Campese vs Tongue

Darren Fritz · Post by **Darren Fritz** » May 16, 2007, 5:39 pm

What are people's thoughts about who makes the better lock?

Undoubtedly Tongue is a machine in defence. No contest.

But Campese is also very good in defence, AND adds A LOT more in attack.

I think we are seeing that Campese isn't suited to the halves, and needs to be at centre or lock. I'm happy for him to go to centre for the moment, but I really do think his best position will be lock.

Not that I want to get rid of Tongue either - we might just have to re-invent a new position on the field for him. I just think it will cost us to have a lock who can't create attacking opportunities the way other clubs use their locks as another half basically. (and even though we aren't having problems scoring points at the moment, once our halves raise their profile they will become easier to read, so we will need more options in attack).

Thoughts?

Raider Crusader · Post by **Raider Crusader** » May 16, 2007, 5:50 pm

Some good points there - but i say leave Tonguey where he is, and let Campo bide his time in the centres until Tonguey retires.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 16, 2007, 5:53 pm

Campese can fill a range of positions
im inclinde to agree that lock is his most suited position, but tonguey is going to be there in the forseeable future and rightly so
Campo could play a back row utility role extremely well off the bench, or even starting, as a wide running back rower with some ball skills, ala greg bird. Also could be played at centre.

Personally from where im standing, with tongue at lock we havnt lacked ability to score points, we are ranked 4th in points for over all, so attack is no an issue, defence particually out wide is an issue, also our centres rely solely on our halves to make something happen, having campo in the centres is the best move imo, he is sound defensively, and has enough pace and ball skills to do some damage, as we saw against souths and penrith

Id be naming campo at centre and having chalk on the bench, when chalk comes on Campo would move into a roving second rower role, ala greg bird, that WT's winger does it also, i know his name but **** if i can spell it

Darren Fritz · Post by **Darren Fritz** » May 16, 2007, 5:54 pm

yeah, i'd be happy for that to be the general plan. And if Tonguey gets injured -> Campese to lock. (and also if Tonguey starts missing tackles......that would be weird)

Poida_Raider · Post by **Poida_Raider** » May 16, 2007, 6:57 pm

Raider Crusader wrote:Some good points there - but i say leave Tonguey where he is, and let Campo bide his time in the centres until Tonguey retires.

so he's going to wait 4 or 5, or 6 years? i think it's very unfair to suggest tonguey doesnt offer anything in attack. he can find a gap and put blokes in it, and he put in a kick to the corner for the winning try against souths for **** sake.

i do agree campo would also be a good lock, but he would be best utilised in the centres as so many have suggested, while tongue is there. for a while yet i should think.

Raider Crusader · Post by **Raider Crusader** » May 16, 2007, 7:45 pm

Poida_Raider wrote:
Raider Crusader wrote:Some good points there - but i say leave Tonguey where he is, and let Campo bide his time in the centres until Tonguey retires.
so he's going to wait 4 or 5, or 6 years?

Yes.

Sasha · Post by **Sasha** » May 16, 2007, 7:46 pm

Alan Tongue will play until he is 45..

Laugh now if you want.

RedRaider · Post by **RedRaider** » May 16, 2007, 9:14 pm

I wouldn't be moving Alan Tongue. He already plays lock, fills in at hooker, kicks cross field bombs and I'm sure is working on other kicking skills(like the chip from the scrum base). On top of that he tackles his heart out, doesn't stuff up very often, is the captain and leads by example. Lock is his spot imo. He's earned it.

