sally cinnamon wrote:
Nat Wood didn't pass much and didn't have much of a kicking game, he was a running halfback who didn't have express pace, but.....he did make an impact on games and he could change the momentum back in our favour. He did make breaks and beat people, because he was physically strong and had good footwork. You never saw him hiding in a game.
If we're honest, what halfbacks have we had since Nat Wood, other than Briers who was already there playing with him, who were better? Sandow for about 2 months. Austin for about 2 months. Myler was faster and scored more tries, running off the holes set up to him from a good team, but I doubt Myler would have done as much in the teams Nat Wood played in.
I would have rather had Nat Wood.
I’d argue Myler was better. Significantly so.
His assist stats were actually quite posit for a guy who got a lot of criticism for that part of his game. And it’s not like he had superstars outside of him, it was mainly Atkins and Riley. Plus he scored a decent amount. And all told, he was a good defender and put a lot of kick pressure in (to our detriment in 2011 prelim, he was penalised for the charge down on the drip kick if I remember correctly).
Never been favoured, but was an important part of the Catalan team and has forced his way back into the Leeds team despite big money going at Lui and Gale.
Wood was courageous. He was all effort. And that is commendable, but you need a little more than that to be a top half. He was great for us, in that time, but as the club grew I think we put grew him. If we had picked up the right halfback after him he wouldn’t be held is such high regard in my opinion, it’s just that we messed around with Bridge, Sullivan and Monaghan before finding a decent replacement.