McCullough v HUnt

McCullough or Hunt?


  • Total voters
    33
Coxy said:
m1c said:
So he's fast and big enough to play in the centres and the backrow?

LOL, no, just saying if Berrigan could do it there's no physical reason why Hunt couldn't.

Mentality is a whole different issue. I don't know of many players as tenacious and fearless as Berrigan.
Berrigan is a god amongst men, I was devastated when he left :(
 
Tonight really highlighted McCullough's deficiencies.

Extremely slow service out of dummy half, which included a number of horrible passes.

Really needs to pick up his act. I'd have Ben Hunt starting next week.
 
I voted Ben Hunt when this thread first started and now I really think McCullough should be dropped.
Give Hunt the role for 80 minutes see how he goes, Macca is too slow and doesn't have as much in attack.
 
It's all well and good to say that Hunt is quicker and offers more in attack, but he spends half as much time on the field and makes about a quarter of the tackles that McCullough does. Not saying Hunt shouldn't be given a shot, but just keep that in mind when you're criticising Macca.
 
Against Melbourne Hunt made the second most tackles out of anybody and was still very good. McCollough passes are too slow, not on target and what really makes me angry is you can sometimes see Wallace or Lockyer calling for the ball because there is an overlap but McCollough throws a huge dummy and gets tackled.

I have been calling for Hunt to start since McCollough got injured and tonights performance has rienforced what i thought!
 
Donny said:
Against Melbourne Hunt made the second most tackles out of anybody and was still very good.

Hmm fair point. If he can do that consistently then it might be worth the swap.
 
To be honest I don't think that Maccas service is that slow. Seems that 1 person has decided that and the sheep have followed.

He is absolutely light years ahead of Hunt in defense. However I think Hunt is a lot better at bringing the forwards onto the ball, I can see shades of Cam Smith, by far the best in the game at it.

Hunt probably has a slightly better pass, but definitely not by a margin that would warrant his promotion.
 
My thoughts on McC echo many here: he seems to be slow motion in everything he does and is sooo predictable. There seems to be no zing! in his running.

For mine Hunt is the man.
 
m1c said:
To be honest I don't think that Maccas service is that slow. Seems that 1 person has decided that and the sheep have followed.

Good on ya.

It's blatantly slow. The majority of the time, he has to take a few steps before he even passes. If you have Lockyer and Wallace screaming for the ball, you don't need to do anything magical, just get them the ball.
 
Majority of the time? What game were you watching? I didn't see him take a few steps to 'wind up' at all. If he did take a few steps out it was to engage the markers. Standard play of any good dummy half.
 
That is the problem with him though IMO m1c, he isn't engaging the markers more looking to have a go himself then passing if nothing is on. He needs to get his dummy half work sorted and let the other stuff happen naturally .
 
Fair point, I did hear Gould make that inference. I agree he's a little slow in getting it to Locky and Wallace at times, but I don't think that has anything to do with his passing ability.

He's a kid with confidence and I'm happy for him to overrule Wallace and Locky at times if he thinks he sees something, will serve both him and the team better in the long term.
 
Agree he has the the ability but needs to play for the team, if the Aus capt calls for the ball and a 19 year old up and comer decides to overrule that's fine but he had better be right 99% of the time and he is not.
 
Our key weakness is McC at 9. He is just not the goods. He's competently average. He lacks that snappy, immediate, aggressive relentless dummy half play that Smith and so many other 9's have. He's ordinary. Like Kenny, he creates little momentum.

Hunt shows so much more promise.
 
m1c said:
Fair point, I did hear Gould make that inference. I agree he's a little slow in getting it to Locky and Wallace at times, but I don't think that has anything to do with his passing ability.

He's a kid with confidence and I'm happy for him to overrule Wallace and Locky at times if he thinks he sees something, will serve both him and the team better in the long term.

I'm happy for him to overrule as well, but he seems to be overdoing it, IMO.
 
If i was the coach i would be looking at a couple of things
1 - How much impact does Hunt have off the bench
2 - How much impact would Mac have off the bench

When I look at the way McCollough plays i see him as more of an impact player. I think McCollough is more of an impact player then Hunt is. McCollough's darts out of dummy half could be put to good use late in the 1st and 2nd half. Hunt's passing game is better IMO and thats what we need for the first 20-25mins of each half. A player who is going to get the fowards rolling foward. So if both are going to be in the team then Hunt should start and McCollough should be on the bench IMO. If only one was going to be picked then i would probally go with McCollough.

I think its a big problem for the Broncos. Having a hooker/half on the bench weakens our foward pack. People can scream about versatility all they want but FFS we have Glen who if need be could play hooker if something happened to whoever was playing hooker. Only picking 1 of Hunt or McCollough allows us to go with a much stronger bench with Gillet and three of either Kenny, Anderson, Dodds, Sims, McGuire Assuming Setu and Tronc start.

Considering our backrow will play 80mins i like the idea of having five front rowers that can rotate in and out and make the hard yards. Having Hunt on the bench who has proabally only averaged 20mins a game is stupid IMO.

Ivan pick one or the other and go with four fowards on the bench.
 
Donny said:
If i was the coach i would be looking at a couple of things
1 - How much impact does Hunt have off the bench
2 - How much impact would Mac have off the bench

When I look at the way McCollough plays i see him as more of an impact player. I think McCollough is more of an impact player then Hunt is. McCollough's darts out of dummy half could be put to good use late in the 1st and 2nd half. Hunt's passing game is better IMO and thats what we need for the first 20-25mins of each half. A player who is going to get the fowards rolling foward. So if both are going to be in the team then Hunt should start and McCollough should be on the bench IMO. If only one was going to be picked then i would probally go with McCollough.

I think its a big problem for the Broncos. Having a hooker/half on the bench weakens our foward pack. People can scream about versatility all they want but FFS we have Glen who if need be could play hooker if something happened to whoever was playing hooker. Only picking 1 of Hunt or McCollough allows us to go with a much stronger bench with Gillet and three of either Kenny, Anderson, Dodds, Sims, McGuire Assuming Setu and Tronc start.

Considering our backrow will play 80mins i like the idea of having five front rowers that can rotate in and out and make the hard yards. Having Hunt on the bench who has proabally only averaged 20mins a game is stupid IMO.

Ivan pick one or the other and go with four fowards on the bench.

Good points. For mine, having a 9 who can maintain relentless go-forward is the key.

At the back end of this season, I reckon we need Hunt or McC - not both, and 4 forwards on the bench with either Gillett or Glenn there.

ATM, McC is good. Hunt does it better.
 
To be honest I don't think Macca (this year) or Hunt are capable of playing 80 minutes at hooker. It is the most demanding position on the field fitness wise. It really is a specialist position these days and I think we'd lose too much having Glen play 15-20 minutes there.

It's rather premature to say Macca isn't the goods at this stage of his career. How fickle is everyone around here, you were all jizzing over him a year ago.
 

Unread

Active Now

  • bb_gun
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.