I agree with many GH posters in that I see Campo as a centre. He's big, fast, has nouse and defends well. He has a long kicking game that can still be used if he plays centre. He could be an alternate long kicker if Carney etc are under pressure.

raidersmalt · Post by **raidersmalt** » May 16, 2007, 10:31 pm

Darren Fritz wrote:yeah, i'd be happy for that to be the general plan. And if Tonguey gets injured -> Campese to lock. (and also if Tonguey starts missing tackles......that would be weird)

Tonguey will never start missing tackles. In fact, he's even more impressive because of his head gear. He's making all these tackles with headgear on....imagine if he took it off, he'd be lighter: and have more energy....that'd probably add another 10 tackles per game. He knows he's better then everyone so he puts on extra weight just to be fair,

What a gentleman!

shuuraider · Post by **shuuraider** » May 16, 2007, 10:50 pm

Campesse is the ideal bench man, in the halves or at lock, centers and even the 2nd row.....id like him to start but it would be so handy having him on the bench.

deanoman · Post by **deanoman** » May 17, 2007, 1:46 am

shuuraider wrote:Campesse is the ideal bench man, in the halves or at lock, centers and even the 2nd row.....id like him to start but it would be so handy having him on the bench.

I have always said this. He would make an awesome super sub. When we lost Tongue to that role we should of been grooming him straight away. I do however think he should be a short term man to fix our centre problems. When we recruit some top gun centres then move him to the bench for the super sub role!

Finite · Post by **Finite** » May 17, 2007, 2:15 am

Tongue is the best lock in rugby league. Nuff said

Philby · Post by **Philby** » May 17, 2007, 6:25 am

raidersmalt wrote:
Darren Fritz wrote:yeah, i'd be happy for that to be the general plan. And if Tonguey gets injured -> Campese to lock. (and also if Tonguey starts missing tackles......that would be weird)
Tonguey will never start missing tackles. In fact, he's even more impressive because of his head gear. He's making all these tackles with headgear on....imagine if he took it off, he'd be lighter: and have more energy....that'd probably add another 10 tackles per game. He knows he's better then everyone so he puts on extra weight just to be fair,

What a gentleman!

When was the last time you put headgear on. Its as light as a feather. If anything if he got rid of the headgear he may miss a few tackles as it gives you a bit more confidence knowing your scon has a bit of protection when u r going in low for a tackle.

SydneyRaider · Post by **SydneyRaider** » May 17, 2007, 8:50 am

Finite wrote:Tongue is the best lock in rugby league. Nuff said

Agreed.
Campo needs a to play out of his skin to take Tongue's position. He only needs to wake up to takes Howell's.

raidersmalt · Post by **raidersmalt** » May 17, 2007, 8:56 am

Philby wrote:
raidersmalt wrote:
Darren Fritz wrote:yeah, i'd be happy for that to be the general plan. And if Tonguey gets injured -> Campese to lock. (and also if Tonguey starts missing tackles......that would be weird)
Tonguey will never start missing tackles. In fact, he's even more impressive because of his head gear. He's making all these tackles with headgear on....imagine if he took it off, he'd be lighter: and have more energy....that'd probably add another 10 tackles per game. He knows he's better then everyone so he puts on extra weight just to be fair,

What a gentleman!
When was the last time you put headgear on. Its as light as a feather. If anything if he got rid of the headgear he may miss a few tackles as it gives you a bit more confidence knowing your scon has a bit of protection when u r going in low for a tackle.

Haha, good lord, that was a joke. I think you need to start wearing headgear to protect your great sense of humour. Wouldn't want to lose that.

Philby · Post by **Philby** » May 17, 2007, 9:10 am

raidersmalt wrote:
Philby wrote:
raidersmalt wrote:
Darren Fritz wrote:yeah, i'd be happy for that to be the general plan. And if Tonguey gets injured -> Campese to lock. (and also if Tonguey starts missing tackles......that would be weird)
Tonguey will never start missing tackles. In fact, he's even more impressive because of his head gear. He's making all these tackles with headgear on....imagine if he took it off, he'd be lighter: and have more energy....that'd probably add another 10 tackles per game. He knows he's better then everyone so he puts on extra weight just to be fair,

What a gentleman!
When was the last time you put headgear on. Its as light as a feather. If anything if he got rid of the headgear he may miss a few tackles as it gives you a bit more confidence knowing your scon has a bit of protection when u r going in low for a tackle.
Haha, good lord, that was a joke. I think you need to start wearing headgear to protect your great sense of humour. Wouldn't want to lose that.

