Broncos Vrs Eels match thread.

[Donny]

Honeslty when has Wallace ever let the Broncos down?? I must of been watching a different Wallace play to some of the people in this forum!!!!!!

Are you serious? I reckon his first season he played well for the first 3 weeks and was shit from then on.

Last season he was shit all year until our run to the finals.

This year he's either been injured or shit, other than the game against Souths where he showed what he's capable of.

He has not delivered on the promise he has.

Promis he has?

So what your saying is that Wallace has played shit for 50 games and only played good for 5 games???

You cant be serious, you are kidding yourself coxy!

We will just have to agree to disagree. Agreed :D

 

[Coxy]

Well considering our run to the finals last year was about 8 weeks, I'd say it's more like 10-11 games he's played very well...rest have been average or worse.

People don't have to agree with me, so yes, agree to disagree. But that's just the way I see his contribution to the Broncos.

 

[Black Philip]

As people have said, Wallace has a big problem with consistency. He can be near brilliant one week then ratshit the next. Comparisons with Shane Perry are ridiculous as well.

 

[Coxy]

As people have said, Wallace has a big problem with consistency. He can be near brilliant one week then ratshit the next. Comparisons with Shane Perry are ridiculous as well.

Only because Perry isn't capable of being brilliant...but he wasn't ratshit as often as Wallace has been. Much more consistent player.

 

[Black Philip]

As people have said, Wallace has a big problem with consistency. He can be near brilliant one week then ratshit the next. Comparisons with Shane Perry are ridiculous as well.

Only because Perry isn't capable of being brilliant...but he wasn't ratshit as often as Wallace has been. Much more consistent player.

Consistently ordinary or poor. It's still ridiculous to compare them.

 

[Coxy]

No. It's not. They are our two most recent halfbacks, and I don't think Wallace has been that far ahead of Perry when playing with Lockyer.

Where Wallace has been better has been in Locky's absence. That's the difference.

 

[Black Philip]

No. It's not. They are our two most recent halfbacks, and I don't think Wallace has been that far ahead of Perry when playing with Lockyer.

Where Wallace has been better has been in Locky's absence. That's the difference.

You serious? The run in at the end of last season showed us how well Wallace can play with Lockyer. Wallace is hot and cold but he is well ahead of Perry. But I suppose someone has to cop the doom and gloom.

 

[Coxy]

As I said in an earlier post, Wallace at his BEST is far and away better than Perry, that goes without saying. But my point is that Wallace is at his best less than 20% of the time. And that's poor.

 

[Jeba]

As I said in an earlier post, Wallace at his BEST is far and away better than Perry, that goes without saying. But my point is that Wallace is at his best less than 20% of the time. And that's poor.

NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!

OK, NOW that will do me.

 

[Donny]

LOL, lets all just agree to disagree.

Oh am sure we can agree on this, Wallace would be on a shit load more the Perry was!

 

[Porthoz]

No. It's not. They are our two most recent halfbacks, and I don't think Wallace has been that far ahead of Perry when playing with Lockyer.

Where Wallace has been better has been in Locky's absence. That's the difference.

Perry didn't lift his game whether Locky was present or not, he was indeed consistantly ordinary.

Wallace is capable of steering a team quite well in Locky's absence, which in itself proves his quality. However, it takes someone like Thurston to not be eclipsed by Lockyer in a halves pairing, and while I think Wallace is a good half back, he isn't at that level.

Although he takes a more secondary role in controlling the team and forwards, he still does a good job in defense and his kicking is seldom below par, but he doesn't dominate as people will perceive that as a bad performance.

IMO Wallace's importance to the team is more often than not demonstrated when he's not there, because that's generally when the team is at its worst!

 

[Coxy]

Nah, he gets in Lockyer's way too often for my liking.

 

[Nashy]

I think our halves played better with him injured TBH.

 

[Porthoz]

Nah, he gets in Lockyer's way too often for my liking.

He's the first receiver, so of course it does happen occasionally, but that even happens in SoO with Thurston. Although some people might say that it's Locky that gets in Thurston's way. [icon_shru [icon_lol1.

Look at the Broncos performance in the games without Wallace, and then compare those to the games where he was there... [icon_wink

 

[Coxy]

What, you mean like our 36-14 drubbing of the Storm at home?

 

[Porthoz]

What, you mean like our 36-14 drubbing of the Storm at home?

No, the 40-0 drubbing by the Storm last year int he finals... :P

 

[Donny]

What, you mean like our 36-14 drubbing of the Storm at home?

No, the 40-0 drubbing by the Storm last year int he finals... :P

Lol [icon_lol1.

 

[Coxy]

Yes, when we decided to play 7 forwards and a single player at half/five-eighth. That was a good move ;-)

PS: It was 40-6...or something. LOLZ.