I would say the biggest area Galvin needs to work on is his defence and long kicking game. His run/fend, pass selection and short kicking game are spot on.
The biggest thing for me is his organisation. Knowing when to call for the ball and when to sit tight without fading out of the game is critical. He is like the opposite of brooks who was so quiet. I’ve heard sezer mention it in a couple of post game interviews, that he wants the ball every play. That’s great, but if the players around you aren’t set or you are missing opportunities from your other half then it’s a detriment. I know this comes with time, but only with proper development, coaching and mentoring. Remember what benji was like without prince. Rocks and diamonds.
The kid is what? 19? The only thing he lacks is experience and maturity which both come with time. We need to keep him at all costs and upgrade him at some stage because come next November there will be 16 (actually 17) other clubs after him
I think some of us really don’t understand the context. He came in without playing Flegg or Cup, straight out of SG Ball. He hadn’t played against anyone but teenagers yet he’s looked as good as any half in most of the games he’s played. Who was the last player to play in the halves, and play at the level he has for 20 rounds, who did this?The kid is what? 19? The only thing he lacks is experience and maturity which both come with time. We need to keep him at all costs and upgrade him at some stage because come next November there will be 16 (actually 17) other clubs after him
His game should go to another level next year with a full preseason as the incumbent, and playing alongside Luai, which should give him more time and space. Let's hope he doesn't get the second-year blues. As I said earlier if the team is travelling well, I expect him to upgrade and extend before the midway point of the season. If he doesn't than I'm afraid his manager has plans for him outside of the WT.The kid is what? 19? The only thing he lacks is experience and maturity which both come with time. We need to keep him at all costs and upgrade him at some stage because come next November there will be 16 (actually 17) other clubs after him
The upside of what we have gone through this year is we have unearthed some young talent, however more importantly we have blooded them in first grade. They all now have a full preseason to work on the areas that need improving for 25. We also have the Fainu boys and Pole who should form the nucleus of our forwards and Latu who will potentially be a solid 14 and backup for our halves as well as an insurance policy until the Lachie contract saga is sorted. I also like what I have seen from Luke L since he has come into first grade, he will be a beast next year. We just need a Payne Hass and Tino F and we will be favourites for the premiership in 25, c'mon Richo...make it happen.....or....lets go all in on Miller and Johanssen, this season I have seen Millers body shape change quite dramatically and he looks to be losing fat and building some solid muscle...who knows, these two could be the revelations of 2025.
Nick, Nick, Nick
A ball that floats forward is not a forward pass. It needs to be propelled forward. If it’s passed backwards out of the hands but floats forward, the pass is not forward.
I don’t believe Luai is a confidence player at all. I think he is a genuine footballer who creates opportunities for himself and those around him. He makes those around him better players. I’ve watched him closely and I have never seen him back down. He creates confidence in others. Mr consistency I would call him.
I think some of us really don’t understand the context. He came in without playing Flegg or Cup, straight out of SG Ball. He hadn’t played against anyone but teenagers yet he’s looked as good as any half in most of the games he’s played. Who was the last player to play in the halves, and play at the level he has for 20 rounds, who did this?The kid is what? 19? The only thing he lacks is experience and maturity which both come with time. We need to keep him at all costs and upgrade him at some stage because come next November there will be 16 (actually 17) other clubs after him
Debuted at 19 for WT after tearing up NYC. Following year won Rookie of the Year. Hailed by many as the next Andrew John’s. Hmmm, this story rings a bell.
Just like brooks, I think Galvin is and will be a very good player and is certainly worth trying to build a team around. But in response to a previous comment of would I pay $1.4m to retain him, then no I wouldn’t. The hype seems to be incredibly high for a player who has so much development ahead. This is where I think I differ to most, but I see him as a real footy head, like Harry grant, rather than a naturally gifted prodigy like Marshall or Johnson. Guess time will tell…
Nick, Nick, Nick
A ball that floats forward is not a forward pass. It needs to be propelled forward. If it’s passed backwards out of the hands but floats forward, the pass is not forward.
I hear this "floated forward" argument all the time and as a physics graduate and as a pedant it drives me crazy. That first pass did not "float" forward. For a pass to be passed out of the hands backwards but "float forward" it has to have an upfield (forward velocity) greater than the velocity that the pass went backwards. in reality this is only possible if the passer of the ball is really motoring upfield. That second pass the passer was running across field and its impossible to have enough forward velocity for the ball to "float forward".
