Re: Royce's substitutions : Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:34 pm  

If a prop isn't fit enough to play 40 mins then they aren't fit enough to be in the team. All it means is that we go back to having a few 80 min back rowers in the side. It isn't that long ago that we used to have them, the likes of Bennett, Jonkers, Joynt, etc never had to be subbed due to fitness issues.

The tactic got us to a GF in a season when we were crippled by injuries, it's not a tactic that has hindered us in any game we've played using it. I understand that people have different ideas about the game, and that not everyone will agree with the thought behind it, but the same arguments come up every time this thread appears.

Can anyone point me to a game when not having three props/one back rower or two props/two back rowers on the bench has cost us?

As for French and Rooney, they can't remember the last time a team had a sub on the bench that wasn't used? They don't remember last season?

Re: Royce's substitutions : Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:47 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

If a prop isn't fit enough to play 40 mins then they aren't fit enough to be in the team. All it means is that we go back to having a few 80 min back rowers in the side. It isn't that long ago that we used to have them, the likes of Bennett, Jonkers, Joynt, etc never had to be subbed due to fitness issues.

The tactic got us to a GF in a season when we were crippled by injuries, it's not a tactic that has hindered us in any game we've played using it. I understand that people have different ideas about the game, and that not everyone will agree with the thought behind it, but the same arguments come up every time this thread appears.

Can anyone point me to a game when not having three props/one back rower or two props/two back rowers on the bench has cost us?

As for French and Rooney, they can't remember the last time a team had a sub on the bench that wasn't used? They don't remember last season?

That's a tough one to prove though isn't it.

It's very easy to see a dislocated elbow and then say there you go back on the bench had a positive effect.
Much more difficult to say well that try was down to mental or physical fatigue that would have been boosted had the 17th man played.
Or that loss was because we did not use everyman to the max.

If we did pick a game and put down the loss to a back on the bench, it could be argued it was not the back but the lack of fitness or the lack of concentration or effort.

So the back on the bench is an insurance policy. The question is not whether it works, it clearly does as at some point in the season a back will have to be taken off, law of probability.

The question is, is that insurance policy worth the cost, well the cost is hard to measure. We have a very good team who can cover that loss of the 17th man against most teams, but against Huddersfield, Wigan and Warrington, we had 0 wins before beating huddersfield in the last 2 or 3 games. So you could argue against top sides using only 16 men, meant we did not have enough to compete over the full 80.

My problem with it is it's dogmatic use. If for some games Royce went actually we need a bigger pack, so hey lets not use a back for this one better to beef up the pack. Then you could say there is some thinking behind it other than having 100% insurance.

As Saints fan points out in the GF it did not help cause we had 2 backs injured, so why not have 2 backs on the bench just in case? Or 3?

Also it's a fair point that Ade could have given a 2nd rower a break. Or even come on for another back to have fresh legs run at tired men.

I have no problem with the back, but he needs to be used and the tactic varied up a little. Leeds brought Burrow's on to run at our tired legs something similar would help the rest of the team.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:20 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

That's a tough one to prove though isn't it.

Of course it is, this isn't a black and white issue though

It's very easy to see a dislocated elbow and then say there you go back on the bench had a positive effect.
Much more difficult to say well that try was down to mental or physical fatigue that would have been boosted had the 17th man played.
Or that loss was because we did not use everyman to the max.

I understand the thinking of those that do not like the use of a back on the bench, but in reality who would you replace that back with? Does a team with five props in the 17 do better than one with four, what's the point of having more than one back rower on the bench?

If we did pick a game and put down the loss to a back on the bench, it could be argued it was not the back but the lack of fitness or the lack of concentration or effort.

Lack of fitness is a red herring in these arguments, we weren't unfit last year, no successful teams are. I can think of only one game when fatigue cost us and that was Wigan away, but that was due to the loss of two players during the match rather than any bench combination.

So the back on the bench is an insurance policy. The question is not whether it works, it clearly does as at some point in the season a back will have to be taken off, law of probability.

