PLAYER Reece Walsh

[Super Freak]

 

[broncsgoat]

averaging 3.66 errors per game has to be some sort of record, albeit from a small sample size..... i like walsh, the bloke can play, but saying he's not going poorly is disingenuous...

give him a rocket and tell him to catch the fucking ball instead of making excuses for him.

 

[Sproj]

averaging 3.66 errors per game has to be some sort of record, albeit from a small sample size..... i like walsh, the bloke can play, but saying he's not going poorly is disingenuous...

give him a rocket and tell him to catch the fucking ball instead of making excuses for him.

I’m sure that’s being done behind closed doors.

 

[Kooly87]

averaging 3.66 errors per game has to be some sort of record, albeit from a small sample size..... i like walsh, the bloke can play, but saying he's not going poorly is disingenuous...

give him a rocket and tell him to catch the fucking ball instead of making excuses for him.

Has literally anyone seriously argued that he isn't playing poorly?

 

[Renegade]

Has literally anyone seriously argued that he isn't playing poorly?

I think there has been a little bit of glossing over. I think Mason is right in his podcast that if it was a player with a slightly lesser profile, there'd be multiple crosshairs on him. He does get a little bit of leeway but it's fast running out.

 

[Fernando]

The rain should be good for him, no one expects anything spectacular in these conditions just defend, support play and take the 4th tackle hit up at times for a quick play the ball. If he tries to ball play it'll probably end in disaster again lol.

 

[Kooly87]

I think there has been a little bit of glossing over. I think Mason is right in his podcast that if it was a player with a slightly lesser profile, there'd be multiple crosshairs on him. He does get a little bit of leeway but it's fast running out.

If anything, I'd argue the opposite,

He's been shit, but the gap between his ceiling and floor has always been significant. He isn't Lockyer, he's going to have shit games and perhaps more than his share, but he singlehandedly wins games too. Who else on our roster can honestly claim that?

 

[Renegade]

If anything, I'd argue the opposite,

He's been shit, but the gap between his ceiling and floor has always been significant. He isn't Lockyer, he's going to have shit games and perhaps more than his share, but he singlehandedly wins games too. Who else on our roster can honestly claim that?

That's exactly the problem I think at present. He doesn't need to win games single handedly. He just needs to play his part and pick his moments. He's overawing himself.

 

[Kooly87]

That's exactly the problem I think at present. He doesn't need to win games single handedly. He just needs to play his part and pick his moments. He's overawing himself.

You're welcome to argue he plays conservatively and more closely to his average while he's playing like shit, just don't be one of those whingers when he plays the same conservative football while he's playing well. Can't have it both ways with anyone but the absolute elite guys.

 

[Renegade]

You're welcome to argue he plays conservatively and more closely to his average while he's playing like shit, just don't be one of those whingers when he plays the same conservative football while he's playing well. Can't have it both ways with anyone but the absolute elite guys.

what? I don't really care if Reece scores 50 tries a game or scores 0. If he does his job and helps us win and minimizes his errors, great. We don't need him to be a highlights reel. If that means playing conservatively, great, team comes first.

 

[Kooly87]

what? I don't really care if Reece scores 50 tries a game or scores 0. If he does his job and helps us win and minimizes his errors, great. We don't need him to be a highlights reel. If that means playing conservatively, great, team comes first.

Ok, but the evidence suggests he's NEVER been a conservative player. He's always been a walking highlight reel, both good and bad, at least in first grade. You get some incredible diamonds, but you have to eat a few rocks as well.

If you don't like it, go and get a different, more consistent, if more mediocre Fullback. That's far more likely to work out than relying on Walsh to completely change the way he's always played at this level.

 

[Renegade]

Ok, but the evidence suggests he's NEVER been a conservative player. He's always been a walking highlight reel, both good and bad, at least in first grade. You get some incredible diamonds, but you have to eat a few rocks as well.

If you don't like it, go and get a different, more consistent, if more mediocre Fullback. That's far more likely to work out than relying on Walsh to completely change the way he's always played at this level.

The problem is rocks and diamonds will only get you so far in the end. If he wants to evolve to the next level, he needs to learn when to press the go button and when to hold fire. Slater was the same really, and no one ever said get rid, people just said, yeah he needs to be a bit safer at the back. It's why Hunt got picked over him in the early days.

No one would say Edwards is mediocre for example, but he doesn't go for highlight plays. Just plays consistent, smart, safe football that puts his team on the front foot. No reason Walsh cannot play the same way.

 

[Kooly87]

The problem is rocks and diamonds will only get you so far in the end. If he wants to evolve to the next level, he needs to learn when to press the go button and when to hold fire. Slater was the same really, and no one ever said get rid, people just said, yeah he needs to be a bit safer at the back. It's why Hunt got picked over him in the early days.