A steeden is not a balloon in the breeze.
<steps down from soapbox>
Bad choice of words, I meant it was forward out of the hands and went forward.Nick, Nick, Nick
A ball that floats forward is not a forward pass. It needs to be propelled forward. If it’s passed backwards out of the hands but floats forward, the pass is not forward.
I hear this "floated forward" argument all the time and as a physics graduate and as a pedant it drives me crazy. That first pass did not "float" forward. For a pass to be passed out of the hands backwards but "float forward" it has to have an upfield (forward velocity) greater than the velocity that the pass went backwards. in reality this is only possible if the passer of the ball is really motoring upfield. That second pass the passer was running across field and its impossible to have enough forward velocity for the ball to "float forward".
A steeden is not a balloon in the breeze.
<steps down from soapbox>
And you’ll keep hearing it. Even though not technically correct to the eye of the average masses the ball can sometimes appear to float forward. Yes I know it’s not a ballon and float is the wrong term but as I am often told perception is sometimes reality.Nick, Nick, Nick
A ball that floats forward is not a forward pass. It needs to be propelled forward. If it’s passed backwards out of the hands but floats forward, the pass is not forward.
I hear this "floated forward" argument all the time and as a physics graduate and as a pedant it drives me crazy. That first pass did not "float" forward. For a pass to be passed out of the hands backwards but "float forward" it has to have an upfield (forward velocity) greater than the velocity that the pass went backwards. in reality this is only possible if the passer of the ball is really motoring upfield. That second pass the passer was running across field and its impossible to have enough forward velocity for the ball to "float forward".
A steeden is not a balloon in the breeze.
<steps down from soapbox>
And you’ll keep hearing it. Even though not technically correct to the eye of the average masses the ball can sometimes appear to float forward. Yes I know it’s not a ballon and float is the wrong term but as I am often told perception is sometimes reality.Nick, Nick, Nick
A ball that floats forward is not a forward pass. It needs to be propelled forward. If it’s passed backwards out of the hands but floats forward, the pass is not forward.
I hear this "floated forward" argument all the time and as a physics graduate and as a pedant it drives me crazy. That first pass did not "float" forward. For a pass to be passed out of the hands backwards but "float forward" it has to have an upfield (forward velocity) greater than the velocity that the pass went backwards. in reality this is only possible if the passer of the ball is really motoring upfield. That second pass the passer was running across field and its impossible to have enough forward velocity for the ball to "float forward".
A steeden is not a balloon in the breeze.
<steps down from soapbox>
Only from a player sprinting full speed up field. Physics doesnt care about the "eye of the average masses" or otherwise.
And you’ll keep hearing it. Even though not technically correct to the eye of the average masses the ball can sometimes appear to float forward. Yes I know it’s not a ballon and float is the wrong term but as I am often told perception is sometimes reality.Nick, Nick, Nick
A ball that floats forward is not a forward pass. It needs to be propelled forward. If it’s passed backwards out of the hands but floats forward, the pass is not forward.
I hear this "floated forward" argument all the time and as a physics graduate and as a pedant it drives me crazy. That first pass did not "float" forward. For a pass to be passed out of the hands backwards but "float forward" it has to have an upfield (forward velocity) greater than the velocity that the pass went backwards. in reality this is only possible if the passer of the ball is really motoring upfield. That second pass the passer was running across field and its impossible to have enough forward velocity for the ball to "float forward".
A steeden is not a balloon in the breeze.
<steps down from soapbox>
Only from a player sprinting full speed up field. Physics doesnt care about the "eye of the average masses" or otherwise.
You aren’t applying intellect to rugby league are you?
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
Brooks & Moses both had time at a higher level than Galvin who had no Flegg (NYC), only a preseason after finishing his schoolboy footy. Moses did not show the consistency Galvin has in his first 20 games yet has gone on to be one of the best halves in the comp. Both have become very good NRL halves, one a State Of Origin player. I wouldn’t pay $1.4million either but I wouldn’t be disappointed if he was offered an upgrade next year & a 3 year extension after that on $1million, in fact I’d be very pleased with it.I think some of us really don’t understand the context. He came in without playing Flegg or Cup, straight out of SG Ball. He hadn’t played against anyone but teenagers yet he’s looked as good as any half in most of the games he’s played. Who was the last player to play in the halves, and play at the level he has for 20 rounds, who did this?The kid is what? 19? The only thing he lacks is experience and maturity which both come with time. We need to keep him at all costs and upgrade him at some stage because come next November there will be 16 (actually 17) other clubs after him
Debuted at 19 for WT after tearing up NYC. Following year won Rookie of the Year. Hailed by many as the next Andrew John’s. Hmmm, this story rings a bell.
