Broncos Vs. Cowboys Thread (* HUNT AND LOCKYER BOTH OUT *)

[kimlo_]

I agree, easily one of the most underrated players in the competition in all honestly johnson who got chosen for australia, there is no way in the world he is better than stag, they are about the same skill level, yet johnson gets so many raps from the media and all else. Stagg most underrated in comp, or johnson is the most overrated.

 

[Black Philip]

I agree, easily one of the most underrated players in the competition in all honestly johnson who got chosen for australia, there is no way in the world he is better than stag, they are about the same skill level, yet johnson gets so many raps from the media and all else. Stagg most underrated in comp, or johnson is the most overrated.

I think you're a bit over dramatic on Johnson there. Stagg played an Origin game a couple of years ago and was clearly out of his depth, whereas Johnson in the rep games he has been in has shown he performs well under pressure (note: 61 tackles in origin 2 last year). When Stagg gets another shot at Origin and proves his worth on the rep scene then I'm sure he'll get the wraps he deserves.

 

[kimlo_]

Lets not forget, that johnson gets alot more raps and rep duties solely for the fact that he is in a winning teams, everyone knows players in winning teams get more rep duties then those in losing teams even if they are not better.

 

[Black Philip]

Lets not forget, that johnson gets alot more raps and rep duties solely for the fact that he is in a winning teams, everyone knows players in winning teams get more rep duties then those in losing teams even if they are not better.

See what I said before, 61 tackles in a State of Origin game. Thats no easy feat. He's not getting talked up just cause he plays for winning teams, he is a machine of a player too.

 

[kimlo_]

Yes he is a machine, i don't deny that, I'm just saying that stagg is a very similar player yet he rarely gets rap if ever.
oh did i mention moon made 40 tackles in one half against the souths.

 

[Kan Huang]

I have no idea what you're trying to say kimlo. You jump from one point to another and seem to have an attention span shorter than that of a squirrel.

If you actually read and responded to what Scotty said then you would realise why both players have such a difference in terms of honours and raps on them.

By the way, loving that signature of yours Scotty! icon_thumbs_u

 

[Nashy]

Yes he is a machine, i don't deny that, I'm just saying that stagg is a very similar player yet he rarely gets rap if ever.
oh did i mention moon made 40 tackles in one half against the souths.

Stagg plays for the most successful team in the NRL. Your theory there is flawed right before anyone even has to look into it. You also need to look at the fact that Stagg, in the past has had a very unlucky run with little injuries, which then put him out of form, that as well as when he's fit, Bennett leaving the current side in, until changes simply must be made.

Comparing the two stat wise is nothing short of ridiculous IMO.




FYI. Sig made by the brilliant Nashy [icon_wink

 

[Kan Huang]

Ahh loving the simplicity of it all Nashy. Good job mate! icon_thumbs_u

 

[Nashy]

All my mates call me simple too. [icon_razz1

 

[kimlo_]

ummm..... broncos were not the most successful team in 07 were they? im sure they weren't, they were in 06 GUESS WHAT HE WAS IN ORIGIN IN 06, they were average in 07 wow, stagg's doesn't get a go. Your argument has just been flawed as Melbourne have been easily the most dominant team in the past decade. Dominant, Successful two very different things

Dominant.
occupying or being in a commanding or elevated position
Successful
achieving or having achieved success
Melbourne have been dominant without necessarily achieving success, Broncos have been successful without being too dominant(im speaking 2006 onwards)

Selectors look for rep players in dominant teams, not necessarily successful teams, tigers won the competition in 05 yet only 2 got selected for Australia Melbourne didn't win in 06 they got about 6 selected for Australia. Saying that they wuold have had an equal chance of selections based on the fact the broncos are the most successful team in the past 20 years means nothing now, they don't select based on how many premierships you've won rather how dominant you and your team have been.

 

[Nashy]

You just changed the whole tune of the argument really.

And I must thank you for reading the dictionary to me, but please be aware for next time, you are not required to tell me what words mean. If I have a problem with understanding them, I will ask.

