Hmm... still at it, I see
. All along it seems you've tried to suggest that despite the evidence of missed tackles etc that Hodgson remains the answer.
Well as the only specialist hooker besides Rein in our top 30 of course he was the answer. His debut for us was pretty good, when we controlled the ball against the Storm. He fatigued, as any player does over 80+ minutes, but not enough to justify bringing Rein into the 17.
It seems you have only started to change your tune after BA (belatedly, compared to suggestions made by many on the forum) decided to swap the majority minutes around between Hodgson and Hands.
I still haven't changed my tune. Hands has been better than expected but he is still a player who started the year outside the top 30, of all 17 NRL clubs. He had proved nothing and he still hasn't. Five games, including four off the bench, is a very small sample. I am reserving judgement on both players.
This guy has made neither of those errors - instead he produces relevant stats (including comparison across years) to support the analysis that Hodgson is not our answer
Like you he misses the point that rugby league is a team game, and nobody is 'the' answer. He was right when he said we need to complete our sets. Then a player like Hodgson will get the opportunity to be more than a tackling machine and use his skills, as he did against Melbourne in round one. It might well be that he should come on later when our ball control is better, but really we just need to complete our sets in the first half with the same efficiency as we have been completing in the second half. That will mitigate fatigue just as it did last year and in the years before that.
and criticises BA for not making the adjustment earlier.
He can make that criticism when he is providing his analysis earlier, and not after the fact. It's easy to point at the problem (like you experts are so quick to do) but fixing it means choosing from imperfect options without the benefit of hindsight.
