Tigers prop rotation

G

Guest

Guest
This week's RLW magazine has a short piece on the Sheens commenting on using Andrew Fifita and Junior Moors on alternate weeks, effectively rotating them. He likes the job both guys are doing from the bench, having an impact and making metres up the middle, but he only carries 1 prop on the bench as we know, so it's highly likely Moors will be the guy to play this week with Fifita dropping back to play for Wests, and he in turn will come back for the Cowboys game with Moors dropping back to Wests.

Personally I think there is room for both of them as Moors can also play in the backrow but it looks like this is the way Sheens will go now that all the Tigers props are healthy.
 

benjibrotown

New member
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,059
The dream would be to have both of them on the bench and no FItzy.. wont ever happen though of coarse.
 

Bazzinator

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,327
i think the reason is that sheens has three props starting unlike most teams and then he uses the total of four props throughout the game. i think once payten leaves we will see two props on the bench but his versatility allows us to carry a back on the bench
 

citizen_cub

New member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
1,151
Not having those two in the same team is ridiculous.

As someone on this forums signature says 'they're our demolition men'. Both are young, show great enthusiasm and are probably two of the best talents we have at the club ATM.

It is obvious to me that Galloway, Fitzhenry and Gibbs aren't up to FG standard. At least get rid of two of them then that would make way for Fifita and Moors
 

Tigerpete

New member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
1,530
It does seem a ridiculous situation on the surface but it's true about the three starting props meaning we only need the one on the bench.
 

Ed_Reschs

New member
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
456
@citizen cub said:
Not having those two in the same team is ridiculous.

As someone on this forums signature says 'they're our demolition men'. Both are young, show great enthusiasm and are probably two of the best talents we have at the club ATM.

It is obvious to me that Galloway, Fitzhenry and Gibbs aren't up to FG standard. At least get rid of two of them then that would make way for Fifita and Moors

It is obvious to me there are a lot of dribblers on this forum who don't have much of an idea.

Yes lets drop Galloway and Gibbs for Fafita and Moors. Galloway and Gibbs are seasoned props. Gibbs leads the competition in effective one on one tackles on players overs 115Kg.
Lets bring Fafita and Moors into the team but not at the expense of the two bookends that have got us to 3rd in the comp.
 
T

Trevor_Rawlings

Guest
@citizen cub said:
Not having those two in the same team is ridiculous.

As someone on this forums signature says 'they're our demolition men'. Both are young, show great enthusiasm and are probably two of the best talents we have at the club ATM.

It is obvious to me that Galloway, Fitzhenry and Gibbs aren't up to FG standard. At least get rid of two of them then that would make way for Fifita and Moors

Galloway and Gibbs are more than up to first grade standard. Sure, they havent been picked for NSW, but thats just because they dont play for right team. Skando should have played for NSW for years, yet the team wasnt winning. Doesnt seem to be an issue for Tim Mannah, or the Cronulla boys. How 2 front-rowers from the worst team over the last 2 years can make the top 18….....thats beyond me.
 
G

Guest

Guest
@Ed Reschs said:
@citizen cub said:
Not having those two in the same team is ridiculous.

As someone on this forums signature says 'they're our demolition men'. Both are young, show great enthusiasm and are probably two of the best talents we have at the club ATM.

It is obvious to me that Galloway, Fitzhenry and Gibbs aren't up to FG standard. At least get rid of two of them then that would make way for Fifita and Moors

It is obvious to me there are a lot of dribblers on this forum who don't have much of an idea.

Yes lets drop Galloway and Gibbs for Fafita and Moors. Galloway and Gibbs are seasoned props. Gibbs leads the competition in effective one on one tackles on players overs 115Kg.
Lets bring Fafita and Moors into the team but not at the expense of the two bookends that have got us to 3rd in the comp.

