Blue Vain wrote:
Crusader wrote:
Everyone on the wrong side of the Harry debate needs to pull their head out of their arse.
And here we have a perfect example.
You cannot have a debate about the value of a player. If you don't conform to the opinions of certain posters, you have your head up your arse.
The only contribution to the discussion is attempting to denigrate anyone with an alternate view. How insightful.
And people wonder why I get agitated.
I cant ever recall you leaping to my defence with some of the alterative views I have had on here over the years
The way I look at Harry is he is better for team structure - The constant weeks of Curnow being one out is taking it's toll. Against Sydney Harry was the best big man on the ground until he got injured albeit he missed a couple of sitters . The 2nd goal he missed he wouldn't have done so if he had not taken the mark on the back flank and sprinted forward to provide option in goal square - If he had kicked straight it would have been an amazing effort.
You also have to consider since Parkin Exited stage left we have had a procession of coaches and assistant coaches in the club. By the very fact we are in preliminary final tends to suggest this is the best group of coaches we have had in over 24 years and their mantra is two rucks 2 KPF and if Harry is fit he plays.
Harry is no good at centre bounce ruck contest and the centre clearance is the most important stat in the game.
Maybe he can work on that and his kicking in off season who knows - But Harry's work rate his ability to get up the ground and provide option is to valuable the way the game is played to even consider the thought of trading him