What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Hame Sele

S

SBD82

Coach
Messages
17,854
Old Timer said:
Vaughan was unfortunately injured and gone for the season but all the fatigue and niggling injuries occurred in the back row as was the case the previous year.
Our back row is the main motor of our forwards and when it stalls we start to lose games we should never lose.
IMO picking extra props or utilities doesn’t fix that issue.
A better back line consistently capable of taking pressure off the forwards would be a better remedy all round and would allow us to have far better options in every respect.
Click to expand...
I think it's outdated thinking to consider the lock a part of the back row when you're looking at replacements. Defending in the middle vs on the edge require different skill sets.
 
Old Timer

Old Timer

Coach
Messages
17,801
SBD82 said:
I think it's outdated thinking to consider the lock a part of the back row when you're looking at replacements. Defending in the middle vs on the edge require different skill sets.
Click to expand...
I forgot our lock is also a part time half back, a ball player and a second receiver off the ruck ascwell as defending in the middle
I did say that T Sims or Frizz can fill that defensive role to give JDB a rest whilst the edge replacements are on the paddock
Either of them IMO would be far better than the utility option or Latimore
 
S

SBD82

Coach
Messages
17,854
Old Timer said:
I forgot our lock is also a part time half back, a ball player and a second receiver off the ruck ascwell as defending in the middle
I did say that T Sims or Frizz can fill that defensive role to give JDB a rest whilst the edge replacements are on the paddock
Either of them IMO would be far better than the utility option or Latimore
Click to expand...
I know you think that, but you also think that Mary burns out the back row.

You know what is likely to burn out our two SOO edge forwards? Making them defend in the middle.
 
Old Timer

Old Timer

Coach
Messages
17,801
SBD82 said:
I know you think that, but you also think that Mary burns out the back row.

You know what is likely to burn out our two SOO edge forwards? Making them defend in the middle.
Click to expand...
I think you need to go back and read my posts very carefully and then get back to me
Under my proposal the edge forwards will get far more of a chance to get a proper rest because st the moment they almost get none and they already spend some time in the middle
 
S

SBD82

Coach
Messages
17,854
Old Timer said:
I think you need to go back and read my posts very carefully and then get back to me
Under my proposal the edge forwards will get far more of a chance to get a proper rest because st the moment they almost get none and they already spend some time in the middle
Click to expand...
Oh, I read it. You failed to be specific about times, but you want our elite backrowers to move to the middle, where they will have to make more tackles and wear themselves out over the season, while taking away minutes from our elite middles.
 
Old Timer

Old Timer

Coach
Messages
17,801
SBD82 said:
Oh, I read it. You failed to be specific about times, but you want our elite backrowers to move to the middle, where they will have to make more tackles and wear themselves out over the season, while taking away minutes from our elite middles.
Click to expand...
Obviiusly you read it but don’t understand it nor do you allow for any flexibility as you wan to be totally regimented as to how much time each player gets where I believe the game will actually dictate that for you and is a better concept than being totally pre meditated as you are when you quote specific minutes for specific players.
Fiurthermore you are intent on giving minutes to plodders and neither nors rather than a better quality 1st grade edge player.
 
S

SBD82

Coach
Messages
17,854
Old Timer said:
Obviiusly you read it but don’t understand it nor do you allow for any flexibility as you wan to be totally regimented as to how much time each player gets where I believe the game will actually dictate that for you and is a better concept than being totally pre meditated as you are when you quote specific minutes for specific players.
Fiurthermore you are intent on giving minutes to plodders and neither nors rather than a better quality 1st grade edge player.
Click to expand...
You mistake lack of understanding with a lack of agreement.

I agree that a good coach requires flexibility, but they should also have a best case scenario plan.

And if you want flexibility on a bench, why would you propose 4 forwards?
 
Old Timer

Old Timer

Coach
Messages
17,801
SBD82 said:
You mistake lack of understanding with a lack of agreement.

I agree that a good coach requires flexibility, but they should also have a best case scenario plan.

And if you want flexibility on a bench, why would you propose 4 forwards?
Click to expand...
Are you sure you read everything?
The answer to your question is contained within the posts above and that is 4 forwards on the bench because of our coach and his style of play.
Different coach or style a different bench
Better backline that can win you games despite the forwards a different bench.
Same coach, same style then a 4 forward bench because the other options of Latimore plus utility has not and will not work.
 
S

SBD82

Coach
Messages
17,854
Old Timer said:
Are you sure you read everything?
The answer to your question is contained within the posts above and that is 4 forwards on the bench because of our coach and his style of play.
Different coach or style a different bench
Better backline that can win you games despite the forwards a different bench.
Same coach, same style then a 4 forward bench because the other options of Latimore plus utility has not and will not work.
Click to expand...
Not sure you've read my posts, because I actually advocated Lawrie over latimore.
 
Old Timer

Old Timer

Coach
Messages
17,801
SBD82 said:
Not sure you've read my posts, because I actually advocated Lawrie over latimore.
Click to expand...
I did indeed read your posts as evidenced in my responses
My posts are about what I would have as against what I think the coach will actually do considering the style of footy he will coach.
In amongst that you have asked questions of me which I have tried to answer as best as possible and the logic behind that
You have your idea and that’s fine just different to mine.
 
S

SBD82

Coach
Messages
17,854
Old Timer said:
I did indeed read your posts as evidenced in my responses
My posts are about what I would have as against what I think the coach will actually do considering the style of footy he will coach.
In amongst that you have asked questions of me which I have tried to answer as best as possible and the logic behind that
You have your idea and that’s fine just different to mine.
Click to expand...
That's the closest we've ever come to ending a debate in a civilized fashion. Well played OT. I think you and I are making great progress.
 
possm

possm

Coach
Messages
15,909
SBD82 said:
I think it's outdated thinking to consider the lock a part of the back row when you're looking at replacements. Defending in the middle vs on the edge require different skill sets.
Click to expand...
I'd give anything to see a J Raper or R Coote-type player at lock in our forwards. They were magnific cover defenders who plugged up the the edge and chased hard to defend breaks on the edge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top