We will never win a comp with Jake Friend at hooker !!!

[stsae]

I disagree.

Carney did a lot of brilliant things but those plays around the ruck didn't rely on his individual brilliance. They relied on well timed running at holes, a skill that can be taught.

We have players who could be taught to do this. You could do the little set moves around the ruck with SKD, Leilua, Mini, or one of our backrowers.

We just don't.

Not because we don't have the cattle, but because Smith doesn't coach practiced game plans anymore.

Whose gonna hit that final pass and run 1/2 the field to score???

That was Carnteys thang, it's also Baloneys thang.

Mini hasn't gone thru a genuine hole for 7 yrs now. I know he tries just lacks the pace to do the deed anymore.

There's no one else I can see to play that way in our team.

You know I remember back in the day when Smiff was criticized for being too structured, stifling players natural games, using the old schoolteacher excuse to back this observation up.

Now it's the opposite view of many here. All taken from a few throw away lines taken out of context from a few ex-players. And of course a few pushing a massive agenda.

Now I have repeatedly stated I am no major Smiff fan. But I see why the clubs hired him and I see what he's trying to do with a limited roster, especially in the 1 and 6 and 9 jumpers. I also see our game plans. I also see that at times the team either drifts from them, when we are getting pumped which isn't unusual, or hasn't the cattle to employ them always successfully.

We all see things differently. IMO it's pre-conceived ideas that influence what people see and don't see.

[Danish]

Brian Smith.

He genuinely believes this ad-lib stuff. That you can play with no structure when you've got Anasta, Mini and Friend in your spine, and a halfback who thrives on set plays and organising.

It is almost sad.

But I'm told that Pearce organised our attack in 2010. So if that were the case, then our attack would still look the same given Pearce is still in the side.

Obviously it doesn't, and obviously he wasn't. Pearce may have have the "3 hitups, then give it to carney" game plan to maintain, but Carney still clearly ran our attack. He was not making it up as he went along, he had set rehearsed plays worked out with every member of our backline and backrow and then ran those plays based on what he saw in front of him.

Besides Maubs and SKD its painfully apparent that no one else in the side has much of a clue how to position themselves in attack so someone must have been telling them, and given how impotent our attack is I think its quite clear who that was.

[Danish]

It's not vision Apple its instinct. He's a purely instinctive player Carntey.

By Carnteys own words Pearce ran the team around in 2010. That said we had an option in Carntey. That keeps the defence guessing and gives Pearce room. It also gives Friendly options, not having to be creative himself. Think back to some of Carntey, Pearce and Friendlys little pet plays up the middle late in games. That's practiced and it's game plan. Trouble is now we lack that option to spark that sort of play. Therefore Pearce and Friendly look like they have NFI.

Sure, however those pet plays were clearly Carney's doing. If you watch the sharks this year (and if you remember old raiders games when he was there) he runs the exact same plays with his new side. Pearce may have ran the team around in that he had the basic game plan (dummy half run, 2 one out hit ups, spread the ball, kick), but just about all of our creativity, both ad-lib and set plays, were Carney. He had plays to run with every member of the backline and backrow and picked and chose which play to run based on the defence that was in front of him (thats where the instinct comes in).

Saying Pearce was the leader of our attack in 2010 is like saying Finch was the leader of the side in 03-04. Just flat out wrong, regardless of what the then 6 may have liked to say in interviews (as I recall Freddy liked to pretend he was just a go to option for Finch when interviewed in his final season).

[stsae]

But I'm told that Pearce organised our attack in 2010. So if that were the case, then our attack would still look the same given Pearce is still in the side.

Obviously it doesn't, and obviously he wasn't. Pearce may have have the "3 hitups, then give it to carney" game plan to maintain, but Carney still clearly ran our attack. He was not making it up as he went along, he had set rehearsed plays worked out with every member of our backline and backrow and then ran those plays based on what he saw in front of him.