I agree with you Ed, that comment is ridiculous. Gibbs has been one of the best Tigers forwards this season, and both he and Galloway were the starting City props this season and their selection was based on form. Galloway may have had some injuries this season, but watch how important he becomes when he's fully match fit leading into the semi finals.
 

Eye_Of_Wests_Tigers

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
479
@Ed Reschs said:
@citizen cub said:
Not having those two in the same team is ridiculous.

As someone on this forums signature says 'they're our demolition men'. Both are young, show great enthusiasm and are probably two of the best talents we have at the club ATM.

It is obvious to me that Galloway, Fitzhenry and Gibbs aren't up to FG standard. At least get rid of two of them then that would make way for Fifita and Moors

It is obvious to me there are a lot of dribblers on this forum who don't have much of an idea.

Yes lets drop Galloway and Gibbs for Fafita and Moors. Galloway and Gibbs are seasoned props. Gibbs leads the competition in effective one on one tackles on players overs 115Kg.
Lets bring Fafita and Moors into the team but not at the expense of the two bookends that have got us to 3rd in the comp.

Touche! Realistically we have been playing with 4 props most of the time, Payten usually comes off first swapping with a second rower whom spends the rest of the game on the field. Heighno really always plays on the edge of the ruck, Payten shifting into the lock position defending up the middle of the ruck with Gibbs and Red. No use changing a winning formula, allbeit, a ugly winning formula :wink:
 

Tiger_Watto

New member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
10,717
Location
Maroochydore Qld
I think its safe to acknowledge why Sheens operates his bench this way, and working through 24 games of football it is a safe option having 1 Prop, 2 Backrowers and 1 Back-up Back. This is fine working through the year, but at some stage leading into the Finals, Sheens has to change this mindset. In Finals Football, you dont play it safe. You go at it 100% or your out!

In the Finals, we must change to 2 Props for Metres up the middle and Impact. We also need to go with 2 Backrowers that have genuine off-loading ability and one of these Backrowers must have Utility value to cover any injuries in the Backs. At no stage through the Finals should we have a Back on the bench for 'coverage'. If we do choose to have a Back, it must be for Impact value/game breaking ability only…

Unfortunately, our best genuine attacking 'weapon' that would suit Finals Football has a sore knee??? :pray: Get Well Tim :pray:
 

innsaneink

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
37,985
Location
...ahead of you....
@Tiger Watto said:
I think its safe to acknowledge why Sheens operates his bench this way, and working through 24 games of football it is a safe option having 1 Prop, 2 Backrowers and 1 Back-up Back. This is fine working through the year, but at some stage leading into the Finals, Sheens has to change this mindset. In Finals Football, you dont play it safe. You go at it 100% or your out!

In the Finals, we must change to 2 Props for Metres up the middle and Impact. We also need to go with 2 Backrowers that have genuine off-loading ability and one of these Backrowers must have Utility value to cover any injuries in the Backs. At no stage through the Finals should we have a Back on the bench for 'coverage'. If we do choose to have a Back, it must be for Impact value/game breaking ability only…

Unfortunately, our best genuine attacking 'weapon' that would suit Finals Football has a sore knee??? :pray: Get Well Tim :pray:

If we continue to do what we're doing now, and improve gradually towards the end of the year I wouldnt be changing anything…..if it aint broke an all that
Sheen's has always - for the most part - been very sparing and patient with his jnr develepment, much too much for this forum & others
 

simonthetiger

New member
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
3,705
@innsaneink said:
@Tiger Watto said:
I think its safe to acknowledge why Sheens operates his bench this way, and working through 24 games of football it is a safe option having 1 Prop, 2 Backrowers and 1 Back-up Back. This is fine working through the year, but at some stage leading into the Finals, Sheens has to change this mindset. In Finals Football, you dont play it safe. You go at it 100% or your out!

