You forgot to include.................. he said Ayshford was a lock! Somewhere along the way, I have missed the point about playing all these players out-of-position.cnx_tigers wrote:The really stupid thing is that Mulhaney is a better fullback than Lazo. If we are going to play a tiny fullback, it may as well be Mulhaney.
Lazo is a half back. He's played there all season for Balmain. To switch him to FB and wing all night just destroyed any chance he had to succeed last night. To hear Sheensy post game say 'we see him as a FB' is insane.
He 'sees' Lazo as a full back........he said before 'Moltzen is a fullback'........he said Benji was a half back......he's said all along Chris Lawrence is a 'five-eigth'.........just amazing stuff.
Fulton, Flanagan AND FITZHENRY should not be in the same side, when we play a big side. When is Tim going to pick a decent bench based on the team we are playing? With Flanagan on the bench, who can cover positions in the backs in a pinch, there should have been three other forwards with him on the bench. By spreading the forwards load over one extra forward, they might have had a bit more petrol left in the tank for attack.smeghead wrote:Finished watching it again.
Farah had three decent moments, he was an absolute passenger in the defensive line though. Barely halted any players momentum all night and metres were made through him all night.
Our entire spine offered sweet FA and as I suspected our forwards wasted any juice they had left from defence running decoys for someone to faff around or run across field.
Gibbs had a bad night at the office but I maintain if we had a proper bench and rotation his fatigue factor would be much lower leading to less errors.
Fulton and Flanagan should not be in the same side when we play teams with a decent sized pack
Oh! Well, as my ten year old grand-son said after the game, "There is always next week", or maybe he should have said there is always next year.