Besides Maubs and SKD its painfully apparent that no one else in the side has much of a clue how to position themselves in attack so someone must have been telling them, and given how impotent our attack is I think its quite clear who that was.

Link: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/l...415-1x1of.html

''I feel I'm doing a job that 'Flanno' [Shane Flanagan] wants me to do, what the team needs,'' Carney said.

''Obviously with Pearcey at the Roosters I just had to run the ball most of the time. That was my role there, whereas here it's a little bit more organisation and getting the team to areas on the ground.

''My running will come, if I see opportunities I will run, but where I'm at at the moment I'm feeling comfortable. I like where I'm heading and I like where the Sharks are heading.''


So are you saying Carntey didn't know what was happening on the field in 2010???

Or do you believe you know better than Carntey???

Seriously Apple it's like the Pingy thingy all over again. I know you love the Coqq, I just don't know why you hate Pearce. Or is it you just love certain players which clouds your judgement???

[Danish]

As I said, I can dig up similar quotes by Freddy declaring that he was taking a backseat to Finch in 2003-4 as well. Only an idiot would actually believe that as true.

Pearce handled the ball more than Carney, and he indeed was the one charged with keeping the basic game plan in check (DH run, hitup, hitup, spread it, kick). However when it came time to score tries, Carney was far and away our go to man, taking over the side once we were in attacking position and also demanding the ball whenever he saw an opportunity in the defensive line regardless of where we were on the field.

Pearce has none of this attacking instinct or ability to read the defence, and neither does Friend. This is painfully obvious to anyone who watches them play, and is why our attack is so impotent when they are the driving force of our side. Pearce has the ability to follow a great player's lead, which is why he looked brilliant inside Carney and actually looks half decent when a hooker with some attacking nous like Mitchell is on the field, but thats it. He's never going to be the Andrew Johns style leader that people seem to think he is destined for, and the club seems to believe he already is.

[stsae]

As I said, I can dig up similar quotes by Freddy declaring that he was taking a backseat to Finch in 2003-4 as well. Only an idiot would actually believe that as true.

Pearce handled the ball more than Carney, and he indeed was the one charged with keeping the basic game plan in check (DH run, hitup, hitup, spread it, kick). However when it came time to score tries, Carney was far and away our go to man, taking over the side once we were in attacking position and also demanding the ball whenever he saw an opportunity in the defensive line regardless of where we were on the field.

Pearce has none of this attacking instinct or ability to read the defence, and neither does Friend. This is painfully obvious to anyone who watches them play, and is why our attack is so impotent when they are the driving force of our side. Pearce has the ability to follow a great player's lead, which is why he looked brilliant inside Carney and actually looks half decent when a hooker with some attacking nous like Mitchell is on the field, but thats it. He's never going to be the Andrew Johns style leader that people seem to think he is destined for, and the club seems to believe he already is.

So where did I say Pearce is anything but that???

All I've said is Pearce and Friend will go well again, IMO of course, with OPTIONS from 6 at least and 1.

It's all about OPTIONS. At the moment we have one side of the field to go to, as I've stated a billion times. Blaming our ONLY attacking OPTION is just stoopid and shows how little idea many posters actually have. After all defences know what we are gonna do mostly before we are able to do it. That causes Pearce and Friendly to play what's not natural to them. That's why they will always look better with OPTIONS.

I thought I'd made that quite clear repeatedy??? Pearce is our organizer. Carntey ran the ball very well and played off the cuff. Hopefully Baloney can do something similar next season. What I'd give to have a Hayne style FB aswell, dang we could do anything with a setup like that. Friendly could then just hit playmakerS and when all the defence rushes up on those playmakerS, bang he goes up the high diddle diddle.

So do we sorta agree now??? Cos that's how it feel to me, sorta???

BTW Freddo did allow Funch to run the side. He just stepped in when we needed that play to blow the game open. With Ping Freddo ran the side around, Pingy was very Carntey like, instinctive running game, like I've always said to you. I can't for the life of me see what Carntey would have to gain by saying he wasn't the chief organizer in 2010???

