Joined: Oct 30 2005 Posts: 6268 Location: Warrington UK
Good shout.
However earlier in the thread some of you guys shot down someone who said King offers more to a team than Penny. If you'd rather have Penny in your team than Matt King..I despair.
FWIW I'd give Penny time, he does come in for so much stick and it's not really fair on the young lad. I also agree that Louis Anderson is at fault more often than people realise.
Joined: Feb 18 2007 Posts: 4056 Location: On his way to living a happy life.
Dico wrote:Good shout. However earlier in the thread some of you guys shot down someone who said King offers more to a team than Penny. If you'd rather have Penny in your team than Matt King..I despair.
That person would be me, they agree with me really but there to proud to admit it.
Latchford Wolvesfan wrote:That person would be me, they agree with me really but there to proud to admit it.
Not me, I'll admit to anybody that I'm wrong, but I tell you now, there's no way, if I was picking the team, right now, and the criteria was,
1. Merit
2. What they offered in an attacking sense
3. What they offered in a defensive sense
Well, 100 times out of 100, I'd pick Penny every time. (And I don't think Penny is blameless, just less of a villain right now. He's also improving elements of his game, I can't think of a single improvement in Matt Kings game since he arrived.)
Joined: Oct 30 2005 Posts: 6268 Location: Warrington UK
Whether he's played well or not Penny would never in a million years be picked for Australia, King has, albeit on the wing.
King really wasn't as bad as people make out last year, he bagged a few tries, yardage was pretty good and when he doesn't pass half the time it's Pennys poor wingers discipline.
Still, I think everyones overreacting, I'd give it more time, if not throw Bridge at centre and King on the wing, Don't want Johnson there again tbh
Joined: Feb 18 2007 Posts: 4056 Location: On his way to living a happy life.
JWP wrote:Not me, I'll admit to anybody that I'm wrong, but I tell you now, there's no way, if I was picking the team, right now, and the criteria was,
1. Merit 2. What they offered in an attacking sense 3. What they offered in a defensive sense
Well, 100 times out of 100, I'd pick Penny every time. (And I don't think Penny is blameless, just less of a villain right now. He's also improving elements of his game, I can't think of a single improvement in Matt Kings game since he arrived.)
I understand what you saying and i don't think that King is blameless, i just feel Penny isn't ready for 1st team football, maybe in 2 years but his game need a lot of improvement and in this day and age when Super League is getting better every year, i don't think we can afford to carry him when the stakes are so high and results matter probably know more than ever.
Joined: Aug 11 2003 Posts: 1494 Location: Warrington after many years of wandering
Having watched it again Penny was at fault for Gardners first try as we went rushing into mid-field to assist with a tackle from which the offload led to the try. Appart from that he had an ok game. It was 16-14 when he got took off and things hardly got better.
Also, why play an Aussie wing in the centre? He got skinned by Gidley for his second and just downright poor.
Hicks/King on the Win
Bridge/Gleece in the centre
I mean she even cooks me pancakes
And Alka Seltzer when my tummy aches
If that ain't love then I don't know what love is
Joined: Aug 06 2003 Posts: 5952 Location: Edinburgh
Latchford Wolvesfan wrote:I understand what you saying and i don't think that King is blameless, i just feel Penny isn't ready for 1st team football, maybe in 2 years but his game need a lot of improvement and in this day and age when Super League is getting better every year, i don't think we can afford to carry him when the stakes are so high and results matter probably know more than ever.
But you could argue, that based on performances, King isn;t ready for the first team. If he was a young local lad, he wouldn;t be getting anyone backing him.
I think many of us have defended him, wanting himto come good, but he just hasn't done that.
If we get a half break and pass the ball to King on the wing from 70m, he will get caught. Do the same with Penny, and he will score most times.
Neither of them have covered themselves in glory, but I feel that is a lack of a goo partnership rather than them not being able to tackle.
I am far more forgiving of a young developing talent, than I am of an International player on an International salary.
Latchford Wolvesfan wrote:I understand what you saying and i don't think that King is blameless, i just feel Penny isn't ready for 1st team football, maybe in 2 years but his game need a lot of improvement and in this day and age when Super League is getting better every year, i don't think we can afford to carry him when the stakes are so high and results matter probably know more than ever.
Of the two, we would have to carry Penny far less than we are carrying Matt King right now, ie, using Fridays game as a form guide. If people put Kings pedigree to one side, and judge him on the now, he wouldn't get near to your side. All the things that people hammer Penny for like tackling, positioning etc, King is weaker than Penny at, so putting him on the wing is hardly going to make these things go away.
Joined: Apr 10 2003 Posts: 352 Location: On the Primrose and Blue side of things!
Robbie Rotten wrote:IIRC, in his first game, McGuire stole the ball very cheaply from him and ran over to score? I put that down to inexperience more than anything. I vaguely remember his first games, but surely you can't be saying that King coming in meant Kev couldn't tackle? Let's be honest, at times last year people were just walking over him, I'm sure it was Leeds away that Rob Burrow ran over him to score. He just flapped and had no technique; however, towards the back end this changed, he started tackling with great technique, stopping the player and even dumping some of them in the process.
I don't want to see Kev dropped just yet unless he's going to drop King as well, seen as King was probably more guilty of defensive errors than Kev, the only thing I fear is that his confidence will be absolutely shot, as will King's, and I'm not too keen on the idea of a left side absolutely shot of confidence after game 1, but then I feel we'll batter Catalans, so I don't want them to miss out on the opportunity to get a couple of tries and so on.
totally different things.
Sometimes I wonder
"Why is that frisbee getting bigger and bigger?"
.....and then it hits me.......
Joined: Feb 18 2007 Posts: 4056 Location: On his way to living a happy life.
JWP wrote:Of the two, we would have to carry Penny far less than we are carrying Matt King right now, ie, using Fridays game as a form guide. If people put Kings pedigree to one side, and judge him on the now, he wouldn't get near to your side. All the things that people hammer Penny for like tackling, positioning etc, King is weaker than Penny at, so putting him on the wing is hardly going to make these things go away.
There both defensively poor but i believe King has more to offer in attack, that is my reasoning for keeping him on and not Penny.
Users browsing this forum: Alffi_7, Google Feedfetcher and 281 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
