Use of the Bench

Agree with most I could not understand why we didn’t keep turning our players over from the bench , Garner was given no chance to get into the game , but I would go for Simms from the dragons on to our bench and loose Garner now , Joffa played well and tough in first half but didn’t see much of him in second half
 
The issue isn't that we played with 15 men, the issue was that the hooker was gassed and gave away two penalties, he was directly responsible for not closing the gap on Hughes. The issue was that Kelma was struggling against Hughes and Madge waited until Hughes scored a try and had a Line break.

Tuilagi and Simpkin were never going to be able to play full 80, they should've been replaced at 50 then brought back later.
 
tig_prmz said:
I'm sure every coach has his own plan for the use of the bench but we really missed the trick here.

Simpkin was never going to be able to play full 80, Tuilagi was never going to be able to defend strongly for 80. They've had less than half a dozen games.

Garner and Seyfarth weren't that good when they came on but putting them in the 70th minute with the pressure on isn't fair to them.

Hughes try was due to Simpkin not closing the gap quickly, the Hughes break for Coates try for fatigue from Tuilagi.

Get better, Madge.
Click to expand...
I also wonder why Luciano who is known to fatigue after a long spell on the field was not given a decent rest by Madge. With Luciano fresh is best.
 
Hooker a serious issue Peachy shouldn't have to play there, think have to bite the bullet and get the hectic cheese look a like in there.


Sounds like sheens allowing madge to implode tho
 
Whilst I think bench use and lack of it when needed was diabolical, one also has to manage the numbers of them, so can only return a percentage of the players to field.

Twal was for mine a good example of unnecessarily taking one of them when returning to the field as he can play long minutes. Hopefully he will be on the bench next week with Tamou starting, finishing the match after coming on in the first rotation, with other middles used in more dynamic stints.
 
tig_prmz said:
The issue isn't that we played with 15 men, the issue was that the hooker was gassed and gave away two penalties, he was directly responsible for not closing the gap on Hughes. The issue was that Kelma was struggling against Hughes and Madge waited until Hughes scored a try and had a Line break.

Tuilagi and Simpkin were never going to be able to play full 80, they should've been replaced at 50 then brought back later.
Click to expand...

The only way to teach them to play for 80 - is to play them for 80!!

We played well for the first half - if we can build on that we’ll win more than we lose…
all the good clubs build into each season - especially with new combos.
I’m also disappointed, it was a top 4 side against a bottom 4 side and we had it over them for most of the game.
I see signs of improvement for sure
 
The use of the bench was terrible but I don't think it was the main reason we lost. They are a lot better team than us.
 
tig_prmz said:
Hughes try was due to Simpkin not closing the gap quickly, the Hughes break for Coates try for fatigue from Tuilagi.
Click to expand...
I don't agree there.

Hughes' try was because he stepped inside 3 forwards, and then Simpkin didn't cover inside hard enough. That's not a fatigue thing, that's assuming your inside man has his zone covered and you don't need to push in; he had enough time to do it. The main error was from Stefano, who covered the inside too late and was beaten by another right foot.

Second try Kelma was a bit fatigued to get back to marker yes, but Brooks just watched Hughes run through and only reacted once Hughes was away. If the guy is going to make a line break you are probably better off just making a tackle at the first opportunity, even if giving away a penalty. Instead Brooks just watched him go by.
 
jirskyr said:
I don't agree there.

Hughes' try was because he stepped inside 3 forwards, and then Simpkin didn't cover inside hard enough. That's not a fatigue thing, that's assuming your inside man has his zone covered and you don't need to push in; he had enough time to do it. The main error was from Stefano, who covered the inside too late and was beaten by another right foot.

Second try Kelma was a bit fatigued to get back to marker yes, but Brooks just watched Hughes run through and only reacted once Hughes was away. If the guy is going to make a line break you are probably better off just making a tackle at the first opportunity, even if giving away a penalty. Instead Brooks just watched him go by.
Click to expand...
A big front rower being beaten by a fleet footed halfback is expected, not a hooker. Stefano covered Hughes and him stepping inside isn't his fault, Stefano's inside man should have it covered. Simpkin was slow out of 3 tackles in a row, Hughes did it pre-emptively, he knew we were sliding heavy so all he had to do was target Simpkin 3 tackles in a row then make him not slide as quick.

Tuilagi not being at marker was the reason Brooks couldn't do anything. Not saying it was all Tuilagi's fault but it's a component of it. Again, it was unfair of Madge to expect Tuilagi and Simpkin to play such a fast paced game for 80 minutes when they've played maybe 10 games all up. They should've been replaced at 50min, Twal and Offa should have played more minutes.

