Re: Royce's substitutions : Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:52 pm  

It's an issue, so it's going to be discussed. You may agree with the tactic, others don't. Hense it's a discussion point and will continue to be so as it's not cut and dried that we made the GF so hey it works.

Wigan won the CC, Leeds Won the GF, so hey it doesn't work is an equally viable counter arguement as they did not use the tactic.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:59 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

It's an issue, so it's going to be discussed. You may agree with the tactic, others don't. Hense it's a discussion point and will continue to be so as it's not cut and dried that we made the GF so hey it works.

Wigan won the CC, Leeds Won the GF, so hey it doesn't work is an equally viable counter arguement as they did not use the tactic.

Very good point. The two teams that won things play with 17, so that puts to bed the 16 players got us to the grand final rubbish.


Your allowed 17 so fooking use 17.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:54 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

Wigan won the CC, Leeds Won the GF, so hey it doesn't work is an equally viable counter arguement as they did not use the tactic.

But we lost GFs under coaches that didn't put a back on the bench.

The point is, it didn't hinder us achieving exactly the same as in years when we haven't had a back on the bench.

ie it makes no difference in terms of advantage.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:16 am  

Can't see the sense in having a back on the bench just in case if needed. Most back row forwards can play in the backs.ie.Flannery,Dixon,Wilkin,Flannagan.Thus covering any eventuality.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:18 am  

wirefox wrote:

Can't see the sense in having a back on the bench just in case if needed. Most back row forwards can play in the backs.ie.Flannery,Dixon,Wilkin,Flannagan.Thus covering any eventuality.

....plus NZ international centre Soliola!

Re: Royce's substitutions : Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:05 am  

St pete wrote:

Very good point. The two teams that won things play with 17, so that puts to bed the 16 players got us to the grand final rubbish.

That's just faulty logic. Correlation does not imply causation.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:04 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

But we lost GFs under coaches that didn't put a back on the bench.

The point is, it didn't hinder us achieving exactly the same as in years when we haven't had a back on the bench.

ie it makes no difference in terms of advantage.

I'm not concerned with the fact he puts a back on the bench, I'm concerned that he don't use him, so ultimately each week we play 16 v 17 which has to be a disadvantage

Re: Royce's substitutions : Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:44 am  

St pete wrote:

I'm not concerned with the fact he puts a back on the bench, I'm concerned that he don't use him, so ultimately each week we play 16 v 17 which has to be a disadvantage

It's only a disadvantage if the 16 can't cope effectively without him.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:35 am  

Mugwump wrote:

It's only a disadvantage if the 16 can't cope effectively without him.

It makes sense to give the big guys rests tho, it's not rocket science.

Re: Royce's substitutions : Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:06 am  

Duke Eddington wrote:

....plus NZ international centre Soliola!

Quite right