Wasn't Stagg recovering from ankle problems last year as well? I don't recall.

What you're missing is, it doesn't matter if you have 50 players who are similar on the field, it's going to go to the best, most consistent player, and a player who is not putting up with little injuries all the time.

 

[kimlo_]

And I must thank you for reading the dictionary to me, but please be aware for next time, you are not required to tell me what words mean. If I have a problem with understanding them, I will ask.

Well if you understand for the words mean, then don't use them in the wrong logic to prove a point, trying to say that broncos have been a better team in recent times than Melbourne(so as Brisbane players would have an equal chance of selection as Melbourne players) is absolutely silly and you know for a fact, that Melbourne have EASILY been the best team in the past three years which is why they have had so many more representatives.

What you're missing is, it doesn't matter if you have 50 players who are similar on the field, it's going to go to the best, most consistent player, and a player who is not putting up with little injuries all the time.

That is another silly statement, everyone who knows anything about selection knows that teams that don't make a final the players in those teams are really going to suffer in terms of selection. It's a known fact that teams that win more get more rep players chosen, even if a player from another team is better. You must of heard it 1000 times over from commentators that some really good players many times miss selection because there team hasn't played too well. Kafusi got selected for Australia over thaiday? Thaiday was easily better but just for the fact that Melbourne were more dominant team he got the nod ahead of him(but got injured)

Scot prince, one of the most inform players in the competition and 2nd best halfback wasn't chosen for Australia, who was? Cooper Cronk, are you telling me cooper cronk is a better player thanScot prince? Well I know for a fact he isn't but the fact that Melbourne won the grand final and lost 3 games all year and titans didn't make the top 8 meant selectors favored cronk over prince when prince is the better player.

 

[Nashy]

I think Cronk is a better halfback than Scott Prince.

 

[kimlo_]

Well, you perhaps need to rethink, It's obvious from the way that prince plays, he is much more creative, much more of a leader and a much better halfback all round, if titans make the top 8 this year and JT is injured, Cooper Cronk wouldn't have a chance in the world of playing for Australia.
How exactly is cooper cronk a better player the Scot prince? What aspect of his game makes him a better player? You do know if prince had Israel falou and mat king to kick to on the 5th tackle all the time he would of had a much easier time, but he doesn't have that luxury of just kick it to one of the centres to score, he has to use his creativity. Not to mention the fact he was about 3rd on try assist in a team which came 12th.

 

[Nashy]

I'm not starting an argument about why my opinion differs to yours mate. You think what you like, I'll think what I like. For the lack of a better term. Individual Brilliance.

Not to mention I've been a big fan of Cronk for a long time.

In saying that, I'm not debating that Scott Prince isn't a great halfback.

 

[kimlo_]

Yes, but your trying to say that cooper cronk is a better half back than scot prince and as such thats the sole reason he got selected over him, and the fact he played in a team that lost 3 games all year didn't help him with selection and the better halfback got the spot. That's what argument your trying to put forward, trying to say that being in a winning team doesn't help towards rep selection which i think is incorrect.

Many times players who are in better form won't get selected because of the performance of their team, luke bailey who in his time with ST George (dominant team back then) had been selected for Australia and in NSW starting side every year, when he went to the titans, everyone had said that he is a much better player and in much better form, yet he gets chosen on the bench for NSW and not chosen for Australia which i think proves the team you play in, plays a large role in selection, but i respect your opinion.

 

[Kan Huang]

Would you cut the jibber jabber and get to the point? I just skipped your last 2 - 3 posts because I just couldn't be screwed to interpret your posts. You're all over the shop when trying to get your point across.

I agree with the idea but a lot of the stuff you talk about is heavily subjective and you're pretty much being rather selective with your examples. You need to relax a bit because right now you seem like you're arguing to yourself. A lot of representative positions are picked based on loyalty and the players who have 'been there done that' as has been the case in the past. You use examples largely because of the sudden struggle of NSW to remain competitive with QLD and the competition in various positions.

Relax your mangina. No one's trying to go after it. [icon_drun

 

[kimlo_]

Cool.