Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:45 am  

tvoc wrote:

No doubt but that wasn't the point I was addressing where Juan appeared to be suggesting that in addition to the versatile hooker option (McShane or Hood or even Burrow in that guise) he felt the coach might like to have a 'back' option available. Indeed he went on to state the coach 'should always have this option.'

My feeling with only ten interchanges allowed there would be no room for such a luxury.

I was agreeing with you in a flowery type of way.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:17 pm  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

No you are mistaken. I was pointing out clearly that if both hookers are picked along with Burrow at 7, as nantwich and others were proposing, and assuming they pick 4 props then the coach would have only one bench place left to choose between Clarkson, Hauraki, Pitts or Smith or any other back. Therefore choosing both McShane and Hood + Burrow at 7 would limit the coaches options too much.

Smith as a stand-in hooker perhaps but not as a spare back. Selecting a back (any back) in that situation would limit the options still further.

Perhaps you could highlight those occassions when Leeds have used a back (any back) in this way on a bench that also comprised a half-back/hooker type and two props by design rather than out of a injury-ravaged neccesity.

I'd imagine they are very much in the minority.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:03 am  

tvoc wrote:

Smith as a stand-in hooker perhaps but not as a spare back. Selecting a back (any back) in that situation would limit the options still further.

Perhaps you could highlight those occassions when Leeds have used a back (any back) in this way on a bench that also comprised a half-back/hooker type and two props by design rather than out of a injury-ravaged neccesity.

I'd imagine they are very much in the minority.

Coaches do not want to limit their options and usually make their choices based on the best set of players they think should win them the game. If that set of players includes several outstanding backs with game changing skills who cannot all make the start or to if the coach wishes to give big match experience to a promising young back then of course a back can be selected on the bench. St Helens used Eastmond in this way.

Last season Watkins, McGuire, Smith and Burrow were all used on the bench and it was the impact of Burrow off the bench that was one of the most important reasons for our success last year. Because Burrow was able to sometimes allow Buderus to have a rest does not alter the fact that last year Burrow came on primarily as a back with Sinfield reverting to 13 and it was this tactic that proved so successfull. Perhaps it is only cup winning coaches that can appreciate this.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:43 am  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

tvoc wrote:

Smith as a stand-in hooker perhaps but not as a spare back. Selecting a back (any back) in that situation would limit the options still further.

Perhaps you could highlight those occassions when Leeds have used a back (any back) in this way on a bench that also comprised a half-back/hooker type and two props by design rather than out of a injury-ravaged neccesity.

I'd imagine they are very much in the minority.

Coaches do not want to limit their options and usually make their choices based on the best set of players they think should win them the game. If that set of players includes several outstanding backs with game changing skills who cannot all make the start or to if the coach wishes to give big match experience to a promising young back then of course a back can be selected on the bench. St Helens used Eastmond in this way.

Last season Watkins, McGuire, Smith and Burrow were all used on the bench and it was the impact of Burrow off the bench that was one of the most important reasons for our success last year. Because Burrow was able to sometimes allow Buderus to have a rest does not alter the fact that last year Burrow came on primarily as a back with Sinfield reverting to 13 and it was this tactic that proved so successfull. Perhaps it is only cup winning coaches that can appreciate this.

When people talk about a back, they tend to mean one of the threequarters. What TVOC is saying is that its unlikely that a coach would select a threequarter on the bench as well as a halfback/hooker, thereby leaving on 2 forwards. There will be odd occassions, but not enough to be significant

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:02 pm  

The Eagle wrote:

When people talk about a back, they tend to mean one of the threequarters. What TVOC is saying is that its unlikely that a coach would select a threequarter on the bench as well as a halfback/hooker, thereby leaving on 2 forwards. There will be odd occassions, but not enough to be significant

The point I made was that in choosing 2 hookers plus Burrow at 7, as some were advocating, means you have to omit one current backrower in any case assuming 4 props are picked. This was the main point I made as I believe that the backrower offers more to the side than 2 hookers plus Burrow.

But in addition to losing a current backrower there would be also be no option for a back or half back. In my book and for the purposes of this point a half back is a back not a forward. Therefore the issue was nothing to do with having a half back and a back on the bench which had not been suggested and why tvoc is off on a tangent.

Of course it all depends on the quality of the squad and the playing style. The policy of limiting the bench with 4 big forwards only to allow a rest period for other big forwards is a mistake. IMO we should only play 2 props on the bench if they have a good go forward game because if they only offer a good tackling stint then a back rower would be a better option. Players like Kirke and Clarkson do not offer enough impact to be on the bench IMO

The bench should primarily include players capable of changing the play/result in your favour and the chances are improved with one of these being a back (or half back) as most tries are scored by backs. So they offer better odds of having a positive impact on a result it seems odd not to include a back on the bench. Last year this was proven with Burrow coming off the bench primarily as a back and having a huge impact.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:20 pm  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

The bench should primarily include players capable of changing the play/result in your favour and the chances are improved with one of these being a back (or half back) as most tries are scored by backs. So they offer better odds of having a positive impact on a result it seems odd not to include a back on the bench. Last year this was proven with Burrow coming off the bench primarily as a back and having a huge impact.

