamou from the Penrith system,JTJ from souths system and Joe O from broncos as examples...they learnt to play to a style and structure,and each were different in makeup..Here they have come together to play under our system as well as having numerous young,talented and huge potential young up and comers into NRL..
I honestly think herein lies the problem,the older ones adapting to our system and rules changes and the younger ones learning NRL and our system...

 

[JC99]

Is there even a mutual vision from Madge, Hartigan and the club on what type of team they wish to be identified as?

If we're attempting to buy players based on their leadership skills only, then this looks problematic to what we've been trying to establish and move away from for the past couple of years - and it perhaps highlights that there may be issues with certain personnel.
Looks like we've been filling gaps with no clear picture of what we wish to become or we're no closer to it.
I dont see much wrong with the player's abilities but more the directive they're playing under - tactical game plans - isn't working effectively or isn't modified to suit us.
Yes they're young with limited experience and there's leadership problems but there's this great big disconnect between them and without correcting this, buying a player for their leadership skills only isn't going to change this.
We just look like we can't find any rhythm as a team and all be on the same page.
I know some people dont wish to hear it but the fact some of our most influential and experienced players are unable to consistently perform to task (in our seasoned NRL players) and are most susceptible to being our poorest, that we're still not working well together, show an inability to adhere to game plans and our players look to lack awareness, this should really bring the techniques and strategies being applied to motivate the team into question.

Of course that vision exist, it goes further than that, they have actually developed the archetypes of the players they want in each position.

Thanks Garry. Know that it's the underperforming from the team which makes me question this but the cohesiveness of the team or effort isn't really improving, so it's bugging me more than it should.

I only want us to buy the most skilful, athletic and competitive players but without fixing this (getting this team to perform to their best) seems like it'll mean very little and it looks more like we're not taking the correct measures or don't have the right resources.

I think it is just going to take time, I think we need to build through youth as established stars are reluctant to come here due to decade of non finals appearances. We have been attracting good young players and I have been concerned about our ability to develop those players but I think the acquisition of Betsey, Kimmorley and Sheens, in pathways roles, shows this as an area the club was concerned about as well and is taking steps to rectify that issue. Ronny Palmer is also in a role in pathways as well so we are sending resources that direction.

Love the fact our Flegg is doing well. Need to bring as many of those boys together through our systems as possible, just like Penrith did

 

[Telltails]

Is there even a mutual vision from Madge, Hartigan and the club on what type of team they wish to be identified as?

If we're attempting to buy players based on their leadership skills only, then this looks problematic to what we've been trying to establish and move away from for the past couple of years - and it perhaps highlights that there may be issues with certain personnel.
Looks like we've been filling gaps with no clear picture of what we wish to become or we're no closer to it.
I dont see much wrong with the player's abilities but more the directive they're playing under - tactical game plans - isn't working effectively or isn't modified to suit us.
Yes they're young with limited experience and there's leadership problems but there's this great big disconnect between them and without correcting this, buying a player for their leadership skills only isn't going to change this.
We just look like we can't find any rhythm as a team and all be on the same page.
I know some people dont wish to hear it but the fact some of our most influential and experienced players are unable to consistently perform to task (in our seasoned NRL players) and are most susceptible to being our poorest, that we're still not working well together, show an inability to adhere to game plans and our players look to lack awareness, this should really bring the techniques and strategies being applied to motivate the team into question.

Of course that vision exist, it goes further than that, they have actually developed the archetypes of the players they want in each position.

Thanks Garry. Know that it's the underperforming from the team which makes me question this but the cohesiveness of the team or effort isn't really improving, so it's bugging me more than it should.

I only want us to buy the most skilful, athletic and competitive players but without fixing this (getting this team to perform to their best) seems like it'll mean very little and it looks more like we're not taking the correct measures or don't have the right resources.

I think it is just going to take time, I think we need to build through youth as established stars are reluctant to come here due to decade of non finals appearances. We have been attracting good young players and I have been concerned about our ability to develop those players but I think the acquisition of Betsey, Kimmorley and Sheens, in pathways roles, shows this as an area the club was concerned about as well and is taking steps to rectify that issue. Ronny Palmer is also in a role in pathways as well so we are sending resources that direction.

I think established players also don't want to carry the expectations that are placed on them to make a difference that justifies there
salary.

 

[BZN]

Is there even a mutual vision from Madge, Hartigan and the club on what type of team they wish to be identified as?

If we're attempting to buy players based on their leadership skills only, then this looks problematic to what we've been trying to establish and move away from for the past couple of years - and it perhaps highlights that there may be issues with certain personnel.
Looks like we've been filling gaps with no clear picture of what we wish to become or we're no closer to it.
I dont see much wrong with the player's abilities but more the directive they're playing under - tactical game plans - isn't working effectively or isn't modified to suit us.
Yes they're young with limited experience and there's leadership problems but there's this great big disconnect between them and without correcting this, buying a player for their leadership skills only isn't going to change this.
We just look like we can't find any rhythm as a team and all be on the same page.
I know some people dont wish to hear it but the fact some of our most influential and experienced players are unable to consistently perform to task (in our seasoned NRL players) and are most susceptible to being our poorest, that we're still not working well together, show an inability to adhere to game plans and our players look to lack awareness, this should really bring the techniques and strategies being applied to motivate the team into question.

