Just imagine this kind of bench management in the semis?
Canterbury were always going to be gritty but geez we made hard work of it.
Better use of the bench may have given us just the boost we needed to win running away.
Instead we nearly lost.
But Dennis we could also have lost that game with Host on the field and then Mary gets the blame anyway. Like I have said previously, the blind hatred of Mary on this forum clouds all other sensible analysis of the game. It’s easy to throw out there that Mary is a halfwit because there is a player left on the bench. But unless you actually look at the numbers and have a closer look at the interchange process, accusations mean nothing. And besides, the reason it was so close was because of ill discipline and stupid errors – primarily from the outside backs. Not because there was a player left on the bench.
Here’s the interchange scenario for the Bulldogs game:
LAM and Lats replace Vaughn and Graham @ around 20 minutes.
Vaughn comes on for JDB @ 33 and then vice versa @ 49.
Graham replaces Lats @ 52.
Vaughn replaces Leeson @ 69
Nighty on for Graham @ 72
Graham for Vaughn @ 78.
So that’s all interchanges used. That equates to:
Graham – 42 minutes
LAM – 49 minutes
Lats – 32 minutes
Vaughn – 47 minutes
JDB – 64 minutes
Nighty – 8 minutes
Not excessive minutes for the positions by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing to indicate they should be fatigued – in fact Vaughn was still chasing down a winger at the end of the game and he was one of the forwards doing longer minutes. Also, most of the first half of our sets have the outside backs taking hit ups – in fact Nene takes more hitups than anyone else in the team – should we be calling for Nene to be rested during the game? In previous posts Damo has already shown through numbers that our forwards are not even close to topping game time compared to other teams. So for me, excess fatigue, is not an excuse for using players off the bench.
My guess regarding the strategy for the Bulldogs game was:
Host was put on the bench to cover injury/fatigue for Frizz (and to a lesser extent Sims and possibly other forwards). This would only have happened towards the end of the game based on how the game was panning out (or in the event Frizz got injured). As it turns out, the extra interchange was taken by Graham towards the end of the game – either through fatigue to Vaughn or (more likely in my opinion) to bring some leadership to the field in the last couple of minutes. Additionally the game was so close that, at least to me, it makes sense to have your best players on the field for as long as you can to help shut it out.
JDB is a great defender in the middle and, like it or loath it, a key to our attacking moves. So again, it makes sense to have him out on the field for as long as possible (depending on the game plan). Replacing him at key times of the game makes little sense. The interchange cycle above says to me that our main pushes in attack are in the first 20 and the last 20-30. Blow them off the park early and then clean them up at the end. The middle period is a “hold firm and defend” period with some solid go forward. Any points during this time are a bonus. Yesterday’s tries support this – all of Bulldogs tries were scored during the middle period of the game (when JDB was off the field). And if you remember teams like the Warriors and Penrith, their line speed increased during our attacking periods – effectively shutting down any space we had to attack. Penrith in particular had incredible line speed in the last 20 minutes of the game.
The utility is there, I believe, to cover injury to the outside backs. However Mary has been using them in the middle as of recently – and mostly towards the end of the game where they may be able to get around some tired forwards or at the very least get some penalties going our way to swing momentum. Understandable - but perhaps there are other options here. I think a utility is good, but could be used differently.
So based on this, the only alternative is to put another Prop on the bench. I don’t see players like Host or Luciano being able to secure a bench spot at all as they are really back row players – and we have those positions covered by 80 minute players. Sele, I believe, is a Lock or edge back rower however may be able to slot into a front row spot for short intervals. So he may be a candidate in some situations. Lawrie to me is really the only option we have for a long term bench spot – and I am just not sure he is ready for it full time. As many have said, it takes a few years for players to hit their peak in the front row position – mid to late 20s. Lawrie has a way to go.
Had we had a better lead, potentially Host would have got a run when Vaughn replaced Leeson @ the 69th minute. However the scores were so close I’m guessing Mary thought it was better to have a bigger body on the field to counter their forwards.
This is only my assessment of the game yesterday and granted doesn’t account for the 13 previous games played. Having said that, I am OK with the bench usage yesterday. Not ideal but to me it fits with how the game progressed and my guess at the what the game plan was.
In your opinion, based on the bench rotation yesterday and the timeline, what would have been a better alternative?
Sorry about the wall of text...