Apologies, but your post suggests to me that you have a very limited understanding of the game and how it works. You are right that the backs do score the majority of the points, but the reason they do this is because of the immense amount of work the forwards do. Having 3 or 4 forwards on the bench is designed to spread the workload of the players doing the most work. If you play with McGuire, Burrow, Sinfield, McShane & Hood, you are left with only 7 players who you describe as go forward players.

We have some total workhorses in our team, but that doesn't mean we should add more work on them, we should be trying to get more players to spread the load effectively so that our better players can improve their quality in each collision

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:31 pm  

The Eagle wrote:

Apologies, but your post suggests to me that you have a very limited understanding of the game and how it works. You are right that the backs do score the majority of the points, but the reason they do this is because of the immense amount of work the forwards do. Having 3 or 4 forwards on the bench is designed to spread the workload of the players doing the most work. If you play with McGuire, Burrow, Sinfield, McShane & Hood, you are left with only 7 players who you describe as go forward players.

We have some total workhorses in our team, but that doesn't mean we should add more work on them, we should be trying to get more players to spread the load effectively so that our better players can improve their quality in each collision

agreed of the 5 players you mention there surely only a max of 4 can play in a 17 at one time, maybe even 3

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:15 pm  

If we consider Burrow to be a back are we now saying that the two hooker policy used by Saints ( Cunningham and Roby ) and indeed Leeds ( Buderus and Diskin ) was foolish ?

Actually in the latter case it was.... But that is a different story. Without a doubt I believe the McShane and Hood duo would work far better. They complement each other to a greater degree.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:31 pm  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

Coaches do not want to limit their options and usually make their choices based on the best set of players they think should win them the game. If that set of players includes several outstanding backs with game changing skills who cannot all make the start or to if the coach wishes to give big match experience to a promising young back then of course a back can be selected on the bench. St Helens used Eastmond in this way.

You said Leeds playing a starting scrum-half and hooker with a hooker/halfback on the bench would limit the coaches options. Yet that formula has pretty much been the norm for several seasons. You suggested he might wish to have the option of a spare back on the bench in addition to the above. I asked for examples, you waffled.

In 2011 it happened on 3 out of 36 occasions but I would suggest when it did it was not for the game-breaking potential you imply. Twice it occurred with McShane/McGuire to accomodate a player being eased back after injury coincidentally against generally perceived to be weaker opposition (Crusaders at Headingley - both in League and Cup) the other example being Burrow/Smith in the disaster pre Wembley outing at the Stoop where Leeds had run out of forwards they were prepared to risk.

So that appears to be a grand total of 3 out of 36 in 2011 with plausable explanations other than designing game-breaking potential, unless you know different?

As previously argued, very clearly a minority situation (even without the explanation) so the position you present that the Leeds coach wishes to have the option of a spare back appears to be one without justification.

Re: Will McShane ask for a transfer ? : Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:43 pm  

The Eagle wrote:

Apologies, but your post suggests to me that you have a very limited understanding of the game and how it works. You are right that the backs do score the majority of the points, but the reason they do this is because of the immense amount of work the forwards do. Having 3 or 4 forwards on the bench is designed to spread the workload of the players doing the most work. If you play with McGuire, Burrow, Sinfield, McShane & Hood, you are left with only 7 players who you describe as go forward players.

We have some total workhorses in our team, but that doesn't mean we should add more work on them, we should be trying to get more players to spread the load effectively so that our better players can improve their quality in each collision

Well I have been a student of the game for more than 50 years and have seen trends come and go including a time when we did not have substitutes at all. I am fully aware of the workload that forwards undertake and how the game has worked at different times. When you consider that 4 of the forwards who produce our greatest workload take or need the least rests - JJB, JP, Delaney and Ablett which is contrary to your point. I could suggests that perhaps the depth of your understanding of the game is limited to current trends without no thought of innovation.

You still miss the point. I am not advocating playing McShane, Hood and Burrow at the same time so why persist. I am happy with playing Burrow and one hooker on the bench. It is precisely the point I made that playing two hookers and Burrow reduces a workhorse from being on the bench.

The tactic of rotating 4 forwards from the bench has been with us for some time but it has not resulted in any noticable improved quality but rather a drop in entertainment value as it encourages more collision from fresher forwards and less chance of making the ball work to find the gaps.