Round 1 Team Prediction

[Beejay]

If we play with these backlines the game sure will be exciting, but I imagine Mitch Brown would be in there somewhere

 

[JimBob]

Just a stab at what I reckon Flanno will go with based on pass selections and pre season interviews.

1. Gordon
2. Feki
3. Beale
4. Leutele
5. Holmes
6. Barba
7. Robson
8. A. Fifita
9. Ennis
10. Tagataese
11. Heighington
12. Graham
13. Gallen

14. Prior
15. Arona
16. Bukuya
17. Houma/D. Fifita

 

[Capital_Shark]

Going purely on form (ignoring injuries current or past, incumbent status & reputations) and then trying to squeeze those 5 players in amongst the backline...
I think this is about the closets we can get to a gun backline with the players we have. Plenty of inexperience, massive upside - would love to see it.


1. Gordon
2. Gagan
3. Bird
4. Feki
5. Holmes

That would be my pick. I have no idea given I'm not at training ect. everyday, but that would be my go.

 

[1990 sharkie]

Gordon
Feki
Beale
Leutele
Holmes
Barba
Robson
Fifita
Ennis
Prior
Tupou( til lewis is fit)
Graham
Gallen

Tagatese
Heighno
Bukuya/arona
Fifita( Tupou when lewis is fit)

Is what I reckon flanno will pick and from what I seen from the trial Gallen won't get out of the plays, he should be running the decoy instead of throwing the second pass. He is just to slow and predictable when he passes

 

[The Wild Man]

He's not right at all, in fact it's a complete load of rubbish. The modern game has outside backs taking up early hit ups coming out of their end, the main exception being on kick offs - The comment about Prior not being a "first tackle prop" is a fallacy - First tackle props are not real. If you think that's what George Burgess does than you need to watch some Souths games.

Seems I talk rubbish guys.....**smiles**...No worries. I've been abused by better men than you.

I didnt mean George Burgess played strictly as a Tackle 1 prop.... though I can see where you got that from. I was referring to the build and go-forward of the man. THAT'S the kind of prop we need.... a Civinoceva... a Hargreaves...an intimidator who can bend the line and get the defence going backwards. Perhaps one of D Fifita or Houma will eventually fill that role. Perhaps.

You don't think Gallen would benefit from a lead up charge by a JWH or Civo type? Is Hargreaves a fallacy?

It also seems someone else agrees, otherwise why do we bring these huge behemoths like Houma and the Fifitas to the club? To play half-back if Robson goes down ? Or to use their bulk as their bulk was meant to be used?

I agree that on many occasions the backs bring the ball up tackle 1 and 2.... usually from a kick downfield. But what about from a scrum or turnover close to our line? What's that? Is that Paul Gallen lining up for the first hit up (and usually the 3rd or 4th as well) ? "THROW THE BALL TO BEALE FFS MAN" Hasn't he heard that props charging at the line like that are a fallacy (and lets face it...he plays as a prop in centre-field a lot for us)?

Please excuse me for talking rubbish. I shall reconsider my decision to offer opinions here as I head off to watch a few Souths games.

 

[Mr Wright]

Seems I talk rubbish guys.....**smiles**...No worries. I've been abused by better men than you.

I didnt mean George Burgess played strictly as a Tackle 1 prop.... though I can see where you got that from. I was referring to the build and go-forward of the man. THAT'S the kind of prop we need.... a Civinoceva... a Hargreaves...an intimidator who can bend the line and get the defence going backwards. Perhaps one of D Fifita or Houma will eventually fill that role. Perhaps.

You don't think Gallen would benefit from a lead up charge by a JWH or Civo type? Is Hargreaves a fallacy?

It also seems someone else agrees, otherwise why do we bring these huge behemoths like Houma and the Fifitas to the club? To play half-back if Robson goes down ? Or to use their bulk as their bulk was meant to be used?

I agree that on many occasions the backs bring the ball up tackle 1 and 2.... usually from a kick downfield. But what about from a scrum or turnover close to our line? What's that? Is that Paul Gallen lining up for the first hit up (and usually the 3rd or 4th as well) ? "THROW THE BALL TO BEALE FFS MAN" Hasn't he heard that props charging at the line like that are a fallacy (and lets face it...he plays as a prop in centre-field a lot for us)?

Please excuse me for talking rubbish. I shall reconsider my decision to offer opinions here as I head off to watch a few Souths games.

