: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:26 pm  

kirkamania6 wrote:

He kicked one with his first kick for Cronulla the other day

His first kick for Wigan was a 40/20 too.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:27 pm  

p1e e8ter wrote:

The balls are much lighter and a different shape in union, making them lighter and easier to catch/carry.

League balls are heavier and require more effort to kick them.

Sorry, do we employ big nancys like they do in rah rah or proper men?

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:30 pm  

For the record 40/20s in recent seasons.

2003 - Seven (Lam 4, Robinson 2, Farrell 1)
2004 - Two (Lam 2)
2005 - None
2006 - Four (Moran 2, Orr 1, O'Loughlin 1)
2007 - Four (Barrett 4)
2008 - One (Barrett 1)
2009 so far - One (Tim Smith v Wakefield)

Looking back at the stats on the SL site - 3-5 40/20s a season is a good tally. So make of it what you will.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:34 pm  

{Hogan} wrote:

He has a cracking boot on him, shows when he is kicking for touch. I would have thought Richards coming inside for a 4th tackle 40/20 attempt would be a great idea.

The thing is though that a bit of accuracy is also needed along with the big boot. Pat is second to none with drop outs and the big boot downfield but these don't have to have the same level of accuracy as the 40-20. We can all see the accuracy of his goal kicking but can he come up with a decent accuracy for the 40-20, after all it's no good hoofing it 50 yards if it is going to go out on the full. Either way I agree that Wigan should have him practising it with a view to utilising it to our advantage

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:51 pm  

jinkin jimmy wrote:

Do you have a problem with basic English? I haven't talked about replacing anyone. My point is a general one in that IMO Richards at times displayed a lack of urgency that would have been commented on if it had been displayed by certain other players.

But if you want to talk about replacements and Roberts in the same sentence I'm all for it. How the hell can a free scoring NRL winger on top money be a work in progress? The work in progress is the other winger who plays him off the field every week.

We have lots of back options IMO via Phelps, Goulding and Pryce. Roberts could be replaced easily and IMO should be. He is doing nothing so what could we lose? No threat going forward and makes no tackles in defence.

Roberts would be helped if he had a decent attacking centre inside him

Its obvious he has genuine pace which is something we could use greatly to our advantage

Apart from his intercept try can you ever remember him getting the ball in a decent attacking position? I certainly can't

This is why I think it is crucial we sign a top centre for next season and keep hold off Carmont. I think we potentially have 2 of the best attacking wingers in super league and only one of them is being used to good effect at the moment (a lot of that being down to the player I know)

This is why I think Pryce should be given a got at right centre against Salford. He has to be ready if he was on standby against Leeds

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:22 pm  

jinkin jimmy wrote:

Do you have a problem with basic English? I haven't talked about replacing anyone. My point is a general one in that IMO Richards at times displayed a lack of urgency that would have been commented on if it had been displayed by certain other players.

But if you want to talk about replacements and Roberts in the same sentence I'm all for it. How the hell can a free scoring NRL winger on top money be a work in progress? The work in progress is the other winger who plays him off the field every week.

We have lots of back options IMO via Phelps, Goulding and Pryce. Roberts could be replaced easily and IMO should be. He is doing nothing so what could we lose? No threat going forward and makes no tackles in defence.

I don't have a problem with simple English, but thanks for the nice unprovoked personal attack. You complain about a lack of urgency, which is all fine and well, but as I said what is our alternative? Roberts: we have tried but clearly you expect far too much of anybody new under the age of 22. Mathers: No just, no. Phelps: Again just not going to happen - is he even fit yet? So I did give a fair point which you refuse to answer, something that would be nice for you to clear up for me in your apparent infinite wisdom. And of course the lack of urgency has been commented on, you did it yourself didn't you? But as I pointed out: why complain when there is nothing better, and you have no idea what to say about it. Either offer an opinion or at least act like an adult.

Of course any player can be a work in progress. Most great wingers have at least a decent centre and centre partnership. At the moment he has had neither. Therefore he needs to build something with a bit of chance, and not be universily hated like Calderwood was. Hence, he could either be great for us or yet another failure on the wing, and is therefore a work in progress. And if Ainscough was not on the other wing he would not be critisised as much, which I am sure would have dissapointed you

Ainscough however, appears to be a bit of saving grace so far this year. He is outstanding.

As for replacing Roberts, your options are Phelps, Goulding and Pryce???
Phelps has played 1, maybe two at a stretch, good game(s) for us, repeatedly gets knocked out, is worse in defence and has been injured recently. Goulding for starters, is a centre. He is also almost universally hated here and by Noble, which I do not agree with, and I do think he should be playing, but not as Roberts replacement and I sure hope you did not mean that . Pryce, as we all know, is not fit enough yet, and is very slow. Would he have scored the intercept Roberts did? No. Maybe he would have made up forit somewhere else, but unless he has changed massively over the last 3(?) weeks, then he is not ready yet, not by a long shot...

wow personal insults affect me way too much, but arrogant ****s get me so wound up

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:23 pm  

Bovrick wrote:

So your alternative is? They were very good plays and it is just as much the wingers faults as well! And you cant exactly go around saying we should replace them when Ainscough is still learning and Amos is a work in progress to fill in.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:39 pm  

jinkin jimmy wrote:

Do you have a problem with basic English? I haven't talked about replacing anyone. My point is a general one in that IMO Richards at times displayed a lack of urgency that would have been commented on if it had been displayed by certain other players.

But if you want to talk about replacements and Roberts in the same sentence I'm all for it. How the hell can a free scoring NRL winger on top money be a work in progress? The work in progress is the other winger who plays him off the field every week.

We have lots of back options IMO via Phelps, Goulding and Pryce. Roberts could be replaced easily and IMO should be. He is doing nothing so what could we lose? No threat going forward and makes no tackles in defence.

Your right he is not a work in progress. If it was me I would never have signed him but we did so we should give him chance to settle in before calling for him to be dropped.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:54 pm  

Bilko wrote:

Can still be done but the refs never allow a quick restart from the 20 metre line so its a nullified option half the time.

Leeds did it last year, think it was in the CC game v Quins at the Stoop. I'm sure it helped give us field position to mount the comeback for the win.

The reason the Leeds one isn;t included in the SL stats is that as far as I'm aware they only include the weekly rounds for some reason.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:16 pm  

daved wrote:

I think this rule is unfair!

Why should a team gain such an advantage just because the other has a terrible kicking game!

also why should a team that has been kept in their own half by an excellent defence be given the reward of a new set on their opponents 20 when they weren't even good enough to get there in the first place, pathetic rule, get rid imo