Coffs dragon
Bench
- Messages
- 4,251
I wonder if Mary believes that ISP stands for "I Seldom Pick"
Great analysis.
But I don’t think anyone’s problem is any particular game.
I’m sure Luciano’s performance in almost costing us the Souths game has made Mary a little gun shy with replacements.
The problem we all have is when the inevitable injury/fatigue factors do kick in at some stage this season, your going to have to throw young guys into the action completely unprepared.
They have had virtually no game time in first grade.
That’s going to be the problem.
The Bulldogs game? Why throw Graham back out there for the last two minutes?
Why replace Graham with Nightingale when you have a young fresh forward crying out for some first grade game time?
I agree some of the decisions are pretty mystifying. Not using Host on Monday being a standout.
But I’m not sold on the theory that What’s happening now is bad practice. Gonna re post the below - for simplicity sake I just looked at second rowers, but a glance at locks and props shows a similar story.
Heres the last few Comp winners and how they used their second rowers over the regular season
Storm 2017
Kaufusi played 24 at 77mins ave
Harris played 11 at 68 mins ( due to injuries, not resting, the two seasons prior he played 24 each at 78 mins ave)
Sharks 2016
Graham played 23 at 79 mins
Lewis played 23 at 66 mins (33 yr old with 15 seasons worth of wear)
Cows 2015
Cooper played 23 games at 80 mins
Lowe played 24 games at 79 minutes.
From memory I think graham, cooper and maybe Lewis played some Origin too on those years. So this shows that where possible the winning teams did nearly zero rotation of their second rowers with the lower grades. I’d bet those that played 23 were either injured or had 1 game rested around or after Origin.
I agree some of the decisions are pretty mystifying. Not using Host on Monday being a standout.
But I’m not sold on the theory that What’s happening now is bad practice. Gonna re post the below - for simplicity sake I just looked at second rowers, but a glance at locks and props shows a similar story.
Heres the last few Comp winners and how they used their second rowers over the regular season
Storm 2017
Kaufusi played 24 at 77mins ave
Harris played 11 at 68 mins ( due to injuries, not resting, the two seasons prior he played 24 each at 78 mins ave)
Sharks 2016
Graham played 23 at 79 mins
Lewis played 23 at 66 mins (33 yr old with 15 seasons worth of wear)
Cows 2015
Cooper played 23 games at 80 mins
Lowe played 24 games at 79 minutes.
From memory I think graham, cooper and maybe Lewis played some Origin too on those years. So this shows that where possible the winning teams did nearly zero rotation of their second rowers with the lower grades. I’d bet those that played 23 were either injured or had 1 game rested around or after Origin.
Good post.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...
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...
Great summary TB.
Well thought out.
I will look at the Manly game and see if he uses it the same way or not.
Depending on the score.
I would like to see if that is how its been done all year or is this the way he uses it during the soo period.
I enjoyed reading War and Peace so this was a stroll in the park.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...
I wonder if Mary believes that ISP stands for "I Seldom Pick"
I enjoyed reading War and Peace so this was a stroll in the park.
Very thoughtful analysis and arguments well made.
I just want to address one point where there seems to be a misunderstanding.
I think you are wrong when you use the term "blind hatred for Mary"
I for one do not "hate" Mary.
I also do not insult him personally by calling him a f/wit or such.
Personally, I think it's unnecessary and doesn't help the forum as a whole.
I think that what you're missing in terms of the way fans feel about Mary being coach are the following:
1. They way MacGregor was given the job in the first place - my feeling is that we should have recruited the best coach available at the time. Not someone with no qualifications that was thrust upon us by the Illawarra faction within the club.
All that was before we could even assess his coaching capability.
2. 2016 and 2017 in particular, were terrible years for our club under the tutelage of McGregor.
It has nothing to do with hatred.
Objectively speaking the coaching structures were amateurish and underlined McGregor's lack of technical knowledge as a coach.
I believe that most clubs in the NRL after 2 seasons like that, would have sacked their coach.
3. Premature contract extension - this sticks in the craw of many fans. This is nothing personal against McGregor but no one can understand why the club renewed and upgraded McGregor's contract without waiting until the end of the season.
