Tackles
Currie - 704
Nicholson - 502

Missed Tackles
Currie - 49
Nicholson - 31

Tackles per game (to account for Nicholson playing 10 less games)
Currie - 27.08
Nicholson - 31.38

Missed Tackles per game (to account for Nicholson playing 10 less games)
Currie - 1.88
Nicholson - 1.94

I always find these interesting and would like to ask the coaching staff, mainly about the hit ups. Dudson got pilloried on these earlier this year.

Sita used to as well but you do need to accept sometimes people roles in the team, eg sita wasn't a high volume player he was to come on and create impact with big drives, you're not getting 20 carries out of him but hopefully in his short period on the field he takes enough gas out the tank of the opposition forwards it helps the others?


Are their players that are tackling forwards rather than attacking forwards? Yes there are.

Jason Clark for example, regularly made sod all metres for us, as an undersized forward of that time. However to my knowledge, in Australia he spent most of his career doing tackling and grunt work so the burgess brothers et al could hit it up strongly.

Are Nicholsona stats due to him not getting involved? Or is it tactics from the coaching staff?

In our biggest game of the year where you'd want all hands on deck, it certainly stands out

Without commenting on the players performance I think we can all agree that whatever we were doing did not work and has not worked for a long time.

Mine wasn’t meant a shot at Nicholson. He’s actually a good athlete and I would have him in my squad, just not at the expense of Currie.

The system we’re trying to play of blowing them away down the middle and using pace on the edges is failing. We have (had) pace in all of the key positions. Clark, Williams, Dufty, Ashton and Thewlis are quick. The second rows are faster than the centres, but the centre void is being addressed. The failure is, in my opinion, our 6’4” 110kg prop isn’t hitting as hard as their 6’4” 110kg prop.

Nothing to do with skill. Just about whether they want to, whether they’re fit enough to and whether they are being put in difficult positions to do so by not being as smart at the opposition (i.e. the 6 again).

nope, i get it, you just reminded me, i was critical of longstaff, because what i try to base my assessment of academy kids coming in, what do they have that makes them stand out? longstaff had tenacity, but he was undersized, didn't tackle that hard, didn't hit it up hard, didn't offload.

What do they do, or can they potentially do better than the person they're replacing, nicholson is falling a little into that category for me, after a first season.

him being moved to 13 is interesting, one would expect him to play completely differently next season

His immediate predecessors at right second row were Holmes and Hughes. He contributes far more than those two.

very very low bar

But surely an improvement.

Would you like James Harrison at right second row?

I’m glad I’m not alone.
I’m a big fan of Currie.
He’s been trying to play above his weight. The like of Currie and Peanut trying to take up the mantle and make up for the deficiency in the front row.
The fatigue finding them out with mistakes.

to be fair the first choice starting props were missing.. and the others are mediocre at best.

As for the Nicholson/Currie thing.... i think we have all seen the best Currie has to offer... Nicholson could improve massively in the right team... its a long term thing really.

unless I've been watching a different game,Curries meters have come out wide.... not trying to make up for the deficiency in the front row.

And as for Peanuts meters I don't have the stats but not many of them were towards the opposition's line