Tim Smith close to signing elsewhere.

[tkday]

I do that with Locky I must admit. When you think about it he has made some very good try saving tackles. Still doesn't mean his defence is that good :)

 

[Charmamba]

Its not as bad as is made out however.

 

[tkday]

Yep, i was trying to make that statement in my previous post but after reading it again I noticed it was not even remotely clear/apparent.

 

[Gingerballs]

thats the same thing here - youre choosing Wallace over Smith because Wallace is 'solid' and wont let you down, despite the fact that Smith has proven to be those things and more.

It's not the same thing here, because Smith did not prove to be solid and dependable. There's a reason Parra fans are very happy he's no longer at their club; he often threw errant passes and missed easy tackles on his own line.

 

[Bannermania]

thats the same thing here - youre choosing Wallace over Smith because Wallace is 'solid' and wont let you down, despite the fact that Smith has proven to be those things and more.

It's not the same thing here, because Smith did not prove to be solid and dependable. There's a reason Parra fans are very happy he's no longer at their club; he often threw errant passes and missed easy tackles on his own line.

Yeah, he was certainly no Michael Witt. :roll:

 

[Bannermania]

What about when Lockyer finishes up? I mean yes, Brisbane can be solid with an organisational halfback, but at the moment you guys are struggling without that creative flare that the halves seem to lack.

 

[Charmamba]

Our future will rest on Hunt or Norman.. im fine with that.

 

[Anonymous person]

Where's the rulebook that says halfbacks HAVE to be ridiculously creative and talented? Didn't we win a premiership with a "solid" halfback? Pretty sure we did.

It depends on the team AP. In the Broncos team, we don't actually need a creative halfback right now because Lockyer creates a lot of our magic.

Would you take Cooper Cronk AP? A lot of similarities between Cronk and Wallace. The Storm have just made 4 straight grand finals with a organisational half-back FFS.

AP doesn't understand rugby league.

lol

you saying i dont understand league is like me telling Roger Federer he doesnt understand tennis - its just stupid.

im not saying that halfbacks HAVE to be ridiculously creative - but if you have a choice between one who is, and one who isnt, and they can both do the regular stuff as well as each other, youd have to be an idiot to choose the one who isnt creative.

i dont care if we dont need a creative halfback RIGHT NOW, read what i said:

well lockyer will be gone in 2 years maximum, probably end of next year, wallace is failing to set the world on fire, and hunt just never gets any game time. norman is our fullback, not one of our halves.

Smith couldve been just what we need had they given him a chance.

we ALL know that Lockyer isnt going to be around much longer. its the old Ben Ikin chestnut all over again - we lose a young up and comer because we already have someone (whos old) in that position, then when that person leaves 12 months later we're proper f#$%ed. Why not give Smith some game time to see if he is what we need to replace Lockyer? if he doesnt work out, no harm done. if he does prove to be what we're looking for, we've got a ready replacement for Lockyer when he leaves. im not seeing where the downside of that plan of attack is? if wallace doesnt like it, he can leave and Smith gets a permanent position in first grade. Then we have Ben Hunt coming through to have a shot at the other halves position. win-win.

and yes, i would have cooper cronk in a heartbeat. say what you want about him not being creative, but he makes up for it by always knowing what the best play is for the situation, and he can perform those plays with pinpoint accuracy. Wallace doesnt possess the kicking or passing game of Cronk, nor the vision to know what is the best option at the time. Thats why Melbourne are so good - their halfback knows where the ball has to be, and knows how to get it there a multitude of ways. Wallace knows where the ball has to be, but only has the regular old bag of tricks that any decent halfback has to get it there.

i know that AT THE MOMENT we are doing fine with Wallace and Lockyer. but think of the bigger picture - Lockyer is on his last legs, and once hes gone we'll be hard up to break the defensive line without a genuine creative playmaker.

 

[schmix]

Why not give Smith some game time to see if he is what we need to replace Lockyer? if he doesnt work out, no harm done. if he does prove to be what we're looking for, we've got a ready replacement for Lockyer when he leaves. im not seeing where the downside of that plan of attack is? if wallace doesnt like it, he can leave and Smith gets a permanent position in first grade. Then we have Ben Hunt coming through to have a shot at the other halves position. win-win.

And if Smith does turn out to be a suitable replacement for Lockyer, then what? We expect him to play in reserve grade until Lockyer pulls the plug?

In reality, it's not really a choice between Smith and Hunt, it's between Wallace and Smith. Hunt is young and apparently okay with waiting around for his chance. Wallace and Smith both want and expect to be playing full time in first grade, which is fair enough. It's just unfortunate we don't have the room for them both, and the club has decided to keep the player who is a proven performer and has a well developed combination with Lockyer.

I imagine the post-Lockyer plan is for Wallace to continue his current organisational role and Hunt to add the creativity.

 

[Anonymous person]

if smith turns out to be a suitable replacement for Lockyer, Smith gets the current Halfback role with Wallace either being backup or to the bench.

it might just be me, but id rather have Lockyer and Smith, with Hunt getting groomed to fit in when Lockyer leaves than have Lockyer and Wallace with Hunt waiting. but like i said, all they needed to do was give him a few matches to see how he goes before making a decision.

