The Wayne Bennett Super thread!

[Huge]

But but but AP, how can you claim they should be top four when you picked them to finish eighth ? They finished 7 th thus exceeding your expectations ! You picked Melbourne as premiers too, oddly removed from the comp by Newcastle !!

Naturally you want to present a lie as fact, Newcastle finished the season winning more than they lost. Win 12 lost 11 and a draw. Such desperation, straight out lies to support hatred and envy. Also their points differential was better than all but the top four! So a good season after regulation and one I would gladly trade for. In his two years he has taught a disjointed group to believe and support each other, something that could not occur overnight. It took a season to get it right as is obvious. Only an absolute fool would have expected instant success and just like at St George it took a season to build the belief.

Looks like he's on target to me.

 

[Coxy]

If anyone wants to tell me that at the start of 2012 and 2013 the Knights team on paper was top 4 material, I have a Harbour Bridge to sell you.

 

[Anonymous person]

But but but AP, how can you claim they should be top four when you picked them to finish eighth ? They finished 7 th thus exceeding your expectations ! You picked Melbourne as premiers too, oddly removed from the comp by Newcastle !!

Naturally you want to present a lie as fact, Newcastle finished the season winning more than they lost. Win 12 lost 11 and a draw. Such desperation, straight out lies to support hatred and envy. Also their points differential was better than all but the top four! So a good season after regulation and one I would gladly trade for. In his two years he has taught a disjointed group to believe and support each other, something that could not occur overnight. It took a season to get it right as is obvious. Only an absolute fool would have expected instant success and just like at St George it took a season to build the belief.

Looks like he's on target to me.

oh right, i forgot that what i predicted what, 8 months ago, might have changed since then lol. melbourne have not looked like premiership material the last 2-3 months. i believe that had they been able to get to the grand final that they would win it, but getting there was looking more and more unlikely.

ok my bad if they just managed to sneak 1 more win than loss. they still only got a 50% win rate. their differential was helped by 2 floggings of teams that were not even up to first grade quality (tigers right at the start, in literally the worst performance ive ever seen from any club ever) and then the titans where their entire right (i think it was right) side was steve-michaels-esque. take those 100 or so points out and theyre way back with the bunch.

and just to be clear - people like you are the exact ones im talking about with my previous post. youre looking at the result as a complete standalone thing and judging bennetts performance on that, just like im sure you did with the broncos for years. made the 8? success! got beaten 50-0 in last 6 games? irrelevant!

 

[Huge]

One other thing I noticed AP, you say Smiths kicking was 'atrocious'. By that I assume you mean it is bad, very bad. So one could deduce it is unreliable , inconsistent, untrustworthy ? If that's the case then how is a penalty 30 metres out any certainty ? At best one could argue Melbourne were denied a chance however, kicking a goal such as that is unlikely, given how 'atrocious' Smiths goal kicking is.

 

[Anonymous person]

If anyone wants to tell me that at the start of 2012 and 2013 the Knights team on paper was top 4 material, I have a Harbour Bridge to sell you.

i dont think that at all. top 8 definitely. pushing for high top 8 definitely on paper.

but when you take other stuff into account, like how woeful a large percentage of the teams have been, and how easy of a draw the knights had this year especially, they should definitely have been pushing for a close to top 4 finish. not in the top 4, as for most of the year those 4 were just in an entire different competition to the rest of the field, but pushing for 4th. they scraped into 7th, and i mean scraped. they relied on other teams shitting the bed to get there, like the broncos, titans and warriors.

One other thing I noticed AP, you say Smiths kicking was 'atrocious'. By that I assume you mean it is bad, very bad. So one could deduce it is unreliable , inconsistent, untrustworthy ? If that's the case then how is a penalty 30 metres out any certainty ? At best one could argue Melbourne were denied a chance however, kicking a goal such as that is unlikely, given how 'atrocious' Smiths goal kicking is.

lol

30m out from in front? no problem. 20m in from the sidelines or less and he has been useless lately.

let me put it even easier since youre having a hard time.

in front = good.
not in front = bad.