In the Finals, we must change to 2 Props for Metres up the middle and Impact. We also need to go with 2 Backrowers that have genuine off-loading ability and one of these Backrowers must have Utility value to cover any injuries in the Backs. At no stage through the Finals should we have a Back on the bench for 'coverage'. If we do choose to have a Back, it must be for Impact value/game breaking ability only…

Unfortunately, our best genuine attacking 'weapon' that would suit Finals Football has a sore knee??? :pray: Get Well Tim :pray:

If we continue to do what we're doing now, and improve gradually towards the end of the year I wouldnt be changing anything…..if it aint broke an all that
Sheen's has always - for the most part - been very sparing and patient with his jnr develepment, much too much for this forum & others

Ink!!!!

Have you been off the Beam for a day??You just made complete sense!!! :astonished:

Very sensible post,and I agree 100%.
 

izotope

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
2,447
where will tupou fit in, or is he in line for injuries before he will ever get a shot?!
 
G

Guest

Guest
@izotope said:
where will tupou fit in, or is he in line for injuries before he will ever get a shot?!

That's still a bit of an unknown. Sheens has been quoted a couple of times saying that Tame could provide very good impact off the bench towards the end of the season. Balmain are bringing him along slowly at the moment and not overplaying him from what i have seen. His fitness looks ok but will improve further but the main issue is given the amount of time he has had out, his timing is not on song at the moment, but he is a work in progress as far as developing into a prop is concerned.

While the club have said he will make a good prop, I think he could also make a good backrower as he still has very good speed coupled with his strength and size. Many of us don't agree with Sheens carrying both Fulton and Flanagan in the same side and Tupou could be one possible solution here IMO if he continues to improve.

A possible bench towards the end of the season could look like:

14\. Fifita/Moors rotating
15\. Dwyer
16\. Tupou
17\. Utility back or Flanagan
 

Tiger_Watto

New member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
10,717
Location
Maroochydore Qld
How many minutes is he getting on the pitch Willow. If he still has good lung capacity, maybe an Impact Prop for 10 minutes, and then shift into the backrow for another 20 minutes???
 
G

Guest

Guest
@Tiger Watto said:
How many minutes is he getting on the pitch Willow. If he still has good lung capacity, maybe an Impact Prop for 10 minutes, and then shift into the backrow for another 20 minutes???

He played between 20-25 minutes in his first stint for Balmain against Newtown and came back on for the last 20 minutes or so. He probably played between 45-50 minutes, and he wasn't blowing anywhere near as bad as David Fifita was. I think the pace of FG would be his main worry at the moment if he is thrown in the forwards, give him another 3-4 weeks playing for Balmain and hopefully his timing will improve a bit also.
 

citizen_cub

New member
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
1,151
@Ed Reschs said:
@citizen cub said:
Not having those two in the same team is ridiculous.

As someone on this forums signature says 'they're our demolition men'. Both are young, show great enthusiasm and are probably two of the best talents we have at the club ATM.

It is obvious to me that Galloway, Fitzhenry and Gibbs aren't up to FG standard. At least get rid of two of them then that would make way for Fifita and Moors

It is obvious to me there are a lot of dribblers on this forum who don't have much of an idea.

Yes lets drop Galloway and Gibbs for Fafita and Moors. Galloway and Gibbs are seasoned props. Gibbs leads the competition in effective one on one tackles on players overs 115Kg.
Lets bring Fafita and Moors into the team but not at the expense of the two bookends that have got us to 3rd in the comp.

It is obvious to me you don't watch too much football.

We are getting out muscled in the fowards every week. These two (gibbs and galloway) show no aggression and no intensity when they take hit-ups.

Galloway is injury prone, we're paying quality money just to see him sit on the sideline and when he does play, he's not delivering the goods. They don't give us the edge other fowards give their clubs.

Both are great defenders, but up front, both don't step up and this is why we never get over the advantage line. Your probably one of those who criticise Marshall's general kicking, the pressure that his foward pack put him under, I can't blame him.
 
Top