BrisbaneRhino wrote:
Maybe McDermott is rethinking the need for an out-and-out hooker on the bench? No idea but he does talk about Lunt being a utility forward. Maybe he feels that whilst he wants someone to cover hooker, and maybe give Burrow a rest for 10-20 minutes, its a waste of a bench spot if they can't really cover for/help spell anyone else?
Could be right. IMO it is more important to have another pivotal playmaker type (or 2) on the bench than a 2nd pure specialist. The roles of half back and hooker have morphed in recent times and Burrow has proved that a hooker does not have to include in his repertoire a high tackle count to make a match winning impact providing you have backrowers and centres that can put in some extra tackles.
The sooner we move from the predicable 'pick 4 forwards on the bench' routine (and worse 4 props on the bench) the sooner we will improve the entertainment value. These days backrowers are better value than most props as they tend to have better hands, can make as many or more metres, make more tackles and play more minutes and be able to play in different position.
But I much prefer to see players on the bench that can make a game changing impact rather than just give the first choices a rest. Too often this has been confused with big props who just run into contact and come on to give a rest to another big prop that just runs into contact. IMO better to bench a head up playmaker or a pacy try scorer or a good attacking kicker to turn around a game you are losing.
