Ben Hunt vs Ash Taylor

[Porthoz]

This is complete bullshit. I have not seen one person that constantly has a go at Hunt that has mentioned any flaw of Taylor's. You yourself have never commented on his flaws.

I know being a Hunt fan isn't what the cool people do anymore, but at least do us a favour and don't outright lie.

Maybe you should start by reading and comprehending what people write, not pick only the part you can use to have a go at a poster, which you do seem to excel at.

I said "I don't think anyone DENIES Taylor's flaws". It would mean someone would actually have had to outright say that he doesn't have flaws, or argue against the flaws pointed at him. You know, like the Hunt apologists who keep trying to pretend his kicking game is fine, or that he knows how to control a game, and his 5th tackles options are great too.

If you're gonna accuse me of lying, be ready to provide evidence, and show me where I DENIED Taylor's flaws.

Funny that in the same post you nitpicked, you ignored and edited out the part where I say that I think Hunt is a better player than Taylor overal at this stage. Surely that infers Taylor has flaws, because despite Hunt's flaws, I think he is better than Ash, no?

I am a fan of Taylor, have been for many years, well before it was what the thing cool people do... whatever that means. Yet, I have continuously tried to give a balanced opinion of both players, like this one:

Taylor is faster, has a much better kicking game, and is a better organiser.
Their passing game is probably on par, while Hunt's running game and defense are better, and he of course has the runs on the board, which should not be underestimated.

I have plenty more where this came from, unlike you...
I don't recall you ever actually providing a balanced view of what you think of both players, unless I missed it amongst the plethora of knocks / sarcastic jabs at Taylor and/or anyone in his camp. (Please deny you do that, or better yet, ask me to prove it!)


Queue the "I'm just sick of the Hunt bashing" standard response.

 

[I bleed Maroon]

Hunt's performance against Parra shows that his problem isn't talent, he's got plenty of that, it's consistency under pressure. When our forwards aren't winning the battle, he goes to water. That is what has to be changed but it's needed changing for a long time, and no coach so far whether it be Griffin or Bennett has been able to get him playing like that week after week.

 

[Super Freak]

Hunt's performance against Parra shows that his problem isn't talent, he's got plenty of that, it's consistency under pressure. When our forwards aren't winning the battle, he goes to water. That is what has to be changed but it's needed changing for a long time, and no coach so far whether it be Griffin or Bennett has been able to get him playing like that week after week.

You could say that about any half to be honest.

Johnathan Thurston in the finals last year..

Of course these are areas Ben Hunt needs to work on, but people also have to remember he is still a developing halfback. He didn't have the benefit of developing his game as a halfback like every other halfback in the comp.

I couldn't give a shit that he is 26, you don't stop improving just because you're 26.

 

[Super Freak]

That's one of the most laughably incorrect things I've ever read on this forum.

In your mind, Hunt missing multiple field goals and putting several grubbers into players legs and then thinking to himself "Shit, I'm really bad at kicking footballs, maybe I should just run it" is him adapting to the situation?

:lol:

Yeah it is.

Because adapt means change.

He saw the field goals weren't working, so he changed his tactics and ran the ball instead.

Last time I checked, that's the definition of adapt.

As for your first line.. I think your comments about James Roberts in the off-season would qualify as the most laughably incorrect thing. How well is he going?

I tried to warn you about his flaws, you wouldn't listen...

Now I couldn't give a flying **** what Taylor does in the early stages of the game, but when it comes to the clutch moments, it's the same old shit from him. He doesn't adapt. Just like he didn't adapt against the Sharks despite the opportunities being there.

That is not going to win us a premiership in the window we have.

Let me give you another example. Titans vs Dragons earlier in the year.

Dragons took the lead and Titans needed their halves to step up to deliver them the win. What did Taylor do? High bomb to the wingers every single fucking time and every single time the Dragons covered it easily. He didn't change his tactics. He didn't look for a repeat set, he didn't kick for field position, he didn't run the ball. He just kept putting up high bombs. It was Roberts that got them back in the game and can you guess what he did? He saw the weakness in the Dragons defense and ran the ball.

Taylor has a higher ceiling, but he isn't anywhere near reaching it and he won't reach it for a few years.

My point is, at this moment, Hunt is our best chance of winning a premiership in the window we have. Taylor is not. We'll be back to square one bringing Taylor back. It will take time for him to adjust to our style of play and to gel with the players around him.

 

[Super Freak]

Please don't embarrass yourself. Bombs are the only attacking kick Hunt is consistently capable of, Taylor is capable of delivering a plethora of 5th tackle options, and his kicking variety and accuracy is daylight ahead of Hunt's.

Oh come on Porthoz.

I'm just having a dig at you for your comments about Taylor's kicking game against the Storm last year despite the fact it was exactly the same as Hunt's.

I'm quite aware Taylor's kicking is better than Hunt's.

