Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
hooker is an 80 minute position. why we dont have one that can do that is beyond me.
Last edited:
Hooker debate
- Thread starter Big Dave
- Start date
Alec
International Rep
- Mar 4, 2008
- 19,405
- 12,533
It should be because he isn't good enough. But in reality, with Hunt as the replacement, I have no idea.
Disagree about hooker being an 80 minute position. A hooker works more than any other player on the field over the entire game. And having someone who can dart out of dummy half against tiring defenders is more valuable than any forward in the late stages of the game.
Last edited:
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
cam smith proves more than anything the advantage of an 80 minute hooker. the 2 hooker thing is only new in the last few years, and its stupid.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
every hooker used to play 80 minutes though, not just smith. not talking 10+ years ago either. from what i remember, it was only when st george or parramatta i think had 2 actually very good hookers that they needed to interchange that every other team thought "hey we should do that too! we dont have 2 good hookers, but we'll just replace them with a nuffie!" and so began this stupid 2 hooker thing.
Alec
International Rep
- Mar 4, 2008
- 19,405
- 12,533
I'm fine with the main hooker being on the field for the full 80, provided he can handle it. But I do want someone on the bench to at least replace a forward later in the game. Like I said before, I think quick fresh legs out of dummy half would be more effective than another forward. They could alternate and add some variety too I guess.
- Mar 5, 2008
- 9,586
- 8,889
But that is almost my whole point. Lockyer was the de facto coach of the side post-the-coach-who-shall-not-be-named-in-this-thread.
It was Lockyer's instincts, class, vision, leadership - the same qualities that Cam Smith has in his own way, that kept the Broncos going.
Remove Locky from the equation and we have what we have: a rudderless ship.
More than that: in my view it was Lockyer who made Gillett look the star he can be. Since Lockyer left, it is no coincidence that Gillett's star has faded a fair bit, and to a very large extent, it isn't his fault.
In fairness to Henjak and Griffin, the team did play a few splendid games under them but they turned out to be exceptions to the rule.
Aside from which, I think just focusing on the hooker is laregely pointless unless the 1, 6 and 7 are also part of the equation
We fail on all counts, and for mine, it is the club's fault that they failed to recruit intelligently knowing the enormous importance Lockyer had for this side.
As for Macca and Hunt, they were halves who were forced into being hookers ... with predictable results.
Last edited:
- Mar 5, 2008
- 9,586
- 8,889
It would be an interesting experiment to give Hunt and Macca the halves spots and see what happens.
It couldn't be any worse than it is now
they should give baptiste a chance, he would run rings around mculloch. anyway you will here it first on this site, the sharks are dead keen on baptiste so he could be in there squad by the end of the season
Exactly, hes been given sfa chance to really show his worth in the top grade, but going off what he's shown in Qcup he's definitely an NRL standard player.
broncos4life
International Captain
- Oct 5, 2011
- 26,477
- 27,135
Yeah macca is one of our best defenders, definitely a speed hump...
But I agree with your sentiment, never let the truth get in the way of a good story and all that. Is that you Paul Kent?
- Apr 9, 2012
- 12,619
- 14,358
The answer to this conundrum is quite simple.
Peter Wallace. :mellow:
Wallace moves to starting hooker and if we really want to, McC (I'm reaching for other options) can come off the bench.
I think Wallace could resurrect his fucked up career as a 9. I swear the only times we have looked a little snappy around the rucks this year is when Wallace has slipped into the dummy half role.
This change comes with an added bonus. When McC comes onto replace Wallace, that would require Peter leaving the field.
I strongly believe that this is a win win situation for Brisbane.
Peter Wallace. :mellow:
Wallace moves to starting hooker and if we really want to, McC (I'm reaching for other options) can come off the bench.
I think Wallace could resurrect his fucked up career as a 9. I swear the only times we have looked a little snappy around the rucks this year is when Wallace has slipped into the dummy half role.
This change comes with an added bonus. When McC comes onto replace Wallace, that would require Peter leaving the field.
I strongly believe that this is a win win situation for Brisbane.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,142
- 25,822
I reckon Wallace would make a better bench hooker than Hunt.
Don't know if Hunt would be as good at halfback. Especially this season. It's a sad indictment on his development really.
I don't know how Prince escapes any form of the blame. When was the last time he was any good? 2010? Heck, I'd say 2009 personally and he was by far easily worse than Wallace on the weekend.
Don't know if Hunt would be as good at halfback. Especially this season. It's a sad indictment on his development really.
I don't know how Prince escapes any form of the blame. When was the last time he was any good? 2010? Heck, I'd say 2009 personally and he was by far easily worse than Wallace on the weekend.
Bucking Beads
International Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 24,546
- 7,828
Wallace is on big money. Can't see us making him a bench hooker.