 

[Gingerballs]

thats the same thing here - youre choosing Wallace over Smith because Wallace is 'solid' and wont let you down, despite the fact that Smith has proven to be those things and more.

It's not the same thing here, because Smith did not prove to be solid and dependable. There's a reason Parra fans are very happy he's no longer at their club; he often threw errant passes and missed easy tackles on his own line.

Yeah, he was certainly no Michael Witt. :roll:

I don't follow. How did Michael Witt come into this?

 

[Flutterby]

They did give Smith a shot in the trials and as well as he played (from what I've heard as I didn't see any of the trial matches), Ivan and the coaching staff clearly didn't think it was enough to take the spot off Wallace at this stage.

Smith then proceeded to play one fairly rubbish game and one pretty good game for Easts - inconsistency that has really been the hallmark of his career to date. Yes he can do some amazing things, but he more often has done some fairly ordinary things. I do hope he can turn things around and play consistently really well - but I wait to see.

 

[The Brizz]

I don't understand the boning over Tim Smith he despite some great attacking form in his debut season was disgustingly bad in defense and backed up his very good year with a dire one where he looked completely lost at sea. So on those FACTS AP, you are willing to just proclaim Tim Smith is the better option than Wallace despite Wallace's consistent performances that have earned him 4 Origin caps already in his relatively short time in the game compared to what? a few Q Cup games where he has gone well and some ESL form? Seriously I agree with you fairly often on Slater related issues but you couldn't be much more off course with this argument.

 

[Anonymous person]

lol

some of you guys have such selective reading. Gymp, go back and read what i said and answer your own question.

 

[Burg]

And yet everytime he kicked the ball against parramatta it found the ground, how'd Wallace do? Oh, that's right, he loves to kick to the fullbacks so they don't have to move, such a nice bloke.

 

[tkday]

Hahah burg, he does tend to do that a lot. But he's improving, he's still youngish isn't he? Locky took a while for his kicking game to improve.

 

[Bannermania]

And yet everytime he kicked the ball against parramatta it found the ground, how'd Wallace do? Oh, that's right, he loves to kick to the fullbacks so they don't have to move, such a nice bloke.

Hahahaa. Wallace is so curtious. He doesn't want the opposing fullback to get tired.

 

[Bucking Beads]

[quote="The Rock":317a93if]
Where's the rulebook that says halfbacks HAVE to be ridiculously creative and talented? Didn't we win a premiership with a "solid" halfback? Pretty sure we did.

It depends on the team AP. In the Broncos team, we don't actually need a creative halfback right now because Lockyer creates a lot of our magic.

Would you take Cooper Cronk AP? A lot of similarities between Cronk and Wallace. The Storm have just made 4 straight grand finals with a organisational half-back FFS.

AP doesn't understand rugby league.

lol

you saying i dont understand league is like me telling Roger Federer he doesnt understand tennis - its just stupid.

im not saying that halfbacks HAVE to be ridiculously creative - but if you have a choice between one who is, and one who isnt, and they can both do the regular stuff as well as each other, youd have to be an idiot to choose the one who isnt creative.

i dont care if we dont need a creative halfback RIGHT NOW, read what i said:

well lockyer will be gone in 2 years maximum, probably end of next year, wallace is failing to set the world on fire, and hunt just never gets any game time. norman is our fullback, not one of our halves.

Smith couldve been just what we need had they given him a chance.

we ALL know that Lockyer isnt going to be around much longer. its the old Ben Ikin chestnut all over again - we lose a young up and comer because we already have someone (whos old) in that position, then when that person leaves 12 months later we're proper f#$%ed. Why not give Smith some game time to see if he is what we need to replace Lockyer? if he doesnt work out, no harm done. if he does prove to be what we're looking for, we've got a ready replacement for Lockyer when he leaves. im not seeing where the downside of that plan of attack is? if wallace doesnt like it, he can leave and Smith gets a permanent position in first grade. Then we have Ben Hunt coming through to have a shot at the other halves position. win-win.

and yes, i would have cooper cronk in a heartbeat. say what you want about him not being creative, but he makes up for it by always knowing what the best play is for the situation, and he can perform those plays with pinpoint accuracy. Wallace doesnt possess the kicking or passing game of Cronk, nor the vision to know what is the best option at the time. Thats why Melbourne are so good - their halfback knows where the ball has to be, and knows how to get it there a multitude of ways. Wallace knows where the ball has to be, but only has the regular old bag of tricks that any decent halfback has to get it there.

i know that AT THE MOMENT we are doing fine with Wallace and Lockyer. but think of the bigger picture - Lockyer is on his last legs, and once hes gone we'll be hard up to break the defensive line without a genuine creative playmaker.[/quote:317a93if]

What makes you think you no so much about league?? How many eyars have you played?? Did you make it to a huigher level?? Have you ever coached a side??