Madge’s Use of The Bench

[GNR4LIFE]

He refuses to adapt to the flow of the game. What’s the point of throwing a half on when the game is gone? He did it Marshall against Souths, and he’s now doing it with Brooks. He sets in stone that the half will come on for the final 20, and if the game is lost, be damned. You would think he’d use it as an interchange that he’ll use depending on the scoreline, not the game clock.

 

[ElleryHanley]

He definitely got it wrong the past few weeks.

If you drop Brooks, you do it properly and leave him out. He is a complete waste of a bench spot and wrecks the balance of the bench...especially as we already have three utilities in the squad who can cover the halves if needed.

Brooks out was a strong move.

Brooks never dropped would have been weak. He needs it.

Brooks on the bench was the 'middle' option and the wrong one.

 

[OzLuke]

Our problem, that I saw, was that we played a simple 1 out cart it up game even when we needed to chase points....We had no plan B, and it seems our players couldn't quite execute Plan A. We got pumped in the offloads, and as such they had better ball to play with....

 

[Magpie1969]

Hopeless benches. Loved Porter's Bash Brothers bench.
Both our second rowers are not 80 minute players. They need a break.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

He definitely got it wrong the past few weeks.

If you drop Brooks, you do it properly and leave him out. He is a complete waste of a bench spot and wrecks the balance of the bench...especially as we already have three utilities in the squad who can cover the halves if needed.

Brooks out was a strong move.

Brooks never dropped would have been weak. He needs it.

Brooks on the bench was the 'middle' option and the wrong one.

It’s not about whether Brooks should be on the bench, it’s the way Madge is using the interchange. You would think he’d use it to send a player on to try and swing the momentum, but that’s not what he does. But maybe he is there not for impact but to be taught a lesson, which would be wrong and is doing damage.

 

[ElleryHanley]

He definitely got it wrong the past few weeks.

If you drop Brooks, you do it properly and leave him out. He is a complete waste of a bench spot and wrecks the balance of the bench...especially as we already have three utilities in the squad who can cover the halves if needed.

Brooks out was a strong move.

Brooks never dropped would have been weak. He needs it.

Brooks on the bench was the 'middle' option and the wrong one.

It’s not about whether Brooks should be on the bench, it’s the way Madge is using the interchange. You would think he’d use it to send a player on to try and swing the momentum, but that’s not what he does. But maybe he is there not for impact but to be taught a lesson, which would be wrong and is doing damage.

Agree re mometum.

But having a half on there rules that out. You can't just 'send a half on' as it disrupts the game. So, he will either sit there all game while we win / sit there all game until 15 to go and be thrown on and hope for a miracle when losing.

The rest of the bench are locked into mins. Clarke is GASSED every week after 15 mins, so Thomas always comes on about 20 mins.

Josh needs a break...next forward on.

That does not leave much room for improvising on the spot. The wild card you want on the bench has to be a game changer, like you said, who you can throw on to change a game. Not sure we have anyone?

 

[GNR4LIFE]

He definitely got it wrong the past few weeks.

If you drop Brooks, you do it properly and leave him out. He is a complete waste of a bench spot and wrecks the balance of the bench...especially as we already have three utilities in the squad who can cover the halves if needed.

Brooks out was a strong move.

Brooks never dropped would have been weak. He needs it.

Brooks on the bench was the 'middle' option and the wrong one.

It’s not about whether Brooks should be on the bench, it’s the way Madge is using the interchange. You would think he’d use it to send a player on to try and swing the momentum, but that’s not what he does. But maybe he is there not for impact but to be taught a lesson, which would be wrong and is doing damage.

Agree re mometum.

But having a half on there rules that out. You can't just 'send a half on' as it disrupts the game. So, he will either sit there all game while we win / sit there all game until 15 to go and be thrown on and hope for a miracle when losing.

The rest of the bench are locked into mins. Clarke is GASSED every week after 15 mins, so Thomas always comes on about 20 mins.

Josh needs a break...next forward on.

That does not leave much room for improvising on the spot. The wild card you want on the bench has to be a game changer, like you said, who you can throw on to change a game. Not sure we have anyone?

A hooker is more likely to change the momentum than a half, so probably Liddle or Simpkin.

 

[ElleryHanley]

He definitely got it wrong the past few weeks.

If you drop Brooks, you do it properly and leave him out. He is a complete waste of a bench spot and wrecks the balance of the bench...especially as we already have three utilities in the squad who can cover the halves if needed.

Brooks out was a strong move.

Brooks never dropped would have been weak. He needs it.

Brooks on the bench was the 'middle' option and the wrong one.

It’s not about whether Brooks should be on the bench, it’s the way Madge is using the interchange. You would think he’d use it to send a player on to try and swing the momentum, but that’s not what he does. But maybe he is there not for impact but to be taught a lesson, which would be wrong and is doing damage.

Agree re mometum.

But having a half on there rules that out. You can't just 'send a half on' as it disrupts the game. So, he will either sit there all game while we win / sit there all game until 15 to go and be thrown on and hope for a miracle when losing.