[Guest]

But I'm told that Pearce organised our attack in 2010. So if that were the case, then our attack would still look the same given Pearce is still in the side.

Obviously it doesn't, and obviously he wasn't. Pearce may have have the "3 hitups, then give it to carney" game plan to maintain, but Carney still clearly ran our attack. He was not making it up as he went along, he had set rehearsed plays worked out with every member of our backline and backrow and then ran those plays based on what he saw in front of him.

Besides Maubs and SKD its painfully apparent that no one else in the side has much of a clue how to position themselves in attack so someone must have been telling them, and given how impotent our attack is I think its quite clear who that was.

Players play the way the coach tells them too.

Our attack looks different because Smith thinks he's found some new ingenious approach to footy.

Your point about MAubs and SKD is not a good one, because Pearce actually organises most of what they do. It is the only area of the field we have any plan in our attack and it is Pearce's best area in attack... what does that tell you?

Pearce is a player who is good with a well structured, planned attack. He would thrive at a club like St. George, or under Bennett.

Because our coach seems content to hope someone farts out something worthwhile, he suffers.

Also, surely it'd be tough to be a halfback in a team where, as you say, none of the players have any idea how to position themselves in attack? I know that is partially Pearce's job, but if the other's haven't got a clue, Braith is less than useless and Friend can't make decisions in attack to save himself, do you really expect Pearce to be able to do it all the time, entirely on his own?

Whose gonna hit that final pass and run 1/2 the field to score???

That was Carnteys thang, it's also Baloneys thang.

Mini hasn't gone thru a genuine hole for 7 yrs now. I know he tries just lacks the pace to do the deed anymore.

There's no one else I can see to play that way in our team.

You know I remember back in the day when Smiff was criticized for being too structured, stifling players natural games, using the old schoolteacher excuse to back this observation up.

Now it's the opposite view of many here. All taken from a few throw away lines taken out of context from a few ex-players. And of course a few pushing a massive agenda.

Perhaps they won't run the field to score, but we'd still make a linebreak. I'd back SKiDsy to find the line, if he can catch the bloody ball. Just because we don't have Carney doesn't mean we shouldn't run the play that regularly put him in holes.

Perhaps you remember those days... I never criticised him for being too structured, so I'll let that one through to the keeper. As for it being based on a few throw away lines... I base my opinion of Smith entirely on what goes on, on the field. Even in the games we have won (except perhaps the Warriors game), we look disorganised in attack, as though we are relying entirely on luck or a bit of individual brilliance (a quantity we do not have in abundance at the moment).

I'm not sure what you mean by "agenda." I don't think there are posters on here that would bag Smith if we were playing to the best of our ability. Perhaps some overestimate that "best," but everyone on here (barring some of the fake accounts and that one-week-wonder Cowboy) wants Easts to win. Some (and I am one of them) just think that at this point, Smith is inhibiting that rather than helping it. That is not an agenda mate, that's having an opinion and supporting the club.

[Guest]

As I said, I can dig up similar quotes by Freddy declaring that he was taking a backseat to Finch in 2003-4 as well. Only an idiot would actually believe that as true.

Pearce handled the ball more than Carney, and he indeed was the one charged with keeping the basic game plan in check (DH run, hitup, hitup, spread it, kick). However when it came time to score tries, Carney was far and away our go to man, taking over the side once we were in attacking position and also demanding the ball whenever he saw an opportunity in the defensive line regardless of where we were on the field.

Pearce has none of this attacking instinct or ability to read the defence, and neither does Friend. This is painfully obvious to anyone who watches them play, and is why our attack is so impotent when they are the driving force of our side. Pearce has the ability to follow a great player's lead, which is why he looked brilliant inside Carney and actually looks half decent when a hooker with some attacking nous like Mitchell is on the field, but thats it. He's never going to be the Andrew Johns style leader that people seem to think he is destined for, and the club seems to believe he already is.

