NEWS Badel: Boyd never considered quitting

[ostin86]

My comment is more around people floating ideas of moving this player here and that player there so that a position can be found for Boyd.

Given how poorly he has performed over the last 18 months, I personally think it’s ludicrous to think that’s even a possibility.

You’re probably right about directing the ire at Seibold though, in a perfect world he is the one responsible for selecting players.

But for my own reasons, which I will not divulge on here, I do believe he is hamstring as to how much freedom he truly has with selections.

100% it is Ludicrous that we are still trying to find a spot for Boyd in the side. To me it comes across as fairly pathetic and just all round weak decision making from our club.

 

[WASSHHH]

Any person of substance would walk away from a job where he is either a puppet or being restricted by others not allowing him to do the job to the best of his ability. I dont believe its the case with Seibold personally. It could cost him his job and nobody with any brains would take the risk of ruining their reputation by taking a job under those circumstances. Its not like if we sack him he can complain about it if thats the terms he has been willing to work under.

That’s all good and well to say, but most people have considerations and factors that far outweigh what their bosses want them to do or instruct them to do / not do that keep them in their job.

Indeed, I don’t think it would be unfair to say that the majority of people will tolerate an amount of shit in their job that is directly proportional to their pay packet, not because they want to, but simply because they are in a position where they have to.

In fact, I reckon you’d be hard pressed to find many people who were genuinely willing to walk away from a substantial 6 figure salary within the first or second year of their five year contract just because they weren’t 100% happy with their job. I believe most people would be willing to ride out the storm and see if things get better before they simply jump overboard because they weren’t getting everything their way.

Of course some people will say they would and even less would actually do it, but they would be the absolute minority.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with Boyd.

You can believe what you want about Boyd, and Seibold for that matter, and I’ll do the same. Chances are, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

[Wolfie]

You’re suggesting we ignore the form over the previous 18 months of a player that has a recent history of serious injuries and will be 33 before the 2020 season is over?

Please be honest and tell me; does that point to a player on the cusp of a career resurgence? If so, name one player that has got to the pointy end of their career, been riddled with injury, performed very poorly for more than an entire season and then come out and turned it all around?

I do agree though, your point is worth considering if we were discussing a player in the early to middle point of their career with no history of injuries who simply had a poor final 10 or so rounds of the season. But Boyd is not that player, not even close.

As for your remark about training. Like I said in my previous post, Boyd (and Macca) have had the last 18 months (12 for Macca) to prove what they have to offer and they’ve done exactly that - what they offer is nothing.

I personally think it’s time to move on and give someone else the same amount of latitude to prove what they can do, not persist with the same old garbage.

After all, as someone much wiser than me said, the very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

But, if I am proven wrong, please do remind me of this discussion, as I will be happy to acknowledge that I was wrong.

We dont ignore the last 18 months, but we dont judge 2020 on the last 18 months either, we judge 2020 on what happens in 2020. You dont have a clue, i dont have a clue, nobody has a clue if Boyd will have any kind of resurgence or not, as i said, we need to wait and see. If he ( and lets make it clear, not just scapegoat one player here, apply it to the whole squad ) doesnt perform, then if the coach has anything about him, he will drop them.

Benji Marshall lost his way pretty badly for example and turned it around very successfully. In other sports, i can think of the likes of Dennis Berkamp, Andre Aggasi, Tiger Woods, Monica Seles. They all came through injury or adversity and achieved great things.

 

[Wolfie]

That’s all good and well to say, but most people have considerations and factors that far outweigh what their bosses want them to do or instruct them to do / not do that keep them in their job.

Indeed, I don’t think it would be unfair to say that the majority of people will tolerate an amount of shit in their job that is directly proportional to their pay packet, not because they want to, but simply because they are in a position where they have to.

In fact, I reckon you’d be hard pressed to find many people who were genuinely willing to walk away from a substantial 6 figure salary within the first or second year of their five year contract just because they weren’t 100% happy with their job. I believe most people would be willing to ride out the storm and see if things get better before they simply jump overboard because they weren’t getting everything their way.

