Four Nations Week 2

[Super Freak]

1. Inglis
2. Mansour
3. Jennings
4. Walker
5. Johnston
6. Hunt
7. Cronk
8. Woods
9. Smith
10. Parker
11. Cordner/Scott
12. Thaiday
13. Bird

14. Scott/Cordner
15. Guerra
16. Papalii
17. Klemmer

I don't see what's wrong with that side, to be honest..

 

[Broncoman]

Australia

1. Greg Inglis
2. Josh Mansour
3. Michael Jennings
4. Dylan Walker
5. Sione Mata’utia
6. Daly Cherry-Evans
7. Cooper Cronk
8. Aaron Woods
9. Cameron Smith (c)
10. Sam Thaiday
11. Beau Scott
12. Greg Bird
13. Corey Parker
Interchange:
14. Boyd Cordner
15. Robbie Farah
16. Aidan Guerra
17. Ryan Hoffman
18. Ben Hunt
19. David Klemmer
20. Josh Papalii

Mata'utia in for Tupou.

Cordner in for Papalii

I actually spoke to Tim Sheens before the test on Saturday but I didn't tell him that I honestly thought his selections were shit. If I did he would be marvelling at the genius of Rugby League I am :p

I actually thought Walker went good in the centres before being shifted to fullback where even GI was struggling with Johnson's bombs so I can live with him staying there.

Mata'utia is the biggest rep bolter I've ever seen since Krisnan Inu I don't think anyone in the modern day or before have played just 7 games of first grade and been picked for Australia. [MENTION=8536]Super Freak[/MENTION] here is a trivia for you mate: Who is the player to have played the least amount of first grade games and been picked to debut for Australia?

Thiaday in the front row just sucks. He sucked there last week and has shown many times in the past that he doesn't perform to his best there and has sucked there allround

3 second rowers on the bench and a utility?

Parker coming into the starting team is good and he should've been there for the game against the Kiwis. Happy to see Cordner back I rate him highly.

Ben Hunt is unlucky again he would be a risk but a worthy one.

GO THE KANGAROOS but still some random arse selections there. Can someone at the ARL office employ me as the sole Kangaroos selector? I could pick a lot better team than the one Sheens selects.

 

[Alec]

Problem with Parker coming into the starting side and Papalii dropping out is that now we have gone from 2 bench "props" (or as close as we can get besides Klemmer) to 0. Yeah, Cordner occasionally takes a middle third hit up and Guerra plays lock just as well as on the edges, but they aren't front rowers.

 

[Super Freak]

Mata'utia is the biggest rep bolter I've ever seen since Krisnan Inu I don't think anyone in the modern day or before have played just 7 games of first grade and been picked for Australia. @Super Freak here is a trivia for you mate: Who is the player to have played the least amount of first grade games and been picked to debut for Australia?

If I remember correctly, the player to have played the least amount of first grade games when making their test debut is Jim Lisle.

I'm not entirely sure on the number, but I think he made his test debut after just 1 game.

Some say 1, some say 5. However, he is the least experienced.

 

[Big Pete]

Farah has no place in the team. I don't buy the line of thinking that says hunts a great half, shit hooker/Farah great hooker shit half. IMHO hunt is a better hooker than Farah is a half but besides all that Farah is there to cover a guy that is virtually unbreakable.

They really needed just to name hunt at 6 or at the very least on the bench.

Also we are way too light in the forwards, and we have other options

I agree on Farah. However, I will say this - I thought people who were disgusted that Farah was selected over Hunt were overreacting.

The correct answer was for neither of them to be selected. Rugby League players these days are so versatile, you don't need to play interchange battleship and name a utility just in case.

In regards to Hunt, let's be honest here - he was a nobody as a bench utility. Every now and then he'd outplay McCullough, but that said more about Andrew and where he was at than it did about Hunt's ability.

On Sunday, I'm 98% confident Ben Hunt will play five eighth. It's a tremendous achievement and I'm happy at the very least I'll get to cheer him, Corey Parker & Sam Thaiday.

 

[Danoz Direct]

I agree on Farah. However, I will say this - I thought people who were disgusted that Farah was selected over Hunt were overreacting.

The correct answer was for neither of them to be selected. Rugby League players these days are so versatile, you don't need to play interchange battleship and name a utility just in case.

In regards to Hunt, let's be honest here - he was a nobody as a bench utility. Every now and then he'd outplay McCullough, but that said more about Andrew and where he was at than it did about Hunt's ability.

