Peter Wallace!!!

[SSS]

I'm not exactly sure why the knives are out for Wallace, but prior to having read this thread my thoughts were that Wallace almost single handedly beat the third place Tigers on the weekend. In fact had only just discussed Wallace with another season member who also agreed that Wallace was like a terrier against the tigers, we both believe that 9 times outta 10 we would win that game by plenty. Lets remember it was a play the ball that should have been penalised...a kick that spewed off the side of his boot...... our winger slipping over trying to get into position that in the end lost us the game. Not Wallace. Seems funny how a handful on here wanna push this opinion of Wallace being terrible across...yet away from here Wallace is getting wrapped for playing a great game....not sure what the agenda is...but be assured that your opinions are only embarrassing your own reputations as having a decent knowledge of footy.

For those of you suggesting Hunt should be our 7...well lets just hope you never find yourself in a position to select a footy team.

 

[GCBRONCO]

I don't think we have a better option than Wallace, even in his current form. I don't like Norman, Hunt or Macca personally. Sure they have potential, but I think they've shown that they are not up to scratch yet.

Again, I don't disagree that Wallace is our best halfback option right now. But he's not showing it. If he doesn't turn his form around then maybe we have to punt on Hunt or Norman for a few weeks while Wallace gets his confidence back in Q Cup?

Remember, Broncos are coming 9th...can't afford to lose games we should win right now.

Despite our differences on Wallace I don't disagree Wallace is out of form with you Coxy(I just don't think he deserved to be crucified for the Tigers game when there are a lot of other contributing factors that lost it for us) I'm not sure putting Ben Hunt or Corey Norman into halfback in pressure games of that standard at present is a much better idea personally either, perhaps if Norman had been there alongside Lockyer in the halves for more games earlier in the season I would be more inclined to agree but its a lot of pressure to place on those two at a critical time of the season. Perhaps we should consider a compromise of sorts, Hunt at hooker and Norman on the bench?

 

[garcia]

Look around the NRL and u will find very few halfbacks who r the quality of Peter Wallace, sure Princey and JT are better players but also more experienced. Mitchell Pearce??? (in his dreams) Daniel Mortimer (never in a million years) Cooper Cronk (I'd rather have Wallace). If either of Gillett, Hunt, Sims or Parker had managed to score the clincher the other nite when they had excellent chances, this topic wouldn't even exist. Unfortunately a culture exists within some Bronco fans to put the boot in no matter how well the side is going. The Broncs will make some noise this year and Peter Wallace will be a major part of it.

 

[Black Philip]

Look around the NRL and u will find very few halfbacks who r the quality of Peter Wallace, sure Princey and JT are better players but also more experienced. Mitchell Pearce??? (in his dreams) Daniel Mortimer (never in a million years) Cooper Cronk (I'd rather have Wallace). If either of Gillett, Hunt, Sims or Parker had managed to score the clincher the other nite when they had excellent chances, this topic wouldn't even exist. Unfortunately a culture exists within some Bronco fans to put the boot in no matter how well the side is going. The Broncs will make some noise this year and Peter Wallace will be a major part of it.

Aaaaaand that's where I stopped reading.

 

[Alec]

Pearce > Wallace as well these days.

 

[m1c]

No shame in that, Pearce is quality.

 

[tkday]

Wallace is a better fit for our team currently I think. He needs to find his form again, no doubt about it, but by pulling him off? Not sure about that. I still say we keep him and get the coaches to put some more time into him during the week. We have a bye coming up, so they should use that time to find out what is going on with Wallace.

 

[Raw Boned Youngster]

I am a big fan of Wallace.
As mentioned, he has an astute kicking game and his defence ( and commitment ) is also excellent.
Wallace has a great footy mind as well.

I have watched him closely recently, and I will agree that his performance against the Tigers was ordinary.

To me he looked as though he was on another page to some of his forwards. The recent crispness around the rucks and some of the inside balls looked very clumsy.
The timing was all wrong.

That, however, isn't always the playmaker's fault. The forwards seemed all over the place as well.

I thought it was a sluggish performance alround, not just from Wallace.

He also had terrible service from dummy half on a number of occasions, especially on the last plays.

Personally, I think we're fortunate to have a player of the quality of Peter Wallace at the club.

 

[gUt]

It's just an emotional overreaction to a cunnova loss, when Wallace finds his best form again (oh and when the team gets its regular starters back) the bandwagoners/scapegoats will back off again.

It's not an 'emotional overreaction'. :roll:

I know I've been concerned about Wallace's performance for a while now.

Don't bother arguing ning. It's just our "time of the month".

