Put him outside Gleeson then.

You could say we already have a world class centre in Gleeson, should Penny move to right wing on a permanent basis outside Gleeson?

Because to me the King Penny partnership is just.......well there isn't one.

I think we need someone like Johnson at Centre, a defensively minded centre who while direct and guide Penny. Someone that holds the ground making the attack work harder and allowing Penny not to brake his own line or trying to cover the gap that King made.

yes he showed great defensive qualities when Gilmour left him for dead on the outside....... imagine if Gilmour had gone round Penny some of you folks would have needed a months supply of Tenna lady..........

Well that is certainly a thought. Hicks might then better at covering for the problems created on the left edge.

Good shout.
However earlier in the thread some of you guys shot down someone who said King offers more to a team than Penny. If you'd rather have Penny in your team than Matt King..I despair.

FWIW I'd give Penny time, he does come in for so much stick and it's not really fair on the young lad. I also agree that Louis Anderson is at fault more often than people realise.

That person would be me, they agree with me really but there to proud to admit it.

Not me, I'll admit to anybody that I'm wrong, but I tell you now, there's no way, if I was picking the team, right now, and the criteria was,

1. Merit
2. What they offered in an attacking sense
3. What they offered in a defensive sense

Well, 100 times out of 100, I'd pick Penny every time. (And I don't think Penny is blameless, just less of a villain right now. He's also improving elements of his game, I can't think of a single improvement in Matt Kings game since he arrived.)

Whether he's played well or not Penny would never in a million years be picked for Australia, King has, albeit on the wing.
King really wasn't as bad as people make out last year, he bagged a few tries, yardage was pretty good and when he doesn't pass half the time it's Pennys poor wingers discipline.

Still, I think everyones overreacting, I'd give it more time, if not throw Bridge at centre and King on the wing, Don't want Johnson there again tbh

I understand what you saying and i don't think that King is blameless, i just feel Penny isn't ready for 1st team football, maybe in 2 years but his game need a lot of improvement and in this day and age when Super League is getting better every year, i don't think we can afford to carry him when the stakes are so high and results matter probably know more than ever.

Having watched it again Penny was at fault for Gardners first try as we went rushing into mid-field to assist with a tackle from which the offload led to the try. Appart from that he had an ok game. It was 16-14 when he got took off and things hardly got better.

Also, why play an Aussie wing in the centre? He got skinned by Gidley for his second and just downright poor.

Hicks/King on the Win
Bridge/Gleece in the centre

But you could argue, that based on performances, King isn;t ready for the first team. If he was a young local lad, he wouldn;t be getting anyone backing him.

I think many of us have defended him, wanting himto come good, but he just hasn't done that.

If we get a half break and pass the ball to King on the wing from 70m, he will get caught. Do the same with Penny, and he will score most times.

Neither of them have covered themselves in glory, but I feel that is a lack of a goo partnership rather than them not being able to tackle.

I am far more forgiving of a young developing talent, than I am of an International player on an International salary.

Of the two, we would have to carry Penny far less than we are carrying Matt King right now, ie, using Fridays game as a form guide. If people put Kings pedigree to one side, and judge him on the now, he wouldn't get near to your side. All the things that people hammer Penny for like tackling, positioning etc, King is weaker than Penny at, so putting him on the wing is hardly going to make these things go away.

totally different things.

There both defensively poor but i believe King has more to offer in attack, that is my reasoning for keeping him on and not Penny.

What does he offer? Guile, good hands, sidestep, pace, power, what ?

He's stronger, better at making yards away from the line, more experienced in his decision making, better under the high ball.

I'll give you the yardage.

The second bit is just daft.

The third bit, I can't recall him catching a high ball, Penny is pretty good in the air. I'd like to see us kick more to him, he scored from a high kick at home to Saints last year, did very well to ground it etc.

But he's not. How many high balls has Penny dropped? How many has King caught? Probably a very similar number. When King arrived we thought we were going to get lots of high kicks from Briers to him and for that reason you think he must be good. But we haven't seen it. I saw him catch it before it went 10m on Friday night.

King wasn't fantastic, we've pretty much summed that up but he was not as weak as his winger and that's nothing to do with him being Australian.

We had 4 players under the age of 21 playing on Friday, 3 of the 4 gave it their all and really put their body on the line and you could tell they were fighting for a place.
The left side had a bad game defending the line. I don't think Penny offers anything in terms of defending the line, he is a weak link, he relys too much on King and if King does have a bad game then Penny certainly will.
We need players putting their bodies on the line, working as a unit and not relying on key players to get them out of trouble.
Riley impressed me on Friday as did Blythe as they really did put the effort in and made the most of their opportunity.
Sometimes a player has to look for the opportunity and not keep relying on players to set them up.

How many times can a wiger put his body on the line during a game??? For the forwards its clear to see. Penny has always been enthusiastic and commited from what I have seen.

That being the nature of a centre-winger partnership at any level of the game.

In my opinion something has to chamge on the left with either King or Penny being dropped because to me the left side of our team is virtually a non existent attacking threat and its also a defensive liability, the problem we have is a lack of strength in depth in the backs as ive always said that Paul Johnson is a right sided 2nd rower and Chris Bridge to me is an out and out stand off so we have little other options in the centres.

Paul Johnson has good pace for a 2nd rower but not for a back, Jimmy Lowes has to be careful here as to what precedent he sets for our players performance wise because to me Matt King`s performances have simply not been good enough since he arrived.

The coach has to make a stance at some point and say to a player that your performances are not good enough to be selected for the 1st team, Matt King has never been dropped or subbed yet due to his poor performances and its about time that he was judged on what he does on the pitch rather than his so called reputation from the NRL. The bloke is an expensive cart horse,

Judging by how poor Catalan were against Huddersfield its possible that both King and Penny could look good against them but to me that would just be papering over the cracks, in the big games our left side simply won`t be good enough especially in defence.

Like i said before Matt King arrived he was playing in a very good Melbourne side where most of the time he would be left with a run in or a close range barge over because of good work from the likes of Cooper Cronk and Greg Inglis, his height was also an asset to the Storm for high kicks. He`s certainly never looked the type of player that will be a creator that can open up defences with nimble footwork and out and out pace. His lack of centre skills was one of the main reasons that he played on the wing for NSW and the Australian test side, again his size and height suited the way that both NSW and the Aussies played the game as he gave them options in the air and also with his size at close range to finish off great team work.

The concerns i have for this season are that Michael Monaghan has no pressure on him to perform, to me he will always be at 7 if fit. The same can be said of Matt King, as long as he is fit i can see him playing as we have little other options at left centre.

The only way i can see that we can replace Monaghan from 7 is to play Micky Higham at scrum half and put Monaghan at 9 to see if he can reproduce his Manly form, with the lack of strength in depth at scrum half i see no other option if you wanted to change things other than put Bridge at 6 and Briers at 7 but thats been tried and it didn`t get us that far.

I don`t have the answers other than to try and find some cheap Quantas deals to return them both back to Aus, economy class of course or excess baggage.

To some extent i agree, although Johnson is not the quickest for a centre. However during the back end of 2007 him and Penny had a good partnership going in the few games they played together. And there was less discussion about Penny's defensive abilities as he had a strong defender in Johnson along side him.

i don't think that's accurate about 07, i'm pretty sure that johnners was done for the season before penny got in the side, i may be wrong but thats what i recall.