On Sunday, I'm 98% confident Ben Hunt will play five eighth. It's a tremendous achievement and I'm happy at the very least I'll get to cheer him, Corey Parker & Sam Thaiday.

Will be great to see what he has got at that level.

 

[Kimlo]

1. Inglis
2. Mansour
3. Jennings
4. Walker
5. Johnston
6. Hunt
7. Cronk
8. Woods
9. Smith
10. Parker
11. Cordner/Scott
12. Thaiday
13. Bird

14. Scott/Cordner
15. Guerra
16. Papalii
17. Klemmer

I don't see what's wrong with that side, to be honest..

Is this the official team now?

 

[Porthoz]

Yeah but that's a problem too.

It isn't like there was an obvious choice he skipped out on. So far as I've seen all these different team lists with the likes of Tolman, McGuire, Mason, Lawrence, Napa, Shillington, Mannah & Hannant on them. To me that doesn't suggest he had a lot of choices, to me the fact that nobody could agree on one suggests that people were stretching to come up with options.

It's a problem but I'm not going to quit supporting my country over it.

That's a complete cop-out, as even if there wasn't an obvious individual choice, it was obvious we needed more than one prop in the squad. I wouldn't whinge if my preferred choice wasn't there, as long as we had 2 or 3 of the guys you name in your post in the squad. It would certainly make a difference.
Fact is, contrary to your opinion, we had a lot of choices, even if none of them was consensual.

Another thing I don't get is this idea that players need to have performed for years in their position to warrant a call to a rep team... I understand loyalty to the incumbents, but only if they have proven time and time again, that they are capable of delivering regardless of current form, like a Cam Smith, Thurston or Inglis.
Other than these guys, if a player has been a consistently good performer for even half a season, why the hell shouldn't he get a jersey? Isn't current form one of the most important factors when selecting a squad, or at least more important than their name?

In most other codes, no one would or should care where he was a year ago, and Hunt would've been a no brainer in last week's team, even if only on the bench instead of the useless Farah. Many would have even put him ahead of DCE, who hasn't justified a incumbency. Of course, they don't have a sheenius of a coach...

 

[Morkel]

Farah was right to be in the squad. He's the second best hooker in the comp. If Smith goes down, we need Farah there. But he's not right for the team. [MENTION=1899]Big Pete[/MENTION], I still think the team needs a bench utility though. If not to cover for injuries, but at least be there to work towards the future, in terms of experience. That's why Farah is useless, he doesn't need experience, but Hunt is a good choice, as Cronk & DCE had been in the past. As long as they're able to cover 10-15 minutes defending in the back row (which arguably Hunt would be best of those 3 anyway) then it's a valid selection.

And like everyone else, I have a problem naming my best 17 man team because of the limited choices in the squad. Count them - 9 back-rowers. What's worse, so many of them are the same type - Bird, Cordner, Guerra, Hoffman, Jackson, Parker, Scott. All big minute, semi-impact players. They each have their strengths, but how many 80 minute back-rowers do you need? At least Papa & Thaiday can act as impact players, but even then, Thaiday isn't! He's played at prop, as are some of these back-rowers when they come off the bench. They're there because their fitness allows them to somewhat absorb the impact of the opposition forwards, but they're not the type of players to take the fight to them. We have to rely on opposition errors instead of genuinely earning field position and attacking chances.

Of the two props selected, Klemmer is a very odd choice. He may have some rep future, but at the moment he's playing maybe 20 minutes off the bench as an impact prop for his club. Would he even be in the team had the Bulldogs not made the GF? I doubt it. All bias aside, McGuire is the type of prop Australia need. He's a level or two behind Matt Scott, but the same style, which we sorely missed. As was suggested, a prop leader is what we need. How can the young blood gain experience if there's no old heads in there to learn off? Of the uninjured players left, Brenton Lawrence has been around a while now. Hannant is another possibility, his club form has been below his standard, but he's always performed at rep level. I wouldn't be too upset with Mannah (another suggestion from earlier), he's all heart and aggression, and I'd have him ahead of Tolman purely because Tim is a leader and Tolman has always been a capable second-fiddle.

My ideal team would be:

6) Cherry-Evans
7) Cronk
8) Mannah
9) Smith
10) Lawrence
11) Bird
12) Thaiday
13) Parker

14) Hunt
15) Papalii (for Thaiday)
16) Woods
17) McGuire

Bird & Thaiday run at the halves all day. Thaiday comes off for Papa to maintain the rage. Mannah starting just to show the kids who's boss, but probably gets subbed after 15 minutes for Woods. McGuire to come on after 25 minutes. Hunt to replace Bird for a short spell.

