Half backs

[WiganWarrior]

unless we finish top 2 we wont win it, we have done well the last 2 seasons but with the current squad i dont think we could last the pace to get through the playoffs and make it the final

[thegimble]

warrior till i die posted:
i think we will finish 3rd this season or we could knock saints off second and get that. Be optimistic were going to win the league!!!

Boy are you feeling ok. It would be an achievement to get in the top 6. Injuries have desemeated our season. It will take it toll at the back end of the season.

[Fraggle]

thegimble posted:

warrior till i die posted:
i think we will finish 3rd this season or we could knock saints off second and get that. Be optimistic were going to win the league!!!

Boy are you feeling ok. It would be an achievement to get in the top 6. Injuries have desemeated our season. It will take it toll at the back end of the season.

Any other season, I'd agree with you. The way things are working out this year I'm not so sure. Who'd have expected Bradford in 7th place after 9 rounds, behind a London team who got absolutely hammered at the weekend? It's a funny season, and if our injury situation improves (and maybe if we can get a couple of short-term cover players like Nick Graham and Quentin Pongia last year) then if results keep going as they have been then we won't be too badly placed.

It's good to see the teams closely grouped together, but as someone said it's not really because of improved quality. Too many games still have totally one-sided scorelines (64-6, 60-16) even between teams who are only a couple of places apart in the league table. It seems no team is able to maintain any kind of consistency: one week they're good, the next they're woefully bad. I'd rather see closer games where both teams are good.

[Welski]

thegimble posted:
SL has become closer but not better in quality.

a case of top teams worsening rather than lower teams getting better.

Couldn't agree more Gimble.
I've actually found it a bit of a turn off this season. It's one thing going to a game not knowing who will win but at some of these games it must have been so depressing and perplexing for the losing fans.
Even the Wigan defeat to Huddersfield left me strangely cold. I'm normally screaming away but it just seemed so flat. Had a couple of decisions gone our way we might have perked up but as Fraggle put it as a fan you just dont know what you are going to get. Its almost a given that a couple of great results means a woeful one nxt time out.

Oh well a third of the way in lets hope we have a little more luck between now and the end of the season.

[DaveO]

Fraggle posted:
It's good to see the teams closely grouped together, but as someone said it's not really because of improved quality.

I have been saying this for a while on other forums but when you do you are often shouted down.

It seems many beleive that because the results have gone they way they have so far that is a great thing in itself. If you suggest the competition is closer not because the standard of some teams has improved but because the standard of others has dropped it is heresy.

Huddersfield beat a Wigan team last week with 8 players gone from the squad we were supposed to start the season with. On paper the result makes it look like there is a levelling out of standards but what is the merit in a "close" competition if that is acheived because teams periodically go through an injury crises and can't field a decent side as a result?

It gets back to the 20/20 again and the effect it has on a side with injuries. You have to play young players outside the top 20 experienced players and while they may win some on pride, over the longer term they will tail off and the team will lose games.

So that could mean Wigan finish in the league below Huddersfield for example but it won't have been because Hudds suddenly became a great side. They aren't. It will have been down to Wigan's standard lowering because it must play players who are not up to a full season of pro RL.

I reckon several sides have worked out the best way to do reasonably well in SL is pick up a few reserve grade or "retiring" but experienced ex-NRL players. You can probably get quite a few under the salary cap.

The trouble is basing your side on that sort of recruitment policy doesn't do anything to raise the standards of SL but because there have been some odd results people are raving baout the close competition. They are ignoring the fact it just doesn't compare to the standard of the NRL.

Dave

[ChrisA]

DaveO posted:
Lam had the benefit of playing behind a decent pack most of the time.

Orr and Moran have been playing in a side with ONE specialist prop in the team.

I don't think that gives them much of a platform.

Also the pair of them have been injured. Moran didn't train the week before his last game due to illness and Orr went into the Hudds game with pain killing injections.

We need at least one more prop in the starting 17 for them to have a chance to do something and we need them (the half backs) free of injuries as well.

Dave

This man speaks sense.

[ChrisA]

DaveO posted:

Fraggle posted:
It's good to see the teams closely grouped together, but as someone said it's not really because of improved quality.

