Are we resigning the right blokes?

I know many of the contributors want us to resign Jeff Robson and Kevin Kingston, but it does leave us with a few dilemmas.1st being a bloke called KRIS KEATING (remember him). There was an article in the Herald last week saying Kris Keating was considered by many of his junior coaches to be even better than Jarryd Hayne. Keating was obviously injured and missed the back end of the season revivial, but he was one of the few bright sparks earlier this year. I can't see him being too happy about the Eels resigning Robson, as Robson (going on Anderson's policy to date) will get first crack at the number 7 next year.KK is up for grabs after 2010 to the best of my knowledge and the Bulldogs are said to view him as a long term replacement for Kimmorley. Surely resigning Robson will seriously jeopardise our chances of resigning this feakish talent - one that has a lot more upside to him than Robson.Resigning Kingston is another pickle. If we resign him, not only will it most likely squeeze out Anthony Mitchell (who has been called the best hooking prospect in the NYC), but it takes the spot Kris Keating could potentially have filled on the bench. Both Kris and Anthony can do the job of Kingston IMHO.I know Robson and Kingston have been great for us this year, but I don't think should we resign them, we have more to lose than we do to gain. They are capable without being brilliant. Their two understudies are more than likely both.

I don't think there's an issue in re-signing them, as long as all players are given fair and equal access to spots next year. I think you need good depth in your halves and that's where I see Robson. I would have an issue re-signing Robson if he was going to be seen as starting half back. Everyone knows my opinion of Kris, and I rate him as our number two retention target behind Feleti for next year. In relation to Kingston, i think it depends if Anderson wants to use an interchange hooker next year. Personally, I wouldn't. However, if Anderson thinks that he wants a hooker as 14, I'd favour re-signing Kingston because I think it is too early (and we don't have enough depth) for Mitchell to start the year at 14.

I think Robson could play hooker as well, by the way, so he could provide backup across 6,7 and 9.

We've still got players to sign to round out our top 25 and I'd be happy for these blokes to stay as I don't see any real weaknesses across our roster (maybe I'd lean towards another prop but even there we're not too badly off).

"I did say if he trimmed down. If he was proper fit and kept in shape I am confident he could handle cup level footy. I am not saying that will happen"

"If you're not first, you're last. We were never going to win a comp in 25. Are we on a better path than.the previous decade, I'd say it's early days but yes."

"Mate it's absolutely cheating. It's giving his team and unfair advantage as to make the ball difficult to grip giving the defence a huge advantage. It slows the passing game and also there a good chance the opposition knock on "

Replies

Pugger October 7, 2009 at 4:07pm

I agree with this.
- Active > Pugger October 7, 2009 at 4:31pm
  
  I also agree.
  Do not resign Robo & Kingston.
  
  Whilst I agree this year we had some success with a two hooker rotation we don't need it. So c u Kingston. We already have Mitchell under contract so lets give the kid a shot.
  
  KK & Morts as halfs, so C U Robo. Lets not forget Humble as well. (Also a back stop is Mateo) You may of noticed that I have let go of the notation that Mateo is our number 1 choice for 5/8. My theory was KK & Morts are too small. However as everyone has pointed out to me, these days if you play 1 on the left & 1 on the right so then there is no problem. See I have converted. Now you can play all three. That is KK, Morts & Mateo. How strong is that. ( We will just need to have a Morts pack into the scrum & have a forward defending when the scrums are on the short side)
  
  We are all divided on how we play our top 17 with the abundance of talent we have at our disposal. There is no point pursuing Robo & Kingston.
  
  Lets keep the funds to secure the players we have coming off contract next year. God knows we will need it.
gagey October 7, 2009 at 4:12pm

i agree. Early in the season Kris keating was by far one of our best young players.He always looked dangerous with the footy and would have been a big bonus around finals time if he was not injured.
Dan October 7, 2009 at 4:18pm

Well put Steve, definitely opened my eyes a bit. Almost forgot how good Kris was, he was probably our best player at the start of the season. Sounds like we are in for a bit of a dilemma...
JJM October 7, 2009 at 4:29pm

we are not paying big dollars for kingston and robson if we do indeed sign them up. I wouldn't worry. We need the extra depth in the halves in any case. If k.keating can rise to the occasion, he will eventually dislodge robson form no.7. Mitchell in the other case has a tougher role to dislodge m. keating as starting hooker. His only chance is as interchange hooker.
Stewie October 7, 2009 at 4:29pm

Both Feleti and Kris were injured in the Manly game when we were just starting to produce something. Feleti's career was almost ruined and Kris's career is in danger too. No wonder Manly were the most hated team in the Daily Telegraph poll
jamesy October 7, 2009 at 4:40pm

Kris keating is crap! He is a ball hog, he runs the ball far too much himself and defensively he can be poor at times. I think Mortimer will suffer if Keating is in the harves with him as both Mortimer and Keating are both more ball runners than ball players. I would keep Robson and Kingston in a heartbeat over Kris Keating.

People say he was one of our best early in the year but I feel he was a contributing factor in our teams poor form cause he runs the ball too much himself and starves the backline of getting plenty of all.Kris tries to do everything himself instead of using our star studded backline.

Kris Keating = individual player

Jeff Robson = team player!

let bleach boy go to the bulldogs!
- Djl > jamesy October 8, 2009 at 2:39pm
  
  i agree with u mate robson gets the ball out to jarryd hayne and mortimer as much as possible to get the backline firing kris will be back up and if he signs elsewhere we have tom humble and shane croft
  - cgee221 > Djl October 8, 2009 at 2:57pm
    
    Last year's NYC team seemed to do pretty alright with them in the halves :P
1Eyed Eel October 7, 2009 at 4:42pm

I don't think there's an issue in re-signing them, as long as all players are given fair and equal access to spots next year. I think you need good depth in your halves and that's where I see Robson. I would have an issue re-signing Robson if he was going to be seen as starting half back. Everyone knows my opinion of Kris, and I rate him as our number two retention target behind Feleti for next year. In relation to Kingston, i think it depends if Anderson wants to use an interchange hooker next year. Personally, I wouldn't. However, if Anderson thinks that he wants a hooker as 14, I'd favour re-signing Kingston because I think it is too early (and we don't have enough depth) for Mitchell to start the year at 14.

I think Robson could play hooker as well, by the way, so he could provide backup across 6,7 and 9.

We've still got players to sign to round out our top 25 and I'd be happy for these blokes to stay as I don't see any real weaknesses across our roster (maybe I'd lean towards another prop but even there we're not too badly off).

of 3

This reply was deleted.

Eels Blogs

Are we resigning the right blokes?

Replies

More stuff to read

Eels blogs

Dirty PANTHERS CAUGHT CHEATING

NSW Cup - Rd 10 vs Dogs

Tim Smith

Stephen Crichton

Note: this page contains paid content.

Social Blogs

I say if we lose this week against Newcastle we will come last

Jim Sarantinos on SEN: Moses an outside chance before R9

Highest score

Cyclone Alfred

Note: this page contains paid content.