Player Micheal Luck

[Jesbass_old]

From watching the games he's played for us this year, my feeling Is that he's not one of our leader's yet. I just don't think he has the power or influence yet over the other players by either leading by action's or word's.

Not sure about words, but when we needed someone to step up at prop, Lillyman delivered. Strange but true.

 

[romel_old]

captaincy should go to somone who can back up what they are telling u to do. and show u the way. just like pricey. he leads the way physically and vocally.

micheal luck may have the gift of the gab but not the physical dominance thats needed when it comes to inspiring our team. watching luck make 50 tackles a game is not inspiring when we need attack.

u need a somone strong in offence somone everyone looks up too. somone who has the respect of the other players.

may be mannering,tate, or lance depending on form as vice captains only.

 

[Jesbass_old]

captaincy should go to somone who can back up what they are telling u to do. and show u the way. just like pricey. he leads the way physically and vocally.

micheal luck may have the gift of the gab but not the physical dominance thats needed when it comes to inspiring our team. watching luck make 50 tackles a game is not inspiring when we need attack.

u need a somone strong in offence somone everyone looks up too. somone who has the respect of the other players.

may be mannering,tate, or lance depending on form as vice captains only.

Why does it have to be a strong attacker? Why not a man who can lead without the ball? Someone who can rally a tough defensive line to hold out attack after attack?

We were leaking points like a sieve without Luck, and you're saying that plugging this gap isn't inspiring? Each to his own, but there's a saying that says a strong defense is the best offense. Luck provides our team with the platform to start scoring points from. Unfortunately, our attacking deficiencies are letting us down.

 

[romel_old]

the problem with lucks defence is that the tackles are not dominant in any way at all. he barely manages to pull a man down on his own unless its round the legs and this is what allows the oposite team to offload.

im sure we won more games when he was injured.

an extra attacking backrower makes a huge difference.

1 man cannot fix a bad defensive side.

the whole team needs to get their attitude right.

which leads us back to the coach.

 

[garyhobson_old]

Captaincy is out of the question for Luck. Michael Luck shouldnt be in the team at all next season if we are serious about moving forward from 2009 and becoming a premiership threat. Michael Luck wouldnt make the 17 in any of the nrl teams in the comp. So why should he make the Warriors. That's the problem with Ivan Cleary hes too dumb and stupid as a coach he cant formulate a good game plan to suit our type of players. Michael Luck is a nothing player, hes a waste of space in our 17. He's the worse lock in the comp. Look at Lowrie for the Eels, hes transformed his game into a solid lock forward robust player who runs hard, runs into gaps and can offload and is a solid defender. Nothing which Luck is. Michael Luck defence is weak, yes hes always first man there to tackle, but he cant defend one on one and prevent an offload, he always requires assistance from other players. Quite often this year ive seen him brushed off easily.

 

[Jesbass_old]

Captaincy is out of the question for Luck. Michael Luck shouldnt be in the team at all next season if we are serious about moving forward from 2009 and becoming a premiership threat. Michael Luck wouldnt make the 17 in any of the nrl teams in the comp. So why should he make the Warriors. That's the problem with Ivan Cleary hes too dumb and stupid as a coach he cant formulate a good game plan to suit our type of players. Michael Luck is a nothing player, hes a waste of space in our 17. He's the worse lock in the comp. Look at Lowrie for the Eels, hes transformed his game into a solid lock forward robust player who runs hard, runs into gaps and can offload and is a solid defender. Nothing which Luck is. Michael Luck defence is weak, yes hes always first man there to tackle, but he cant defend one on one and prevent an offload, he always requires assistance from other players. Quite often this year ive seen him brushed off easily.

I happen to disagree, but I assume you don't expect him to go anywhere, seeing as he's rated highly enough to be our POTY...?

