General 2016 Warriors Player Reviews

Play The Ball

1st Grade Fringe
Jun 8, 2015
1,303
No way. Whole team and coach combined has to be a D or even D-. C- is a pass mark in most courses and D+ is still too high considering what they dished up at the weekend!
Jeez you're harsh! C- is what I would call disappointing. D is total failure. I didn't bother with D+ or D- people get the picture. You're assessment is correct in my opinion though - total failure across the board. They talked a big game and got nowhere near it. Plus the comp was as weak as it has been for a while. Eels had points taken off them. Knights were a guaranteed two points etc etc.
 

Blain

1st Grade Fringe
Apr 18, 2012
2,330
Wellington
Henry, Lousi (in particular) should be given F's if injuries are taken into account. The both lasted about 10 minutes.. Add Lane to that, 10 minutes..

But yeah generally those ratings are there or there about's, I'm sure everyone has their on opinions..

Simon was not in the A level, he made to many errors with the ball at crucial times, and generally offered little in attack. Defence was class as normal. B+ for me.
 

Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

Warriors 1st Grader
Apr 30, 2012
7,790
Been keeping track of the forum player rating results, same as last year, this is just by the numbers of what people rated, and they go like:

Forward of the year and Player of the year | Simon Mannering | 6.8 | he’s good. Runner up Bodene Thompson 6.6
Back of the year | David Fusitua | 6.8 | He’s good too, runner up Solomone Kata 6.3
Mr Consistent, least difference in performance | Ryan Hoffman | Var. 1.3
Mr Inconsistent, was good, was bad, was all over the show | Shaun Johnson | Var. 4.6 (no surprises there)
Best performance by a back | David Fusitua, rd 15 vs Knights | 9.0
Best performance by a forward | Bodene Thompson Rd 7 vs Bulldogs | 9.1
Worst performance by a back | Tuimoala Lolohea, rd 23 vs Rabbitohs | 1.3
Worst performance by a forward | Ben Matulino, rd 26 vs Eels | 1.9 (maybe just a tiny bit of hyperbole in that rating)
Biggest improver from first half of the season | Thomas Leuluai | + 1.3
Fell off the most from first half the season | Tuimoala Lolohea | - 1.7

And if you average the ratings to get a team performance

Best performance in a Win | vs Broncos Rd 13 | 7.6
Best performance in a Loss| vs Storm Rd 3 | 6.4
Worst performance in a Win | vs Roosters rd 15 | 5.9
Worst performance in a Loss | vs Storm Rd 8 | 3.9 (that mark seems generous)

There were a few weeks where only a few hardy souls voted, but it evens out over the course of the year.

We should probably have a thread for this - player ratings, graphs, team ratings per week etc.

Who's a statistical pervert who would get a thrill from doing it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: David James

6 Again

1st Grade Fringe
Sep 29, 2015
1,333
To break these player ratings down further if we're looking at an academic grading system and C- is a fail then those players identified should come under the most scrutiny when the player reviews are conducted, and even more scrutiny if they occupy a significant portion of the salary cap IMO. So who are these high earners that haven't lived up to their salary.

If we leave out the players that fall into this category because of injury i.e Roger Tuivasa-Sheck and players who have left the club mid season i.e Hurrell, who then are we left with.

Manu Vatuvei - D
Jacob Lillyman - C-
Ben Matulino - D


I can't argue with that, these are the same names that have been coming up all season. Crucially two of them are our senior front rowers and that's an area that you'd imagine will be highlighted in the overall review so I'd expect some decisions to be made right there, not necessarily personnel changes because we're hamstrung by the salary cap and there seems to be a genuine interest from the club in Foran but certainly decisions made around high performance.

If you throw back into the mix the players on big money who have a C or C+ which is really only a pass mark and those that were injured or transferred mid season they together along with those players above occupy up to 70% of our salary cap imo.

Roger Tuivasa-Sheck - D
Konrad Hurrell - D

Shaun Johnson - D
Issac Luke - C+
Sione Lousi - D
Ryan Hoffman - C+

There are only two players that played above themselves this season that are high earners within the club.