 

[Huge]

No AP, I just stick to the facts. You know, truths. I don't make up things to support my view. That's the thing about differentials AP, take out the two biggest wins from any team and it will quite naturally shrink the differential. It's nonsensical to advocate the removal of the two biggest wins without doing the same to all other teams at the same time and then and only then comparing them.

With regard to your prediction naturally you missed the salient point, namely your expectation for Newcastle. You expected them to finish about 8th this year . You knew what the roster was there and you believed they should finish mid field. You were correct. You did not think they were top four and cannot now claim they had a roster that should have them finish top four. It appears your view changed with the success of WB.

 

[Anonymous person]

again, differential doesnt tell the whole story.

if a team wins 50-0 once because the other team had 5 players sent off, then loses 4 games 10-0, theyll still have a positive differential despite being 1 win and 4 losses. ie. it means nothing.

i predicted them to finish 8th. i predicted that because i predicted the cowboys would be right up there towards the top, same with a few other teams. if they play to their potential, i thought they would be higher. they didnt. like i said, half the competition completely shitted up their season this year. for most of the year it literally was a 4 horse race. there was a bigger point gap between 4th and 5th than there was between 5th and 14th at one stage iirc.

and again, like i said, the performance of other teams and the incredibly fortunate draw they received, newcastle shouldve been higher. what i predicted they would finish 8 months earlier is completely and 100% irrelevant. that prediction was made before a single game was played this year, was it not?

there was no "success of WB" this season. if they beat the roosters this week then sure, ill give them that. so far theyve scraped into the finals on the back of a poor season, beaten a team who forgot how to play football, and beaten a worn out and on their last legs team with the help of a few dubious referee calls. if they can win the grand final itll be worth congratulating. beating the minor premiers to get there would be too. getting to where they are now? not at all.

 

[Huge]

No, you cannot re-write history. You predicted they would finish mid table because you believed they were mid strength. You were right and I also thought they were middling. If you believed they were top four, irrespective of others claims you would have had them there. Top four/five was not your expectation, simply accept this was a time when you actually got something right. You demean their effort the other night yet prior to the engagement you gave them no hope. They beat Melbourne in Melbourne,a very difficult task irrespective of how Melbourne were going at the time. As most people are doing, credit where credit is due. To hear you spin it, Newcastle should have won by 30 such was the broken down state Melbourne were apparently in. Oddly no bookmaker felt that way and no commentator other than Johns(s) gave them much chance. It seems you are in the tiny minority believing it was an easy task.

 

[Coxy]

What I think is impressive is that the Knights have come good at the right end of the season, and that in spite of the injury to Kurt Gidley (as much as I don't rate him, he's important to their side). They believe in what Bennett is coaching them to do, and it's working. They have belief in themselves. To beat Melbourne in Melbourne is no mean feat, and to do so with the rub of the green going against them as well (that penalty against McKinnon leading to their first try was an absolute joke) is a really good sign.

Again they're up against it facing the Roosters, but if they start like they did against the Storm, and the Roosters fall into their habit of losing their discipline when they get under the pump, they have every chance of beating them.

 

[Renegade]

That's actually a pretty good point Coxy, AP says the refs were against Melbourne - Mckinnons penalty was an absolute joke and it occurred because Slater stayed down. McKinnon had NOWHERE to go and Slaters head hit the bicep of McKinnon when falling.

The Slater block at 18-16 probably should have been a penalty, but the decision with the biggest impact on the scoreline got Melbourne into the game. Without that they may never have staged their comeback, considering Newcastle were dangerous everytime they shifted it.

 

[Anonymous person]

No, you cannot re-write history. You predicted they would finish mid table because you believed they were mid strength. You were right and I also thought they were middling. If you believed they were top four, irrespective of others claims you would have had them there.

again, you missing the point.

i dont think theyre a top 4 side on paper. theyre DEFINITELY a top 8, and should be pushing for top 4. you know who else ON PAPER should be top 4? the cowboys. the warriors should be up there. i place both of them above the knights ON PAPER. when those 2 teams vastly underperformed this season - which is undeniable, you cant say they didnt - that means that a team that i mightve predicted to come say, oh i dont know, 8th, suddenly should jump up to 6th. what happens when another of those teams from 1-5 underperforms? the 6th jumps up again.