The question is, is that insurance policy worth the cost, well the cost is hard to measure. We have a very good team who can cover that loss of the 17th man against most teams, but against Huddersfield, Wigan and Warrington, we had 0 wins before beating huddersfield in the last 2 or 3 games. So you could argue against top sides using only 16 men, meant we did not have enough to compete over the full 80.

Discount Wire at home, we had the whole issue of Eastmond going on there, that effected us far more. We also beat Wigan twice in the play offs with the exact same system, which says that we did have enough to beat a top side over the 80.

My problem with it is it's dogmatic use. If for some games Royce went actually we need a bigger pack, so hey lets not use a back for this one better to beef up the pack. Then you could say there is some thinking behind it other than having 100% insurance.

I've no issue with that thinking.

As Saints fan points out in the GF it did not help cause we had 2 backs injured, so why not have 2 backs on the bench just in case? Or 3?

Would another forward on the bench have prevented that defeat? Would sticking a second rower in at centre when we had to replace Wellens have made a difference to the end result? It didn't help due to the number of injuries sustained, so that example is not a good one IMO to shoot the practice down.

Also it's a fair point that Ade could have given a 2nd rower a break. Or even come on for another back to have fresh legs run at tired men.

He'd get battered in the pack, that's a none starter for me.

I have no problem with the back, but he needs to be used and the tactic varied up a little. Leeds brought Burrow's on to run at our tired legs something similar would help the rest of the team.

He was the interchange hooker though wasn't he? We had one of them and he was continuing his mediocre work at Widnes on Friday...

Re: Royce's substitutions : Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:26 pm  

Not this thread again.

As it has been said in earlier posts. If you are not able to play at least 40 mins then you shouldn't be in the team.

Most other teams have 2 props, a second rower and a hooker.

We have an 80 min hooker so instead we have a back. We do not have any less working forwards on the bench as anyone else. For every game we have had a player not used on the bench we have also had a game that we have been saved by having a back on the bench.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:06 pm  

The way I see it, the rules state you can have 17 players, so use 17!!

Obviously we are at a disadvantage playing with 26 when the opposition play with 17.

I felt pretty angry last year seeing the likes of roby, jammer, sia and others totally out on their feet while we had a player sat in the bench for 80 mins

Re: Royce's substitutions : Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:21 pm  

Royce is going to continue with the back on the bench policy because when wellens is fit wellens lomax gaskell or lance will take that spot

Re: Royce's substitutions : Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:19 pm  

Noel Cleal wrote:

As it has been said in earlier posts. If you are not able to play at least 40 mins then you shouldn't be in the team.

Most other teams have 2 props, a second rower and a hooker.

We have an 80 min hooker so instead we have a back. We do not have any less working forwards on the bench as anyone else. For every game we have had a player not used on the bench we have also had a game that we have been saved by having a back on the bench.

Sense has been spoken.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:04 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Sense has been spoken.

Do you think it's sense to play 16 v 17 nearly every week?


We've got a option of four subs but mostly only use three, that to me suggests they get more rest than us and that could make the difference.

Players these days are trained as multi skilled players, I don't think it would make a huge difference of a back got hurt as we'd do what other teams do, we'd shuffle. We've got sia, roby, wilkin and flannery that can cover backs positions with ease.

If we can start the game with a number players already playing out of postion (lance, Meli, wheeler, lomax) I fail to see what difference it make by shuffling around if we do get injuries. Other teams do this so I'm sure we can.

If a back did get injured, where the hell was Ade going to cover?


Maybe the fact robes form dropped off at the back end of the season was due to playing to many 80 mins games while we have a player sat on the bench for 80 mins.

IMO its just silly and gives us a disadvantage

Re: Royce's substitutions : Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:41 pm  

St pete wrote:

IMO its just silly and gives us a disadvantage

Yep. That's why we made it to the GF again last year. It definitely gave us a disadvantage!

Re: Royce's substitutions : Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:50 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Yep. That's why we made it to the GF again last year. It definitely gave us a disadvantage!

Maybe if the likes of sia, roby and jammer had more rests they would have been more fresh?

Robes dropped off a little at the back end of last year and IMO had been flogged.

It's just totally stupid to only use 16 players when we have 17! It's just unreal if you think about it and also very very strange.