Re: 16 men-again : Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:14 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Given that Simmons has battled through one of the worst injury crises in living memory steering a team full of kids to the Grand Final from outside the top two (not to mention losing his prized half to Union and his star stand-off to a season-long injury) perhaps it might be wise to - at least consider the possibility that he knows what he's doing and his tactics are sound.

I guess that's why he'll be leading his side out at the grand final instead of writing about it on a message board.

Re: 16 men-again : Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:33 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Given that Simmons has battled through one of the worst injury crises in living memory steering a team full of kids to the Grand Final from outside the top two (not to mention losing his prized half to Union and his star stand-off to a season-long injury) perhaps it might be wise to - at least consider the possibility that he knows what he's doing and his tactics are sound.

It's a fair point.

Re: 16 men-again : Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:27 pm  

Out of curiosity, who would be played on the bench in the back spot? Do we really need to be rotating big minute forwards for the sake of it in order to replace them with an inferior one?

I can't understand what the fuss is about.

Re: 16 men-again : Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:00 pm  

Saint Rabban wrote:

This.
The crypto-Wigoon Saint From Prestwich just doesn't get it.

Simmons must be the only coach who consistently uses 16 men.Come the big game it might back fire on him.

Re: 16 men-again : Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:02 pm  

SomersetSaint wrote:

I guess that's why he'll be leading his side out at the grand final instead of writing about it on a message board.

everyone is a big Royce fan now eh?

Look back to earlier this season and there were plenty of disenting voices.

Re: 16 men-again : Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:03 pm  

Smurf wrote:

Out of curiosity, who would be played on the bench in the back spot? Do we really need to be rotating big minute forwards for the sake of it in order to replace them with an inferior one?

I can't understand what the fuss is about.

Your point about rotating big minute forwards is valid, whilst Graham is in the side. He is our big minute forward, an also the prop who is always there when the team needs him. We don't have a replacement for him, so maybe next year we will need an extra prop on the bench to cover for his big minutes, and as you say not simply an inferior player who allows the intensity to drop whole he's on the pitch.

Re: 16 men-again : Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:05 pm  

SomersetSaint wrote:

Your point about rotating big minute forwards is valid, whilst Graham is in the side. He is our big minute forward, an also the prop who is always there when the team needs him. We don't have a replacement for him, so maybe next year we will need an extra prop on the bench to cover for his big minutes, and as you say not simply an inferior player who allows the intensity to drop whole he's on the pitch.

Personally I'm hoping Perry and LMS will step up.

Re: 16 men-again : Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:16 pm  

Saint from Prestwich wrote:

everyone is a big Royce fan now eh?

I haven't agreed with everything he's done this year, but surely he's earned our backing by leading a limping squad to within 80 minutes of being Champions - beating Wigan twice on the way.

Re: 16 men-again : Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:04 pm  

Saint from Prestwich wrote:

everyone is a big Royce fan now eh?

Look back to earlier this season and there were plenty of disenting voices.

The game is littered with "great" coaches who won sod all, I'd prefer to have a lucky coach, if that is what he is, who wins trophies, than a great coach who is a nearly man. If we win next week, then that will be a great achievement. Am happy to resurrect my posts from earlier in the season where I have consistently backed Simmons.

Re: 16 men-again : Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:42 pm  

The point about graham is also valid. We are using 16 v 17 each week. Graham and TP and Roby make this possible. I would be suprised if this continues next year. With graham gone we will lose an 80 minute guywho now has regular ice on his back.

We will not have this next year but with lance in the team the back on the bench may no longer be deamed nessasary by royce. Not sure how we will line up yet but the triangle of lance gaskell and lomax would mean a back up back is not needed.