Jesus christ. Bit sensitive today mate? Haha. Need to let things go through to the keeper a bit more i reckon

 

[endevour shark]

thought he also played well towards the end of last year

He will be in the 17 somewhere[/QUOTE]

Agree on all counts he went better than I thought towards the later part of last year and does deserve to be in the 17, But would still like to see areal fair dinkum hard bugga hard tackling straight hard running prop playing in our pack

 

[Western Sharkie]

http://www.zerotackle.com/nrl/ten-young-players-to-look-out-for-this-season-16549/

I'd like to see both Bird and Holmes in our starting side for most if not all of 2015

 

[The Wild Man]

Jesus christ. Bit sensitive today mate? Haha. Need to let things go through to the keeper a bit more i reckon

Not in my nature.

I can handle being told someone disagrees. That's their right. But when I'm told by some muppet what I've said is " a complete load of rubbish" I think I have the right to use sarcasm in return don't I ?

Anyways if someone takes us all "literally" here all day you could pick apart anyone's comments easily. Even my saying "1st tackle" wasn't strictly meaning ONLY Tackle one...but more broadly the first hit up taken by the forwards (which is usually followed by a second by another forward - be it 1st/2nd or 2nd/3rd or EVEN 3rd/4th tackles). My point being that in MY OPINION ("a load of rubbish" as it has been described ) a big bulldozing prop with a fast play the ball followed by Gallen is the best ground-making combination for us.

If it's not then so be it.... just my opinion after all.

 

[19ninety9]

Not in my nature.

I can handle being told someone disagrees. That's their right. But when I'm told by some muppet what I've said is " a complete load of rubbish" I think I have the right to use sarcasm in return don't I ?

Anyways if someone takes us all "literally" here all day you could pick apart anyone's comments easily. Even my saying "1st tackle" wasn't strictly meaning ONLY Tackle one...but more broadly the first hit up taken by the forwards (which is usually followed by a second by another forward - be it 1st/2nd or 2nd/3rd or EVEN 3rd/4th tackles). My point being that in MY OPINION ("a load of rubbish" as it has been described ) a big bulldozing prop with a fast play the ball followed by Gallen is the best ground-making combination for us.

If it's not then so be it.... just my opinion after all.

So your opinion is we need a hard running, line bending prop...

Not a truly unique observation right.

All I've read for months is how Harmenless our squad is.

 

[The Wild Man]

I don't totally disagree with all either of you have to say, except I also agree with the general consensus here that what we DO need in that second prop (alongside Andrew Fifita) is a quality First tackle big man (think George Burgess) to get us on the front foot for Gallen on tackle 2 and set the tone for the march downfield. Gallen will be far better suited running 15 to 20m as second tackle at a defence already on the backfoot, than he is trying to bludgeon 10 to 12m as first tackle.

So your opinion is we need a hard running, line bending prop...

Not a truly unique observation right.

All I've read for months is how Harmenless our squad is.

Didn't say it was a unique viewpoint. In fact if you took the time to look at the original post (above) you'll see I stated it was the popular opinion... the "general consensus". Guess you missed it.

 

[Sutty]

Seems I talk rubbish guys.....**smiles**...No worries. I've been abused by better men than you.

I didnt mean George Burgess played strictly as a Tackle 1 prop.... though I can see where you got that from. I was referring to the build and go-forward of the man. THAT'S the kind of prop we need.... a Civinoceva... a Hargreaves...an intimidator who can bend the line and get the defence going backwards. Perhaps one of D Fifita or Houma will eventually fill that role. Perhaps.

You don't think Gallen would benefit from a lead up charge by a JWH or Civo type? Is Hargreaves a fallacy?

It also seems someone else agrees, otherwise why do we bring these huge behemoths like Houma and the Fifitas to the club? To play half-back if Robson goes down ? Or to use their bulk as their bulk was meant to be used?

I agree that on many occasions the backs bring the ball up tackle 1 and 2.... usually from a kick downfield. But what about from a scrum or turnover close to our line? What's that? Is that Paul Gallen lining up for the first hit up (and usually the 3rd or 4th as well) ? "THROW THE BALL TO BEALE FFS MAN" Hasn't he heard that props charging at the line like that are a fallacy (and lets face it...he plays as a prop in centre-field a lot for us)?

Please excuse me for talking rubbish. I shall reconsider my decision to offer opinions here as I head off to watch a few Souths games.

A total of 9 question marks. A total of 0 intelligible points.

You state the team needs go forward. Statistically, we have extremely good go-forward - Our run-meters are consistently amongst the highest in the league.

You mention some rhetorical question about Gal needing JWH. I disagree, Gallen has consistently averaged the highest run meters of forwards in the league without a "JWH".

