Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
90% of this team hadnt played more than a handful of matches in first grade with Wayne Bennett as the coach, with MANY of them debuting after Bennett left.Huge. said:
Ivan, Ivan, Ivan
- Thread starter Bucking Beads
- Start date
Huge. said:
Just for the record Ffs, what exactly is it that we(IH?Broncs) are creating ???
A successful team playing semi final football ??
A stable well drilled team
Kinda makes you wonder don't it....?? I could of sworn that's what we had BEFORE we lost Wayne Bennett ![/quote:1w7gw53s]
We are creating a winning team imo. It needs time. I believe in the direction its headed and want to see how this team goes with a McCullough, Hoffman, Norman and Hunt all with a few years of life and football under their belt. I take it you disagree fine. Go with your bad self.
As for WB, well WB never coached this side did he.
We have a new coach and a host of kids in key positions. It will take time to develop. If it was as easy as turning on a tap WB would never have lost a match during the origin period with all his experienced players out.
At any rate WB is gone, he isn't coming back, so what is the point in pining for him?
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
My point was unclear then. It was that the DECISION was supposed to be for the betterment of the Broncos not to its detriment. Once upon a time we never considered our team as 'building' rather whoever pulled on the jersey was simply part of THE team. The team was already built so the decision to change what wasn't broken ,was supposed to be for improvement, right ?......it obviously was not made so that we could perform poorly, surely.
WB is gone , yes but my comment is about the wisdom of change for change sake and equally, the thinking from a purely business point of view. What motivated such a bizarre choice. Was there a level above and beyond what was already being achieved ?
or as I suspect , was it something as mundane as petty jealousy heedless of the damage caused ?
WB is gone , yes but my comment is about the wisdom of change for change sake and equally, the thinking from a purely business point of view. What motivated such a bizarre choice. Was there a level above and beyond what was already being achieved ?
or as I suspect , was it something as mundane as petty jealousy heedless of the damage caused ?
- Mar 5, 2008
- 9,586
- 8,889
We are stuck with Henjak. Let's make the most of it, and that means opining about his strengths and weaknesses. That's why this forum is so good.
A coach makes or breaks a team. To me that's bloody obvious. That was evident with the Socceroos. It's the same with this team. In many ways, I think the Socceroos disaster, largely attributable to the coach, has echoes with our beloved team.
Henjak has done well in moulding a young, largely inexperienced side into a potentially premiership winning unit. And tha's what pisses me off most. Recently, we were playing with that sort of form. Sure, we lost Locky, but that shouldn't account for the absolutely miserable consequences wrought by Henjak's poor choices to compensate - like Gillett at 5/8 at a time when we needed an experienced half not Gillett, AND when Gillett was such a strike weapon out wide, AND having Hunt and Macca at hooker, then pulling Macca when he was playing extra well as was the team as a result, AND not having an extra forward on the bench.
IMO, playing Hunt from the bench at this time of the season is plain stupid.
My main criticism of Henjak is that I feel he is pig headed, and run too much by his ego.
At least he has made the right call and not played Locky this week, or so it seems. You never know with Henjak.
A coach makes or breaks a team. To me that's bloody obvious. That was evident with the Socceroos. It's the same with this team. In many ways, I think the Socceroos disaster, largely attributable to the coach, has echoes with our beloved team.
Henjak has done well in moulding a young, largely inexperienced side into a potentially premiership winning unit. And tha's what pisses me off most. Recently, we were playing with that sort of form. Sure, we lost Locky, but that shouldn't account for the absolutely miserable consequences wrought by Henjak's poor choices to compensate - like Gillett at 5/8 at a time when we needed an experienced half not Gillett, AND when Gillett was such a strike weapon out wide, AND having Hunt and Macca at hooker, then pulling Macca when he was playing extra well as was the team as a result, AND not having an extra forward on the bench.
IMO, playing Hunt from the bench at this time of the season is plain stupid.
My main criticism of Henjak is that I feel he is pig headed, and run too much by his ego.
At least he has made the right call and not played Locky this week, or so it seems. You never know with Henjak.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
lets not forget that Henjak isnt the only Broncos coach to make some absolutely ridiculous decisions on which players play in what positions, especially the halves [icon_wink
at least Gillett has had experience playing 5/8th before he was put there by henjak.
at least Gillett has had experience playing 5/8th before he was put there by henjak.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 10,562
- 5,400
I like Ivan.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 10,562
- 5,400
yaaaaaaay
- Mar 5, 2008
- 9,586
- 8,889
Anonymous person said:
That maybe true, but not at this stage of the competition when Henjak had the choice of an experienced half in Hunt. At least credit to Henjak for admitting his error.
At the same time, playing T'eo at prop is bloody stupid, and persisting with Hunt off the bench is just ridiculous. If he pulls the same stunt against the Warriors, there'll be no-one to be blame if we lose other than Henjak.
Actually, Locky or no, there really is no reason why we should lose to the Warriors, other than team selection, and the consequences on the whole team of that. We saw this when Macca mysteriously disappeared last week.
Anonymous person
Banned User
- Dec 16, 2008
- 4,635
- 932
i wouldnt call hunt 'experienced'.rnabokov said:
i agree about Teo, i have no idea why hes playing Prop when we have Kenny/Anderson/Setu/Tronc/Dodds etc to pick from.
but i cant agree about there being no reason why we should lose to the warriors. theyre sitting above us on the ladder, and are a genuinely good team. lockyer or no lockyer, the trip to NZ is never an easy one for any team, let alone a broncos team full of 20 year olds.
- Mar 5, 2008
- 30,392
- 19,413
ethos said:
I think you just got punk'd. :mrgreen:
- Mar 5, 2008
- 9,586
- 8,889
The Rock said:
I think he meant to say that Hunt is a "genuine" half.
Definitely wouldn't call anyone experienced with 20 or so odd games. [icon_lol1.[/quote:37j0ga18]
True.
I meant in the context of both this team, and the fact that Hunt has enough ball playing experience relative to Gillett, and anyone else we have given Locky's absence.
Also, I think it makes sense to minimise the restrictions on our bench by playing 2 hookers. At this stage of the season, when it gets particularly taxing on the big guys, another forward on the bench seems smarter than a little guy.
IMO, there is no longer any need to have Hunt on the bench.
Further, much as i like Norman, I'd prefer Wallace at 6 than anyone else in that vitally critical position, and I'd rather Hunt at 7 than Norman in the halves ATM
Unread
-
The one thing Michael Maguire won’t do after dominant Broncos win- Latest: Mick_Hancock
-
-
-
-