 

[broncos4life]

Farah was right to be in the squad. He's the second best hooker in the comp. If Smith goes down, we need Farah there. But he's not right for the team. @Big Pete, I still think the team needs a bench utility though. If not to cover for injuries, but at least be there to work towards the future, in terms of experience. That's why Farah is useless, he doesn't need experience, but Hunt is a good choice, as Cronk & DCE had been in the past. As long as they're able to cover 10-15 minutes defending in the back row (which arguably Hunt would be best of those 3 anyway) then it's a valid selection.

And like everyone else, I have a problem naming my best 17 man team because of the limited choices in the squad. Count them - 9 back-rowers. What's worse, so many of them are the same type - Bird, Cordner, Guerra, Hoffman, Jackson, Parker, Scott. All big minute, semi-impact players. They each have their strengths, but how many 80 minute back-rowers do you need? At least Papa & Thaiday can act as impact players, but even then, Thaiday isn't! He's played at prop, as are some of these back-rowers when they come off the bench. They're there because their fitness allows them to somewhat absorb the impact of the opposition forwards, but they're not the type of players to take the fight to them. We have to rely on opposition errors instead of genuinely earning field position and attacking chances.

Of the two props selected, Klemmer is a very odd choice. He may have some rep future, but at the moment he's playing maybe 20 minutes off the bench as an impact prop for his club. Would he even be in the team had the Bulldogs not made the GF? I doubt it. All bias aside, McGuire is the type of prop Australia need. He's a level or two behind Matt Scott, but the same style, which we sorely missed. As was suggested, a prop leader is what we need. How can the young blood gain experience if there's no old heads in there to learn off? Of the uninjured players left, Brenton Lawrence has been around a while now. Hannant is another possibility, his club form has been below his standard, but he's always performed at rep level. I wouldn't be too upset with Mannah (another suggestion from earlier), he's all heart and aggression, and I'd have him ahead of Tolman purely because Tim is a leader and Tolman has always been a capable second-fiddle.

My ideal team would be:

6) Cherry-Evans
7) Cronk
8) Mannah
9) Smith
10) Lawrence
11) Bird
12) Thaiday
13) Parker

14) Hunt
15) Papalii (for Thaiday)
16) Woods
17) McGuire

Bird & Thaiday run at the halves all day. Thaiday comes off for Papa to maintain the rage. Mannah starting just to show the kids who's boss, but probably gets subbed after 15 minutes for Woods. McGuire to come on after 25 minutes. Hunt to replace Bird for a short spell.

Farah was right to be in the squad. He's the second best hooker in the comp. If Smith goes down, we need Farah there. But he's not right for the team. @Big Pete, I still think the team needs a bench utility though. If not to cover for injuries, but at least be there to work towards the future, in terms of experience. That's why Farah is useless, he doesn't need experience, but Hunt is a good choice, as Cronk & DCE had been in the past. As long as they're able to cover 10-15 minutes defending in the back row (which arguably Hunt would be best of those 3 anyway) then it's a valid selection.

And like everyone else, I have a problem naming my best 17 man team because of the limited choices in the squad. Count them - 9 back-rowers. What's worse, so many of them are the same type - Bird, Cordner, Guerra, Hoffman, Jackson, Parker, Scott. All big minute, semi-impact players. They each have their strengths, but how many 80 minute back-rowers do you need? At least Papa & Thaiday can act as impact players, but even then, Thaiday isn't! He's played at prop, as are some of these back-rowers when they come off the bench. They're there because their fitness allows them to somewhat absorb the impact of the opposition forwards, but they're not the type of players to take the fight to them. We have to rely on opposition errors instead of genuinely earning field position and attacking chances.

Of the two props selected, Klemmer is a very odd choice. He may have some rep future, but at the moment he's playing maybe 20 minutes off the bench as an impact prop for his club. Would he even be in the team had the Bulldogs not made the GF? I doubt it. All bias aside, McGuire is the type of prop Australia need. He's a level or two behind Matt Scott, but the same style, which we sorely missed. As was suggested, a prop leader is what we need. How can the young blood gain experience if there's no old heads in there to learn off? Of the uninjured players left, Brenton Lawrence has been around a while now. Hannant is another possibility, his club form has been below his standard, but he's always performed at rep level. I wouldn't be too upset with Mannah (another suggestion from earlier), he's all heart and aggression, and I'd have him ahead of Tolman purely because Tim is a leader and Tolman has always been a capable second-fiddle.

