NRL Thread (1 Viewer)

[Jiga]

OR maybe he sees it as a growing club, who with Peachey and possibly Stevens etc leaving next year will have loads of $$$ to pay him. Also, he may see that he is friends with Vagana so it wouldnt be hard to fit in + there are fellow NZers their.

Either that or he stays wif the dogs and gets involved in more criminal activities....

I dont really care n e ways, 2005 is the Sharks season.

 

[Jiga]

OMG Im drooling at the mouth, Sharks team to play Cowboys announced and jus look at the GUN side

1 David Peachey
2 Luke Covell
3 Vince Mellars
4 Nigel Vagana
5 Paul Mellor
6 Adam Dykes
7 Brett Kimmorley
8 Jason Stevens
9 Michael Sullivan
10 Danny Nutley
11 Andrew Lomu
12 Phil Bailey
13 Paul Gallen

14 Hutch Maiava
15 Greg Bird
16 Matt Hilder
17 Sam Isemonger
18 Keith Galloway
19 Ryan McGoldrick
20 Russell Aitken

21 Reece Williams
22 Daniel Dumas
23 David Simmons

Oh yea, full strength. This will be a good match, watch the Sharks put shame to the cowgirls

 

[matt#1]

OMG Im drooling at the mouth, Sharks team to play Cowboys announced and jus look at the GUN side

1 David Peachey
2 Luke Covell
3 Vince Mellars
4 Nigel Vagana
5 Paul Mellor
6 Adam Dykes
7 Brett Kimmorley
8 Jason Stevens
9 Michael Sullivan
10 Danny Nutley
11 Andrew Lomu
12 Phil Bailey
13 Paul Gallen

14 Hutch Maiava
15 Greg Bird
16 Matt Hilder
17 Sam Isemonger
18 Keith Galloway
19 Ryan McGoldrick
20 Russell Aitken

21 Reece Williams
22 Daniel Dumas
23 David Simmons

Oh yea, full strength. This will be a good match, watch the Sharks put shame to the cowgirls

Not a bad looking side...in fact, it almost looks as good as the doggies' jersey flegg side. I cant resist the thought of seeing you have to eat your words...so i'll be cheering on the Cowboys to smash the sharks.

 

[Jiga]

Lol, did doggies JF get into the GF last year? The sharks did, so its impossible to say our 1st grade side is dat bad

As for the cowboys, they are gona get drilled. I wont have to eat my words, although our side isnt 100% yet, its the basic framework of our 2005 side. Look at the backrow, Lomu - Bailey - Gallen, that rivals the doggies!

 

[matt#1]

As for the cowboys, they are gona get drilled. I wont have to eat my words, although our side isnt 100% yet, its the basic framework of our 2005 side. Look at the backrow, Lomu - Bailey - Gallen, that rivals the doggies!

I must admit that it does look to be a pretty good side on paper...and much better than the sharkies sides of previous seasons. I will still stand by what I said about them being nothing more than a fringe 8 team though.

 

[fornstar]

broncos will win

we have the games best full back playn five-eighth ... how can we lose??? (just ignore last yr's effort)

 

[felafel]

manly is improving . . . but dammit they took big man kennedy from the knights

 

[ohwhenthesaints]

Nothin better then beating a Stain George fan in an argument

You mean you've done it before? I really, really, really find that hard to believe.

I can wait till this ohwenthesaints returns, he wont be the first dragon Ive slayed

Hmmm I'm guessing you meant 'can't wait'? Although wouldn't be surprised if it's supposed to be 'can'.

Ok, I've returned... I believe you were planning on slaying me?


RE: The beating Parra. Read what Matt had to say. Then factor in that this Parra side is basically a brand new team. I think everyone with half a brain realises that it will take them time to gel.

Also, this may come as a surprise to you, but it was a TRIAL. I think Parra will be the ones laughing when they finish above you on the table. And you will still be saying, 'Hey but remember when our PL side beat your FG team'.


RE: The Scum side. Yeah sure it looks ok. Look across the league now. Which teams have a bad looking side on paper? I'm thinking about 4. Yours is nothing to get excited about, and you will not come close to competing for that thing you've never won, the premiership or whatever they call it.

Look at the Dogs, Rorters, St George, Brisbane etc. Quality players throughout and most importantly an abundance of depth. Talented juniors doesn't equal depth, it means there is potential for depth when these players develop. You're talking about the Sharks JF team, yeah thats great. But when looking at Juniors who will strengthen the FG team for this year look at young guys who have already proved themselves against the best e.g. Sims, Poore, Creagh, Holdsworth etc.

Good luck this year Scum, may 38 become 39. No doubts in my mind it will.

Eagerly awaiting the slaying.....

 

[Jiga]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schoolies_2004
Nothin better then beating a Stain George fan in an argument

You mean you've done it before? I really, really, really find that hard to believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schoolies_2004
I can wait till this ohwenthesaints returns, he wont be the first dragon Ive slayed

Hmmm I'm guessing you meant 'can't wait'? Although wouldn't be surprised if it's supposed to be 'can'.

Ok, I've returned... I believe you were planning on slaying me?

Lol. Your funny, nit-picking my posts and taking jokes to heart. Now down to the business end of this reply....

RE: The beating Parra. Read what Matt had to say. Then factor in that this Parra side is basically a brand new team. I think everyone with half a brain realises that it will take them time to gel.

Also, this may come as a surprise to you, but it was a TRIAL. I think Parra will be the ones laughing when they finish above you on the table. And you will still be saying, 'Hey but remember when our PL side beat your FG team'.

