Re: Royce's substitutions : Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:26 pm  

St pete wrote:

But we still playing 16 v 17 every week which is crazy.

Like I said, I do understand the arguments against it, I just don't think it's that much of an issue.

I do think the youngster on the bench to gain experience is a better option than the 30 year old though.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:31 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

Like I said, I do understand the arguments against it, I just don't think it's that much of an issue.

I do think the youngster on the bench to gain experience is a better option than the 30 year old though.

I think having the best four subs possible on the bench that can benefit the team and help get the win is the best option.

After all, wining is all that matters and I I'm pretty sure playing with 17 has got to be better than going with 16.


We might as well pick a 18 man squad instead of the 19 all the others do.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:25 pm  

St pete wrote:

I think having the best four subs possible on the bench that can benefit the team and help get the win is the best option.

After all, wining is all that matters and I I'm pretty sure playing with 17 has got to be better than going with 16.


We might as well pick a 18 man squad instead of the 19 all the others do.

I'm sure that's what he's doing to the best of his ability. You just don't agree with his reasoning.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:33 pm  

Most of the arguments people put forward claim - intuitively - that it is somehow better to "spread the load" of work among 17 players than 16 because those on the pitch are less likely to tire. If every game were played at a million miles per hour against teams of equal or close to equal strength I could kind of understand the reasoning. But we all know this isn't the case. In truth opposition strength, ability and sometimes fitness aren't equal in at least half our games.

In any case, it is practically impossible to come to any valuable conclusions about the effects of 80 minutes rugby on the stamina levels of 16 players as opposed to 17 without some manner of scientifically determined data (which no one here possesses). Arguments based on limited observation (none of us are close enough to the players to really see the effects) and intuition are effectively worthless.

For all we know the effects are negligible. My best guess (given what I know about the attention to detail NRL coaches have toward fitness) is that Simmons knows they are negligible.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:31 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Most of the arguments people put forward claim - intuitively - that it is somehow better to "spread the load" of work among 17 players than 16 because those on the pitch are less likely to tire. If every game were played at a million miles per hour against teams of equal or close to equal strength I could kind of understand the reasoning. But we all know this isn't the case. In truth opposition strength, ability and sometimes fitness aren't equal in at least half our games.

In any case, it is practically impossible to come to any valuable conclusions about the effects of 80 minutes rugby on the stamina levels of 16 players as opposed to 17 without some manner of scientifically determined data (which no one here possesses). Arguments based on limited observation (none of us are close enough to the players to really see the effects) and intuition are effectively worthless.

For all we know the effects are negligible. My best guess (given what I know about the attention to detail NRL coaches have toward fitness) is that Simmons knows they are negligible.

Like you say there is no scientific way to find out which means its a great talking point. If the debate was do you support Saints it would be a very short thread as we all know even Rouges secretly loves us too. He's just battling those inner demons from the way he was raised.

In the end we all want Saints to do well, we just disagree on the minor points of the method.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:10 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

Like you say there is no scientific way to find out which means its a great talking point.

I'm sure some manner of data is gathered during a match by the coaching team. But they aren't likely to share it on the big screen.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:46 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

For all we know the effects are negligible. My best guess (given what I know about the attention to detail NRL coaches have toward fitness) is that Simmons knows they are negligible.

Although I agree with the points you are making, how many other NRL coaches regularly name sides with no intention of playing all 17 unless a player gets injured?

If they don't do it, and they have "NRL attention to detail", why don't they do it?

I know it is all supposition without the data, but wouldn't you agree that it seems reasonable to assume that spelling an extra forward is more likely to result in a fresher pack than not spelling an extra forward? The cumulative effects of doing this every week must make a difference too, given how much all coaches talk about fatigue at the back end of a season?

Re: Royce's substitutions : Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:49 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

Although I agree with the points you are making, how many other NRL coaches regularly name sides with no intention of playing all 17 unless a player gets injured?

If they don't do it, and they have "NRL attention to detail", why don't they do it?

The NRL is a completely different competition. It's played faster. The defensive intensity is higher. The talent level is greater. The tactics are unique. The fixture structuring (and thus the workload placed upon teams) is different. Each side can draw upon two reserve grade teams - a good proportion of whose players are NRL ready from the first game. The relationship with the fans is different. They have access to cutting edge data analysis on every facet of individual and team behaviour etc. etc.

I don't think it makes any sense judging Royce by what goes on over there.

I know it is all supposition without the data, but wouldn't you agree that it seems reasonable to assume that spelling an extra forward is more likely to result in a fresher pack than not spelling an extra forward? The cumulative effects of doing this every week must make a difference too, given how much all coaches talk about fatigue at the back end of a season?

Let's say for a moment you are right - the pack is fresher. This begs the question - HOW MUCH fresher? If the answer is - not enough to make any significant difference then, by your rationale, we must gain towards the end of the season (in comparison to every other side) because we're achieving a similar level of effectiveness without having to call upon the services of a 17th player. If we completely rest a player in 20-25 games per season we're that much fitter come the business end.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:27 pm  

Hull under the coaching of aussie Peter Gentle never used the full compliment of 17 players against Warrington.

Jordan Turner was left to freeze on the bench, so its not just a tactic of Royces.