: Wed May 27, 2009 7:30 am  

1865 wrote:

Orford - 2 year deal for optional 3rd year..."The Brother" is right.

The above is correct in that we have offered him a deal. Unfortunately his reply was "Thanks for the offer, Ill think about it "

: Wed May 27, 2009 7:31 am  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Didn't take long - and he's not even signed.

Re: Orford would be a waste of money : Wed May 27, 2009 7:33 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

Playing under agar.

No size in the forwards
One man rugby
No dummy runners
No set plays
Too many ordinary players around him
Slow PTB's
Poor positioning in defence
Defence standing still allowing the opposition easy yards

And stacks more problems. You'd think with 2 coaches things would be better but maybe it makes things worse. They look like they don't see each other between matches.

Berrigan is a case in point. His speed of thought is so far ahead of the other players he looks like he's making bad decisions at times.

He must be so pished off at having to take orders from the idiots in charge

Whilst we have other problems at the club in no way shape or form would Orford be a waste, he is a magnificent SH and exactly what we need.

Re: Orford would be a waste of money : Wed May 27, 2009 7:35 am  

PAUL M wrote:

Whilst we have other problems at the club in no way shape or form would Orford be a waste, he is a magnificent SH and exactly what we need.

Correct. Hope he signs.

Re: Orford would be a waste of money : Wed May 27, 2009 7:48 am  

PAUL M wrote:

Whilst we have other problems at the club in no way shape or form would Orford be a waste, he is a magnificent SH and exactly what we need.

A world class coach is exactly what we need. Orford would make a difference but with our style of play it wouldn't be the difference most seem to think

Re: Orford would be a waste of money : Wed May 27, 2009 7:50 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

A world class coach is exactly what we need. Orford would make a difference but with our style of play it wouldn't be the difference most seem to think

We all know we have badly missed a SH to control the game, it would be a major step forward to get one finally, if we do get one.

Still issues with coaches and tactics but having top players would help.

Re: Orford would be a waste of money : Wed May 27, 2009 7:56 am  

PAUL M wrote:

We all know we have badly missed a SH to control the game, it would be a major step forward to get one finally, if we do get one.

Still issues with coaches and tactics but having top players would help.

We have average forwards who amble into the tackle, get consistently beaten by bigger, faster packs. Orford wouldn't change that. We have no movement off the ball causing confusion, no players running decent lines against the defence. Orford wouldn't change that. These things should be drilled into the players during the week so it's 2nd nature come match day.

Re: Orford would be a waste of money : Wed May 27, 2009 8:00 am  

PAUL M wrote:

We all know we have badly missed a SH to control the game, it would be a major step forward to get one finally, if we do get one.

Still issues with coaches and tactics but having top players would help.

exactly, some people don't realize that agar is limited with the quality he's got, if he had a decent SH his tactics would be executed better.
When people moan about thormans bad kicking and poor decision making means the plays are good, just not executed with enough quality. That is not specifically agar's fault.
Out of all agar's recruitment think thorman is the only mistake made. Just that it's 10 times worse due to the position in the team.

Re: Orford would be a waste of money : Wed May 27, 2009 8:04 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

We have average forwards who amble into the tackle, get consistently beaten by bigger, faster packs. Orford wouldn't change that. We have no movement off the ball causing confusion, no players running decent lines against the defence. Orford wouldn't change that. These things should be drilled into the players during the week so it's 2nd nature come match day.

I would not disagree with any of that and it's down to poor coaching and also down to lazy players. Orford would demand an improvement and would help with our attacking plays.

Anyway like I said I will believe it when it's announced.

Re: Orford would be a waste of money : Wed May 27, 2009 8:04 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

We have average forwards who amble into the tackle, get consistently beaten by bigger, faster packs. Orford wouldn't change that. We have no movement off the ball causing confusion, no players running decent lines against the defence. Orford wouldn't change that. These things should be drilled into the players during the week so it's 2nd nature come match day.

our forwards did well last night making a lot of metres against the supposed best defence in the league. A quality scrum half directs his runners around the park and helps on the training field with set plays. If you think he wouldn't change that you're wrong.