Walters Is a liability imo. The stats may say he made 38 tackles but they dont say how many were dominant or effective, which wasnt many. He was often left clinging to a leg after being ran over or through. They will go down on the stat sheet as a tackle but in reality it was poor defence, added to his non- existant offensive contribution it was yet another poor display from him.
JJB, Ablett, Delaney, Ward, Ferres and Keinhorst would probably all get selected ahead of Walters. So as 7th choice 2nd row he’s obviously not going to be international class, but he puts the effort in and does a job, he doesn’t deserve the level of criticism he gets. How would our 7th choice centre get on?
Farrell is easily world class. He's no Dan Carter, but he's a better all round player than Wilkinson was, and he has a great partnership with Ford. Saying that, it's been funny to see them knocked down a peg in this 6Ns
Anyway, back to the interesting stuff, and Friday's game. It was patchy, but we were pretty clinical near the Hull line which was quite refreshing, although we've let teams off the hook too many times in games this season, but we've defended very well so far, although Saints will be a huge step up next week, but hopefully we can get a couple more players back next week - I think we'll need it.
On an individual level, I thought Watkins, Garbutt and Myler were particularly outstanding. I honestly don't think there's many props in SL I'd swap Garbutt for, if he was English, he'd be considered a star. I also though Golding had a great game too. If Walker had a game like that people would be fawning over it. Delaney has also had a sollid start to the season. On the other side of the coin, I thought Ormondroyd (again) was terrible in defense. He'll never make a regualr SL player if he doesn't drastically improve in this area.
Completely disagree re- Farrell/Wilkinson. Agree re-Watkins Myler & Garbutt i can see a good link building on that right edge.
Farrell is easily world class. He's no Dan Carter, but he's a better all round player than Wilkinson was, and he has a great partnership with Ford. Saying that, it's been funny to see them knocked down a peg in this 6Ns
Anyway, back to the interesting stuff, and Friday's game. It was patchy, but we were pretty clinical near the Hull line which was quite refreshing, although we've let teams off the hook too many times in games this season, but we've defended very well so far, although Saints will be a huge step up next week, but hopefully we can get a couple more players back next week - I think we'll need it.
On an individual level, I thought Watkins, Garbutt and Myler were particularly outstanding. I honestly don't think there's many props in SL I'd swap Garbutt for, if he was English, he'd be considered a star. I also though Golding had a great game too. If Walker had a game like that people would be fawning over it. Delaney has also had a sollid start to the season. On the other side of the coin, I thought Ormondroyd (again) was terrible in defense. He'll never make a regualr SL player if he doesn't drastically improve in this area.
I'd agree with all the RL points. Some good stuff came out of that game and though I was sceptical when we signed Myler, he's beginning to add an extra dimension to our attacking game. Had our bench been stronger, we'd have controlled that game a whole lot better than we did. The downside of this is that our stand in players seem poorly-drilled. I can see why McDermott is averse to using bench players when I see our defence losing its organisation in the way it did. I'm not talking goal line here, just the increased ease with which Hull were able to head up field. In a sense he's right to minimise that disruption but in another that bench needs to be better trained.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Of course stats never show the whole picture but neither does the naked eye from one fixed position in the stands which is why the TV often gives a better insight in the close quarter stuff. You cannot argue with the stats because they are a factual record of performance not based on emotion and is why all coaches find them an important tool.
I use them to back up my opinions for instance in the recent difference of opinion on Walters performance Gotcha and I posted our opinions on the night before the stats were published. My opinion was that Gotcha was being over critical of a reserve player who came off the bench and made 38 tackles (second only to JJB with 44) in limited time on the field. Yes he may have made a couple of errors too but he was an important part of our defence that won us the game including a crucial one on one tackle that stopped Sneyd.
Indeed only 2 Hull players made more tackles and for Gotcha to denigrate Walters on this occasion was out of order IMO.
Both he and you love to try and belittle my opinions because I watch on TV while you view from the stands but neither of you seemed to be see on the night of the real effort made by Walters so it rather disproves your claims to a superior view point. Neither of you commented on Ormondroyd's contribution of just 6 tackles and 4 missed tackles with at least one miss leading to a try for Hull.
At the end of the day we can only put forward our opinions which are all too often subjective. However I do have quite a number of years coaching experience and have been a student of the game for over 60 years now so my opinion is as valid as the next man's.
To be on the opposite side of the opinion of Gotcha, Sal and yourself all at the same time tells me I must be on the right track!
You are still missing the point of the missing stats, which tell a lot more than the ones recorded do, and are only formed from the naked eye.
And to counter your having a dig argument, if you actually go back and read the post I commented to you, you will see quite clearly that I stated what you will see from the tv, is a guy popping up all over the place and involved in tackles, and this was before any stats. That is what you are using the stats recorded to back up. What you miss though is the gaps left all over the place, and him not knowing where the hell he is and effecting the shape of the defensive line.
Nowhere have you disprooved these comments, infact they are backed up continually by others who were at the game. Only difference is, it appears it is excusable because he is only 7th choice, but that doesn't mean your opinion is correct.
I will give you hands down that certain things can been seen better on the tv, which are when something needs seeing close up, i.e. a try, a foul in the tackle, a knock on or stolen ball. However, you have absolutely no idea from watching the tv what effects anyone has on the rest of the defence by the actions of players. You only see what is in the lense view at the time.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
You are still missing the point of the missing stats, which tell a lot more than the ones recorded do, and are only formed from the naked eye.
And to counter your having a dig argument, if you actually go back and read the post I commented to you, you will see quite clearly that I stated what you will see from the tv, is a guy popping up all over the place and involved in tackles, and this was before any stats. That is what you are using the stats recorded to back up. What you miss though is the gaps left all over the place, and him not knowing where the hell he is and effecting the shape of the defensive line.
Nowhere have you disprooved these comments, infact they are backed up continually by others who were at the game. Only difference is, it appears it is excusable because he is only 7th choice, but that doesn't mean your opinion is correct.
I will give you hands down that certain things can been seen better on the tv, which are when something needs seeing close up, i.e. a try, a foul in the tackle, a knock on or stolen ball. However, you have absolutely no idea from watching the tv what effects anyone has on the rest of the defence by the actions of players. You only see what is in the lense view at the time.
One of the issues of Headingley is there are very few places you can see the whole fabric of the game - something you cannot see on TV
Nowhere have you disprooved these comments, infact they are backed up continually by others who were at the game. Only difference is, it appears it is excusable because he is only 7th choice, but that doesn't mean your opinion is correct. .
I've not seen anybody deny this is the case - he does have a tendency to over chase and can break structure, but given he is so low down the pecking order, and the fact he clearly puts in a massive effort, to throw out lines like 'the worst excuse of a rugby player' is way over the top, sensationalist and smells of a personal vendetta.
I've seen players with much more natural talent put in far worse performances (and on a regular basis) than Walters did against Hull. The grief he gets is way over the top for his standing in the game.