You mention Houma and Fifitas with some more rhetorical questions... Just because a player is large, does not mean they are a "first-tackle prop".

I challenge you to do the figures on scrums or turnovers close to a team's own line. You are mistaken to think a prop takes the hitups off these plays.

You have dribbled for a bunch of paragraphs, and I have wasted my time firstly reading it, and become dumber at forcing a response to such trash.

 

[The Wild Man]

A total of 9 question marks. A total of 0 intelligible points.

You state the team needs go forward. Statistically, we have extremely good go-forward - Our run-meters are consistently amongst the highest in the league.

You mention some rhetorical question about Gal needing JWH. I disagree, Gallen has consistently averaged the highest run meters of forwards in the league without a "JWH".

You mention Houma and Fifitas with some more rhetorical questions... Just because a player is large, does not mean they are a "first-tackle prop".

I challenge you to do the figures on scrums or turnovers close to a team's own line. You are mistaken to think a prop takes the hitups off these plays.

You have dribbled for a bunch of paragraphs, and I have wasted my time firstly reading it, and become dumber at forcing a response to such trash.

If belittling people gets you off ... more power to you dude.

If I have wasted your time then happily my work here is done, Sutty !

 

[Sutty]

You continue to act as if I have personally "abused" you by disagreeing strongly with your long winded posts. I love you bud, you are a Sharks fan, but please for the love of god stop posting stuff that is missing the point.

Our problem over the past few years that people keep missing has been our defensive line, not our go forward. We have been rolling up the field, but also letting the opposition do the same thing. We have luckily gotten a top-class hooker in who specialises in this. Instead of talking about more props, we should be talking about other things. Like halfbacks. :No:

 

[The Wild Man]

You continue to act as if I have personally "abused" you by disagreeing strongly with your long winded posts. I love you bud, you are a Sharks fan, but please for the love of god stop posting stuff that is missing the point.

Our problem over the past few years that people keep missing has been our defensive line, not our go forward. We have been rolling up the field, but also letting the opposition do the same thing. We have luckily gotten a top-class hooker in who specialises in this. Instead of talking about more props, we should be talking about other things. Like halfbacks. :No:

There are various ways to disagree strongly with someone... various words and language you could choose.... but not all of it will be well received.

I guess your way wasn't the way I would phrase it if I, for example, disagreed with you.

In my own defence, I'm used to dealing with Yanks online. By and large I love them and have toured their country 8 times (41 US states and 7 Canadian Provinces)... but some of them wave the flag in other people's faces and need a little livening up. I admit to using sarcasm (which they totally do NOT "get") there rather than personal abuse (which they love and react to).

The way I talk to them would be totally inappropriate here. I respect the majority of the people here as fellow Sharks people to start with. We have been through hell together over the years. You know what I mean.

Yes. I've been a Sharks fan - since GAME 1 in 1967. Good times and bad.

As for long winded posts.... I'm a writer and I apologise for choosing to write more than "Go Sharks" or blindly agree with every post. I'm sure you'd agree that's not a requirement here.

I write what I think. I write what I feel. I'm not always right. If there are too many words for you to handle then don't read me. I hope that doesn't happen, because 1) I'm sure you're a decent guy (as a Shark supporter you must be) and 2)among all the "rubbish" I write, now and then one or two people MIGHT just agree with me. Miracles happen.

 

[Spanner shark]

If you 2 keep it up we will have to get a jelly pit for you to wrestle in. Forum , different opinions?

 

[Capital_Shark]

8 days boys, 8 days and we can argue over footy instead of aruging over arguing over footy.

 

[The Wild Man]

If you 2 keep it up we will have to get a jelly pit for you to wrestle in. Forum , different opinions?

Exactly

 

[evertonshark]

You continue to act as if I have personally "abused" you by disagreeing strongly with your long winded posts. I love you bud, you are a Sharks fan, but please for the love of god stop posting stuff that is missing the point.

Our problem over the past few years that people keep missing has been our defensive line, not our go forward. We have been rolling up the field, but also letting the opposition do the same thing. We have luckily gotten a top-class hooker in who specialises in this. Instead of talking about more props, we should be talking about other things. Like halfbacks. :No:

Don't worry mate there has been quite a few posts by various posters about the ease of the opposition rolling upfield, I'll be disappointed if it continues this season

 

[Sir Chadley]

Don't worry mate there has been quite a few posts by various posters about the ease of the opposition rolling upfield, I'll be disappointed if it continues this season

As will I.