You in particular have come on here and sooked about Wallace like a kid who's had his lolly taken away. STILL none of you bandwagoners/scapegoaters have bothered to acknowledge that Wallace had to do EVERYTHING in a team that was missing its 3 most important players, especially in attack and yet managed to be the halfback in the team that was clearly the better team on the night.

Wallace handled the ball 70 times, the most by any player on either side except for Robbie Farah. The only players who come close to him are the various hookers. He made 3 errors out of 70 possible errors. By comparison, Corey Norman handled 36 times and made 2 errors. Let's keep digging shall we?

20 tackles (6 one-on-one, 4 missed)
3 offloads
5 tackle breaks
1 try assist
at least 1 forced opposition restart
14 kicks for 387 meters.

All in all, he was fkn busy and could not have been more involved in the game as a halfback. He had to do it ALL himself: McCullough did not create much, Norman just hit the ball up as though he were a lock, hence I can't recall our wingers getting the ball once through the hands.

How's this for a compromise. You claim he was worth "-50" points, meaning he was obviously the worst player on the field. However plenty of others picked Wallace out as one of the Broncos best on the night, including commentators. The truth obviously has to lie somewhere in between. Ergo he CAN'T have been as bad as some of you are making out.

It annoys me that the emotion of enduring a heartbreaking loss like this one is usually dumped at one player's feet. Even if you have had problems with Wallace before this game, it is patently obvious that this is NOT the game to be singling Wallace out and making absurd calls for him to be dropped. In a weakened side he did everything he could to make things happen and if we had won (which we very nearly did), I doubt this conversation would be happening.

 

[Bucking Beads]

It's just an emotional overreaction to a cunnova loss, when Wallace finds his best form again (oh and when the team gets its regular starters back) the bandwagoners/scapegoats will back off again.

It's not an 'emotional overreaction'. :roll:

I know I've been concerned about Wallace's performance for a while now.

Don't bother arguing ning. It's just our "time of the month".

You in particular have come on here and sooked about Wallace like a kid who's had his lolly taken away. STILL none of you bandwagoners/scapegoaters have bothered to acknowledge that Wallace had to do EVERYTHING in a team that was missing its 3 most important players, especially in attack and yet managed to be the halfback in the team that was clearly the better team on the night.

Wallace handled the ball 70 times, the most by any player on either side except for Robbie Farah. The only players who come close to him are the various hookers. He made 3 errors out of 70 possible errors. By comparison, Corey Norman handled 36 times and made 2 errors. Let's keep digging shall we? .

So now your comparing an established halfback with a rookie who isn't sure which position he belongs in?? In your stats regarding Wallace it doesn't include the many times he takes the wrong option and destroys our attack. Bottom line is Wallace should have been better.

 

[gUt]

I didn't want to mention Norman at all until people started calling for him to replace Wallace at halfback or somesuch nonsense. The point was to compare the fact that our 7 handled twice as much as our 6.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I am pretty sure the 6 plays outside the 7. SO if Norman didn't get the ball enough he was either never there or Wallace never passed it to him.

 

[gUt]

Concentrate. Read my post again. Wallace had to do EVERYTHING for the team, as borne out by the amazing stat that he handled more times (70) than anyone else on the field, except Farah. In the modern game, the 7 and 6 usually have a near-equal say in the game. With our usual 6 missing, Wallace was forced to do it all himself and did a good job.

 

[Emma]

I think the point people might be trying to make is that Wallace seems to lack that killer blow. We seem to be getting into a great position to score a try and then the play often fizzles. No doubting he did a lot of work in that game, but just that final pass, or that final kick, sometimes just seems to be lacking.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Concentrate. Read my post again. Wallace had to do EVERYTHING for the team, as borne out by the amazing stat that he handled more times (70) than anyone else on the field, except Farah. In the modern game, the 7 and 6 usually have a near-equal say in the game. With our usual 6 missing, Wallace was forced to do it all himself and did a good job.

Wallace is first reciever, he should handle the ball more FFS. Lockyer gets the ball more because he demands it.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I think the point people might be trying to make is that Wallace seems to lack that killer blow. We seem to be getting into a great position to score a try and then the play often fizzles. No doubting he did a lot of work in that game, but just that final pass, or that final kick, sometimes just seems to be lacking.

Bingo it is so frustrating because he is a better player than he lets on IMO.

 

[tkday]

I think everyone agrees that he's not playing at his best, but he's still doing pretty good. We have no better option so what's the point in arguing?

 

[Anonymous person]

With our usual 6 missing, Wallace was forced to do it all himself and did a good job.

he didnt do a good job though.

he got the ball 70 times, in a game where we were literally camped in their half for pretty much the entire second half, and could only manage to get the ball across the line one time. that is NOT a good job.