I think it's less who they think is the best player, and more who they like as their favourite.
We hate ads too!
We get it. Ads aren't what you are here for. NZWarriors.com has been up for almost 20 years and relies on ad revenue to help keep the server running.
Please add us to your ad blocker's whitelist or disable to run on our website. Alternatively, click here to upgrade your account to remove all ads.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I think it's less who they think is the best player, and more who they like as their favourite.
Jesbass_old
Guest
Regardless of how hard Luck tried his heart out this year Manu deserved the award. I would definitely say he was far and away our best this year.
I disagree. I think Luck was very deserving, but Vatuvei was right to be in the top three.
Northern_Union
Guest
playdaball_old
Guest
Finally the Warriors management get something right this season.
What?
Jesbass_old
Guest
I think Manu was hurt in the voting due to be outed with injury for a period of time.
I dunno - he only played 4 matches less than Luck, and 13 tries in 19 matches ain't half bad. I think, though, that setting NRL records for a match and for a season are what sealed it for Luck.
Northern_Union
Guest
Jesbass_old
Guest
1000 tackles plus for a season. Thats a body destroying number.
Especially for the poor sod who got tackled more than a thousand times! :lol1:
Northern_Union
Guest
2big2strong_old
Guest
I remember watching the Sunday footy show a few weeks ago and Phil Gould and Andrew Johns (both men that I respect immensely) talked about how having someone in your team with a massive tackle count is nothing to be proud of and if the coach is proud then he's not doing his job properly. They said, and they're 100% correct, that the teams with these players in never win premierships. Nathan Friend has been up there with Michael Luck the past couple years and the Titans never even made the finals.
So in other words, making 1000 tackles a year is nothing to be proud of Michael. It just drives home the fact that the team is not working together as a unit. Nobody should be making 1000 tackles. Alan Tongue is up there too every year, when was the last time the Raiders won the big one?
Piss these pathetic defensive 'workhorses' out the window, this is not the NFL, if you can only tackle and can't run piss off, if you can only run and can't tackle piss off. Ivan, do your job and COACH players how to tackle, don't just hire someone to tackle everything that moves so you don't have to do your job.
So in other words, making 1000 tackles a year is nothing to be proud of Michael. It just drives home the fact that the team is not working together as a unit. Nobody should be making 1000 tackles. Alan Tongue is up there too every year, when was the last time the Raiders won the big one?
Piss these pathetic defensive 'workhorses' out the window, this is not the NFL, if you can only tackle and can't run piss off, if you can only run and can't tackle piss off. Ivan, do your job and COACH players how to tackle, don't just hire someone to tackle everything that moves so you don't have to do your job.
2big2strong_old
Guest
I dunno - he only played 4 matches less than Luck, and 13 tries in 19 matches ain't half bad. I think, though, that setting NRL records for a match and for a season are what sealed it for Luck.
Nothing to be proud of.
2big2strong_old
Guest
1000 tackles plus for a season. Thats a body destroying number.
Nope, it just highlights the fact that the other 16 players in the team aren't doing their job.
Viking_old
Guest
Is part of Ivan's game plan to keep the other forwards fresh by having Luck do all the defensive work and if so, why is he hitting the ball on the 3rd and 4th tackles? I expect that the hitup order is fairly regimented to spread the workload evenly or is that assuming too much?
1000 tackles is a good individual achievement but a poor reflection on the team as a whole.
1000 tackles is a good individual achievement but a poor reflection on the team as a whole.
ToiletDuck_old
Guest
I remember watching the Sunday footy show a few weeks ago and Phil Gould and Andrew Johns (both men that I respect immensely) talked about how having someone in your team with a massive tackle count is nothing to be proud of and if the coach is proud then he's not doing his job properly. They said, and they're 100% correct, that the teams with these players in never win premierships. Nathan Friend has been up there with Michael Luck the past couple years and the Titans never even made the finals.
So in other words, making 1000 tackles a year is nothing to be proud of Michael. It just drives home the fact that the team is not working together as a unit. Nobody should be making 1000 tackles. Alan Tongue is up there too every year, when was the last time the Raiders won the big one?
In fairness you did leave out Dallas Johnson...tackling machine in a successful team no?
2big2strong_old
Guest
In fairness you did leave out Dallas Johnson...tackling machine in a successful team no?
How have I left him out? he's never got any where near 1000 tackles.
He's a tackling machine but he plays like a 5/8th, he knows he has no running game so he just catches and passes and tries to put other players through gaps. Luck does not.
ToiletDuck_old
Guest
Well he's normally in that top echelon before Origin roles around, is a tackling machine that has no running game, in a successful team.
Oh and Cameron Smith is almost always in the top 3 total tackle count before Origin, I didn't use him as an example because I didn't think it was pertinent to use hookers as they contribute in numerous other ways. But I'll use him as a direct comparison for Friend.