Pearce stats were impressive that yr for a halfback that apparent'y was being carried by carney

Scored 9 tries most out of any halfback, 3rd in line breaks, 2nd in line break assists, 3rd in line try assists, 4th in tackle breaks, 5th in tackles made 382, top kick returns 1st,

[Guest]

Pearce stats were impressive that yr for a halfback that apparent'y was being carried by carney

Scored 9 tries most out of any halfback, 3rd in line breaks, 2nd in line break assists, 3rd in line try assists, 4th in tackle breaks, 5th in tackles made 382, top kick returns 1st,

I would say that would have been due to Toddy taking the load off his shoulders. The rotting wood that inhabits the 5/8th spot now means Pearce has to do everything. Except for the occasional dud pass over the sideline or kick out on the full.

[Pass the Ball]

Pearce stats were impressive that yr for a halfback that apparent'y was being carried by carney

Scored 9 tries most out of any halfback, 3rd in line breaks, 2nd in line break assists, 3rd in line try assists, 4th in tackle breaks, 5th in tackles made 382, top kick returns 1st,

That's because our opponents were trying to stop Carney, so Pearce had so much more room and time...

Again, it comes back to Pearce being carried by Carney in 2010..

[chook 56]

I would say that would have been due to Toddy taking the load off his shoulders. The rotting wood that inhabits the 5/8th spot now means Pearce has to do everything. Except for the occasional dud pass over the sideline or kick out on the full.

On a side note....has Braith been instructed to teach these skills before he goes to the Tigs?

[Guest]

That's because our opponents were trying to stop Carney, so Pearce had so much more room and time...

Again, it comes back to Pearce being carried by Carney in 2010..

Is carney an organiser? NO

If pearce couldn't organise, carney would be ineffective too right?

That goes back to Danish point of carney scoring, yes Pearce allowed carney to do that. Pearce took the load of him to work on his running game. Carney came in when he wanted and when he needed to and the damage was done.

Hence why they complimented each other perfectly, stop with the bullshit of Peare being carried by him.

[Guest]

That's because our opponents were trying to stop Carney, so Pearce had so much more room and time...

Again, it comes back to Pearce being carried by Carney in 2010..

This is ridiculous logic.

When teams play the Cowboys, they focus a lot on Thurston. Why then don't his halves partners kill it?

When teams play Melbourne, they focus a lot on Slater (and previously Inglis). Why then can't we say Cronk's good stats are just him being carried by Slater?

We seem to be willing and eager to criticise our own and bemoan that they aren't as good as others, but we won't apply the same standards and criticisms to said others.

Twist it whatever way you want, the statistics do not lie, Pearce had a very good year in 2010, irrespective of Carney.

[Guest]

On a side note....has Braith been instructed to teach these skills before he goes to the Tigs?

I see him in a Master Kan role, imparting how to be a decent man but an absolutely terrible footballer.



See the resemblance.

[Guest]

As I said, I can dig up similar quotes by Freddy declaring that he was taking a backseat to Finch in 2003-4 as well. Only an idiot would actually believe that as true.

Pearce handled the ball more than Carney, and he indeed was the one charged with keeping the basic game plan in check (DH run, hitup, hitup, spread it, kick). However when it came time to score tries, Carney was far and away our go to man, taking over the side once we were in attacking position and also demanding the ball whenever he saw an opportunity in the defensive line regardless of where we were on the field.

Pearce has none of this attacking instinct or ability to read the defence, and neither does Friend. This is painfully obvious to anyone who watches them play, and is why our attack is so impotent when they are the driving force of our side. Pearce has the ability to follow a great player's lead, which is why he looked brilliant inside Carney and actually looks half decent when a hooker with some attacking nous like Mitchell is on the field, but thats it. He's never going to be the Andrew Johns style leader that people seem to think he is destined for, and the club seems to believe he already is.

Carneys old news get over it already.