I have been saying this for a while on other forums but when you do you are often shouted down.

It seems many beleive that because the results have gone they way they have so far that is a great thing in itself. If you suggest the competition is closer not because the standard of some teams has improved but because the standard of others has dropped it is heresy.

Huddersfield beat a Wigan team last week with 8 players gone from the squad we were supposed to start the season with. On paper the result makes it look like there is a levelling out of standards but what is the merit in a "close" competition if that is acheived because teams periodically go through an injury crises and can't field a decent side as a result?

It gets back to the 20/20 again and the effect it has on a side with injuries. You have to play young players outside the top 20 experienced players and while they may win some on pride, over the longer term they will tail off and the team will lose games.

So that could mean Wigan finish in the league below Huddersfield for example but it won't have been because Hudds suddenly became a great side. They aren't. It will have been down to Wigan's standard lowering because it must play players who are not up to a full season of pro RL.

I reckon several sides have worked out the best way to do reasonably well in SL is pick up a few reserve grade or "retiring" but experienced ex-NRL players. You can probably get quite a few under the salary cap.

The trouble is basing your side on that sort of recruitment policy doesn't do anything to raise the standards of SL but because there have been some odd results people are raving baout the close competition. They are ignoring the fact it just doesn't compare to the standard of the NRL.

Dave

Very true about the standard of SL compared to the NRL, this season in OZ the rugby has been nothing short of breath taking by nearly every team in the league. We rave about the free flowing rugby played by Leeds, but the fact is that every team in Aus is playing like that, and those at the top are playing even better. The standard over there is the best ive seen at club level.

[Welski]

I Agree DaveO.

Take a look at the standard of the NRL. I watched the Canterbury Bulldogs -v- Wests Tigers game a week or so back. Top v bottom. It was a very close game but played at level I'd not seen before. Breathtaking skills all round. I'm just thankful we dont have the Super league -vv NRL Club Challenge league thingy running at the moment!!


The superleague bods must realise that by diluting the top clubs and lowering the standard of RL in this country; for the sake of 'close' games will only end up driving fans away.

[billyboy]

DaveO posted:
Lam had the benefit of playing behind a decent pack most of the time.

Orr and Moran have been playing in a side with ONE specialist prop in the team.

I don't think that gives them much of a platform.

Also the pair of them have been injured. Moran didn't train the week before his last game due to illness and Orr went into the Hudds game with pain killing injections.

We need at least one more prop in the starting 17 for them to have a chance to do something and we need them (the half backs) free of injuries as well.

Dave

I agree partly with what you say regarding props. Where I disagree is that last season Orr had O'Connor, Pongia (most of the time), and Sculthorpe (some of the time). I just feel that he has never performed for us like he did for Cas. I was over the moon when we signed him, thinking that he would do to other teams what he used to do for us. This is a page for opinions and in mine, he has never met the standards we require. One other half back I forgot in my original posting was Julian O'Neill. He was such an outstanding success it's no wonder I forgot him. We haven't had a decent stand off since Henry Paul left.

[DaveO]

billyboy posted:

DaveO posted:
Lam had the benefit of playing behind a decent pack most of the time.

Orr and Moran have been playing in a side with ONE specialist prop in the team.

I don't think that gives them much of a platform.

Also the pair of them have been injured. Moran didn't train the week before his last game due to illness and Orr went into the Hudds game with pain killing injections.

We need at least one more prop in the starting 17 for them to have a chance to do something and we need them (the half backs) free of injuries as well.

Dave

I agree partly with what you say regarding props. Where I disagree is that last season Orr had O'Connor, Pongia (most of the time), and Sculthorpe (some of the time). I just feel that he has never performed for us like he did for Cas. I was over the moon when we signed him, thinking that he would do to other teams what he used to do for us. This is a page for opinions and in mine, he has never met the standards we require. One other half back I forgot in my original posting was Julian O'Neill. He was such an outstanding success it's no wonder I forgot him. We haven't had a decent stand off since Henry Paul left.

Orr's last season was ruined by the injury mid way through. He had just started to look the part and he got injured.

He really does need a clear injury free run behind a good pack to show off what he can do. Same goes for Moran.

Dave