 

[PB_old]

Luck is an interesting one. Do you shoot for/develop someone who can do what he does and more (Stagg), change the game-plan completely, or do you accept his strength and put players who complement it around him, as Melbourne do with Johnson. The main difference being that Johnson is a harder front-on defender and Luck excels at cover cleaning up the gaps and assisting. And, boy, does he have some mopping-up to do!

I think Luck, for all his limitations, has found what he can do well -- tackle. He never racked up massive counts at the Cowboys, he didn't play too much in 04 and 05, but he has grown here. Either he has defined his role, or it's been defined for him.

Luck's tackle stats. Time with Cowboys in bold.

2001: 285 (23 MT, N/A IF) 16 Games
2002: 227 (33 MT, N/A IF) 18 Games
2003: 444 (29 MT, 19 IF) 22 Games
2004: 190 (18 MT, 12 IF) 11 Games
2005: 145 (15 MT, 3 IF) 9 Games
2006: 571 (28 MT, 26 IF) 24 Games
2007: 959 (34 MT, 33 IF) 26 Games
2008: 957 (47 MT, 44 IF) 25 Games
2009: 1053 (44 MT, 47 IF) 23 Games

His workload has increased immensely and so have the missed and ineffective amounts. That's to be expected, but there's no way a guy with his head on the ground that much should be captain. If he's to be captain someone else has to pick up the slack so he can contribute by improving the quality of his tackles or his speed in the kick-chase (and being a captain). Make his strengths even stronger. I notice that he picks the right time for an inspirational run when in the opposition's 20m but gets slaughtered, so becoming a metre eater is out. However, he runs good lines and maybe that can put to better use by developing a short passing game. Not a game-breaking one, just an effective one. That, of course, depends on not eating grass so much.

 

[garyhobson_old]

I happen to disagree, but I assume you don't expect him to go anywhere, seeing as he's rated highly enough to be our POTY...?

POTY?

Well you tell me why Michael Luck should be in the team, and why he's a good lock forward, and why he should be picked ahead of the other players we have.

 

[daj3_old]

POTY?

Well you tell me why Michael Luck should be in the team, and why he's a good lock forward, and why he should be picked ahead of the other players we have.

Because it seems like he still actually wants to play at 70 minutes when the Warriors are down by 30 points... which is more than I can say for most of the team who look like they don't want to be there from kick off.

...which is exactly why he makes a good captain.

And the suggestion that Luck is not a "dominant" front on tackler is just that, a suggestion from people that don't know a lot about the game. It's a complete myth. You can't make that many tackles in a competition as physical as the NRL without having at least some dominance over opposition runners. Like Pricey said, it's the tackles that don't look like they hurt that hurt the most. I suggest some of you get out and actually play some rugby league and I guarantee your respect for Luck will double. For what it's worth I thought Luck's attacking improved in a team that took massive steps backward in attacking play, and his defence this year had extra sting to it possibly in response to suggestions that he might not be a dominant tackler. I don't know how anyone could miss the 3-4 solid shots he put on every game this year, but I'd suggest that they might be watching the game with one eye closed, chanting the same bs to themselves without regard to what actually happened in the games.

As for Luck as captain, I think he's probably our best stand-in at the moment, although for the reasons Polar Bob gave, I don't think he's a long term solution. That said, he sure gave the boys an earful after every try they conceded, (and there were a lot), I don't think you can blame him for the results.

 

[PB_old]

Because it seems like he still actually wants to play at 70 minutes when the Warriors are down by 30 points... which is more than I can say for most of the team who look like they don't want to be there from kick off.

...which is exactly why he makes a good captain.

And the suggestion that Luck is not a "dominant" front on tackler is just that, a suggestion from people that don't know a lot about the game. It's a complete myth. You can't make that many tackles in a competition as physical as the NRL without having at least some dominance over opposition runners. Like Pricey said, it's the tackles that don't look like they hurt that hurt the most. I suggest some of you get out and actually play some rugby league and I guarantee your respect for Luck will double. For what it's worth I thought Luck's attacking improved in a team that took massive steps backward in attacking play, and his defence this year had extra sting to it possibly in response to suggestions that he might not be a dominant tackler. I don't know how anyone could miss the 3-4 solid shots he put on every game this year, but I'd suggest that they might be watching the game with one eye closed, chanting the same bs to themselves without regard to what actually happened in the games.