its simple, but you dont seem to be getting it. youre saying that if i predicted the cowboys to come 2nd, but then in round 1 thurston and bowen both got season ending injuries and they subsequently come 2nd last, that the team i predicted to come 2nd coming first now means they outperformed my expectations. it doesnt, it means the team that i predicted to come first couldve underperformed, or in this instance got un-predictable injuries.

also, read some news articles from the days before the storm-knights game. many of them carry on about how broken and uninterested melbourne look, and how the hunger from last year is gone because they seemingly have nothing to prove and nothing to drive them to another premiership, and how the knights are hungry and have everything to play for and that they are a very good chance of beating the storm.

That's actually a pretty good point Coxy, AP says the refs were against Melbourne - Mckinnons penalty was an absolute joke and it occurred because Slater stayed down. McKinnon had NOWHERE to go and Slaters head hit the bicep of McKinnon when falling.

joke of a penalty, but by the books and how every match this year has been policed, still a penalty. you cant really argue that. arm hit head, penalty every day of the week. the rules are the joke - the penalty was just following them.

 

[Renegade]

It's probably more of a gripe about the rules, agreed, but it was total bullshit. Surely there has to be some sort of discretion applied to situations.

What would happen if someone was running, tripped, and fell into a guys knee without the tackler moving his arms? Still a penalty? Probably with the way things are. Rage inducing.

 

[Anonymous person]

What would happen if someone was running, tripped, and fell into a guys knee without the tackler moving his arms? Still a penalty? Probably with the way things are. Rage inducing.

depends who they play for.

 

[Huge]

Right, you predicted their finish position, based on the side on paper to be around eighth. Got it. You considered therefore that the sides you predicted to finish 1 to 7 stronger ,on paper at least. So it's fair to say that at the start of the season, without a ball being kicked that Newcastle were a 50 50 team. On paper, right ? I believe I've got it. I don't suppose you'd argue with that.

Now, irrespective of how the teams performed you believed at the years start that Newcastle were average. Middle of the road. 8 out 16. Dead centre. An average side but definitely not a top four side, we have established that. Remember, this was before a ball was kicked so we are still on the same page here.

Your prediction and their performance perfectly matched one another. Totally on the money. Now, they are top four at this current moment. You simply have no grounds on which to now claim they should have been top four or pushing top four. You never expected them to.

 

[Coxy]

Actually I'm pretty sure AP would've rated them top 4 if Bennett wasn't coach. He factored in 3-4 spots of dumb dumb factor...

 

[Anonymous person]

So it's fair to say that at the start of the season, without a ball being kicked that Newcastle were a 50 50 team. On paper, right ? I believe I've got it. I don't suppose you'd argue with that.

No.

Top 8 to me is not 50-50 win records. the fact that we now have teams making the top 8 winning just 50% or less is ridiculous, and the NRL should do something about it, preferably drop it to top 5 IMO.

theyre not "top 4" now just because other teams have been eliminated lol. they didnt finish in the top 4 at the end of the regular season. thats what the top 4 is. finals is another ballgame.

 

[KingWebcke]

If anyone wants to tell me that at the start of 2012 and 2013 the Knights team on paper was top 4 material, I have a Harbour Bridge to sell you.

I really don't think it is that ridiculous. they had potential to be a top 4 team.

I still believe that is the case and to be honest, at the start of this year I'm sure it would have seemed like an infinitely wiser prediction than predicting the Roosters as minor premiers or that the Cowboys would go on a 5 game losing streak and nearly miss the finals entirely

 

[Huge]

No, not 50 50 win record. That's what I wrote but meant it in the sense of them being average, in the middle and I thought that context was obvious. Most posters had Newcastle finishing 5 th or worse, very few, one I think had them as a top four side. Most thought like AP, that is average, middle of the road. Every team has the potential to be a top four side and yes, that includes every side.

Simple fact is AP never believed Newcastle to be top four or even to threaten to make top four. He always thought they were average and rated 7 teams above them based purely on the strength of their roster, a roster he now thinks is one of the best in the league although he never thought that at the season start. Flip flop flip flop. AP only changed his opinion of them to support his hatred of a well respected person and the most highly credentialed coach in rugby league history.