This is what has really perplexed me. I've being saying since mid-way through last year that I thought Mortimer's best position was always going to be hooker. I also thought the one game he played in that position was just about his best in his last two years of playing NRL. The only thing Mortimer has against him playing dummy half is his size and the danger that represents in defence, however, I think he's done pretty well defensively unless he's isolated and playing in the middle of the ruck you wouldn't get that too often. He's the same size as the likes of Nathan Friend.
Surely you can only say that the club has long ago decided he wasn't a part of the plans and therefore was going to be asked to languish in Wenty which was always going to result in an request to leave. However, even at Wentworthville level, especially when Anthony Mitchell left, why not play at hooker and see what he was capable of in that position.
It's nice to have a 14 or backup hooker in your side who can also play seven when needed and given we don't have any backup seven options for next year, I would have thought Mortimer fits nicely as part of our roster in that respect. I know its a lot to pay for someone in that position but Nathan Fiend would probably be on $200k for that role at the Dragons and he's been absolutely invaluable to them. Having someone who can back up your half is imperative - do we consider Ben Roberts a backup half?
Replies
Other issues perhaps ?????
No doubting the kid's guts to have a go on the field - plus his D is really not all that bad.
Dropping guys like Willie Mason at full speed just before the line doesn't sound like a liability to me.
At 9 or 14 he is going to have plenty of back up so - yeah - why not.
I feel your pain mate. I don't understand how our coaching staff are so oblivious to the potential there. It just seems an obvious decision to at least try him there. When he was first dropped I thought finally they are going to mould him into a 9 which never eventuated.
He reminds me a lot of Danny Buderus in style of play, not naturally gifted with the ball in hand yet tough and a smart footballer. Buderus started in the halves when he first debuted for the knights, they were willing to try him in a new position and look at the results there.
Sounds as if Mortimers cards were marked from the time he was dropped this year.
However you have to ask what happens when Hayne goes off on rep duties or worse still Sandow gets injured. If we lose all of Mortimer, Humble on top of Ant Mitchell, all the young guys we have been grooming are gone and there is no one else to fill in. Roberts seems like a good bet for 5/8 or hooker but he does not seem to have the smarts to be a number 7.
I remember when the media asked SK if mortimer could play hooker NO! he replied without flinching this was 6 weeks ago mabe more.
So lets see ant mitchel is axed
Casey will retire from eels
Keating plays 80 mins every week? injuries?
Heard A. Watts has been rumoured to eels.
What is Kearneys plan for hooker next year.
One thing for sure is he could care less for morts wants him gone! asap.
I agree should of tried him at 9 this season is over nothing to lose
Anthony Watts could interesting - Reni Matua, Chris Walker, Fui Fui have all had disciplinary issues in the past but have turned it around.
gee there would have to be some strict guidelines in place though.
Agree. I think he would make a terrific hooker. It seems like nobody at the club is willing to give him a shot at it.
What makes it even more puzzling is that we have Matt Keating as our number 9, who can only be described as ordinary. Its not like a Smith, Farah or Ennis is in front of him...
Having keating starting and mortimer coming on as 14??? 2 slowest hookers in the comp...
he offers nothing of the bench, starting him may be a different story. But SK made it clear he wants keating considering he resigned him in the first week he was made coach????? very weird
Other than his tenacity and toughness, I've never really rated him as NRL standard. Even when I saw him play U20's I had my doubts. He has had his good moments sure, usually on the back of a team going well, but no where near consistent enough. The bad outweighs the good. Now if he was able to direct a team around the park, have better footy vision I'd say give him a crack at 9.
I don't agree with the "He is only learning the trade" argument as he has actually played more first grade games than what is deemed the average. He should either have it by now or not. I think not.
For me, he's like a bad investment that we should just write off....move on.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next