Broncos stars knock back offer of rest

[jarro65]

I'm pretty certain i'd rather play the Sharks than the Cowboys or the Roosters first up in the finals.

Why .... because i think we're a better chance to beat them.

 

[Super Freak]

They were missing more than JWH in that first game. Friend and Ferguson, as well.

But I would much prefer the Sharks over anyone else. They will just be making up the numbers.

 

[Nashy]

Err, what ? They beat them twice each, you know Thurston blokes like that, teams one and three, they beat them with whoever plays for them. Really Nashy, it's pretty simple stuff, you search team lists etc, surprised you don't know how to look up stuff on the net.

Don't give me your condescending shit.

What were the rosters? You're telling the story, not me. I'm interested to know if they were beaten at full strength, or if they beat a side missing players through injury, origin or suspension.

Just because they beat them, doesn't mean a thing. The team they beat could have been missing 4 first graders for all we know. Hell, given you can't tell me, I would assume that you have no idea either, in which case, your argument could very well be invalid.

 

[Nashy]

Both times they beat the Roosters the Roosters were either at full strength or close to. Once without JWH and once with him in. Otherwise pretty much at full strength. Unsure about the Cows.

Updated: checked the Cows lineups, once without Thurston and once with him in. Other than that, pretty much their best teams both times.

That's a very good achievement for a shit team who will go no where in the finals.

 

[Socnorb]

One thing is for sure, after next week it a whole new ball game. I'll agree the sharks have been going well. Wouldn't mind seeing V. Holmes in a Broncos jersey.

 

[broncos4life]

EDIT: Flaming

 

[jarro65]

One thing is for sure, after next week it a whole new ball game. I'll agree the sharks have been going well. Wouldn't mind seeing V. Holmes in a Broncos jersey.

I'm just glad he's a Queenslander !!

 

[Morkel]

Struggling with that a little, not sure where the logic is located. I looks to me that it could be argued both ways. We couldn't beat the Cows twice or the Roosters twice either but Cronulla could so you could contend that Cronulla is a very tough team who as proven ,can beat anyone at anytime. That would mean they would be very hard to beat. We only met them once for a hard fought 8 point win.

I actually cited four teams, all of whom are top end teams and all of them beaten by Cronulla. Once again it shows that the Sharks are hard to beat and I actually think are going to be harder to beat in the semis. They are grinding out wins without the Fifitas and I don't really care what people's opinion of them is, they have been great in the second half of the season ( despite being a pair of knobheads ) I've seen Fifita, the good one ,win games almost singlehandedly and he and his brother will be back for the semis, owing the club and fans big time. I hope we don't run into the Sharks early. Much better the Cows with both their front rowers suffering neck injuries.

But alas, you do. That's why you're being so defensive?

At best they're a bogey team for a couple of contenders. Like the Raiders were for the Dragons when they were a proper force.

Of all of the teams potentially in the finals, the Cowboys, the Roosters, the Rabbitohs, the Bulldogs, even Manly or St George if they make it in - they've all beaten us this year. The Storm haven't, but will get another chance, and the Sharks haven't. If your reasoning is true, and that's that beating strong teams is a sign of a "very tough team", surely all of those I mentioned above are "tougher" than the Sharks since they've beat us?????

 

[gordjw]

As much as I dislike their current playing squad, I think they'll be tough to beat. I think any team in the top 6 can potentially win the comp. The Benjis and the Dogs are probably making up the numbers this year.

Nashy, if you want to cast aspersions about the quality of the Sharks opposition in the relevant rounds, that's up to you to find out. IMO.

 

[mieko]

I wouldn't mind seeing Parker having a week break, just to get a little breather and ready to roll for the semis. As someone else mentioned, looks like he's been held together by all that strapping tape. Plus Macca deserves a week off to recharge and come back firing, but of course the players and coach know best and their own bodies best so if they say they are good to go then I trust em and trust they are making the right decisions.

What's wrong with Reed? Is he injured or other situation?

 

[Huge]

But alas, you do. That's why you're being so defensive?

At best they're a bogey team for a couple of contenders. Like the Raiders were for the Dragons when they were a proper force.

Of all of the teams potentially in the finals, the Cowboys, the Roosters, the Rabbitohs, the Bulldogs, even Manly or St George if they make it in - they've all beaten us this year. The Storm haven't, but will get another chance, and the Sharks haven't. If your reasoning is true, and that's that beating strong teams is a sign of a "very tough team", surely all of those I mentioned above are "tougher" than the Sharks since they've beat us?????

The two toughest teams to beat and the first and second favourite for the gf victory are the Roosters and Cows respectively and both had two chances to beat the Sharks with neither able to do so. That's a better argument as it was both home and away. The Sharks were missing a superstar in Gallen at times too even travelling to Townsville without Gallen and still beating the Cows. The Sharks also only had the one chance against Souths and the Dogs, both times victorious.

My reasoning is that the Sharks were able to beat the two toughest teams both home and away and that makes them hard to beat. The additional fact that beating a strong team is a sign of a 'very tough team' is consequential.

 

[Socnorb]

The two toughest teams to beat and the first and second favourite for the gf victory are the Roosters and Cows respectively and both had two chances to beat the Sharks with neither able to do so. That's a better argument as it was both home and away. The Sharks were missing a superstar in Gallen at times too even travelling to Townsville without Gallen and still beating the Cows. The Sharks also only had the one chance against Souths and the Dogs, both times victorious.

My reasoning is that the Sharks were able to beat the two toughest teams both home and away and that makes them hard to beat. The additional fact that beating a strong team is a sign of a 'very tough team' is consequential.

I like the Sharks, Gallen aside, but they suffer from inconsistency. As thier position on the ladder suggests, especially when they're beating the top teams but losing to the lesser teams. It's always just a feeling, but they don't feel like the real deal. Mind you, if they made the final against anyone but the Broncos or Cowboys the would have my support.

 

[Super Freak]

Cowboys have won a whopping 13 games out of 42 when Thurston isn't playing.

They have been a one man band since pretty much the day he arrived.

The second time Sharks beat them, it was a good win and they had the home ground advantage. But you could also argue that Cowboys were well below their best.

 

[Cult]

Cowboys have won a whopping 13 games out of 42 when Thurston isn't playing.

They have been a one man band since pretty much the day he arrived.

The second time Sharks beat them, it was a good win and they had the home ground advantage. But you could also argue that Cowboys were well below their best.

Out of curiosity, how many games did we win without Lockyer and the Knights without Joey? Thanks, David Middleton.

 

[Ari Gold]

My reasoning is that the Sharks were able to beat the two toughest teams both home and away and that makes them hard to beat. The additional fact that beating a strong team is a sign of a 'very tough team' is consequential.

I don't think anyone is saying that Cronulla will be a tough opponent. But by your own concession above, the two toughest teams are the Cowboys and the Roosters. Surely it is preferable to play someone who is not one of the two toughest teams, rather than someone who is?

 

[Super Freak]

Out of curiosity, how many games did we win without Lockyer and the Knights without Joey? Thanks, David Middleton.

Just because I'm bored and have nothing better to do.

Lockyer - 71 games total. 24 wins, 3 draws and 44 losses.
Johns (from 1994) - 86 games total. 34 wins, 1 draw and 51 losses.

But if you were to total the 2007 games after the Johns retirement, it's 41 wins from 106 games.

 

[Alec]

I'd love to play the Sharks in the finals. I srsly have no idea how they keep winning games. They'll be exposed in the finals. We might as well just rest all the players then if we end up playing them.