The cynical amongst us would also suggest that McGregor was more focused on that contract extension than doing what was best for the club.
4. Media performance - some of the tripe that McGregor has dished up in interviews does not do justice to the head coach position of a club like St. George. His most recent outing on TV made me cringe it was so ordinary and self promoting.
5. This is the 5th year of his tenure - Hunt has been the catalyst that has perched us on top of the table.
Unfortunately, the last 4 games have been consistently bad and show alarming trends from the last 2 years.
These points do not influence my ability to objectively analyze the performance of the coach or the team. They are just facts.
It may however explain a lot of the negative sentiment surrounding McGregor.
The majority of fans would prefer to have a Bennett or a Cleary in charge that they can feel an affinity with.
Great summary TB.
Well thought out.
I will look at the Manly game and see if he uses it the same way or not.
Depending on the score.
I would like to see if that is how its been done all year or is this the way he uses it during the soo period.
Samy, quick look at the previous 2 games and there are differences. Against Panthers we only made 7 interchanges - but so did Penrith. Penrith basically shadowed our changes. For most of the game, a couple of minutes after we made a change, Penrith did. Lawrie got 22 minutes game time.
For Raiders, we actually made 9 changes - and Canberra 11. HIAs maybe? JDB off around the 30 minute mark again, but back a few minutes later to replace Frizz (1 minute before half time) - possible HIA there or injury concern? Frizz comes back on after half time and JDB stays on to be replaced by Mann at the 60 minute mark. Lawrie doesn't get on the field. This is a confusing one but one reason may be that the change at half time threw out the rotation and used up an interchange that wasn't planned (possibly also forced a game plan change). Having Lawrie on the bench possibly precluded him from swapping out with Frizz. There's probably another one in there somewhere that wasn't planned. Pretty much all the others were used up by the prop rotation. You probably have to understand the reasons behind the extra interchanges but there is reason to believe Lawrie could have been used here.
See what you are saying and it seams that mary is using the interchanges when needed depending on the opposition and the game play.
By the way fizz was hia against canberra and JDB was blood bin.
So that may help.
I tend to agree with you but was just trying to explain where that hysteria comes from.Firstly, let me just clarify - the reference to hatred of Mary and the insults are more a general comment about the sentiments in this forum - not specifically aimed at your post. My point was simply that it's a bit like some sort of hysteria - something negative gets mentioned and everyone jumps on the bandwagon - irrespective of whether there is proof, facts that contradict it or some sort of reasoning that could possibly explain what was going on. I could probably name a couple of examples just off the top of my head where some point was made, people jump on it and then conveniently ignore that an explanation was provided to dismiss it and it just keeps rolling on. People would rather jump on the "lets assign blame to Mary for everything" wagon rather than try to understand why things might be happening.
Secondly, I'm not disputing the fact that nearly everyone on this forum would agree that Mary is not the best option for a coach (I agree and I have said this previously in other posts). However, this thread was about bench usage and I responded specifically to your post about the same. The 5 points you've made above are not in dispute in this thread, but it does support my view that most of the sentiment on here is some level of dislike - hate is a strong word. Those points might be valid, but they also generate all sorts of outlandish and blinkered views.
The interchange explanation given by TB makes sense. But, would have worked with Host coming on for JDB at the 33 minute mark, to play right edge with Friz shifting to Jack's middle spot. Fittler did the same with Friz in Origin, and worked well.
Thanks for an intelligent dialogue.
Yeah so there's 2 interchanges that weren't planned and probably meant that some players were having to spend more time on the field than necessary. Is blood bin a free interchange? Certainly HIA is - so that should bring the total back to 8 at least.
And yeah, it looks like, he's trying to mainly use the interchanges for the props and JDB - which would make sense to have an additional prop on the bench. But with those games you'd have to look at them in more depth to try and make assumptions on why changes were made.
Interesting to note that 2 of Canberra's 3 tries came in the middle 3rd of the game. First 2 of Penriths 4 came in the middle 3rd and the last 2 came in the last 10 minutes - when they had countered our game plan and more than likely drained us of any remaining optimism of making a comeback (last 2 tries were on the back of a penalty and error - frustration at being stifled in attack).