Of course some people will say they would and even less would actually do it, but they would be the absolute minority.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with Boyd.

You can believe what you want about Boyd and Seibold for that matter and I’ll do the same. Chances are, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

The thing is though, Seibold didnt need the job at the Broncos. If there is any foul play afoot regarding Boyds selection ( which i think is tin foil hat territory to excuse the coaches failings ) then he could have quit early on, with his reputation intact and got another job easily. If he also knew he was coming into a job under those circumstances, then it also doesnt say a lot about him. He already had a job and would have got an upgraded contract if he stayed there, so he left to become a puppet. So the thing is, i doubt the money would have been an issue either way.

Myself, i actually walked from my last job because i wasn't allowed to do it correctly because of other factors, and when things werent going right i got the blame for it despite things being out of my control, so i left.

In regards to Boyd, i'm fairly confident he had somebody in his corner ( who wasnt the super coach ) in terms of his last contract, but not in terms of his selection.

 

[WASSHHH]

We dont ignore the last 18 months, but we dont judge 2020 on the last 18 months either, we judge 2020 on what happens in 2020. You dont have a clue, i dont have a clue, nobody has a clue if Boyd will have any kind of resurgence or not, as i said, we need to wait and see. If he ( and lets make it clear, not just scapegoat one player here, apply it to the whole squad ) doesnt perform, then if the coach has anything about him, he will drop them.

Benji Marshall lost his way pretty badly for example and turned it around very successfully. In other sports, i can think of the likes of Dennis Berkamp, Andre Aggasi, Tiger Woods, Monica Seles. They all came through injury or adversity and achieved great things.

I can’t comment on the soccer bloke as I don’t follow it, but what is clear from all those other examples is that they play individual, non-contact sports.

Benji Marshall is the bloke I actually thought of when I posted my comment and is a fair example.

But it’s also fair to say he’s still not even close to the same player he once was.

Anyway, I’m not trying to be cavalier. I honestly think Boyd is cooked and has nothing left to offer the team. But if I am wrong you can definitely remind me that I was.

What we do agree on is the team should consist of the best 17, I said as much at the very beginning of my original post.

I am not trying to scapegoat Boyd, but quite simply, he’s the worst performing player and has had more than enough opportunities to prove otherwise.

I’m not keeping the other conversation about Seibold going either. I’ve said my part and have nothing more to add.

 

[Big Pete]

By 18 months, is that total time elapsed or just the amount of time over the course of a typical Rugby League season (ie March - September).

It's either really generous or really harsh.

 

[Wolfie]

I can’t comment on the soccer bloke as I don’t follow it, but what is clear from all those other examples is that they play individual, non-contact sports.

Benji Marshall is the bloke I actually thought of when I posted my comment and is a fair example.

But it’s also fair to say he’s still not even close to the same player he once was.

Anyway, I’m not trying to be cavalier. I honestly think Boyd is cooked and has nothing left to offer the team. But if I am wrong you can definitely remind me that I was.

What we do agree on is the team should consist of the best 17, I said as much at the very beginning of my original post.

I am not trying to scapegoat Boyd, but quite simply, he’s the worst performing player and has had more than enough opportunities to prove otherwise.

I’m not keeping the other conversation about Seibold going either. I’ve said my part and have nothing more to add.

Tbf, even though tennis isnt a contact sport, its very hard on the body.

I just think its crazy to write any player off based on the past. Anyone under contract should get the same opportunities to show they can do the job. It starts with training, you perform in training, you earn a shot in the team. Once you get that shot, you have to take it. Everyone knows Boyd is a terrific trainer, so he is obviously going to get a shot in the trials. The big question is can a Farnworth or Coates or Arthars, or even Kahu match his training performances to start pushing for a place. As long as they can, they just need to be better than him in the trials. To me, its all down to the individual player from now on. I'd like to see some of the younger guys given a shot personally, but im also not bothered if its Boyd who gets a spot in the team as long as its deserved.