My ideal team would be:

6) Cherry-Evans
7) Cronk
8) Mannah
9) Smith
10) Lawrence
11) Bird
12) Thaiday
13) Parker

14) Hunt
15) Papalii (for Thaiday)
16) Woods
17) McGuire

Bird & Thaiday run at the halves all day. Thaiday comes off for Papa to maintain the rage. Mannah starting just to show the kids who's boss, but probably gets subbed after 15 minutes for Woods. McGuire to come on after 25 minutes. Hunt to replace Bird for a short spell.

woah! DO YOU GET IT NOW BP!!!

 

[broncos4life]

haha just joking morks :)

 

[Morkel]

woah! DO YOU GET IT NOW BP!!!

Someone's chugging the interwebs here and it kept timing out. Apparently AFTER successfully posting...

 

[Porthoz]

Is there an echo in here? :aetsch:

 

[Morkel]

That's a complete cop-out, as even if there wasn't an obvious individual choice, it was obvious we needed more than one prop in the squad. I wouldn't whinge if my preferred choice wasn't there, as long as we had 2 or 3 of the guys you name in your post in the squad. It would certainly make a difference.
Fact is, contrary to your opinion, we had a lot of choices, even if none of them was consensual.

Another thing I don't get is this idea that players need to have performed for years in their position to warrant a call to a rep team... I understand loyalty to the incumbents, but only if they have proven time and time again, that they are capable of delivering regardless of current form, like a Cam Smith, Thurston or Inglis.
Other than these guys, if a player has been a consistently good performer for even half a season, why the hell shouldn't he get a jersey? Isn't current form one of the most important factors when selecting a squad, or at least more important than their name?

In most other codes, no one would or should care where he was a year ago, and Hunt would've been a no brainer in last week's team, even if only on the bench instead of the useless Farah. Many would have even put him ahead of DCE, who hasn't justified a incumbency. Of course, they don't have a sheenius of a coach...

I don't necessarily agree. A lot of things can explain temporary form. In club situations, it could well be a combination with a new team-mate, a gun player taking the heat off so they have more opportunities, even just a pack performing better. None of those things actually make Player X better, it just gives them a better working environment and makes their job easier. Ironically, it makes Hunt's rise all the more impressive, because none of those examples apply. He was partnered by a winger for most of the year. The new "gun player", Barba, gave little assistance. And our pack was no where near as dominant as the majority of others in the top 8.

 

[Danoz Direct]

I don't necessarily agree. A lot of things can explain temporary form. In club situations, it could well be a combination with a new team-mate, a gun player taking the heat off so they have more opportunities, even just a pack performing better. None of those things actually make Player X better, it just gives them a better working environment and makes their job easier. Ironically, it makes Hunt's rise all the more impressive, because none of those examples apply. He was partnered by a winger for most of the year. The new "gun player", Barba, gave little assistance. And our pack was no where near as dominant as the majority of others in the top 8.

Cherry-Evans is in horrible form even without the injury, I know he has the rep experience, but has never performed in big games (other than Grand finals of course). I think as a result of injury and form, DCE should take this week off and Hunt should play five-eight.

 

[Cult]

I think Lillyman deserved a spot. Dude was a beast all season. And don't even get me started on McGuire missing out for fucking David Klemmer. What a bag of dicks these selections have been. Going to pull a 1910 line out and ask Sheens if he even watched the games this year. Terrible.

 

[Porthoz]

I don't necessarily agree. A lot of things can explain temporary form. In club situations, it could well be a combination with a new team-mate, a gun player taking the heat off so they have more opportunities, even just a pack performing better. None of those things actually make Player X better, it just gives them a better working environment and makes their job easier. Ironically, it makes Hunt's rise all the more impressive, because none of those examples apply. He was partnered by a winger for most of the year. The new "gun player", Barba, gave little assistance. And our pack was no where near as dominant as the majority of others in the top 8.

It obviously depends on the position, where you shouldn't select a playmaker that was carried by his team (such as the Bulldogs ones for example), as opposed to carrying them (such as Hunt).
On the other hand, a player such as Guerra, who has been consistently good throughout the season, without being a standout and obviously part of a whole within a strong team, should be there ahead of a player who has done nothing to warrant selection... like Hoffman for example.

 

[broncos4life]

Cherry-Evans is in horrible form even without the injury, I know he has the rep experience, but has never performed in big games (other than Grand finals of course). I think as a result of injury and form, DCE should take this week off and Hunt should play five-eight.

I'm sure he will prove me wrong in the future but to be completely honest I am starting to wonder a bit about DCE. Only has ever shown his best form playing for manly so it makes me wonder is it to do with the players around him there