southerntiger
New member
@AmericanHistoryX said:
AMX I would never (well rarely) blame a winger for us losing. That doesnt mean I dont think we have better options at the club.
Hysteria about our bench
- Thread starter simonthetiger
- Start date
AMX I would never (well rarely) blame a winger for us losing. That doesnt mean I dont think we have better options at the club.
simonthetiger
New member
@Yossarian said:
:laughing: :laughing:
Gotta good larf out of that.
Its funny cos its true. 😱pen_mouth:
@ron burgandy said:
So..they may well do..what's your point…..did you read what I wrote.......
The difference between 9th and 16th is often the bounce of the ball...
And who coaches pick on their bench.....
Aladinsane
New member
very cheap bench retention would have been regular bench selection for other top 8 side, in keeping Saffy &! Tandy.
I was upset & kicked up a small verbal Storm when we lost these 2 bargain team members , who roll up their sleeves and do the hard yards….. I wonder what Sheens see sometimes, as I feel these 2 players give their guts out every game
I was upset & kicked up a small verbal Storm when we lost these 2 bargain team members , who roll up their sleeves and do the hard yards….. I wonder what Sheens see sometimes, as I feel these 2 players give their guts out every game
hybrid_tiger
Well-known member
We got absolutely belted when Galloway and Gibbs wen't off. That to me says our bench was ineffective.
Cayless is clearly not fit yet, Moors had a shocker and Flanagan looked out of his depth. Fitzhenry played two minutes while the rest of our players busted their arses.
I don't understand the logic in carrying a winger on the bench when an extra forward could be far more handy and effective.
My two cents. Suppose I'll get blasted as a negative Sheens hater though.
Cayless is clearly not fit yet, Moors had a shocker and Flanagan looked out of his depth. Fitzhenry played two minutes while the rest of our players busted their arses.
I don't understand the logic in carrying a winger on the bench when an extra forward could be far more handy and effective.
My two cents. Suppose I'll get blasted as a negative Sheens hater though.
simonthetiger
New member
You are a negative Sheens hater…...good call.
\
\
I agree to a certain extent with what you say.....Moops and Cayless didnt give us oomph,but I think you have to give them more time.
Flanno did look a little out of depth.But again do you persist???I dunno.
Fitzy.....I wouldnt pick him either but you can see the logic,he can cover several postions if he HAS to.
Did you notice the Souths game last night??
Asotasi,Burgess and Taylor were all off at the same time for 20 mins.......
\
\
I agree to a certain extent with what you say.....Moops and Cayless didnt give us oomph,but I think you have to give them more time.
Flanno did look a little out of depth.But again do you persist???I dunno.
Fitzy.....I wouldnt pick him either but you can see the logic,he can cover several postions if he HAS to.
Did you notice the Souths game last night??
Asotasi,Burgess and Taylor were all off at the same time for 20 mins.......
S
system
Guest
Hybrid I really think we need to stagger our prop interchanges a little bit. We seemed to just dump Moops and Cayless in it on Monday night. While they were getting into the game the Beagles really fired up.
I am impressed with Flanagans workrate in all the games I have seen him play and I think he should fare better this week for the run last week. He has now experienced the intensity and knows what to expect
I am impressed with Flanagans workrate in all the games I have seen him play and I think he should fare better this week for the run last week. He has now experienced the intensity and knows what to expect
Simonthetiger,
How do you get:
We think the bench could be better = Sheens Hater.
I like many others on here would prefer a different style of bench, based on forwards and more muscle. At no point do I hate Sheens or think any lesser of him. It’s just a difference of opinion.
If you are in favour of the current structure on our bench, that’s great. That doesn’t give you the right to call us haters or that we’re hysterical.
We all want the best, to win and have a bit of fun on the way.
How do you get:
We think the bench could be better = Sheens Hater.
I like many others on here would prefer a different style of bench, based on forwards and more muscle. At no point do I hate Sheens or think any lesser of him. It’s just a difference of opinion.
If you are in favour of the current structure on our bench, that’s great. That doesn’t give you the right to call us haters or that we’re hysterical.
We all want the best, to win and have a bit of fun on the way.
@stryker said:
In your opinion maybe. I'm not saying he gets everything right and some of the criticisms of him are spot on but there are some on this forum who are just continually bagging the bloke.
851
Well-known member
Sheens is a great coach,he just shouldn't be allowed to pick the team,he plays favourites and if you are not one you won't get a look in.
hybrid_tiger
Well-known member
@senexx said:
No he isn't.
Smeg I agree about the rotations. Gibbs and Galloway should not come off together.
HaHaHa …this is like when Wests Tigers would call Morris a halfback.....
Hybrid .......I think the point is while most could argue that Fitzy isn't a very good utility as far as opinions go ....doesn't change the fact that is his role in the team as it stands...
Sheens has him on the bench to cover both backs and forwards = utility....
Hybrid .......I think the point is while most could argue that Fitzy isn't a very good utility as far as opinions go ....doesn't change the fact that is his role in the team as it stands...
Sheens has him on the bench to cover both backs and forwards = utility....
hybrid_tiger
Well-known member
I'm not arguing that he isn't a good utility, the argument is that he isn't a utility at all.
Anyone at the Foundation Cup watching Fitzhenry "attempting" to play hooker would agree.
Anyone at the Foundation Cup watching Fitzhenry "attempting" to play hooker would agree.