Of course that vision exist, it goes further than that, they have actually developed the archetypes of the players they want in each position.

Thanks Garry. Know that it's the underperforming from the team which makes me question this but the cohesiveness of the team or effort isn't really improving, so it's bugging me more than it should.

I only want us to buy the most skilful, athletic and competitive players but without fixing this (getting this team to perform to their best) seems like it'll mean very little and it looks more like we're not taking the correct measures or don't have the right resources.

[/QUOTE]

"I only want us to buy the most skillful, athletic and competitive players".

I've probably said too much, I'll see myself out :zipper_mouth_face:

 

[cochise]

Is there even a mutual vision from Madge, Hartigan and the club on what type of team they wish to be identified as?

If we're attempting to buy players based on their leadership skills only, then this looks problematic to what we've been trying to establish and move away from for the past couple of years - and it perhaps highlights that there may be issues with certain personnel.
Looks like we've been filling gaps with no clear picture of what we wish to become or we're no closer to it.
I dont see much wrong with the player's abilities but more the directive they're playing under - tactical game plans - isn't working effectively or isn't modified to suit us.
Yes they're young with limited experience and there's leadership problems but there's this great big disconnect between them and without correcting this, buying a player for their leadership skills only isn't going to change this.
We just look like we can't find any rhythm as a team and all be on the same page.
I know some people dont wish to hear it but the fact some of our most influential and experienced players are unable to consistently perform to task (in our seasoned NRL players) and are most susceptible to being our poorest, that we're still not working well together, show an inability to adhere to game plans and our players look to lack awareness, this should really bring the techniques and strategies being applied to motivate the team into question.

Of course that vision exist, it goes further than that, they have actually developed the archetypes of the players they want in each position.

Thanks Garry. Know that it's the underperforming from the team which makes me question this but the cohesiveness of the team or effort isn't really improving, so it's bugging me more than it should.

I only want us to buy the most skilful, athletic and competitive players but without fixing this (getting this team to perform to their best) seems like it'll mean very little and it looks more like we're not taking the correct measures or don't have the right resources.

I think it is just going to take time, I think we need to build through youth as established stars are reluctant to come here due to decade of non finals appearances. We have been attracting good young players and I have been concerned about our ability to develop those players but I think the acquisition of Betsey, Kimmorley and Sheens, in pathways roles, shows this as an area the club was concerned about as well and is taking steps to rectify that issue. Ronny Palmer is also in a role in pathways as well so we are sending resources that direction.

I think established players also don't want to carry the expectations that are placed on them to make a difference that justifies there
salary.

100% we have seen that play out with a number of halves in recent years.

 

[TigerTone]

Is there even a mutual vision from Madge, Hartigan and the club on what type of team they wish to be identified as?

If we're attempting to buy players based on their leadership skills only, then this looks problematic to what we've been trying to establish and move away from for the past couple of years - and it perhaps highlights that there may be issues with certain personnel.
Looks like we've been filling gaps with no clear picture of what we wish to become or we're no closer to it.
I dont see much wrong with the player's abilities but more the directive they're playing under - tactical game plans - isn't working effectively or isn't modified to suit us.
Yes they're young with limited experience and there's leadership problems but there's this great big disconnect between them and without correcting this, buying a player for their leadership skills only isn't going to change this.
We just look like we can't find any rhythm as a team and all be on the same page.
I know some people dont wish to hear it but the fact some of our most influential and experienced players are unable to consistently perform to task (in our seasoned NRL players) and are most susceptible to being our poorest, that we're still not working well together, show an inability to adhere to game plans and our players look to lack awareness, this should really bring the techniques and strategies being applied to motivate the team into question.

Of course that vision exist, it goes further than that, they have actually developed the archetypes of the players they want in each position.

Thanks Garry. Know that it's the underperforming from the team which makes me question this but the cohesiveness of the team or effort isn't really improving, so it's bugging me more than it should.

I only want us to buy the most skilful, athletic and competitive players but without fixing this (getting this team to perform to their best) seems like it'll mean very little and it looks more like we're not taking the correct measures or don't have the right resources.

I think it is just going to take time, I think we need to build through youth as established stars are reluctant to come here due to decade of non finals appearances. We have been attracting good young players and I have been concerned about our ability to develop those players but I think the acquisition of Betsey, Kimmorley and Sheens, in pathways roles, shows this as an area the club was concerned about as well and is taking steps to rectify that issue. Ronny Palmer is also in a role in pathways as well so we are sending resources that direction.

Love the fact our Flegg is doing well. Need to bring as many of those boys together through our systems as possible, just like Penrith did

This is where our future is , and as you said if these boys can stay together at this club and come up together through to first grade we will then have exactly what the panthers have.
The big job of our people behind the scenes is keeping these guys interested in staying at this club and not wanting to move on.