Round 1, 2012 NRL Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks v Wests Tigers @ Leichhardt Oval, Sunday, March 4, 2:00pm

Mark^Bastard

Great White
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
17,725
Reaction score
167
Location
Brisbane
Managed to read allot of this thread just now. Can't believe people calling for changes in the halves after a close game one. How could the idea even be entertained after a whole off season working on this. And I don't have a problem with Chad or Graham.

Basically I believe something and have all off season and the game just validated my opinion in my own eyes. I come here and type my opinion and will always do that.

Maybe Graham is a great half for the next 25 rounds and I'm proven wrong, so be it.

I pretty much agree with what teflon said (hah) so just cut and paste that into my post right now.
 

ABshark

Vapid
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
7,870
Reaction score
116
Location
NSW
Just saw the game in full for the first time. My thoughts are below for anyone interested.

1) Did anyone else think that it looked like a trial game? Heaps of errors, flashes of brilliance, players cramping up.

2) I thought Gardner had his worst ever game for us. It seems like his feet move faster than his brain and he just makes errors. His speed means that he often gets away with them, but he has to improve and get it out of his game. He brings spark but he also contributes to the general rushed, headless chook routine. Under pressure but with enough runs on the board for the moment.

3) Our back row was outstanding. One of Tupou's best games for the Club. He looks like he's finally at the right weight/fitness and not only did he threaten with his ballplay, he made his tackles and carried the ball effectively. Huge turnaround from the Rd 26 loss. Likewise, Smith is just about the most underrated player in the game, particularly his ballplay. Reads the game so well, knows when to pass and when to take the tackle, gets a quick PTB himself or for the forward he takes with him more often than not and of course, a brutal defender. Gal was quiet by his standards but did some good things. Two bad errors but well, he's the Bradman of RL. Bukuya also effective when he came on- outstanding footwork and looks to have put a bit more size on. Real danger man.

4) Gibbs was our best player in the first half by a mile. I've never really rated him but his tackling was outstanding and his hitups solid. If he plays like that all year, he's a much better player than I ever gave him credit for. Hopefully he's copped some of the Sharks prop potion and goes from good defender to all round class prop.

5) I thought Flano used his bench very well, except perhaps his not giving Taga some time in the second half. I thought we had the initiative with our changes all game, but unfortunately Fifita got thoroughly outpointed by Bell and Groat (who was their best forward). Taga toiled in an unfamiliar role and though he didn't offer much, its benefit of the doubt from me. Not Taga-friendly weather.

6) De Gois was ****house IMO. We looked so much better with Morris at DH. Isaac had his runners coming on to the ball far too close to the ruck, he defended poorly and generally looked out of place. I'm putting it down to a lack of time with his forwards and Carney though. If he improves and can find some of his best form, the likes of Ross, Taga and Gal- our best 'go ahead' runners- will improve with him. Good to see him back in the BW&B though.

7) I was a little dubious about whether Carney would do much for our centre pairing, but he certainly did. Both looked dangerous. BUT: I really want to see him running wider more often. He had to skip around two or three defenders to find the space he was looking for when playing at first receiver. Likewise, the couple of times he was tackled on the 5th, the others looked lost for a last play option. And the general lack of structure and control as fatigue set in really emphasized the need for a halfback. The answer is obvious, its just whether he's ready yet and then what to do with Graham...

8) Contrary to Gal's quote, I don't think either team deserved to win. The Tigers maybe more because they lost two key players for long periods and because, well, they managed to do it in the end. But I couldn't believe how much footy was lost by both sides, but particularly us in that first half. Stunned that the boys could mount any sort of comeback at all really. Big upside was that we looked up to pace with the usually fast Tigers. Skill level in the forwards and centres was there too, but not from the back three.

9) All in all, could have been a whole lot worse. Lots of things for Flano to work on, but most will come along quickly I think as the combinations develop. Good that we were up to the pace of the game, the skill level has improved, and we'll be a better side with Mills and Stapo on the wings. Best of all, the boys look confident and know that they not only can beat teams like the Tiges, but will, given enough opportunities. I thought we showed more than a lot of teams did in the first round, and there is some stuff that other teams don't do- the short passing in the forwards, wingers backing up through the ruck, tough, experienced and fast in the forwards and someone who can take on the line and break it in Carney. But we need to be more controlled, better disciplined with the ball and more calm with the ball.

But the start of the season is just about getting points, building combinations and not getting injuries. Missed out on the points- need some early.
 

Jigsaw

Jaws
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
6,401
Reaction score
50
Location
Redcliffe
Just saw the game in full for the first time. My thoughts are below for anyone interested.

1) Did anyone else think that it looked like a trial game? Heaps of errors, flashes of brilliance, players cramping up.

2) I thought Gardner had his worst ever game for us. It seems like his feet move faster than his brain and he just makes errors. His speed means that he often gets away with them, but he has to improve and get it out of his game. He brings spark but he also contributes to the general rushed, headless chook routine. Under pressure but with enough runs on the board for the moment.

