Page 5 of 6
Re: To Nights Game
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:23 pm
by platt-warrior
NeeNawWarrior22 wrote:Suzieb wrote:Poor performance in the 1st half got to improve for next week against Saints think Mr Wane changes the team too much and it about time Ryan Hampshire had that no 6 shirt off Blake Green
Couldn't agree more, and I'm really not 'Green hating' here just for the sake of finding someone to blame for a poor team performance, but I've said for a while now, the bloke simply is not good for WW. He adds nothing particularly special to the team and is not capable of finding anything special. Some may refer to the grand final when yes, he had a good game and was one of the better players, but on the whole Green is not good enough and never will be. I'm a big fan of Smith and feel Rocky would complement him more.
Short memories IMO how can a player who was MOM at the Grand Final become "not good enough for WW" all of a sudden? :eusa17:
Re: To Nights Game
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:27 pm
by NeeNawWarrior22
platt-warrior wrote:NeeNawWarrior22 wrote:Suzieb wrote:Poor performance in the 1st half got to improve for next week against Saints think Mr Wane changes the team too much and it about time Ryan Hampshire had that no 6 shirt off Blake Green
Couldn't agree more, and I'm really not 'Green hating' here just for the sake of finding someone to blame for a poor team performance, but I've said for a while now, the bloke simply is not good for WW. He adds nothing particularly special to the team and is not capable of finding anything special. Some may refer to the grand final when yes, he had a good game and was one of the better players, but on the whole Green is not good enough and never will be. I'm a big fan of Smith and feel Rocky would complement him more.
Short memories IMO how can a player who was MOM at the Grand Final become "not good enough for WW" all of a sudden? :eusa17:
It's not all of a sudden and I allude to that in my original post. Yes, MoM in grand final, fantastic performance. Has that been consistent for WW since he arrived? No. I think Rocky could provide us with something different to Green if he was given a consistent run of games at 6. Please read full post. Thanks
Re: To Nights Game
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:29 pm
by platt-warrior
Rocky is a FB IMO.
Re: To Nights Game
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:32 pm
by NeeNawWarrior22
platt-warrior wrote:Rocky is a FB IMO.
He's very good from what I've seen there too. In your own opinion tho, what do you think Green adds to the Warriors side at present?
Re: To Nights Game
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:53 pm
by josie andrews
platt-warrior wrote:Rocky is a FB IMO.
He always played six for the academy.
He partnered George Williams.
Re: To Nights Game
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:05 pm
by ian.birchall
platt-warrior wrote:Rocky is a FB IMO.
Too small for full back. Let's not fall for the modern fad that since _Lockyer every standoff is a better fullback.
Re: Wigan v London
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:14 pm
by cpwigan
On that basis Ian so is Billy Slater, so is Matty Bowen, so was Steve Hampson etc etc. Ability to field bombs has more to do with timing and jumping ability than sheer size IMO. Rocky though is a novice full back having played 6 or 7 throughout his junior career/academy career.
Can he play FB, sure he can. Can he play 7 or 6, sure he can.
Re: Wigan v London
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:37 pm
by No straw damn us
Modern day #1 is the old #6. Look around the league both here and in Aus. Fans calling for Hampshire and Williams to be #6 and #7 need to be realistic. How many 19 year old are playing in those pivotal positions? Remember when we tried it with Kevin Brown and Luke Robinson?
Re: Wigan v London
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 10:45 pm
by No straw damn us
cherry.pie wrote:It seemed like the team turned up on the night thinking they could get the win without putting much effort in and unfortunately that ended up being the case.
The performance was very disjointed. I thought Blake Green had an absolute shocker and looked like the 19 year old rookie, while Williams was probably Wigan's best player and looked like the experienced halfback.
McIlorum was disappointing at dummy half, but then he seems to raise his game when games are competitive but that game wasn't, it was just nothing.
I thought Jordan James was our best prop. Pettybourne was OK, Dudson was poor and even Taylor was disappointing.
Bateman had his quietest game so far while Clubb didn't do too badly but still seems less effective in the back row.
Sarginson will get targeted by a better team if he continues to play on the wing. Thornley is one of the most frustrating players ever - incredibly lazy, rarely passes but also capable of some excellent finishes.
Bowen is brilliant.
Agree with everything you posted, apart from Williams being the best player. O'Loughlin was that man although I though Williams was good. Lockers playing at #13 was a #13 and a prop. Outstanding IMO. I agree Green and particularly Dudson were poor. I'm just hoping Wane was holding Flower and Crosby back for Saints game. Hopefully we get a dry day because I think Bowen could cause them a lot of problems.
Re: Wigan v London
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:09 pm
by TedMac
We're going to have to lift several levels to beat Saints. The self-belief they're getting from all their wins is making them way better than they've been in the last few years. Will be very surprised (and happy) if we do win.
Definitely need Flower back and somebody other than Dudson to counteract their impact props. Second row - we could match them if we play well. Half-backs - dunno. Centres/wings - anybody's guess, Burgess is good but so is Swift.