Thomas Leuluai - A-
Simon Mannering - A-

If it tells me one thing it's that getting the top end of your roster firing together is crucial to the overall success of the side, after all they're the ones that drive performance over the larger playing group.








 

Jay M

Warriors 1st Grader
Sep 25, 2012
4,693
Back in Auckland
Jeez you're harsh! C- is what I would call disappointing. D is total failure. I didn't bother with D+ or D- people get the picture. You're assessment is correct in my opinion though - total failure across the board. They talked a big game and got nowhere near it. Plus the comp was as weak as it has been for a while. Eels had points taken off them. Knights were a guaranteed two points etc etc.

Not harsh, but after being schooled in the NZ education system - C's get degrees. C- still counts as a pass at university and used to at school (pre-NCEA)...

Reality is - top 4 was a stated expectation with the roster, top 6 was the initial goal, top 8 was the revised goal, and the warriors ended up 10th, with the knights being a basket case and the eels being stripped of 12 points (and flogging us without Norman and Foran). The warriors had a favourable draw (2 games against the Roosters, 2 games against the Knights etc), still managed to lose to the Tigers twice...

There was no real excuse given the injury concerns weren't "major" throughout the season. Losing Roger Tuivasa-Sheck was a blow - but he was hardly setting the world on fire at the time (his defence was average).

They fooled everyone with their mid-season revival then gave it up in the last few weeks. Played abysmally. If they had limped into the finals - they'd probably give up 50 points this week...

No way should the entire organisation be given a pass-mark this season.

Completely agree with your points.
 

BeastMode

Warriors 1st Grader
Mar 7, 2015
9,271
Not harsh, but after being schooled in the NZ education system - C's get degrees. C- still counts as a pass at university and used to at school (pre-NCEA)...

Reality is - top 4 was a stated expectation with the roster, top 6 was the initial goal, top 8 was the revised goal, and the warriors ended up 10th, with the knights being a basket case and the eels being stripped of 12 points (and flogging us without Norman and Foran). The warriors had a favourable draw (2 games against the Roosters, 2 games against the Knights etc), still managed to lose to the Tigers twice...

There was no real excuse given the injury concerns weren't "major" throughout the season. Losing Roger Tuivasa-Sheck was a blow - but he was hardly setting the world on fire at the time (his defence was average).

They fooled everyone with their mid-season revival then gave it up in the last few weeks. Played abysmally. If they had limped into the finals - they'd probably give up 50 points this week...

No way should the entire organisation be given a pass-mark this season.

Completely agree with your points.

Straight C's might get you a degree, but it wont get you a job after you finish your degree.

And I wouldnt know being a straight A student but always thought C - was a fail and min pass was a C.
 
Last edited:

Jay M

Warriors 1st Grader
Sep 25, 2012
4,693
Back in Auckland
Straight C's might get you a degree, but it wont get you a job after you finish your degree.

And I wouldnt know being a straight A student but always thought C - was a fail and min pass was a C.

C-'s definitely get people through. (I never got one myself but was a tutor and marker at uni for awhile).

Oddly, I know a lot of B and C average students who got jobs. In some cases beating out A average students for jobs.

Unfortunately, just like rugby league - grades don't always reflect players' abilities to get the job done ;)
 

BeastMode

Warriors 1st Grader
Mar 7, 2015
9,271
C-'s definitely get people through. (I never got one myself but was a tutor and marker at uni for awhile).

Oddly, I know a lot of B and C average students who got jobs. In some cases beating out A average students for jobs.

Unfortunately, just like rugby league - grades don't always reflect players' abilities to get the job done ;)

Jobs at Macdonalds doesnt count.

Giving grades to players is completely subjective. Its not like a maths test. Performance reviews are usually meet, did not meet, exceed and significantly exceed expectations. At least where i work anyway.

Key word - expectations.
 

eudebrito

|-|
Contributor
May 21, 2013
3,841
We should probably have a thread for this - player ratings, graphs, team ratings per week etc.

