0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Again the issue of playing Staniforth at #12.... I really have no idea why we jeperdised losing Digby by putting always playing staniforth on the wing. Surely if we were to gamble on losing someone it should have been pelasasa.
It's a great shame that we still haven't seen the backline combination of
9. Henjak
10. Giteau
11. Mitchell
12. Staniforth
13. Cross
14. Ioane
15. Shepherd
Looks like we'll never know now!!!![]()
Work is all about getting screwed around. Experienced players take a fair amount of crap without running away. There will always be Wendels and Mitchells around, just ask Staniforth.Originally Posted by Ryder
The world doesn't owe anyone anything. You make your own future.Originally Posted by Ryder
I'm starting to like Junior more and more. He's a battering ram, which is something the Force need with so many playmakers in the backline. I have to say that John Mitchell was right. I think Staniforth would be better outside Hilgendorf, but Junior is better outside Gits.Originally Posted by Ryder
I can hear the violins playing softly in the background. Unlike Staniforth and Drew Mitchell, Digby is a junior player. He was always going to be really good, but kept making unforced errors. Recently, Digby has shown he is a better winger than Staniforth and he was starting to get a few supporters onside.Originally Posted by Ryder
Last edited by Goldmember; 03-05-07 at 08:26.
You sold me on all except the Junior bit Goldie.
I still rate him as a bench player.
There is nothing he can do that Staniforth can't and Stanners brings far better ball skills, tackling/defensive knowledge and general "Rugby smarts".
After his efforts last season for the Force and Wallabies, to say that Pelesasa is better in #12 or Cross is better in #13 than Staniforth is just plain wrong.
Those selections have to be about more than the best man for each job.
I have no doubt that if Staniforth was closer to the ball (ie in the Centres) this season we would have seen an even more competitive and successful unit with all likelihood those close matches going our way.
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
The Reds get Digby back and the Force have to keep Drew Mitchell - the most over rated and over paid non achiever in rugby. Thems the breaks.
I don't think Digby is that bad, but if you do feel that way, why would you want him backOriginally Posted by tic
![]()
80 Minutes, 15 Positions, No Protection, Wanna Ruck?
Ruck Me, Maul Me, Make Me Scrum!
Education is Important, but Rugby is Importanter!
Its difficult to detect irony over the internet. In the event that you were not taking the p**s, I was referring to Mitchell as the dud. Frankly, the best losses that Qld has had in recent years have been Drew Mitchell and Wendell Sailor.
OOHH is that what you meantOriginally Posted by tic
![]()
I would say you'll be doing your best to get Wendell back after his suspension though.
I would say we're pretty happy with Drew this year though, so everyone is a winner!
80 Minutes, 15 Positions, No Protection, Wanna Ruck?
Ruck Me, Maul Me, Make Me Scrum!
Education is Important, but Rugby is Importanter!
Personally I would prefer to keep Mitchell than Ioane, at least he's not a one trick pony.
I just wish he would get selected on the Wing and stop wasting Shepherds time developing his World Class potential.
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
My opinion is that the whole affair has been handled shabbily and the timing of it needs to be questioned, but other than that, i don't begrudge Diggers, good luck in the future mate...
I too can see drew growing more mature as a rugby player evry time he plays, but alas he is still out of position at fullback...
Proudly bought to you by a brewery somewhere....
Drew Mitchell and Wendell Sailor have the same thing in common - an inflated opinion of their own ability. Rest assured, Wendell will not be coming back to the Reds - and Mitchell will certainly never be welcolmed back either. Times move on. It beggars belief that he could be kept at fullback ahead of Shepherd, who has been player of the year until his injury.
Maybe our John knew that for Shep to be a "player of the year" he had to be out on the wing, he may not have had such a good year playing at full back?
If, ifs and buts were fruit and nuts, it would be Christmas every day of the year!
I do actually agree with you and would love to have seen shep at 15, but I don't pick em.
80 Minutes, 15 Positions, No Protection, Wanna Ruck?
Ruck Me, Maul Me, Make Me Scrum!
Education is Important, but Rugby is Importanter!
John Mitchell prefers Pelasasa to Staniforth. Why?Originally Posted by Burgs
![]()
Exactly...
- Pelesasa v Staniforth
- Mitchell v Shepherd
- #12 Giteau v #9 Giteau
- Mitchell v Connolly
The four great "ponderables" of 2007
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
The first two make me wonder about commitments made to players - 13 consecutive starts for Mitchell and Cross at 15 and 13 respectively?? It would answer the first point - Staniforth has greater flexibility than Pelesasa, in that he can play a wing. If he was at 12 and they have committed to play Cross at 13, Pelesasa has no spot, would have left and the team would (arguably) be more exposed next year for depth in the centres.
surely u don't rate pelasasa outside gits? think back last yr how they moved stanners closer to the action, he absolutely shined in the number 12.. his defence was reliable and he could break tackles.. on the other hand pelasasa is predictable and error riddle aswell.. john mitchell hasnt considered giving stanners a go at number 12 wit gits in the side, sometimes u have to take risks to see what clicks..
as for digby, well stanner's was thinking of going overseas b4 he decided he would actually stay.. problem with digby he actually thought stanner's was leaving so he did have a verbal agreement.. then to find out stanners resigned. the force commitee found about it and had a meeting with digby.. let's just say it didnt go to well.. and dont ask me how i know.. i just know, lol