3) Our back row was outstanding. One of Tupou's best games for the Club. He looks like he's finally at the right weight/fitness and not only did he threaten with his ballplay, he made his tackles and carried the ball effectively. Huge turnaround from the Rd 26 loss. Likewise, Smith is just about the most underrated player in the game, particularly his ballplay. Reads the game so well, knows when to pass and when to take the tackle, gets a quick PTB himself or for the forward he takes with him more often than not and of course, a brutal defender. Gal was quiet by his standards but did some good things. Two bad errors but well, he's the Bradman of RL. Bukuya also effective when he came on- outstanding footwork and looks to have put a bit more size on. Real danger man.

4) Gibbs was our best player in the first half by a mile. I've never really rated him but his tackling was outstanding and his hitups solid. If he plays like that all year, he's a much better player than I ever gave him credit for. Hopefully he's copped some of the Sharks prop potion and goes from good defender to all round class prop.

5) I thought Flano used his bench very well, except perhaps his not giving Taga some time in the second half. I thought we had the initiative with our changes all game, but unfortunately Fifita got thoroughly outpointed by Bell and Groat (who was their best forward). Taga toiled in an unfamiliar role and though he didn't offer much, its benefit of the doubt from me. Not Taga-friendly weather.

6) De Gois was ****house IMO. We looked so much better with Morris at DH. Isaac had his runners coming on to the ball far too close to the ruck, he defended poorly and generally looked out of place. I'm putting it down to a lack of time with his forwards and Carney though. If he improves and can find some of his best form, the likes of Ross, Taga and Gal- our best 'go ahead' runners- will improve with him. Good to see him back in the BW&B though.

7) I was a little dubious about whether Carney would do much for our centre pairing, but he certainly did. Both looked dangerous. BUT: I really want to see him running wider more often. He had to skip around two or three defenders to find the space he was looking for when playing at first receiver. Likewise, the couple of times he was tackled on the 5th, the others looked lost for a last play option. And the general lack of structure and control as fatigue set in really emphasized the need for a halfback. The answer is obvious, its just whether he's ready yet and then what to do with Graham...

8) Contrary to Gal's quote, I don't think either team deserved to win. The Tigers maybe more because they lost two key players for long periods and because, well, they managed to do it in the end. But I couldn't believe how much footy was lost by both sides, but particularly us in that first half. Stunned that the boys could mount any sort of comeback at all really. Big upside was that we looked up to pace with the usually fast Tigers. Skill level in the forwards and centres was there too, but not from the back three.

9) All in all, could have been a whole lot worse. Lots of things for Flano to work on, but most will come along quickly I think as the combinations develop. Good that we were up to the pace of the game, the skill level has improved, and we'll be a better side with Mills and Stapo on the wings. Best of all, the boys look confident and know that they not only can beat teams like the Tiges, but will, given enough opportunities. I thought we showed more than a lot of teams did in the first round, and there is some stuff that other teams don't do- the short passing in the forwards, wingers backing up through the ruck, tough, experienced and fast in the forwards and someone who can take on the line and break it in Carney. But we need to be more controlled, better disciplined with the ball and more calm with the ball.

But the start of the season is just about getting points, building combinations and not getting injuries. Missed out on the points- need some early.

I agree with all this except the Degois thing
 
D

Deleted member 3365

Guest
Yeah same, I thought De Gois played his heart out and was great in defence and attack.
 

Mark^Bastard

Great White
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
17,725
Reaction score
167
Location
Brisbane
I agree with all of it except i wouldnt go that far with de gois and gardner

Oh and groat was crap, woods was 5 times better. Dont know where the groat love came from.
 

BurgoShark

Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
12,868
Reaction score
4,097
7) I was a little dubious about whether Carney would do much for our centre pairing, but he certainly did. Both looked dangerous. BUT: I really want to see him running wider more often. He had to skip around two or three defenders to find the space he was looking for when playing at first receiver. Likewise, the couple of times he was tackled on the 5th, the others looked lost for a last play option. And the general lack of structure and control as fatigue set in really emphasized the need for a halfback. The answer is obvious, its just whether he's ready yet and then what to do with Graham...
Yep. Interesting also that Pom rid so well in the first half, but Best in the second. Carney changed sides. If you are playing with Graham you get no ball. 100% agreed on the 5th tackle thing. We had no idea when Carney was tackled on the 5th. Graham has skills but he's not a half.

I also didn't think Gards was too bad either. Headless chook for sure - but not bad. If it is any consolation, Gardner was by far and away our worst player in round 1 last year too.
 

DeathMoth

Great White
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
3,547
Reaction score
42
Location
Sydney
i lol that such intense analysis is being performed after the first game of the season. give it time boys.
 