But I do have to admit, not once have you said you were wrong about saying Hunt's short kicking is shit when it's resulted in more tries than Cronk's.

I haven't bothered going back to watch all of the footage and see if it's resulted in more tries than Thurston's.. But my guess it hasn't.

 

[Unbreakable]

As for your first line.. I think your comments about James Roberts in the off-season would qualify as the most laughably incorrect thing. How well is he going?

I tried to warn you about his flaws, you wouldn't listen...

Purely because I'm curious, what are you referring to here? I don't remember saying that much about him, only that he's extremely good at scoring tries, I think he's already proven that theory correct this year, despite Hunt being incapable of hitting him on the chest very often.

 

[Porthoz]

Oh come on Porthoz.

I'm just having a dig at you for your comments about Taylor's kicking game against the Storm last year despite the fact it was exactly the same as Hunt's.

I'm quite aware Taylor's kicking is better than Hunt's.

But I do have to admit, not once have you said you were wrong about saying Hunt's short kicking is shit when it's resulted in more tries than Cronk's.

I haven't bothered going back to watch all of the footage and see if it's resulted in more tries than Thurston's.. But my guess it hasn't.

You can try to paint it over with all the stats you want, but Hunt's short kicking is well below average. He can't get a grubber in the ingoal, he can't place a cross kick unless by accident, and the only relatively efficient kick he has in the last 30, is the bomb. But even those are generally not too hard to catch by the opposition, because more often than not, they're shallow.
It is also true that our kick chase hasn't been too flash of late (except last week), so that doesn't help him.

 

[ZTop]

Hasn't Anthony Milford scored off some Ben Hunt grubber kicks that were kicked into the in goal

 

[Cult]

Hasn't Anthony Milford scored off some Ben Hunt grubber kicks that were kicked into the in goal

A few times from what I remember.

 

[Morkel]

When was it decided that Ben Hunt is not a halfback? Just because he has a decent, if erratic, running game, doesn't mean he is automatically a five-eighth. Does that make Thurston a #6? He can play #6, but it doesn't rule him out of being a halfback. I understand that having no running game (Robson, Wallace, Townsend) means you're likely stuck at halfback, but being able to put on some footwork or having a touch of speed doesn't rule you out of it. To say that Hunt & Milford are too similar simply because they both have the ability to run the ball is just a convenient way of making Hunt surplus to requirements.

Back to Thurston again, he struggled without Granville there moving the team around and tiring out defenders. Does that mean he's not an organiser now? Should he be stripped of his halfback eligibility? Or do we look further and see that the forwards looked buggered and therefore Thurston wasn't able to use them to his advantage?

Hunt can organise - his 2014 alone proved that. With zero help from Hoffman or Barba he was able to win us some tough games and lead us to on overall positive season considering our deficiencies. 2015 cemented it. Of course he isn't perfect. But take $2 million worth of the most experienced players out of any team and of course any areas that are lacking are going to be exposed.

Hunt is a halfback that just so happens to have a decent running game as well, let's not turn a fantastic positive in to something that we can hang him with.

 

[FaceOfMutiny]

Did anyone notice how Hunt's bombs actually suddenly look like a good option when they actually have a chaser or 2 ?

 

[holdzy]

Did anyone notice how Hunt's bombs actually suddenly look like a good option when they actually have a chaser or 2 ?

Still a few useless ones in there as well. But he actually put a few good ones in for territory, well aimed and weighted. It's hit and miss with Hunt. More hit than miss is good enough if he makes up for it with the other aspects of his game, as he did against the Eels.

 

[Porthoz]

When was it decided that Ben Hunt is not a halfback? Just because he has a decent, if erratic, running game, doesn't mean he is automatically a five-eighth. Does that make Thurston a #6? He can play #6, but it doesn't rule him out of being a halfback. I understand that having no running game (Robson, Wallace, Townsend) means you're likely stuck at halfback, but being able to put on some footwork or having a touch of speed doesn't rule you out of it. To say that Hunt & Milford are too similar simply because they both have the ability to run the ball is just a convenient way of making Hunt surplus to requirements.

Back to Thurston again, he struggled without Granville there moving the team around and tiring out defenders. Does that mean he's not an organiser now? Should he be stripped of his halfback eligibility? Or do we look further and see that the forwards looked buggered and therefore Thurston wasn't able to use them to his advantage?

Hunt can organise - his 2014 alone proved that. With zero help from Hoffman or Barba he was able to win us some tough games and lead us to on overall positive season considering our deficiencies. 2015 cemented it. Of course he isn't perfect. But take $2 million worth of the most experienced players out of any team and of course any areas that are lacking are going to be exposed.

Hunt is a halfback that just so happens to have a decent running game as well, let's not turn a fantastic positive in to something that we can hang him with.