Just like brooks, I think Galvin is and will be a very good player and is certainly worth trying to build a team around. But in response to a previous comment of would I pay $1.4m to retain him, then no I wouldn’t. The hype seems to be incredibly high for a player who has so much development ahead. This is where I think I differ to most, but I see him as a real footy head, like Harry grant, rather than a naturally gifted prodigy like Marshall or Johnson. Guess time will tell…
Brooks & Moses both had time at a higher level than Galvin who had no Flegg (NYC), only a preseason after finishing his schoolboy footy. Moses did not show the consistency Galvin has in his first 20 games yet has gone on to be one of the best halves in the comp. Both have become very good NRL halves, one a State Of Origin player. I wouldn’t pay $1.4million either but I wouldn’t be disappointed if he was offered an upgrade next year & a 3 year extension after that on $1million, in fact I’d be very pleased with it.I think some of us really don’t understand the context. He came in without playing Flegg or Cup, straight out of SG Ball. He hadn’t played against anyone but teenagers yet he’s looked as good as any half in most of the games he’s played. Who was the last player to play in the halves, and play at the level he has for 20 rounds, who did this?The kid is what? 19? The only thing he lacks is experience and maturity which both come with time. We need to keep him at all costs and upgrade him at some stage because come next November there will be 16 (actually 17) other clubs after him
Debuted at 19 for WT after tearing up NYC. Following year won Rookie of the Year. Hailed by many as the next Andrew John’s. Hmmm, this story rings a bell.
Just like brooks, I think Galvin is and will be a very good player and is certainly worth trying to build a team around. But in response to a previous comment of would I pay $1.4m to retain him, then no I wouldn’t. The hype seems to be incredibly high for a player who has so much development ahead. This is where I think I differ to most, but I see him as a real footy head, like Harry grant, rather than a naturally gifted prodigy like Marshall or Johnson. Guess time will tell…
I basically agree with the highlighted part above but at the back of my mind I have a nagging feeling about Galvins physical size. I remember Curtis Sironen being touted as a first grade 6 when he was in Jersey Flegg and he developed into a much bigger and heavier player and had no hope of playing in the halves. There is aprt of me concerned that Galvin hasnt finished physically developing yet and we end up with a 2RF on $1M.
I think some of us really don’t understand the context. He came in without playing Flegg or Cup, straight out of SG Ball. He hadn’t played against anyone but teenagers yet he’s looked as good as any half in most of the games he’s played. Who was the last player to play in the halves, and play at the level he has for 20 rounds, who did this?The kid is what? 19? The only thing he lacks is experience and maturity which both come with time. We need to keep him at all costs and upgrade him at some stage because come next November there will be 16 (actually 17) other clubs after him
Fittler? Actually see some parallels....but mostly see Scott Hill in him.
And the masses generally don’t care about physics.And you’ll keep hearing it. Even though not technically correct to the eye of the average masses the ball can sometimes appear to float forward. Yes I know it’s not a ballon and float is the wrong term but as I am often told perception is sometimes reality.Nick, Nick, Nick
A ball that floats forward is not a forward pass. It needs to be propelled forward. If it’s passed backwards out of the hands but floats forward, the pass is not forward.
I hear this "floated forward" argument all the time and as a physics graduate and as a pedant it drives me crazy. That first pass did not "float" forward. For a pass to be passed out of the hands backwards but "float forward" it has to have an upfield (forward velocity) greater than the velocity that the pass went backwards. in reality this is only possible if the passer of the ball is really motoring upfield. That second pass the passer was running across field and its impossible to have enough forward velocity for the ball to "float forward".
A steeden is not a balloon in the breeze.
<steps down from soapbox>
Only from a player sprinting full speed up field. Physics doesnt care about the "eye of the average masses" or otherwise.