When I say dominant, I mean winning the wrestle. I can't say I see him do that, but it's not what I'm looking at, and might not be his role. He can make front-on hits just fine, but some others hit cleaner and harder more often, like Johnson, but he's an exception as probably the best overall defensive player around. This isn't saying that Luck doesn't make clean or hard hits. The comparison isn't a criticism. Luck is has been improving year on year and averages 44 plus tackles per game. I don't think we have much to complain about with young Mr. Luck. His strength at the moment is in always being there. Be it front-on, cover tackling, or assisting in a tackle, he's there. You play to that strength.

 

[KeepingTheFaith_old]

Interesting that this debate is still going.

Meh, my thoughts haven't changed. Good player, will never question his commitment, but going forward as a team the Warriors have better options.

 

[Jesbass_old]

Interesting that this debate is still going.

Meh, my thoughts haven't changed. Good player, will never question his commitment, but going forward as a team the Warriors have better options.

It really only woke up again when Gary joined the 'against' side of the debate.

 

[PB_old]

It really only woke up again when Gary joined the 'against' side of the debate.

And that the debate is not 'should he be in the team'? It's now 'should he be the captain?' Yeah baby... we've come a long way.

 

[KeepingTheFaith_old]

It really only woke up again when Gary joined the 'against' side of the debate.

In otherwords when things started turning hostile.

Luck's a hard working commited player. Personally I wouldn't have him in the team as first choice, but I can understand why others would. A lot of it just comes down to personal preference rather than anything Luck has or hasn't done.

 

[Spence_old]

You can't underestimate the lack of penetration our backrow has had this year. I wasn't keeping an eye out for it, but I'm guessing there were less complaints towards the end of the year when Brown and Ta'ai were playing well?

 

[PB_old]

You can't underestimate the lack of penetration our backrow has had this year. I wasn't keeping an eye out for it, but I'm guessing there were less complaints towards the end of the year when Brown and Ta'ai were playing well?

Probably right, Spence. KTF and others have been right all along regarding balance. I used to think that Mannering offers more than Luck,but I wasn't being terribly objective. When it came down to it dropping Luck to make way for Mannering didn't make sense. I just wanted Mannering in the side because he 'could' play better as a whole and was a Kiwi. Once you address the imbalance with Brown and Ta'ai that no longer becomes necessary as Luck actaully adds balance. Same with Lillyman. He adds balance as a prop with a high workrate allowing one with less minutes in him but with greater impact to come on. As such, they are both benchies now IMO.

 

[Northern_Union]

You can't underestimate the lack of penetration our backrow has had this year. I wasn't keeping an eye out for it, but I'm guessing there were less complaints towards the end of the year when Brown and Ta'ai were playing well?

When you typed the word penetration.......a shiver went down my spine:flame:

 

[garyhobson_old]

In otherwords when things started turning hostile.

Luck's a hard working commited player. Personally I wouldn't have him in the team as first choice, but I can understand why others would. A lot of it just comes down to personal preference rather than anything Luck has or hasn't done.

It's called having an opinion. Hostile...grow some balls.

 

[KeepingTheFaith_old]

It's called having an opinion. Hostile...grow some balls.

HAHAHA

I have an opinion, the difference is I chose to express it with logical reasons and statistical analysis to back up my opinions, I don't just rubbish a player and chuck a virtual hissy fit when I don't like them, and then attack anyone else who dares disagree with me.

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you have to be a wanker when sharing it.

 

[moonfire_old]

I honestly think as fans we can not comment on who should or should not be captain. We do not know the players on a personal level, we have no idea how they interact as a team off the field. Being a captain requires the networking and people skills to keep a team together, that is something that can't be judged from the sideline.