 

[Gaz]

My gut feeling, for what it’s worth, he’ll start the season at centre or on the wing and even retain the captaincy, but if he doesn’t aim up early we'll move on leaving him to reconsider his options.

 

[Wolfie]

My gut feeling, for what it’s worth, he’ll start the season at centre or on the wing and even retain the captaincy, but if he doesn’t aim up early we'll move on leaving him to reconsider his options.

I honestly think it would be madness to leave him as captain.

 

[Thelmus]

Tbf, even though tennis isnt a contact sport, its very hard on the body.

I just think its crazy to write any player off based on the past. Anyone under contract should get the same opportunities to show they can do the job. It starts with training, you perform in training, you earn a shot in the team. Once you get that shot, you have to take it. Everyone knows Boyd is a terrific trainer, so he is obviously going to get a shot in the trials. The big question is can a Farnworth or Coates or Arthars, or even Kahu match his training performances to start pushing for a place. As long as they can, they just need to be better than him in the trials. To me, its all down to the individual player from now on. I'd like to see some of the younger guys given a shot personally, but im also not bothered if its Boyd who gets a spot in the team as long as its deserved.

That's my view exactly. Why have trials if they represent nothing but a glorified training run. Sure the likes of Haas probably don't have to try too hard but surely the rest need to know where they stand going in to them, what they need to do and what needs to improve between now and round one.
That conversation should have already happened and I believe it did, at least with Boyd and mecca.

 

[WASSHHH]

By 18 months, is that total time elapsed or just the amount of time over the course of a typical Rugby League season (ie March - September).

It's either really generous or really harsh.

I meant 18 months as in calendar months - so yes, more on the generous side when you think about it.

Jokes and opinions aside, that’s pretty sad really.

 

[Big Pete]

I meant 18 months as in calendar months - so yes, more on the generous side when you think about it.

Pretty sad really.

I would add another 12 months, at least since he broke his hand in his final Origin game. He came back out of touch at the business end of the season only to destroy his hammy.

 

[Marty Deutschmann]

This whole mantra of "we cannot judge a player on what they've done as every year is a fresh start" is complete bullshit.

You don't pay the guy week to week a salary based on how well he played last week... Every game in your career matters and is marked against you for the life your career. Otherwise why sign players to big contracts or lure guys away for overs..

Everything a player does, every game, matters - always.

If you want to argue that all players are signed on potential and potential alone then you could never monetize their value. Everything has to be filtered through a calculative risk matrix.

You sign a guy to big money because he's proven himself to be something at some point in time whether that be in proven first grade or shown great signs in early development years to warrant locking down as a rookie (ponga or Haas). You are still signing them of what they've proven they can do.

So when accounting for the fact that contracts are established based on probability of "what they can achieve on field", we have to take the same in regards to selections. You have to always judge a player on what they've done and shown through their ability and virtues.

I'd say based on Boyd's previous form, loss of ability and compete lack of effort in games, he is at extremely high risk of causing future erosion to any fortified culture the coach gains in this here preseason. Having him anywhere near the best fit 17 is an assault on the club and the career trajectories of our young up and comers. He's an influence. And not a good one

 

[DigitalDaz]

Bennett came out last year (2019) and defended Boyd, saying he was a brilliant trainer and always prepared well.

So, it would follow, that last year's form cannot be put down to poor training attitude or preparation. I'm unaware of any personal issues that may have affected his form.

The only conclusion one came make is either Boyd's on-field attitude is due to his being paid overs (hey ... I get paid regardless of form and I am captain), or he has hit the early 30s, and he's slowed down.

Then of course, last year was the first year without Uncle Wayne - so all those planned moves where Boyd was the key probably scrapped. The coach preparing the team around his protege gone.

All these factors combined for the rapid decline and crap-fest we all watched last year. Bring on 2020 and look forward to Boyd starring in the ISC.

