Mini

[Andrew Walker]

In spite of the regular narks on here I and many others thought Mini had a wonderful games last night We have a safe and reliable fullback who is club captain On top of that we have a young fella ready to fill his shoes When the powers that be make the deicision to do just that

[Guest]

In spite of the regular narks on here I and many others thought Mini had a wonderful games last night We have a safe and reliable fullback who is club captain On top of that we have a young fella ready to fill his shoes When the powers that be make the deicision to do just that

Wonderful by what standards exactly? His effort to stop a 40/20 was poor, that saw them camp on our line for 20 min.

[Guest]

That's basically it these days, Mini not having a bad day is an acceptable performance and that in itself says enough.

That's right.

Again it's not being critical it's being realistic. He isn't capable of making a big play in attack that most of the other fullbacks in the comp do. His attacking stats for this season don't lie

3 Tries

3 Line breaks

1 Try assist

Like I said before yes Mini had a good game but that's by his standards.

[Andrew Walker]

Wonderful by what standards exactly? His effort to stop a 40/20 was poor, that saw them camp on our line for 20 min.

It has already been mentioned By many on here Now lets go back and discuss What I initially raised with you about your mate Pearce and his lack of composure Which could very well cost us come finals time That kick into the Manly player last night was diabloical for a rep player who should be at the top of his game His boots can also be adequately filled by others at the club

[Guest]

It has already been mentioned By many on here Now lets go back and discuss What I initially raised with you about your mate Pearce and his lack of composure Which could very well cost us come finals time That kick into the Manly player last night was diabloical for a rep player who should be at the top of his game His boots can also be adequately filled by others at the club

With RTS gone in the second half, he stepped it up more. I agree that kick was poor but if that is all you have on him for last night, then he must have played well. Overall he had a great game, he allowed Sonny to do his thing.

[Guest]

That's right.

Again it's not being critical it's being realistic. He isn't capable of making a big play in attack that most of the other fullbacks in the comp do. His attacking stats for this season don't lie

3 Tries

3 Line breaks

1 Try assist

Like I said before yes Mini had a good game but that's by his standards.

This, and when he does get involved in our play, he just over plays it and ends up in the hands of the opposition.

[roostersrule2]

That's right.

Again it's not being critical it's being realistic. He isn't capable of making a big play in attack that most of the other fullbacks in the comp do. His attacking stats for this season don't lie

3 Tries

3 Line breaks

1 Try assist

Like I said before yes Mini had a good game but that's by his standards.

He has 6 tries actually, his biggest asset is that he is so safe. Did you not see the grubber he picked up at full speed? Or the fact that he catches the ball 99% of the time, I'm pretty sure Inglis dropped a couple against the Raiders.

[Andrew Walker]

With RTS gone in the second half, he stepped it up more. I agree that kick was poor but if that is all you have on him for last night, then he must have played well. Overall he had a great game, he allowed Sonny to do his thing.

In your eyes Pearce had a great game For allowing a what is a make shift NO 6 to do the attacking work of both halves

SBW carried our SOO halfback last night Not a criticism an observation The kick late in the match is a major concern about lack of composure that has been in his game since 2007

My main point to this is You always come running to defend Paerce But have the hide to criticise Minis kick returns saying they may cost us come finals time When the half you defend has consistently shown a lack of composure at crucial times since he started playing 1st garde in 2007 Which in my eyes is just as likely if not more likely to be a reason to cost us comes finals time

[Guest]

What though is an agenda is the fact that you continually post the same long drawn out diatribe saying the same thing over and over again about the same subject

Do tell us who are these others of actual importance from within the club unlike yourself That have already allegedly concluded that it is in the clubs best interests for Mini not to go on beyond this year

Firstly, it would be silly to suggest that there would not be people of importance within the club reluctant to re-sign the player, otherwise surely he would have been re-signed by now, ending any speculation on his future. Secondly, I don't recall assertng personally referring to any of them within the club, but rather to the wider Rooster community (which may or may not include some), which encompasses a number of people who share my opinion, including many who post here. Their opinions are to respected, as should those who wish Minichiello to be contracted again, within the rules of the NRL. I have certainly asserted my confidence in those at the club who will make the decision, and my trust that such a decision will be made in the best long term interests of the club. I have never asserted that I know what that decision will be, but I have pointed out the difficulty of fitting a player of his standing within the cap, and some ramifications that could occur as a result.

Secondly, the word 'agenda' is often misused. I see someone carrying an agenda as one who has a personal connection (could be a friendship or alternatively a falling out) with one of the parties, which he/she fails to disclose, or can derive a financial benefit, which they also don't disclose, from a decison effecting one of the parties. In the case involving the re-signing of Anthony Minichiello, I don't see me or anyone else who shares my desire for the player retire, as having anything else but a forceful personal opinion on how they wish the club to act on this matter. This should never be confused with the pushing of an 'agenda', which we see practised regularly in the News Limited press and on the Macquarie Radio network. I am also sorry that you wish to personalise the debate. You don't know me or have any idea of what my motives are, so please refrain from any personal attacks until you do, and allow the debate to continue free of any vitriol toward the forums participants.