What part of that was a joke

You have a wierd sense of humour if you think any of it sound funny

raidersmalt · Post by **raidersmalt** » May 17, 2007, 9:16 am

Philby wrote:
raidersmalt wrote:
Philby wrote:
raidersmalt wrote:
Darren Fritz wrote:yeah, i'd be happy for that to be the general plan. And if Tonguey gets injured -> Campese to lock. (and also if Tonguey starts missing tackles......that would be weird)
Tonguey will never start missing tackles. In fact, he's even more impressive because of his head gear. He's making all these tackles with headgear on....imagine if he took it off, he'd be lighter: and have more energy....that'd probably add another 10 tackles per game. He knows he's better then everyone so he puts on extra weight just to be fair,

What a gentleman!
When was the last time you put headgear on. Its as light as a feather. If anything if he got rid of the headgear he may miss a few tackles as it gives you a bit more confidence knowing your scon has a bit of protection when u r going in low for a tackle.
Haha, good lord, that was a joke. I think you need to start wearing headgear to protect your great sense of humour. Wouldn't want to lose that.
What part of that was a joke You have a wierd sense of humour if you think any of it sound funny

Deary me, alright, the joke is that of course headgear isn't going to make a difference. But saying that not wearing headgear will make him lighter, ie. give him more energy as he wont be weighed down puts a comical twist on an otherwise sensible topic.
I'll make it funnier for you....
"Tonguey will never start missing tackles. In fact, he's even more impressive because of his head gear. He's making all these tackles with headgear on....imagine if he took it off, he'd be lighter: and have more energy....that'd probably add another 10 tackles per game[/b]. He knows he's better then everyone so he puts on extra weight just to be fair. And then he'll get hit in the groin with a football".

There you go.... and for my 1st and only use of a smiley face...

I think maybe we both have odd senses of humour...

Philby · Post by **Philby** » May 17, 2007, 9:31 am

raidersmalt wrote:
Philby wrote:
raidersmalt wrote:
Philby wrote:
raidersmalt wrote: Tonguey will never start missing tackles. In fact, he's even more impressive because of his head gear. He's making all these tackles with headgear on....imagine if he took it off, he'd be lighter: and have more energy....that'd probably add another 10 tackles per game. He knows he's better then everyone so he puts on extra weight just to be fair,

What a gentleman!
When was the last time you put headgear on. Its as light as a feather. If anything if he got rid of the headgear he may miss a few tackles as it gives you a bit more confidence knowing your scon has a bit of protection when u r going in low for a tackle.
Haha, good lord, that was a joke. I think you need to start wearing headgear to protect your great sense of humour. Wouldn't want to lose that.
What part of that was a joke You have a wierd sense of humour if you think any of it sound funny
Deary me, alright, the joke is that of course headgear isn't going to make a difference. But saying that not wearing headgear will make him lighter, ie. give him more energy as he wont be weighed down puts a comical twist on an otherwise sensible topic.
I'll make it funnier for you....
"Tonguey will never start missing tackles. In fact, he's even more impressive because of his head gear. He's making all these tackles with headgear on....imagine if he took it off, he'd be lighter: and have more energy....that'd probably add another 10 tackles per game[/b]. He knows he's better then everyone so he puts on extra weight just to be fair. And then he'll get hit in the groin with a football".

There you go.... and for my 1st and only use of a smiley face...

I think maybe we both have odd senses of humour...

Then, the doctor told me that BOTH my eyes were lazy! And that's why it was the best summer ever

Rick James · Post by **Rick James** » May 17, 2007, 12:31 pm

Darren Fritz wrote: I just think it will cost us to have a lock who can't create attacking opportunities

Tell that to the Warriors last year

EDIT: Or souths last week

Darren Fritz · Post by **Darren Fritz** » May 17, 2007, 2:15 pm

You blokes are kidding yourself if you think Tongue is a good attacking lock.

Your evidence being: 1 single game from last year, and 1 single kick against souths.

That is pretty weak evidence.