 

[Wolfie]

This whole mantra of "we cannot judge a player on what they've done as every year is a fresh start" is complete bullshit.

You don't pay the guy week to week a salary based on how well he played last week... Every game in your career matters and is marked against you for the life your career. Otherwise why sign players to big contracts or lure guys away for overs..

Everything a player does, every game, matters - always.

If you want to argue that all players are signed on potential and potential alone then you could never monetize their value. Everything has to be filtered through a calculative risk matrix.

You sign a guy to big money because he's proven himself to be something at some point in time whether that be in proven first grade or shown great signs in early development years to warrant locking down as a rookie (ponga or Haas). You are still signing them of what they've proven they can do.

So when accounting for the fact that contracts are established based on probability of "what they can achieve on field", we have to take the same in regards to selections. You have to always judge a player on what they've done and shown through their ability and virtues.

I'd say based on Boyd's previous form, loss of ability and compete lack of effort in games, he is at extremely high risk of causing future erosion to any fortified culture the coach gains in this here preseason. Having him anywhere near the best fit 17 is an assault on the club and the career trajectories of our young up and comers. He's an influence. And not a good one

Mate, thats rubbish. So are you telling me if Boyd is tearing it up, playing better than any other player on our books in the position we pick him in we should not bother with him because he hasnt been great on the last couple of years? Come on, that would just be idiotic. Its like i said before, you dont forget the form of 2019, but you dont base who you pick in 2020 from it either. If its a straight shot for example between Boyd and Herbie for a spot on the wing and Herbie is performing better, thats who you pick. Its not difficult, you pick the blokes who are performing. I said it earlier, but i have no preference who gets picked, i just want the bloke picked who deserves it. I dont really care about 2019 form now because it means nothing in 2020.

The thing is also, these up and comers you are going on about have to actually perform and take their chance. I dont think apart from our younger forwards and Turpin none of them have.

 

[Alec]

Every time someone says "mantra" I keep thinking of this

 

[WASSHHH]

Mate, thats rubbish. So are you telling me if Boyd is tearing it up, playing better than any other player on our books in the position we pick him in we should not bother with him because he hasnt been great on the last couple of years? Come on, that would just be idiotic. Its like i said before, you dont forget the form of 2019, but you dont base who you pick in 2020 from it either. If its a straight shot for example between Boyd and Herbie for a spot on the wing and Herbie is performing better, thats who you pick. Its not difficult, you pick the blokes who are performing. I said it earlier, but i have no preference who gets picked, i just want the bloke picked who deserves it. I dont really care about 2019 form now because it means nothing in 2020.

The thing is also, these up and comers you are going on about have to actually perform and take their chance. I dont think apart from our younger forwards and Turpin none of them have.

Given the contradiction above; does 2019 form count for anything or not?

More importantly, what constitutes enough opportunity for one of the young blokes to “actually perform and take their chance”?

It’s grossly unfair to think someone like Coates or Herbie are going to make themselves irreplaceable after 2 games whilst giving Boyd 30 odd rounds of chances and still coming up with donuts.

I’d wager if one of the young blokes got a solid string of a dozen or so games, they might actually prove themselves far more valuable to the team than a busted, non-performing Boyd.

After all, Boyd scored 11 tries across the last 3 seasons whilst Tedesco, for instance, scored 18 in 2019. Given that, it seems unlikely Boyd is going to miraculously become a try scoring weapon.

He has also never been a metre eater. So at almost 33 and with dodgy hamstrings and achilles, what else is he going to offer that one of the young blokes isn’t just as capable of offering?

 

[007]

Honestly hes cooked. Most of us have been around football long enough. We know unicorns don't exist, we know UFO's don't exist so why the hell are we thinking there will be a dramatic change in form? Its gone - cooked, done, roasted, over, finito, finale, Uber, faealah, yatta....adios amigo. Trials will prove this and the right decisions will be made.