No, it's not because he has an excellent running game and vision that people consider him more of a 5/8, it's because of what he doesn't have.
No, he is not an organiser, he has a lot of trouble controlling a game, more often than not takes the wrong option on the 5th tackle, and his attacking kicking is the worst of any halfback in the comp. Can you say the same for Thurston?

 

[Morkel]

No, it's not because he has an excellent running game and vision that people consider him more of a 5/8, it's because of what he doesn't have.
No, he is not an organiser, he has a lot of trouble controlling a game, more often than not takes the wrong option on the 5th tackle, and his attacking kicking is the worst of any halfback in the comp. Can you say the same for Thurston?

What can't Hunt "organise"? What makes an organiser? I'd actually like to know what people's opinions are on this? Are you talking about moving the forwards around for field position? That would be shared between the halfback and the hooker I would argue, and yes, we often lack field position, but that's arguably down to our defence conceding metres, not necessarily ours being unable to. Is it scoring points once we have field position? Because I would dare say we're at the top of the tree when it comes to points scored vs number of plays in the opposition 20. We seem to make the most of the field position we have. Or lastly, are you talking about organising the last tackle plays? Overall yes, this is where his weakness is, being kick selection, kick vs run options, etc. But again, with a healthy pack (which is what has been afforded teams like the Cowboys, the Sharks, the Dogs, the Storm), that side of his game looked much better.

Thurston, being the dominant half, the organiser, arguably the best go-to player in the world when it comes to scoring points, was not able to drag his side back from 3 tries down with half an hour to go against the team running second last. The one try that was scored was via Michael Morgan to a back-rower, hardly enterprising stuff. Simply because the Cowboys were fatigued and were missing their hooker. We've been missing the majority of our starting forward pack for the duration of our slump, but the moment we get close to a full squad we're 2 for 2 and Hunt has looked very comfortable. What we have here is an agenda-driven scapegoat.

This thread wouldn't even exist had we not been so fucked over with injuries and had Big Pete not decided to (by his own admission) prematurely force the point because of a known agenda out there.

 

[Porthoz]

What can't Hunt "organise"? What makes an organiser? I'd actually like to know what people's opinions are on this? Are you talking about moving the forwards around for field position? That would be shared between the halfback and the hooker I would argue, and yes, we often lack field position, but that's arguably down to our defence conceding metres, not necessarily ours being unable to. Is it scoring points once we have field position? Because I would dare say we're at the top of the tree when it comes to points scored vs number of plays in the opposition 20. We seem to make the most of the field position we have. Or lastly, are you talking about organising the last tackle plays? Overall yes, this is where his weakness is, being kick selection, kick vs run options, etc. But again, with a healthy pack (which is what has been afforded teams like the Cowboys, the Sharks, the Dogs, the Storm), that side of his game looked much better.

Thurston, being the dominant half, the organiser, arguably the best go-to player in the world when it comes to scoring points, was not able to drag his side back from 3 tries down with half an hour to go against the team running second last. The one try that was scored was via Michael Morgan to a back-rower, hardly enterprising stuff. Simply because the Cowboys were fatigued and were missing their hooker. We've been missing the majority of our starting forward pack for the duration of our slump, but the moment we get close to a full squad we're 2 for 2 and Hunt has looked very comfortable. What we have here is an agenda-driven scapegoat.

This thread wouldn't even exist had we not been so fucked over with injuries and had Big Pete not decided to (by his own admission) prematurely force the point because of a known agenda out there.

You're trying to make your point based on Thurston's failure to achieve something once, that he has otherwise done many, many times.
You're brushing aside Hunt's glaring deficiencies by emphasising what he does well, ignoring the fact that one of, if not the most important job of an halfback, is doing what his weakness is.

Moving the forward pack around for field position is not so much the halfback's as the hooker's job, and Macca has been (justifiably) crucified for failing to do it here quite a few times, without people getting up in arms about it... at least not like Hunt.

It's not when we're going well or against weaker adversaries that Hunt's weakness comes to the fore, but when we need to apply pressure against a tough opponent, earning repeat sets, making them work hard to come out of their ingoal by kicking into the corners, varying our 5th tackle options to keep them guessing and get some holes opened in their defense, etc...
That is the job of a halfback, and as you said... his weakness. That wouldn't be so much of a problem if we had someone else in the team capable of doing is, but we don't.

 

[Stix]

Since Hunt was given the 7 has his kicking not improved? I can think back and remember his kicking to be a lot worse than what we've seen this season. I reckon he's worked his guts out improving that area of his game and it's still improving.

 

[Nashy]

Since Hunt was given the 7 has his kicking not improved? I can think back and remember his kicking to be a lot worse than what we've seen this season. I reckon he's worked his guts out improving that area of his game and it's still improving.

I'm happy about that too. But how long do we give him?

 

[Foordy]

I'm happy about that too. But how long do we give him?

until a better option becomes available ... and right now as of 6:47pm on 15th August 2016 ... Ashley Taylor is not the better option.

that will likely change in the future... but not for several years IMO