Billy Slater vs Karmichael Hunt

[Jeba]

Darren Lockyer plays better when Karmichael Hunt is at fullback. So if Lockyer is the 5/8th for any rep team in the future, Hunt plays fullback.

I think everyone here realises that there is no much between the 2 players and both bring different things to any side but what pisses me off is how Frank gives Karmichael not a single ounce of credit for anything he has done.

 

[Bannermania]

Slater at an Origin level ftw.

Hunt at club ftw.

Can't split it.

 

[wally]

As has been expressed by other people... i seriously fear for Hunt's safety. It's to the point now where when i watch it on telli, even sometimes at games i cover my eyes when he's about to slam into them. I fear that one day something utterly gruesome is going to happen to him.

While running it hard and fast can pick up a couple extra metres it's bloody dangerous. I wonder if the guy is that thick skulled his brain isn't affected, or perhaps there isn't much to be harmed...


In terms of players... One is the typical electrifying speedy, agile fullback seen in most teams these days, has the ability to change the outcome of the game for better or for worse.
The other isn't as speedy or agile, is alot more bulked, can cover numerous positions, has some play making ability and has great communication skills that I do believe is the foundations of the broncos. THe Broncos and any team Hunt plays in tend to be affected when he is taken off the field or doesn't play a game. He's also the safest Fullback in the league under a ball, rarely makes an error or drops a bomb back there.

If the team is in need of a game breaker, Slater is the man. If your looking for someone more solid Hunt's the man.

 

[Coxy]

I think all K needs to do is develop a variation. Keep his hard running back, but throw in the ability to change direction slightly but keep running hard. Those defenders who set themselves to smash him will look stupid.

 

[mick]

For attacking flair - Slater.

For defence - Karmichael.

For speed - Slater.

For consistency - Karmichael.

For broken play - Slater.

For safety under the high ball - Karmichael.

For support play - Slater.

For versatility - Karmichael.

Different players. Nothing between them aside from the fact that, in my personal opinion, I'd rather have K at the Broncos than Slater.

 

[Coxy]

And the only reason Stu prefers Slater is that he feels a fullback should be fast, have attacking flair, be great from broken play and be great in support. Oh, and that they don't play for the Broncos or are Darren Lockyer pre 2004.

His preferences align better with Slater than Hunt, hence his opinion.

So, can we all please stop trying to ARGUE with him about it?

 

[rnabokov]

I think all K needs to do is develop a variation. Keep his hard running back, but throw in the ability to change direction slightly but keep running hard. Those defenders who set themselves to smash him will look stupid.

That I think is a key point. Maybe next year, K can do that and maybe share the returns with Folau.

 

[mick]

And the only reason Stu prefers Slater is that he feels a fullback should be fast, have attacking flair, be great from broken play and be great in support. Oh, and that they don't play for the Broncos or are Darren Lockyer pre 2004.

His preferences align better with Slater than Hunt, hence his opinion.

So, can we all please stop trying to ARGUE with him about it?

I personally don't argue with the fact that he thinks Slater is better. It's an opinion, and plenty of people agree with him.

I do, however, despise the fact that he basically calls Hunt rubbish. Sure, again, it's just an opinion - but in that case, there IS such a thing as a wrong opinion. That is, it gets to the point where it's so ridiculous that he almost finds it impossible to admit it when Hunt has done something good.

In fact... sounds quite like how someone around here acts when it comes to Rafael Nadal... eusa_think

[icon_wink

 

[Coxy]

LOL, touche Mr Mickle, touche! :P

 

[Coxy]

So Stu, are you prepared to go on the record now and say Hunt ISN'T rubbish/a nuffy/etc?

 

[Coxy]

Pretty sure early on this year you were saying all the hype about Hunt was ridiculous, that he was a nothing player, etc etc.

 

[Coxy]

It's interesting though, his fellow players (teammates and opponents), coaches (his and opponents) and commentators all rate him very highly. I know that doesn't make it fact, but you're certainly in the minority of people who think he's "not all that".

I sit somewhere in the middle, I think he's a very good player, but he's not in the class of a Lockyer, Thurston etc.
But then, people rave about Hodges and I don't think he's THAT good either.

 

[Coxy]

Yeah, Hodges is getting these wraps primarily on his late 2006/early 2007 form. He's been ordinary outside of that, apart from a stint in late 2002 when he played a significant role in the Roosters' premiership charge.

What I don't get about him is how they say he's the best defensive centre in the game. The display he put on against Parramatta - some pathetically weak arm grabs etc - makes that call an absolute utter joke!

 

[mick]

Agreed re: Hodges, but I think my opinion really differs from Frank when it comes to labelling "the best".

See, it's not right or wrong, but I think Frank and quite a few others point out that players like Hunt don't pull off remarkable feats every now and again to score points in a memorable way. I prefer those who play with consistency. I'd rather the likes of Hunt and Hodges, who contribute a 7.5/10 performance week-in week-out than those who go okay, ocassionally pulling a 10/10 show out of their hats.

However, on the Hodges issue, I think it highlights a coaching fault by Bellamy. If Inglis was playing in the centres for Melbourne each week, NO ONE would be labelling Hodges as the best centre in the game. Of that I am completely sure, Inglis is a FREAK who is wasted when not in the centres.

 

[Coxy]

Agreed Mick. But like other players at the Broncos, Bellamy is forced to play someone out of position for lack of a better option.

I'm relieved about that! :P

 

[Coxy]

Stu: it's about expectations. People EXPECT Bowen and Slater to pull off the remarkable play that breaks a game open. People don't expect that of Karmichael. They expect him to be tough, solid, safe.

So when he makes errors - as he did on Wednesday night, particularly the one early in the game in QLD's half - that's when people get a bit critical of him.

 

[Coxy]

Welcome to the realm of being a special type of player. Look at the criticism Lockyer gets when he plays average? Unlike Johns he never got the default "World's best player" even though Johns was decidedly average for the majority of his last 4 or 5 seasons.

Lockyer had the "world's best player" tag for about 5 minutes before they shipped it off to Thurston - undeservedly IMO - when Lockyer was injured.

The best, most freakish players people expect more from. That's just life.

 

[Coxy]

*insert big long winded argument about how best is different for different types of players and the need for a variety of players not just flashy attacking players blah blah...which ultimately falls on deaf ears and is argued nauseatingly back and forward until everyone just wants to stick forks in their eyes rather than read another diatribe*