No one would say Edwards is mediocre for example, but he doesn't go for highlight plays. Just plays consistent, smart, safe football that puts his team on the front foot. No reason Walsh cannot play the same way.

Slater changed the game for modern Fullbacks. He might yet prove to be an Immortal.

Edwards is definitely consistent, but he has the advantage of playing on the front foot with Elite players all round him basically every single week, in the greatest side of the post WW2 era.

I'm fine if Walsh doesn't reach Slater levels. The whole point of being an Immortal is that your efforts should not be easily replicated.

As for Edwards, well I'd argue if you swapped teams for those two guys, you'd see a more expansive Edwards and a more conservative Walsh. It's just the luxury of those two guys playing in their respective teams and the relative players around them. Edwards couldn't even catch a high ball consistently 5 years ago. 5 years of playing behind Cleary does wonders for just about anyone.

 

[Renegade]

Slater changed the game for modern Fullbacks. He might yet prove to be an Immortal.

Edwards is definitely consistent, but he has the advantage of playing on the front foot with Elite players all round him basically every single week, in the greatest side of the post WW2 era.

I'm fine if Walsh doesn't reach Slater levels. The whole point of being an Immortal is that your efforts should not be easily replicated.

As for Edwards, well I'd argue if you swapped teams for those two guys, you'd see a more expansive Edwards and a more conservative Walsh. It's just the luxury of those two guys playing in their respective teams and the relative players around them. Edwards couldn't even catch a high ball consistently 5 years ago. 5 years of playing behind Cleary does wonders for just about anyone.

I'm simply using Slater as an example of supremely talented player that needed to learn to curb his natural instincts in favour of a better team result. Not that Reece is actively choosing to be a hero in spite of the team, simply that he needs to think more than just the next tackle option.

Edwards will never be an immortal and yes he's playing behind a generational team, but he is also part of that generational team, not just a benefactor of playing in it. He is an excellent example of how someone can be incredibly effective without the flash. He's the best support player in the game - why can't Reece aspire to be this?

 

[whykickamoocow]

Slater changed the game for modern Fullbacks. He might yet prove to be an Immortal.

Edwards is definitely consistent, but he has the advantage of playing on the front foot with Elite players all round him basically every single week, in the greatest side of the post WW2 era.

I'm fine if Walsh doesn't reach Slater levels. The whole point of being an Immortal is that your efforts should not be easily replicated.

As for Edwards, well I'd argue if you swapped teams for those two guys, you'd see a more expansive Edwards and a more conservative Walsh. It's just the luxury of those two guys playing in their respective teams and the relative players around them. Edwards couldn't even catch a high ball consistently 5 years ago. 5 years of playing behind Cleary does wonders for just about anyone.

I hear this all the time and think it’s bullshit. Just curious, how did he change the game for fullbacks

 

[Kooly87]

I hear this all the time and think it’s bullshit. Just curious, how did he change the game for fullbacks

Respectfully, if you have to ask, you're not really qualified for the conversation. Go and watch some more pre- Slater Rugby League and come back when you're done.

 

[Kooly87]

I'm simply using Slater as an example of supremely talented player that needed to learn to curb his natural instincts in favour of a better team result. Not that Reece is actively choosing to be a hero in spite of the team, simply that he needs to think more than just the next tackle option.

Edwards will never be an immortal and yes he's playing behind a generational team, but he is also part of that generational team, not just a benefactor of playing in it. He is an excellent example of how someone can be incredibly effective without the flash. He's the best support player in the game - why can't Reece aspire to be this?

Of course you can ask this of him. It just isn't within his nature at this stage of his career. At least on the evidence available.

If an Edwards style player is what you crave, go and recruit one. Frankly, that's far more likely to be successful than converting Walsh at this point. It's not impossible, but I certainly wouldn't be backing it with my own money.

Walsh is what he is. At this stage, with all we have invested, we're far better off letting him do his thing and riding the rollercoaster than hoping he can overnight convert to a more consistent but also more limited footballer overall.

Hopefully consistency comes with age and experience, and usually does. His ceiling is levels above Edwards, and if you want to enjoy that ceiling, you have to cop the occasional flooer period to.

 

[whykickamoocow]

Respectfully, if you have to ask, you're not really qualified for the conversation. Go and watch some more pre- Slater Rugby League and come back when you're done.

So in other words you just spew out the shit other people say. He was a great fullback but what aspect of the game did he change. Ball playing? That’s a nope, support play? That’s another nope. Slater had to change his game because he was getting overlooked for rep sides for KHunt. It’s complete bullshit that he changed the way fullbacks play the game. There’s nothing in the way he played that other fullbacks like Lockyer and Hunt weren’t already doing. So again, how did he change the game for fullbacks