Wilson

Great White
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
623
De Gois's defense has been a problem for a number of years.
 

chikenhawk

Hammerhead
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
475
Reaction score
3
Location
ipswich qld
lets not over analyse the teams performance. it is round 1. i dont want to see chopping and changing every week from Flanno. We need a really tight 17 and then 5-8 blokes really pushing those spots outside it. it was the first game, and I liked what I saw. hopefully, the only way is up from here!
 

sharkyboy

Jaws
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
15,273
Reaction score
105
Location
N.S.W
I saw de good **** up one of their forwards in the game, he's a strong little ****
 

Card Shark

Bronze Whaler
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
125
Reaction score
2
In regards to point 1, I've always thought round 1 is a glorified trial. Teams are blowing out cobwebs, getting over nerves & forming combinations.

It's what happens from herein that matters. Bring on round 2 when the best teams will start to rise to the top. We are 1 of those teams but so are the Knights. Thankfully we are at home this week, wouldn't like to be playing them away.
 

Mark^Bastard

Great White
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
17,725
Reaction score
167
Location
Brisbane
I had a little look at the times players played per position and it's sort of interesting. Unlike last year, we were straight forward and traditional. Our four props played prop all game, no deviation. Also we didn't intentionally have two hookers on at the same time unlike last year. There was no Gallen covering prop while we had say only one normal pop on plus two hookers.

The only thing that bucked the trend was Morris covering for Grahams injury.

Note par just means the usual minutes for each position. There are 160 prop minutes in a normal game, though 166 in this game due to 3 minutes over time etc.

Halves par 166
Todd Carney 83
Wade Graham 69
John Morris 14

Hooker par 83
Isaac De Gois 61
John Morris 22

Props par 166
Bryce Gibbs 59
Ben Ross 41
Andrew Fifita 36
Sam Tagataese 30

Back row par 249
Paul Gallen 83
Jeremy Smith 70
Anthony Tupou 58
Jayson Bukuya 38

My thoughts:
1 - Would like De Gois playing less minutes, however maybe in better conditions he should be playing 60 minutes. Hard to say.
2 - Not sure if Gibbs can play that many minutes every week, but he looked great so you'd think it could be possible.
3 - I think Bukuya definitely should get more minutes. Drop Jez and Tupou back a bit.
4 - Somewhat unrelated, but I'd start Bukuya next week and put Tupou on the bench.
 

Ramzyv1

Great White
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
18
Not much to say, heartbreaking game and certainly the refereeing was a factor but you can't drop that much ball and make that many errors and then solely blame the ref. Having said that, it was the first hit out and is basically a whole new team. There seems to be a heap of potential there.

The only player I would consider dropping at this stage is Matthew Wright. He seems to be a liability defensively (2 tries were in part caused by his positioning/lack of urgency) and he contributed nothing to attack. I am aware our wingers are limited but even though I may eat these words, I am starting to think this guy might never be ready.
 

slide rule

Jaws
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
20,485
Reaction score
465
Location
General Admission
Not much to say, heartbreaking game and certainly the refereeing was a factor but you can't drop that much ball and make that many errors and then solely blame the ref. Having said that, it was the first hit out and is basically a whole new team. There seems to be a heap of potential there.

The only player I would consider dropping at this stage is Matthew Wright. He seems to be a liability defensively (2 tries were in part caused by his positioning/lack of urgency) and he contributed nothing to attack. I am aware our wingers are limited but even though I may eat these words, I am starting to think this guy might never be ready.

I'm feeling the same way. I just don't think he is a winger. If he is going to make it in first grade, I think it will be in a different position. Possibly a centre, but maybe he could be a back rower. Which doesn't really help us any, given our backrow stocks.
 

Mark^Bastard

Great White
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
17,725
Reaction score
167
Location
Brisbane
Yeah and he lacks a lot of power for a back rower too.

I just don't know where he fits either. Maybe bench utility or centre, but wouldn't be pushing for a spot in our team in those positions.
 

Timmyb22

Tiger Shark
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
12
Location
Northern Beaches
I read in te paper that after the game wade graham had lost 4.5 kg and some others like gards amd carney lost about 2.5kg
 

OzChopper

Mako Shark
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
17
Reaction score
1
Location
Sydney
Yeah and he lacks a lot of power for a back rower too.

I just don't know where he fits either. Maybe bench utility or centre, but wouldn't be pushing for a spot in our team in those positions.

Definitely don't see him playing in the centre's. That dropped ball in the first half when he took the hit up as first receiver clearly shows lack of attention. He also doesn't have the flair, in my opinion, to play centre.

I've noticed over the last couple of season's that he makes key fundamental errors (especially positioning) which really wouldn't be acceptable at club level and I always am left wondering why he gets picked.
 

stormshark

Jaws
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
5,706
Reaction score
469
Location
Phillip Island
999587-albert-kelly-todd-carney.jpg


Hopefully soon boys!

Yes, agree to me, its better to have two dynamic halves for opposition to try and anticipate.
 
Top