Tongue has not threatened in attack at all this year. All he is doing this year is trying to duck under tackles, and he has put through a handful of kicks when play has broken down and he needs to get rid of it on the last.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be in the team. He is great. We just need to be a little more realistic about what we think he is offering. And for certain he isn't in the team for his attacking abilities.
[/quote]

mike83au · Post by **mike83au** » May 17, 2007, 3:48 pm

You reckon?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but did Tongue not finish last year as the lock that had scored the most tries in the NRL, for season 2006?

He's always sniffing around the ruck, chasing grubber kicks, looking for tries on the last tackle options..... not bad for a defensive player.

Stuat · Post by **Stuat** » May 17, 2007, 4:03 pm

Tongue is a good support player but he isnt a great attacking lock in terms of making opportunities for other players. He does enough though and his defence makes up for any deficieny in that area. For us he is a very important player...

Darren Fritz · Post by **Darren Fritz** » May 17, 2007, 4:06 pm

Mostly agree with Stuat. I do however think that even his support play and other attacking components have been lacking this year compared to previous years.

mike83au · Post by **mike83au** » May 17, 2007, 4:07 pm

Yeah, I agree Stuat.

But I think that being a great supportive player, like Tongue is, makes you an effective attacking player.

Not to say that Tongue is going to bustle tackles and gain valuable metres... he's not that type of player.

greenhat · Post by **greenhat** » May 17, 2007, 5:33 pm

Exactly. He's not a magic attacking player, he just always seems to be there at the right moment. To score the try when an opponent drops it in goal, for the offload, for the grubber that bounces off the post, whatever. He is always sniffing around, just in case something happens.

If he can pull off a surprise (or emergency) attacking kick then thats even better.

I do agree though that he's not there for his attack.

Campo might be a good lock but he's not getting that position til Tonguey retires. Especially when he also looks good as a centre, backrower or utility.

raidersmalt · Post by **raidersmalt** » May 17, 2007, 10:20 pm

yeah, i have to agree with fritz: Tongue is great is defence, and he does sniff around the ruck (does that sound bad to anyone else?), but a genuine attacking player he is not. But he's still worth his spot for defence.

As for his captaincy skills I'm not really too sure.... he doesn't give me the impression that he's inspiring the other players that much. He needs to talk more. Tonguey is great, I'm still not sold on him being captain.

RedRaider · Post by **RedRaider** » May 18, 2007, 7:28 am

I went to nrlstats.com (thanks skeepe) and looked up how many minutes he has played. Alan Tongue is the ONLY lock in the NRL to have played 80 minutes in every match. Combined with the defensive work he does, this means even superfit Al mustn't have much left at the end of each half.

His role is to support the break or half break and carry the attack downfield similar to Terry Lamb in the old days.
His size means he isn't going to break many tackles, but the other players know that if the break is on, just look around and he'll be somewhere close.

He has had only 9 games as an NRL captain. I think he is a leader everyone looks up to. No tantrums or so called 'professional' crap. What you see is what you get. I like what I see in Alan Tongue as an NRL captain and player.

thickos · Post by **thickos** » May 18, 2007, 8:22 am

I think he's a great choice as captain. He goes about his business in an unassuming manner, gives 100% and inspires the boys through his actions. You only have to listen to the other players rave about him and what he brings to the side.

His attack might be slightly down on last year but more than likely he is more closely watched by defences now, looking for his little duck and run through the ruck and his support play.

KW · Post by KW » May 18, 2007, 1:07 pm

Campo v Tongue? Your having a laugh

david231280 · Post by **david231280** » May 18, 2007, 3:19 pm

Campo might be an ok lock, but their is no way he will ever take Tonguey's role. The guy tackles, breaks the defense, tackles, kicks field goals, tackles, kics cross field bombs, tackles, plays 80 mins and he tackles. The guy is a great all round player and an absolute champion of the feel. If he played for a a sydney club he would be a rep player for sure.

shuuraider · Post by **shuuraider** » May 18, 2007, 3:58 pm

see, tounge can shift in to 2nd row, he'd still be dynamite and campese@ lock if u guys prefer

Campese vs Tongue

Campese vs Tongue

Re: Campese vs Tongue