Is Bird the worst thing to happen to us this year? : Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:21 am  

Putting the man's character aside, we can consider purely his effect on the team's results, he has surely won us a couple of games this year. I reckon that without him we would have swapped places with Bradford in the table (and if the Bulls had had him all year they would be in the playoffs with MacNamara proving his doubters wrong).

This, I think, is a bad thing.

Bird covers up the cracks in our side, despite the discovery of some excellent french talent and the signing of some top foreign players we are still low down the table. Bird is making our results look acceptable with a punt at the playoffs, whereas we should really think of how we will do without him next year and how we would have done without him - which was the original plan.

I think that not only would we be questioning the clubs' on-field results far more vocally, but we would also likely have had to resort to an alternative in the halves, drafting in one of our UTC potentials, which would be a better basis for next year than some wins borrowed off the back of wha is essentially a loanee.

[John_D]

: Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:18 am  

Interesting theory and well argued, but it was quickly evident that we needed somebody in the halves when Perry failed to - how to put this kindly - set the world alight. While sticking a William Barthau or David Guasch in there might have worked, it may also have set them back if it didn't. It's a tricky call and one that coaches are paid to make.
Bird's frequent absences are annoying and makes continuity hard to achieve - not a problem had you put someone else in there - but he is quite an exceptional player.

: Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:38 am  

John_D wrote:

Bird's frequent absences are annoying and makes continuity hard to achieve - not a problem had you put someone else in there - but he is quite an exceptional player.

Seems to me that those absences were obvious times to draft through Bartheau/Guash.

[John_D]

: Sat Jul 25, 2009 9:01 am  

belgianxiii wrote:

Seems to me that those absences were obvious times to draft through Bartheau/Guash.

Never a better time

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:40 pm  

John_D wrote:

Interesting theory and well argued, but it was quickly evident that we needed somebody in the halves when Perry failed to - how to put this kindly - set the world alight. While sticking a William Barthau or David Guasch in there might have worked, it may also have set them back if it didn't. It's a tricky call and one that coaches are paid to make.
Bird's frequent absences are annoying and makes continuity hard to achieve - not a problem had you put someone else in there - but he is quite an exceptional player.

You said you didn't rate him.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 5:38 pm  

greg th wire wrote:

You said you didn't rate him.

People can be proven wrong. Anyway, are you sure it wasn't me who said that? I know I definately have in the past and can eat my words, had Bradford landed him they would be top-8.

[John_D]

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:04 pm  

greg th wire wrote:

You said you didn't rate him.

I did. I've now had the chance to see him play and take back previous comments.

I was right about Perry though, so it's 1-1.

: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:19 pm  

you love the little naughty kangaroo boy now

: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:10 am  

so what are you going to do when he's in clink?

: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:23 am  

Perfect Pimbletts Pies wrote:

so what are you going to do when he's in clink?

We'll play Barthau or Guash or (ergh) Perry. The first two are the future hopes for the club, the last will have the benefit of not keeping Bently out of the side.