Who's a statistical pervert who would get a thrill from doing it?

There is a stats thread somewhere, might get told off for creating more ones.… but when almost every player falls somewhere between “he’s alright” and “oh FFS, stop selecting him” it’s not so much fun…

This is plotting performance against games played, we use too many players, last year 31 this year 32.

Capture.JPG


The Cowboys used 25, the Sharks just 23. If you mapped out those teams, their starting 17 would all in the top right quadrant, with only the (rare) fill ins in the bottom half.

And to have a successful season you would need all your big money players, (shaun, sheck, luke, manu, ben, simon, hoff) to be right up the top right corner. Instead its just Simon managing over 6.5 a game.
 

Dunedin warrior

1st Grade Fringe
Nov 10, 2014
1,189
I agree with most of those grades, but isn't Mannering close to the highest paid player at the club? He gives it his all and makes a hell lot of tackles, but doesn't make a lot of yardage. All those tackles hasn't improved our defence. Value for money I would give him a B to b-.
 

Blindside

1st Grade Fringe
May 24, 2012
347
I tried to make this about value for money hence Johnson getting a D. Not entirely his fault - injury and lack of help contributed significantly. I have written a number of stories defending Johnson from criticism this year too so I'm not trying to blame him for the issues. He is not the problem with the Warriors IMO but based on his salary the return was pretty ordinary. Likewise with Roger Tuivasa-Sheck - not his fault he got injured but the return on the investment was minimal given the circumstances. The idea of the article and ratings was to see what sort of return from the investment the club got this year.

I thought it was a good summation, however without knowing the salaries of the players it's hard to know how that affects the ratings.
Would it be possible for you to post the salaries in broad bands? or even, say, top 5, second 5 etc?
I would find this useful. thanks.
 

Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

Warriors 1st Grader
Apr 30, 2012
7,790
There is a stats thread somewhere, might get told off for creating more ones.… but when almost every player falls somewhere between “he’s alright” and “oh FFS, stop selecting him” it’s not so much fun…

This is plotting performance against games played, we use too many players, last year 31 this year 32.

View attachment 21256

The Cowboys used 25, the Sharks just 23. If you mapped out those teams, their starting 17 would all in the top right quadrant, with only the (rare) fill ins in the bottom half.

And to have a successful season you would need all your big money players, (shaun, sheck, luke, manu, ben, simon, hoff) to be right up the top right corner. Instead its just Simon managing over 6.5 a game.

That's awesome.

A couple of things stand out;

1) Manu
2) We have only 14 players in the top right (and some by the skin of their nutsack)
3) Most people would agree with the bottom right quadrant
4) Most of the bottom left have been released
 

eudebrito

|-|
Contributor
May 21, 2013
3,841
That's awesome.

A couple of things stand out;

1) Manu
2) We have only 14 players in the top right (and some by the skin of their nutsack)
3) Most people would agree with the bottom right quadrant
4) Most of the bottom left have been released

Poor Manu, last year he was safely in the middle of the pack next to the lillymans in ‘at least he’s not a major problem, but could do better’

And a 5.5 is not “good” that’s what Roache gets when he plays 20 minutes and makes a nice run from dummy half, its “fine” you accept that from Ayshford (“fine” is what they got him for) but when your big kahunas are all floating around that level….

And in more depressing viewing: Holdovers from last year, who played enough games

Capture.JPG

The two who you would think got better, got better.

The rest stayed the same or regressed. And due to age of hoff, vats, lillyman, are they really going to go up again?

I hope they are straight up with the fans with this review “we are paying too much for guys not as good as they were, this is how we will be correcting that” and "the ones who should be in their prime are taking the piss on occasion" you can point to the coach for some of that 2nd one.

Not some crap about how the structure needs tweaking, or they going to be more serious at training. fucking diet plans, wearing number 1s to games.
 