The rest of the bench are locked into mins. Clarke is GASSED every week after 15 mins, so Thomas always comes on about 20 mins.

Josh needs a break...next forward on.

That does not leave much room for improvising on the spot. The wild card you want on the bench has to be a game changer, like you said, who you can throw on to change a game. Not sure we have anyone?


A hooker is more likely to change the momentum than a half, so probably Liddle or Simpkin.

Neither are ready though? Jacob is still a month or so away? Simpkin is 19...and could only cover one player (Grant).

 

[Tim Sheens]

I was surprised that he didn't have Brooks named in the final side an hour before kick-off and astounded that he was not put into the game a hell of a lot earlier. The hooker needed a rest and our fullback ran out injured.

 

[LeichhardtTiger]

Was Blore only on for one spell midway thru 1st half then not much in the 2nd? Was he injured? He had little or no impact compared to last week. His runs were ordinary.

 

[jirskyr]

In defence of bench usage he definitely subbed on two fresh forwards when we were defending 3x back-to-back sets, and it worked there.

In terms of subbing on Brooks, I can only imagine the plan is to have Brooks run the ball against a tiring side. It kind of does work in patches, he made a line break or two both matches just by running himself and was a definite running threat; both games we also piled on loads of late pressure and did score - so there's something in it.

Thing for me is I think it might not be possible for Brooks to come on as a game-changer, in the way a Milford or a Ben Barba might. Those other guys have their flaws as starting players, but I always consider a match-changer to be a very agile and unpredictable player with a decent pass and some sort of short kicking option.

Brooks is very very methodical, almost robotic at times, and he doesn't play eyes-up football. Which means he comes on with a tonne of energy but it's unfocused, and he hasn't had time to warm into the game.

That all being said, it wasn't Brooks who let in soft tries in the middle 40 minutes.

 

[Needaname]

In defence of bench usage he definitely subbed on two fresh forwards when we were defending 3x back-to-back sets, and it worked there.

In terms of subbing on Brooks, I can only imagine the plan is to have Brooks run the ball against a tiring side. It kind of does work in patches, he made a line break or two both matches just by running himself and was a definite running threat; both games we also piled on loads of late pressure and did score - so there's something in it.

Thing for me is I think it might not be possible for Brooks to come on as a game-changer, in the way a Milford or a Ben Barba might. Those other guys have their flaws as starting players, but I always consider a match-changer to be a very agile and unpredictable player with a decent pass and some sort of short kicking option.

Brooks is very very methodical, almost robotic at times, and he doesn't play eyes-up football. Which means he comes on with a tonne of energy but it's unfocused, and he hasn't had time to warm into the game.

That all being said, it wasn't Brooks who let in soft tries in the middle 40 minutes.

I tend to think ‘for the lesson that Madge is trying to cary out’. Brooks needed to come on at the dead lock.
It looked as though that’s when he was about to and then they score out wide.
So instead of coming on and trying to break the dead lock and manage us to a win he came on with us behind.
I can’t knock his effort.
He made many half breaks and didn’t shirk his defensive responsibilities.
Marshall just appeared to disappear when Brooks came on, I’m not sure if this is Madge’s plan of passing the baton but it isn’t helping having a hugely dominant player be told to play second fiddle.
There seams to be a bit of a revolt from the playing group.
Marshall wants to play football until he no longer can but he doesn’t want to be the foil.
2018 who was our main half.
Brooks and was partnered with 2nd chance Marshall whom was not anywhere near as involved then he was when he is now.
If he persists with this experiment Brooks must replace Marshall when he comes onto the field.

 

[Sart0ri]

Agree re mometum.
But having a half on there rules that out. You can’t just ‘send a half on’ as it disrupts the game.

What the hell are you talking about???? Storm recently used a fullback! You can play 4 forwards, a utility or someone who may have an impact when they come on.

This week Tannah Boyd (a halfback) was on the bench for the Titans
Tom Starling (a halfback) for Canberra
Ben Hampton (a winger) for the Cowboys
Tyrone May (a half for the Panthers)
Lachlan Croker (a half) for the Seas Eagles
Jack Cogger (a half) for the Bulldogs
Phoenix Crossland (a halfback) for the knights
Tristan Sailor (a halfback) for the Dragons
Conner Tracy (a halfback) for the sharks

 

[Harvey]

His use of the bench has been bad all year. It is almost robotic without any consideration of the game flow or how players are going.

There is generally the twin prop change (which kills our momentum) a change of lock & a player left sitting on the bench for 60 minutes. It doesn't matter how tired some of our backrowers look, they play 80 minutes

 

[ElleryHanley]

His use of the bench has been bad all year. It is almost robotic without any consideration of the game flow or how players are going.

There is generally the twin prop change (which kills our momentum) a change of lock & a player left sitting on the bench for 60 minutes. It doesn't matter how tired some of our backrowers look, they play 80 minutes

Valid points.

 

[OldMagpie]

Brooks not only intimidated by his own shadow but by whoever partners him in the halves,wether it be Benji or when Mitchell Moses was there,he just lacks game control and leadership.You can tell when he does an interview, He is the lost sock in the washing machine of the NRL.