[roostersrule2]

Firstly, it would be silly to suggest that there would not be people of importance within the club reluctant to re-sign the player, otherwise surely he would have been re-signed by now, ending any speculation on his future. Secondly, I don't recall assertng personally referring to any of them within the club, but rather to the wider Rooster community (which may or may not include some), which encompasses a number of people who share my opinion, including many who post here. Their opinions are to respected, as should those who wish Minichiello to be contracted again, within the rules of the NRL. I have certainly asserted my confidence in those at the club who will make the decision, and my trust that such a decision will be made in the best long term interests of the club. I have never asserted that I know what that decision will be, but I have pointed out the difficulty of fitting a player of his standing within the cap, and some ramifications that could occur as a result.

Secondly, the word 'agenda' is often misused. I see someone carrying an agenda as one who has a personal connection (could be a friendship or alternatively a falling out) with one of the parties, which he/she fails to disclose, or can derive a financial benefit, which they also don't disclose, from a decison effecting one of the parties. In the case involving the re-signing of Anthony Minichiello, I don't see me or anyone else who shares my desire for the player retire, as having anything else but a forceful personal opinion on how they wish the club to act on this matter. This should never be confused with the pushing of an 'agenda', which we see practised regularly in the News Limited press and on the Macquarie Radio network. I am also sorry that you wish to personalise the debate. You don't know me or have any idea of what my motives are, so please refrain from any personal attacks until you do, and allow the debate to continue free of any vitriol toward the forums participants.

You realise nobody will read this?

[Andrew Walker]

Firstly, it would be silly to suggest that there would not be people of importance within the club reluctant to re-sign the player, otherwise surely he would have been re-signed by now, ending any speculation on his future. Secondly, I don't recall assertng personally referring to any of them within the club, but rather to the wider Rooster community (which may or may not include some), which encompasses a number of people who share my opinion, including many who post here. Their opinions are to respected, as should those who wish Minichiello to be contracted again, within the rules of the NRL. I have certainly asserted my confidence in those at the club who will make the decision, and my trust that such a decision will be made in the best long term interests of the club. I have never asserted that I know what that decision will be, but I have pointed out the difficulty of fitting a player of his standing within the cap, and some ramifications that could occur as a result.

Secondly, the word 'agenda' is often misused. I see someone carrying an agenda as one who has a personal connection (could be a friendship or alternatively a falling out) with one of the parties, which he/she fails to disclose, or can derive a financial benefit, which they also don't disclose, from a decison effecting one of the parties. In the case involving the re-signing of Anthony Minichiello, I don't see me or anyone else who shares my desire for the player retire, as having anything else but a forceful personal opinion on how they wish the club to act on this matter. This should never be confused with the pushing of an 'agenda', which we see practised regularly in the News Limited press and on the Macquarie Radio network. I am also sorry that you wish to personalise the debate. You don't know me or have any idea of what my motives are, so please refrain from any personal attacks until you do, and allow the debate to continue free of any vitriol toward the forums participants.

It seems the truth has stung you a bit here For what it is worth I am of the opinion that Mini may be moved aside next year

[Renman]

At the start of the year I honestly thought that Mini had gone one too far. I was wrong. His game has improved a lot this year and I also think he is helping RTS acclimatise to the position of FB (defensively). The guy obviously loves playing and he has worked very hard to get back at this level. If he can live with moving to the wing next year, so can I.

[Cockadoodledoo]

This, and when he does get involved in our play, he just over plays it and ends up in the hands of the opposition.

Yet Mini can do one thing Pearce can't and get a repeat set

[Guest]

I wonder what odds Tom Waterhouse would give you on LOD getting more repeat sets than Pearce this year??..

[Guest]

Firstly, it would be silly to suggest that there would not be people of importance within the club reluctant to re-sign the player, otherwise surely he would have been re-signed by now, ending any speculation on his future. Secondly, I don't recall assertng personally referring to any of them within the club, but rather to the wider Rooster community (which may or may not include some), which encompasses a number of people who share my opinion, including many who post here. Their opinions are to respected, as should those who wish Minichiello to be contracted again, within the rules of the NRL. I have certainly asserted my confidence in those at the club who will make the decision, and my trust that such a decision will be made in the best long term interests of the club. I have never asserted that I know what that decision will be, but I have pointed out the difficulty of fitting a player of his standing within the cap, and some ramifications that could occur as a result.

Secondly, the word 'agenda' is often misused. I see someone carrying an agenda as one who has a personal connection (could be a friendship or alternatively a falling out) with one of the parties, which he/she fails to disclose, or can derive a financial benefit, which they also don't disclose, from a decison effecting one of the parties. In the case involving the re-signing of Anthony Minichiello, I don't see me or anyone else who shares my desire for the player retire, as having anything else but a forceful personal opinion on how they wish the club to act on this matter. This should never be confused with the pushing of an 'agenda', which we see practised regularly in the News Limited press and on the Macquarie Radio network. I am also sorry that you wish to personalise the debate. You don't know me or have any idea of what my motives are, so please refrain from any personal attacks until you do, and allow the debate to continue free of any vitriol toward the forums participants.

Very fair post mate. People have to go personal because they can't argue the facts.

Also they just can't get their head around the fact that it's a business decision, they can't take emotion out of it. If we were in the EPL and there was no salary cap I wouldn't give a shit if they kept him on the books till he was 40.

This year Mini cost us nothing on the salary cap, the situation changes next year. I would hate for us to lose a promising kid because a 34 year old wants to squeeze out another year.