: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:29 pm  

Ancient Provocateur wrote:

... Macca would be pilleried if the move didn't come off.

Exactly, the cup is looking like our most realistic chance at silverware (however slim that is) and so he cant take any chances with debuts he dosnt have to make . Like him or not Worrincy played super league last season and has been in our team this year and so is less of a risk, easy decision for McNamara if you ask me.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:43 pm  

Despite what people on here want or not, I'll be absolutely amazed if the team doesn't end up being last week's 17, but with Cook replacing Morrison in the starting second row spot.

The only way it won't be Crookes and Olbison missing out is if there's an injury.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:43 pm  

Steam Pig wrote:

Will Mac be brave and try Olbison rather than Worrincey?

No, but he should do. Worrincy has had four games to show something of what he was brought to the club for. In that time he hasn't shown anything worth much at all in my book. It's time another player was given the chance. That applies to all players for me also, no matter how bad or good people think they are, if they don't perform well then give somebody else the chance. It doesn't matter if it's his debut or not or how old he is or if he's played Super League before, he's in the first team squad because he's obviously thought highley of. If these young players are as good and as promising as they have been made out to be in recent months then they should be given a chance to show what they can do at the expense of under performers.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:23 pm  

IMO we should err on the side of caution and play Worrincy, he has, as has been said SL experience over Olbison and in this particular game has the edge for me

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:42 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

No, but he should do. Worrincy has had four games to show something of what he was brought to the club for. In that time he hasn't shown anything worth much at all in my book. It's time another player was given the chance. That applies to all players for me also, no matter how bad or good people think they are, if they don't perform well then give somebody else the chance. It doesn't matter if it's his debut or not or how old he is or if he's played Super League before, he's in the first team squad because he's obviously thought highley of. If these young players are as good and as promising as they have been made out to be in recent months then they should be given a chance to show what they can do at the expense of under performers.

tbf though how much actual gametime has worrincy had? He's been on the bench four games but how much actual time has he had on the pitch? When we signed him we said he was a longer term project and imo he hasnt really had much time to show us what he can do yet, Although I'd be upset if cook didnt get the starting spot in morro's absence.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:00 pm  

mat wrote:

tbf though how much actual gametime has worrincy had? He's been on the bench four games but how much actual time has he had on the pitch? When we signed him we said he was a longer term project and imo he hasnt really had much time to show us what he can do yet, Although I'd be upset if cook didnt get the starting spot in morro's absence.

Enough time to show some things. I think Cook will get the nod and I too would be dissapointed if he was to not get the start. I can't buy into this long term project claim, Worrincy has some pace, but that's about as far as his abilities stretch in my eyes. His skill levels are not that high and I believe we have better prospect's in the reserve's including Elliot Whitehead that should be getting the chance before him.

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:06 pm  

mat wrote: tbf though how much actual gametime has worrincy had? He's been on the bench four games but how much actual time has he had on the pitch? http://www.slstats.org/p764/Michael%20Worrincy.html 10 tries in 32 SL games for Quins and people say he hasn't played enough not good enough no experience Lets unleash the Worrloard

mat wrote: tbf though how much actual gametime has worrincy had? He's been on the bench four games but how much actual time has he had on the pitch? http://www.slstats.org/p764/Michael%20Worrincy.html 10 tries in 32 SL games for Quins and people say he hasn't played enough not good enough no experience Lets unleash the Worrloard

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:13 pm  

Ancient Provocateur wrote:

http://www.slstats.org/p764/Michael%20Worrincy.html

10 tries in 32 SL games for Quins and people say he hasn't played enough not good enough no experience

Lets unleash the Worrloard

32 Games isn't much game time for a player who first broke though almost four seasons previously. Is it? Why has he hardley played? Has he been injured or is it because as I believe his ability isn't actually that good?

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:07 pm  

if you read my post you'd realise I meant how much game time for the bulls. 10 tries in 32 games, 8 of which came last year, isnt a terrible return for a young 2nd rower imo.

as comparison , and just using their records for us

morrison 15 tries in 39 games, 3 last year
cook 5 tries in 51 games ( 0 in his 29+ appearances for us), 5 last year
burgess 9 in 57 games, 6 last year

worrincy outscored all three of those last year and yet they are perceived as better players ( something im not argueing with btw), All im saying is that he deserves more than 4 games, with probably less than 100 minutes total time on pitch before you write him off

: Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:29 pm  

mat wrote:

if you read my post you'd realise I meant how much game time for the bulls. 10 tries in 32 games, 8 of which came last year, isnt a terrible return for a young 2nd rower imo.

as comparison , and just using their records for us

morrison 15 tries in 39 games, 3 last year
cook 5 tries in 51 games ( 0 in his 29+ appearances for us), 5 last year
burgess 9 in 57 games, 6 last year

worrincy outscored all three of those last year and yet they are perceived as better players ( something im not argueing with btw), All im saying is that he deserves more than 4 games, with probably less than 100 minutes total time on pitch before you write him off

I was refering to the person above to be honest. He broke through almost fours seasons ago. Round 14 Mid 2006 according to the stats that the above person has provided, so that's what, 13 remaining in 2006, 27 in 2007 and 27 in 2008 and 7 in 2009 so far. So that makes it 74 games since 2006 that's 'if he hasn't been injured' he has been available for yet has only played in 34 of them. Mike probably isn't going to get much game time again this season either, clearly something is limiting his game time and to me it's plainly obvious that it is his limited ability as a rugby player. Nothing agaisnt the lad, but I think we'd have been better spending the money elsewhere as opposed to a player more than likley will never be anything more than a bit part player during his career. Our own juniors could be doing the job that Mike is, just as good if not better than Mick.