Lord Gnome of Howick MBE

Warriors 1st Grader
Apr 30, 2012
7,790
Poor Manu, last year he was safely in the middle of the pack next to the lillymans in ‘at least he’s not a major problem, but could do better’

And a 5.5 is not “good” that’s what Roache gets when he plays 20 minutes and makes a nice run from dummy half, its “fine” you accept that from Ayshford (“fine” is what they got him for) but when your big kahunas are all floating around that level….

And in more depressing viewing: Holdovers from last year, who played enough games

View attachment 21257
The two who you would think got better, got better.

The rest stayed the same or regressed. And due to age of hoff, vats, lillyman, are they really going to go up again?

I hope they are straight up with the fans with this review “we are paying too much for guys not as good as they were, this is how we will be correcting that” and "the ones who should be in their prime are taking the piss on occasion" you can point to the coach for some of that 2nd one.

Not some crap about how the structure needs tweaking, or they going to be more serious at training. fucking diet plans, wearing number 1s to games.

Its good to see that Ken Maumalo is improving.

Joking aside, that backs up my gut feel after 24 games of shite - Fusitua and Kata have improved, Hoffman, Matulino and Manu have deteriorated, and Wright and Maumalo have always been shite.

Lisone, Lillyman and Lolohea have been consistently uninspiring for two years now also.
 

Jay M

Warriors 1st Grader
Sep 25, 2012
4,693
Back in Auckland
I agree with most of those grades, but isn't Mannering close to the highest paid player at the club? He gives it his all and makes a hell lot of tackles, but doesn't make a lot of yardage. All those tackles hasn't improved our defence. Value for money I would give him a B to b-.

Doesn't make a lot of yardage? 7th on the list for 2016 behind Matulino, Fusitua, Kata, Hoffman, Lillyman, Lolohea. Mannering averaged 80 metres a game and 48.5 tackles per game. Pretty outstanding effort really.

I'm sure he would run more if he wasn't making so many tackles.

Oddly, for me, this season has been one of Mannering's best.
 

6 Again

1st Grade Fringe
Sep 29, 2015
1,333
One thing these stats back up is the overarching opinion that the bulk of our most senior players have under performed this season, and one thing I'd be interested to learn from these player reviews is whether all the roster hype over the pre-season had any bearing on the players attitudes around effort and resilience at the start of the season.

From the outside looking in it would seem as if there was a feeling among the group that it would just happen for them because on paper they had a much publicized playing roster. The warm up match against St George and the first round game against the Tigers would appear to back that up. That tells me two things, the senior playing group were not really driving performance standards to the levels required and the coaching staff either didn't pick up on it or were powerless to do anything about it.
 
Last edited:

Tragic

1st Grade Fringe
Apr 27, 2016
4,668
Kumeu
Well we didn't get one player in the nrl.com team of the year in first grade or holden cup so that says something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruce

BeastMode

Warriors 1st Grader
Mar 7, 2015
9,271
Poor Manu, last year he was safely in the middle of the pack next to the lillymans in ‘at least he’s not a major problem, but could do better’

And a 5.5 is not “good” that’s what Roache gets when he plays 20 minutes and makes a nice run from dummy half, its “fine” you accept that from Ayshford (“fine” is what they got him for) but when your big kahunas are all floating around that level….

And in more depressing viewing: Holdovers from last year, who played enough games

View attachment 21257
The two who you would think got better, got better.

The rest stayed the same or regressed. And due to age of hoff, vats, lillyman, are they really going to go up again?

I hope they are straight up with the fans with this review “we are paying too much for guys not as good as they were, this is how we will be correcting that” and "the ones who should be in their prime are taking the piss on occasion" you can point to the coach for some of that 2nd one.

Not some crap about how the structure needs tweaking, or they going to be more serious at training. fucking diet plans, wearing number 1s to games.

Dude, this is a amazing stuff.

You do this for a hobby or is someone paying you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick O'Shay

Last Game

27 Aug

16 - 28
5.6 Total Avg Rating
0.0 Your Avg Rating

Highest Rated Player

Lowest Rated Player

Compiled from 5 ratings