The Sharks side was also virtually a brand new side, it had youngsters from JF, players from Newtown PL, Players from Sharks PL, and some dropped 1st grade Players - so that really does destroy your argument. No matter what, trial or not, a side full of seasoned first graders should put to shame a side like the Sharks fielded...but they didnt, in fact, they were beaten.

RE: The Scum side. Yeah sure it looks ok. Look across the league now. Which teams have a bad looking side on paper? I'm thinking about 4. Yours is nothing to get excited about, and you will not come close to competing for that thing you've never won, the premiership or whatever they call it.

Look at the Dogs, Rorters, St George, Brisbane etc. Quality players throughout and most importantly an abundance of depth. Talented juniors doesn't equal depth, it means there is potential for depth when these players develop. You're talking about the Sharks JF team, yeah thats great. But when looking at Juniors who will strengthen the FG team for this year look at young guys who have already proved themselves against the best e.g. Sims, Poore, Creagh, Holdsworth etc.

The Sharks side is something to get excited about, I know as a supporter of the team how good the players are, and the side will certainly rival the best in the league. Maybe your just use to your merged scum team, having the best team on paper but always failing, but you must realise, non-chokers dont stuff up with quality sides.

As for depth, the win over Parra illustrates our depth - case closed. The purchasing of players from Newtown and the dropping of some players from 1st grade adds to this fact. Heres one example of depth, in the centres we have:

* Vagana
* Mellor
* McGoldrick
* Mellars

This may not seem like much depth, but these are ALL first grade players, when you can afford to put 1st grade players in PL then you know you've got something going good - this also puts pressure on the top players to perform. In addition to the above list, players like Bailey and Hilder can also occupy the centres if need be, with an abundance of DEPTH in the backrow to fill their vacant positions.

 

[matt#1]

The Sharks side is something to get excited about, I know as a supporter of the team how good the players are, and the side will certainly rival the best in the league.

You still havent convinced me about how great the sharkies are, because every biased supporter believes that their team has the greatest players. On a good day they might rival the best teams in the league...but at the end of the season they wont be up there with those great teams.

 

[Jiga]

They will be up their with the good teams! The Sharks problem in 2004 was inconsistancy, they could one week beat the Roosters or rival the dogs and then the next week get beaten by souths. The way I see it, those wins over the good sides were glimpses of what we will see this year, with the new players providing the consistancy that we required in 04.

 

[Pace Setter]

The Sharks problem in 2004 was inconsistancy, they could one week beat the Roosters or rival the dogs and then the next week get beaten by souths. The way I see it, those wins over the good sides were glimpses of what we will see this year

What makes you sure that the results against the Roosters and Dogs weren't a product of a poor effort on their part, rather than an improvement from your team's part? Similarly, what makes you certain that the amount of errors you made against Souths was a result of your poor form, rather than a result of pressure or whatever else that was caused by an improved Souths team?

With the number of bookies' upsets last year, you could've said the same (as what you said about the Sharks) about almost any other (lower ranked) team in the competition and backed it up with similar examples.

 

[Jiga]

With the number of bookies' upsets last year, you could've said the same (as what you said about the Sharks) about almost any other (lower ranked) team in the competition and backed it up with similar examples.

It did occur, but not against sides like the Roosters. Even when the roosters were playing bad, they found it in themselves to pick it up and eventually defeat sides. I think Parra beat them in an upset, but the difference was it had rained and PArra got 2 early fluke tries, there was no reason for our win, jsut a hard fought battle for the win.

Nevertheless, I know that the quality from the Sharks that we saw in some matches last year will be seen more frequently this year with a better side being fielded

 

[Pace Setter]

It might come down to opinion, but I remember Parra's tries in that game to be well planned/targeted (and executed) at the Hegarty weakness. The point is, that both the Dogs and Roosters had losses to lower ranked teams last year, and anyone can twist that kind of stat (that Team X beat the dogs/roosters) and call that team "inconsistent" and capable of competing/beating the best "on their day."

For example, my team (Knights) beat the dogs 32-6, despite having half our team out due to injury. Was that because it was "our day," or because the dogs took a lazy attitude/temperament to a game against such a "weak side?" Looking at the results from the rest of the season (for the knights), a neutral observer would be hard pressed to believe that, based on this shock win, the knights were "an excellent but exceptionally inconsistent team," rather than "an ordinary team that ran into the dogs on an off-day."

To prove how good the Sharks are, you need to provide some sort of evidence that CAN'T be used in the same manner to prove the "greatness" of any other lower-ranked team. The odd win against one of the two top sides CAN be used to prove the "greatness" of many other teams-i.e. any team that beat the dogs/roosters once last year.

 

[Jiga]

Yes you need more games, but it still doesnt mean the side didnt have a great game. For the Sharks, we beat the Roosters once, Beat the Bronco's once away and lost in golden point the second match, had two close gamed with the Dogs, should have beat the Dragons 2nd time round if it wasnt for a non-try being allowed which turned the tide of the match, had like a 20 point lead on Penrith and lost it in second half.....

There are more examples of this, but these are some off the top of my head. This shows that the side just didnt pull off some flukes, they consistently matched it with good sides.

 

[Dragonschik]

Hey Schoolies2004, here is a picture I found, it should interest you.
Sharks

 

[matt#1]

Hey Schoolies2004, here is a picture I found, it should interest you.

Hehe, that picture sums up the sharkies perfectly

 

[Jiga]

Lol. Even funnier coming from someone who supports a team who hasnt won anything either...thats right, your merged scum entity has won 0 Premierships and will never win - they have the best team on paper yet they still lose. Maybe its your waterboy coach

 

[Knights_chick]

LOL, I love the picture.

 

[matt#1]

they have the best team on paper yet they still lose.

Yeah, I agree that the Dragons have probably had the best team on paper for some time...but as they say...the game isn't played on paper.