Round 12 Write Up

Would I be correct in saying that the Broncos have the most experienced team all up?

Honeysett wrote:Would I be correct in saying that the Broncos have the most experienced team all up?

So basically, if you have the most experienced players, you should win all your games?

Somebody like George Rose has played 150 odd games. Are we actually saying George Rose (For example) is a better player than Dylan Napa (For example) simply because he has played more games?

Finch wrote:

So basically, if you have the most experienced players, you should win all your games?

Somebody like George Rose has played 150 odd games. Are we actually saying George Rose (For example) is a better player than Dylan Napa (For example) simply because he has played more games?

You might want to watch a game every now and then because George Rose no longer plays in the NRL.

surmo13 wrote:

not even the most hardcore of broncos fans would pretend milf/roberts/hunt/mccullough/mcguire/gillett are comparable to slater/chambers/cronk/smith/brom/harris in total ability or pay, but sure, whatever gets you to sleep, snuggled up in your blanket safe in the knowledge that those dastardly broncos are a bunch of cheating cheaters.

You missed my point.

My point was, if they were on a level playing field, without the TPA advantages that they have - like pretty much all the other teams in the league, they could still build an excellent team following melbournes lead.

2 Oates
3 Roberts
6 Milford
7 Hunt
9 Macca
11 Gillet
10 Maguire

They are all top tier players - then you have a few good but not great blokes like Kahu, reed, Blair - mixed with a few journeymen

Its still close to the best side on paper in the comp.

Finch wrote:

So basically, if you have the most experienced players, you should win all your games?

Somebody like George Rose has played 150 odd games. Are we actually saying George Rose (For example) is a better player than Dylan Napa (For example) simply because he has played more games?

That was going to be my point, it will help for sure but it's experience doesn't beat talent.

Also - The NRL wants refs to be taken seriously and stuff... so why the FUCK is Gould calling Matt Checcin "Chicken Legs Checcin" on the broadcast. Its fucking embarrassing hey. Imagine if they interviewed one of the refs after the game and he referred to gould as "Fat Guts Gould" or something.

Its just so amateur

Who watches channel 9.

Havent watched a game this year listening to those muppets.

Pieman wrote:Also - The NRL wants refs to be taken seriously and stuff... so why the FUCK is Gould calling Matt Checcin "Chicken Legs Checcin" on the broadcast. Its fucking embarrassing hey. Imagine if they interviewed one of the refs after the game and he referred to gould as "Fat Guts Gould" or something.

Its just so amateur

I love fox having all games now. What make Gould so stupid is the fact Checcin will have Panthers games in future.

Well that sucked. We copped some very poor ref decisions (that's how it looked at the ground anyway, my opinion might change when I watch the replay), that probably cost us in the end, but realistically we didn't deserve to win and played poorly (though I would have quite happily taken an undeserving win). I mentioned to my mate that I was we glad we were playing the Tigers because if we were playing a better team we would really have been pumped.

Still safely in the top 4, but to be honest 8-4 with a reasonably soft draw so far is not as good as our play has generally suggested. We still need to push ahead in the second half of the year if we want a top 2 position.

Also Brooks and Moses are woeful. So many kicks dead in the first half. Can't believe early in the season rumour was Moses was gunning for $800k. Can't tackle, can't kick, only plays well in broken play.

I also can't believe Ceccin is considered by the establishment to be a decent ref.

The Tigers were putting up bombs every set of 6 from the attacking half, and we were kicking from 40 out from our own line every set. Our backs weren't crisp enough, which is surprising given Kahu has a similar style to Boyd, and our halves and centres were unchanged. Eden gets pushed back 5 metres every time he gets tackled. Those are the real reasons we lost. Just not good enough. A game we should have won. Tigers missing Farah, Woods and Tedesco probably adversely affects them as much as our 6 outs.

Im certain the Tigers are better without Farah, his style of play puts the halves under pressure which they dont cope well with.

Halatau and Ballin just pass the ball and gives them time to do something with it.

B/L wrote:Im certain the Tigers are better without Farah, his style of play puts the halves under pressure which they dont cope well with.

Halatau and Ballin just pass the ball and gives them time to do something with it.

Yeah plus they get the ball when they call for it from the other 2.
Farah is not there to over rule them and do a run around with woods for no reason.

Brooks and moses are worth about 250 each at this stage in their careers..... If that..
They are on par with guys like Luke Walsh and Scott Dureau - actually i would even say Walsh is better than them both

Pieman wrote:Also - The NRL wants refs to be taken seriously and stuff... so why the FUCK is Gould calling Matt Checcin "Chicken Legs Checcin" on the broadcast. Its fucking embarrassing hey. Imagine if they interviewed one of the refs after the game and he referred to gould as "Fat Guts Gould" or something.

Its just so amateur

Because Gould calling him "shirt lifter" is inappropriate and Chechin referring to Phil Gould as "chins" is frowned upon too. Refer to the lack of last year's fantasy winner being named by their monika.

Your Name wrote:

Pieman wrote:Also - The NRL wants refs to be taken seriously and stuff... so why the FUCK is Gould calling Matt Checcin "Chicken Legs Checcin" on the broadcast. Its fucking embarrassing hey. Imagine if they interviewed one of the refs after the game and he referred to gould as "Fat Guts Gould" or something.

Its just so amateur

Because Gould calling him "shirt lifter" is inappropriate and Chechin referring to Phil Gould as "chins" is frowned upon too. Refer to the lack of last year's fantasy winner being named by their monika.

I thought about these 2 posters as well when I was reading the OP

Your Name wrote:

Because Gould calling him "shirt lifter" is inappropriate and Chechin referring to Phil Gould as "chins" is frowned upon too. Refer to the lack of last year's fantasy winner being named by their monika.

Did they not call him by his name when he won? What did they call him PGC?

I have no idea what u guys are talking about

Cowboys Vs Dragons tonight

Who has the most experience? They should win.

Pieman wrote:I have no idea what u guys are talking about

Fantasy.

But you'd remember Chechinisashirtlifter wouldn't you? One of your old sparring partners alts.

It's a pretty interesting topic hey...

I think it would be more like - the team with the least experience would be more likely to lose - not necessarily the team with the most experience would be more likely to win.

Experience in some cases would be an generally indicator that a player has been healthy and is older - but generally would not have much impact on how good a player is. Even though you would assume that someone who has more experience would be better at certain things.

Interesting concept!

SI wrote:

Fantasy.

But you'd remember Chechinisashirtlifter wouldn't you?  One of your old sparring partners alts.

ahhhhh yeah ...