The bench use isn't the biggest reason we lost but definitely contributed to it.
 
batboy said:
The only way to teach them to play for 80 - is to play them for 80!!

We played well for the first half - if we can build on that we’ll win more than we lose…
all the good clubs build into each season - especially with new combos.
I’m also disappointed, it was a top 4 side against a bottom 4 side and we had it over them for most of the game.
I see signs of improvement for sure
Click to expand...
You can't go from playing 20 minutes for 5 games to playing 80 in the first round against Melb Storm and not be expected to be exposed.
 
tig_prmz said:
A big front rower being beaten by a fleet footed halfback is expected, not a hooker. Stefano covered Hughes and him stepping inside isn't his fault, Stefano's inside man should have it covered. Simpkin was slow out of 3 tackles in a row, Hughes did it pre-emptively, he knew we were sliding heavy so all he had to do was target Simpkin 3 tackles in a row then make him not slide as quick.
Click to expand...
That's nonsense. If you have to defend every set in anticipation of your inside man being beaten, you are going to concede line breaks all day. You can't have players watching their own man as well as having to constantly account for the potential mistakes of their inside and outside defenders - that lack of confidence is what causes so many issues out wide when the players don't trust each other.

The mistake is the 3 x inside players beaten by the step. Everything after that is scramble, which is very high chance of error.

You are trying to tell me Hughes' plan was to target Simpkin, by first engaging and beating inside 3 players?

I'm not saying there could not have been better use of the bench, but specific to that try it wasn't fatigue from Simpkin.
 
jirskyr said:
That's nonsense. If you have to defend every set in anticipation of your inside man being beaten, you are going to concede line breaks all day. You can't have players watching their own man as well as having to constantly account for the potential mistakes of their inside and outside defenders - that lack of confidence is what causes so many issues out wide when the players don't trust each other.

The mistake is the 3 x inside players beaten by the step. Everything after that is scramble, which is very high chance of error.

You are trying to tell me Hughes' plan was to target Simpkin, by first engaging and beating inside 3 players?

I'm not saying there could not have been better use of the bench, but specific to that try it wasn't fatigue from Simpkin.
Click to expand...
listen to Hughes' interview, he specifically mentions that they were sliding too hard. Sliding is fine but everyone needs to slide together.
 
rex2ce said:
same old, same old, madges use of the bench is like having your canteen money tied up in the corner of your hanky, but not being able to undo the knot
Click to expand...
I agree, not enough improvement, and too many same old issues:
- line speed, a way too slow;
- one up runs without a hope of off-load or a short pass to a supporting player before the line;
- our forwards hit the line at 1/3 speed;
- in the attack we play like we play together the first time;
- too predictable, we repeat the same play all over again, easy to guess;
- no quality offloads;
- Brooks runs predictable, and never had 2nd chance play;
- defence too soft and no one ready to cover a missed tackle;

Good point - attacking bombs to Maumolo, but that was our only solution for the 5th;
 
tig_prmz said:
You can't go from playing 20 minutes for 5 games to playing 80 in the first round against Melb Storm and not be expected to be exposed.
Click to expand...
Seen almost every back rower in the comp get exposed by the Melbourne Storm for the last 20 odd years…

We’re NOT a top 4 side, we don’t have top 4 players yet we expect top 4 results!!

No one in the game gave us a hope in hell of winning that game…
All we can ask of the boys is that they give it a good crack - they did that!!
They got shown up here and there and they’ll be better for that we hope.

If it’s still happening in rd 22, then it’s an issue…
Seen plenty of teams get lapped in rd1 and win the comp… including us.
 
batboy said:
Seen almost every back rower in the comp get exposed by the Melbourne Storm for the last 20 odd years…

We’re NOT a top 4 side, we don’t have top 4 players yet we expect top 4 results!!

No one in the game gave us a hope in hell of winning that game…
All we can ask of the boys is that they give it a good crack - they did that!!
They got shown up here and there and they’ll be better for that we hope.

If it’s still happening in rd 22, then it’s an issue…
Seen plenty of teams get lapped in rd1 and win the comp… including us.
Click to expand...

Good post.

We competed well for a large chunk of that game against the best club in the comp. Much was made of them missing a couple of players but literally man for man you wouldnt replace any of their players with ours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 443 (members: 3, guests: 440)
Back
Top