Oh and Cameron Smith is almost always in the top 3 total tackle count before Origin, I didn't use him as an example because I didn't think it was pertinent to use hookers as they contribute in numerous other ways. But I'll use him as a direct comparison for Friend.
KeepingTheFaith_old
Guest
11. Brown
12. Ta'ai
13. Mannering
Backup
O'Regan
Taylor
Louisi
Matulino
Where is there room for Luck? Two years ago I would've been fine with Luck being one of the first picked. His influence on the field was needed and his contribution in turning around what was a complete craphole of a club on and off the field should never be undervalued.
But look at the talent we have at our disposal, who will only have limited development unless they're given an extended period in first grade. Take a look at the way the game is being played, the game is moving towards a more enterprising brand of league. There may be a club that can utilise Luck, but his expiry date at the Warriors has passed.
He makes a 1000 tackles, big deal. Players have to be able to display more than one dimension to their game. And while some people can say "Luck does all the tackling, Ta'ai does all the running" what that does is make the Warriors incredibly predictable as opposed to having 3 genuine backrow threats (Ta'ai, Mannering, Brown, Matulino, O'Regan, Taylor etc) who can produce on both sides of the ball.
While I know he'll be there come round 1, In my opinion there's no place in the team for Luck any more. Not due to lack of effort, we simply have better options, options that will quickly head elsewhere when they can't break first grade, and the Warriors will be poorer for it.
12. Ta'ai
13. Mannering
Backup
O'Regan
Taylor
Louisi
Matulino
Where is there room for Luck? Two years ago I would've been fine with Luck being one of the first picked. His influence on the field was needed and his contribution in turning around what was a complete craphole of a club on and off the field should never be undervalued.
But look at the talent we have at our disposal, who will only have limited development unless they're given an extended period in first grade. Take a look at the way the game is being played, the game is moving towards a more enterprising brand of league. There may be a club that can utilise Luck, but his expiry date at the Warriors has passed.
He makes a 1000 tackles, big deal. Players have to be able to display more than one dimension to their game. And while some people can say "Luck does all the tackling, Ta'ai does all the running" what that does is make the Warriors incredibly predictable as opposed to having 3 genuine backrow threats (Ta'ai, Mannering, Brown, Matulino, O'Regan, Taylor etc) who can produce on both sides of the ball.
While I know he'll be there come round 1, In my opinion there's no place in the team for Luck any more. Not due to lack of effort, we simply have better options, options that will quickly head elsewhere when they can't break first grade, and the Warriors will be poorer for it.
2big2strong_old
Guest
I'm actually a closet Luck fan, but I think the only thing the club has proven is that whatever their plans have been they aren't successful. I'm in favour of just starting from fresh and trying a different approach alltogether.
ToiletDuck_old
Guest
I'm a fanboy too, mainly because I liked what he brought to the table when we first signed him. And I like his commitment. I hope he continues in his old role..that involved far fewer touches and hitups on attack..
kingkole_old
Guest
Iafeta_old
Guest
Johnson and Smith as rightly pointed out, particularly pre Origin, have massive tackle counts. Parramatta were on the verge of winning the premiership in 2001 and we all know who tackles his guts out there. Likewise David Stagg is at the Dogs, tackles himself to a standstill and did so while he was at a successful Broncos outfit.
There were a few games where our attack was brittle and had nothing at all. That would have given Vatuvei some games where he had no opportunity to score points in the overall scheme of things (I'm assuming its tallied like a Dally M). Luck would always have been in the reckoning because his numbers would always be right up there. It was a result of our style more than anything that Luck wins, and to be fair, as good as Manu was I don't believe he was anywhere near as good as he was at the back end of 2008. But how could you be in this team?
Luck has a short term future here, but IMO not a long term one. Still, you can never doubt the lads heart and enthusiasm so I have no problem with him taking it out. His skill set is extremely limited, perhaps those with far greater abilities could take a leaf out of his defensive book and apply the same energy to their attacking work off the ball in particular. Racking up enormous numbers in D doesn't come down to luck (excuse the pun), it comes down to hunger.
There were a few games where our attack was brittle and had nothing at all. That would have given Vatuvei some games where he had no opportunity to score points in the overall scheme of things (I'm assuming its tallied like a Dally M). Luck would always have been in the reckoning because his numbers would always be right up there. It was a result of our style more than anything that Luck wins, and to be fair, as good as Manu was I don't believe he was anywhere near as good as he was at the back end of 2008. But how could you be in this team?
Luck has a short term future here, but IMO not a long term one. Still, you can never doubt the lads heart and enthusiasm so I have no problem with him taking it out. His skill set is extremely limited, perhaps those with far greater abilities could take a leaf out of his defensive book and apply the same energy to their attacking work off the ball in particular. Racking up enormous numbers in D doesn't come down to luck (excuse the pun), it comes down to hunger.
Share:
