Idea on how to play Galvin & Latu

[The Chad]

The more we watch Latu play, the more we realise he needs to be on the field.

As of this moment, the Tigers weakest positions are second row & centre.

As an idea- play Galvin on one side of the field, Latu on the other & Luai plays either side the ball goes toward. This would require:

A) Removing a starting centre
B) Removing a starting Second Rower

Before you howl the idea down:

A running Galvin or Fainu easily fills the role of (I'm going to pick on To'a) To'a right now. Gavin or Latu plays a little wider on most plays, defends wider. But has the freedom to move closer to the action and shift either the #13 or second rower out wider if they move inside.

Same can be done with Seyfarth.

This isn't to say you have to play a forward down. If the game is getting physical, you can bring on an additional forward off the bench as required & Latu or Galvin can catch a breather.

This allows the team to run with a 'worker' at #13 instead of a ball player as you now have the additional ball player out wider instead of in the middle. Luai can float either side to add additional attack- and it actually allows him to play a more dynamic running style as the ball playing can be shared between 3 halves, essentially.

Twal & May allow Benji to reduce forward rotations because they simply play such long minutes. Bird off the bench offers either an additional centre or backrower as required- in case Latu/Galvin isn't working.

I don't know the in's & out's, but we have a unique squad with 3 1st team ready halves & only 2 spots to play them.

A few years back, Brad Fittler was praised for finding a way to fit Latrell, Turbo & Teddy into the same NSW team. Sometimes, you just have to find a way to play your best players. It wouldn't matter if Latu or Galvin had #6, #13, #12 or #4 on their back- they would play as a wide playmaker regardless of the shirt number.

 

[Tom Shines]

I’m going to keep saying this every time you propose moving Galvin away from a halves position …

I dont see it It happening until his future is sorted out with the club …as the difference in contract value between playing at 6 as opposed to 13 or Center is just too great …

Also… Galvin is actually the primary playmaker in the side at the moment ( not JL) … so I don’t see them moving away from that in the short term

 

[Needaname]

I was going to say something similar. We effectively had three halves playing in the 2nd half on the weekend. For mine it’s lock we can loose after about the 20min mark. Bring Latu on with TDS and get a bit of ruck speed.
Galvin is effectively playing halfback but he his only pinned to the right side on defence.

 

[user118245]

I was going to say something similar. We effectively had three halves playing in the 2nd half on the weekend. For mine it’s lock we can loose after about the 20min mark. Bring Latu on with TDS and get a bit of ruck speed.
Galvin is effectively playing halfback but he his only pinned to the right side on defence.

Who is omitted from bench then? Royce?

 

[Buttface]

I reckon both of them needs to be ready and able to play lock centre and 6, and I would make sure they know nothing is set in stone but you need to be adaptable and to build a combo together so it doesn’t matter where they are on the field, they are just supporting each other.

 

[Needaname]

Who is omitted from bench then? Royce?

Probably Sione. Hunt should be playing more minutes, this would also encourage that.

 

[Buttface]

Who is omitted from bench then? Royce?

No.

 

[BAGNF05]

I’m going to keep saying this every time you propose moving Galvin away from a halves position …

I dont see it It happening until his future is sorted out with the club …as the difference in contract value between playing at 6 as opposed to 13 or Center is just too great …

Also… Galvin is actually the primary playmaker in the side at the moment ( not JL) … so I don’t see them moving away from that in the short term

Moving him now would be ludicrous.

There’s enough great stuff he does to let him remain there and continue to learn from the errors.

 

[Vicious]

The more we watch Latu play, the more we realise he needs to be on the field.

As of this moment, the Tigers weakest positions are second row & centre.

As an idea- play Galvin on one side of the field, Latu on the other & Luai plays either side the ball goes toward. This would require:

A) Removing a starting centre
B) Removing a starting Second Rower

Before you howl the idea down:

A running Galvin or Fainu easily fills the role of (I'm going to pick on To'a) To'a right now. Gavin or Latu plays a little wider on most plays, defends wider. But has the freedom to move closer to the action and shift either the #13 or second rower out wider if they move inside.

Same can be done with Seyfarth.

This isn't to say you have to play a forward down. If the game is getting physical, you can bring on an additional forward off the bench as required & Latu or Galvin can catch a breather.

This allows the team to run with a 'worker' at #13 instead of a ball player as you now have the additional ball player out wider instead of in the middle. Luai can float either side to add additional attack- and it actually allows him to play a more dynamic running style as the ball playing can be shared between 3 halves, essentially.

Twal & May allow Benji to reduce forward rotations because they simply play such long minutes. Bird off the bench offers either an additional centre or backrower as required- in case Latu/Galvin isn't working.

I don't know the in's & out's, but we have a unique squad with 3 1st team ready halves & only 2 spots to play them.

A few years back, Brad Fittler was praised for finding a way to fit Latrell, Turbo & Teddy into the same NSW team. Sometimes, you just have to find a way to play your best players. It wouldn't matter if Latu or Galvin had #6, #13, #12 or #4 on their back- they would play as a wide playmaker regardless of the shirt number.

I love the outside the square thinking TheChad 👍
My question is what part of the field is Latu best suited? On Sunday he played the more centre field role, similar to how Yeo plays for the Panthers.

 

[The Chad]

I’m going to keep saying this every time you propose moving Galvin away from a halves position …

I dont see it It happening until his future is sorted out with the club …as the difference in contract value between playing at 6 as opposed to 13 or Center is just too great …

Also… Galvin is actually the primary playmaker in the side at the moment ( not JL) … so I don’t see them moving away from that in the short term

I don't particularly care if you put #12 on Latu.

It's not about moving them out of position- it's about innovating a way to play the best players & not run the risk of losing one due to a lack of opportunity.

My biggest concern would be defensive weakness if you remove a second rower. But what you make up in attack might nullify that.

Removing a centre might be less problematic. Galvin & Latu are pretty good at running the ball as it is.

Luai would shift to either side of the ruck in order to put 2 playmakers on either side at all times.

Instead of overloading the opposition with size or speed, you overload them with skill.

 

[The Chad]

Moving him now would be ludicrous.

There’s enough great stuff he does to let him remain there and continue to learn from the errors.

That's only because you read 'move him to centre' or 'move him to second row' & assume that they then turn into a clone of every other centre or second rower in the NRL.

I would literally want them to play as a #6 or #7- just in different spots on the field. The number on their back would be irrelevant.

 

[Robbie's Love Child]

Galvin is the 6 for the future if he resigns, if he doesn't resign Latu stays. If Galvin resigns Latu has to move on he is an out and out half with a very bright future, he would be stupid to stay if he is going to be second fiddle to Luai and Galvin.

 

[Wiz]

Galvin is the 6 for the future if he resigns, if he doesn't resign Latu stays. If Galvin resigns Latu has to move on he is an out and out half with a very bright future, he would be stupid to stay if he is going to be second fiddle to Luai and Galvin.

Agree. We will lose one of them. Probably after this season.

It seems like the question is, do you keep Galvin at $1m per (if the rumours are correct) or Latu at $500k (for the next two years)?

Galvin seems to have taken on this mythical status but for mine he is doing nothing more than an average first grade 5/8. He is not a threat to run and missed a bad tackle for the Warriors first try on the weekend. His short kicking game also needs work as he puts one dead pretty much every week. I just don’t see how he is a $1m player at present.

 

[TurnStyle]

The more we watch Latu play, the more we realise he needs to be on the field.

As of this moment, the Tigers weakest positions are second row & centre.

As an idea- play Galvin on one side of the field, Latu on the other & Luai plays either side the ball goes toward. This would require:

A) Removing a starting centre
B) Removing a starting Second Rower

Before you howl the idea down:

A running Galvin or Fainu easily fills the role of (I'm going to pick on To'a) To'a right now. Gavin or Latu plays a little wider on most plays, defends wider. But has the freedom to move closer to the action and shift either the #13 or second rower out wider if they move inside.

Same can be done with Seyfarth.

This isn't to say you have to play a forward down. If the game is getting physical, you can bring on an additional forward off the bench as required & Latu or Galvin can catch a breather.

This allows the team to run with a 'worker' at #13 instead of a ball player as you now have the additional ball player out wider instead of in the middle. Luai can float either side to add additional attack- and it actually allows him to play a more dynamic running style as the ball playing can be shared between 3 halves, essentially.

Twal & May allow Benji to reduce forward rotations because they simply play such long minutes. Bird off the bench offers either an additional centre or backrower as required- in case Latu/Galvin isn't working.

I don't know the in's & out's, but we have a unique squad with 3 1st team ready halves & only 2 spots to play them.

A few years back, Brad Fittler was praised for finding a way to fit Latrell, Turbo & Teddy into the same NSW team. Sometimes, you just have to find a way to play your best players. It wouldn't matter if Latu or Galvin had #6, #13, #12 or #4 on their back- they would play as a wide playmaker regardless of the shirt number.

I like it. I see Latu as a solid defender anyway; he can replace Seyfarth.

 

[das tigers]

I really liked Latu in the middle(Yeo lock),Luai to the left Galvin on the right.
You can see the more time the 3 out there,points will flow. All 3 prefer the left
but Galvin has been good on the right with Toa and Sunny.

Latu in the middle working the left with Luai and sam. Luai aslo is a great decoy, and
Luai can draw attention of the defence.Twal to start the game then Latu coming,probably
at the expense of sione.

It was a bit unforunate all the changes to the warriors game. No dissrepect to who
was out there. But Doubie and skelton have been great this year also I like Bird off the
bench in the middle too.Also Sam left around half time i think.

 

[Needaname]

Looking back at the Warriors game their bench killed ours.
Two of their tries were a direct result of us having small guys unable to control the ruck.
Latu holds his own in defence and that’s good.
For the next game I’d probably lean to Latu as left centre. That way you can play the formation you are suggesting. Possibly if Sam F is out, Bird is at left Backrow.
Early ball from Luai and Latu should capitalise on the space available outwide with his speed, footwork and power.
He might be an out and out half; but he is probably at this moment our most important impact player going forwards.

 

[TigerBurnsy]

I have a bit of a left field idea of how to fit them in, I would try playing bird at backrow over seyfarth, and move seyfarth to lock to start, move twal to prop and have pole come off the bench. This way when we do our rotation after 25 mins or so we bring on latu to create some spark at 13 like he did on sunday and bring on pole and hunt to have the bigger bodies on and have big impact.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

The club will not move Galvin out of the halves. They will go in on him till he signs elsewhere. I only see a significant role for Latu if Galvin leaves. If he stays, Latu’s future is elsewhere.

 

[Jolls]

Conceptually I think it is a workable solution. What we have seen over several years now ws the evolution of the game. Everyone playing the game in a similar manner; complete your sets, kick to a corner, make them work it our, capitalise on the error etc. 25 years ago Sheens and our bouys changed the way the game was played - you score 30 we'll score 31 with an unstructured and unhindered style of play, enter Melbourne who revolutionalised the game again with structure and domination of the ruck (wrestle) and Penrith have evolved this style andadded the ability to attacking using defence.

Playing three halves isn't completely new - we have seen it done at SOO level; however, usually the thrid half relaces the hooker. What you propose is something different though; with decentralised play making wider of the ruck. Same Same, but Different, to Yeo pushing the playmakers wider at the Riff.

While feasible, I don't think we have the side to make this work. The reason being that we do not win the collision and this is so importaint in contolling the ruck, on bith sides of the pill. If we can't do it now I don't think we will be able to do it with two 19 year olds against experienced NRL players. We could probably have a bit of success with ball in hand, but in defence they would target our middle, take advantage of the skills mismatch and roll up the field. Could we outscore them? Potentially, but it is very hard to gain momentum with the ball in hand if you are unable to control, or at least be competitive at the ruck.

I think it could work if you played Latu F defensively at centre but offensively as a psuedo lock meaning Twal and Bird would plug the middle in D. Given Bird's ability I think it could work. I would think that the time to introduce something like this would be during the bye round - too much of a change to the offensive strategy to introduce between games.

 

[The Chad]

Conceptually I think it is a workable solution. What we have seen over several years now ws the evolution of the game. Everyone playing the game in a similar manner; complete your sets, kick to a corner, make them work it our, capitalise on the error etc. 25 years ago Sheens and our bouys changed the way the game was played - you score 30 we'll score 31 with an unstructured and unhindered style of play, enter Melbourne who revolutionalised the game again with structure and domination of the ruck (wrestle) and Penrith have evolved this style andadded the ability to attacking using defence.

Playing three halves isn't completely new - we have seen it done at SOO level; however, usually the thrid half relaces the hooker. What you propose is something different though; with decentralised play making wider of the ruck. Same Same, but Different, to Yeo pushing the playmakers wider at the Riff.

While feasible, I don't think we have the side to make this work. The reason being that we do not win the collision and this is so importaint in contolling the ruck, on bith sides of the pill. If we can't do it now I don't think we will be able to do it with two 19 year olds against experienced NRL players. We could probably have a bit of success with ball in hand, but in defence they would target our middle, take advantage of the skills mismatch and roll up the field. Could we outscore them? Potentially, but it is very hard to gain momentum with the ball in hand if you are unable to control, or at least be competitive at the ruck.

I think it could work if you played Latu F defensively at centre but offensively as a psuedo lock meaning Twal and Bird would plug the middle in D. Given Bird's ability I think it could work. I would think that the time to introduce something like this wpuld be during the bye round - too much of a change to the offensive strtegy to intorduce betwwen games.

I leave it to greater strategic minds than mine!