0
Well, gene to the bench as cover for 12 so rabbit can cover anything else in the back line. Even if we lose in man, the cover could be handled that way by putting cullet into 13 and rabbit to the wing......or fullback, with Shep taking the wing
C'mon the
Fairbanks did well to close down the Reds attacking options in Brisbane. I'm not saying that O'Connor couldn't do that but I imagine that he doesn't have the experience in general or at 12 to be as effective. The Sharks are likely to only play one playmaker so a similar strategy of shutting him down could prove fruitful. The Sharks are also more likely to kick meaning that counter-attacking will be more important and having someone like O'Connor who can spark an attack off at 15 would be handy.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
Yeah, I'm not arguing against rabbit at 15, as a matter of fact, I think I've posted that's what I'd do, in this very thread. All I'm saying is, gene on the bench, only covers 12, but rabbit covers everything else. I think I was saying (although I can never be really sure exactly what I'm saying) that with ripia fit, and gene on the bench, we can probably field 2 reserve backs against the sharks and stack the bench with forwards. That would give us fresh legs where they're most needed and also an ability to change our shape as the match continues, say, starting mobile, with the pack we played with last week and putting the beef on the bench (like dunning, Tommy et al) to close the game down late.
Or vice versa
Or just keep freshening up our forwards with a sub every 10 minutes in the second half
Or two props to enable us to rest them more before another one feigns injury
It's all good when you have lots of confidence in the backs
C'mon the
ooh, thought of another one, if rabbit goes 15 and cullet to the bench, we could add a lot more size across the field when we need to
C'mon the
I wasn't particularly impressed with Fairbanks. Feels like ages since I watched the game, but there were quite a few wayward passes in attack and Mitch Inman copped the brunt of a lot of his mistakes. I'd prefer James at 12 and keep Cullet on the field, he had some sparks of brilliance from what I remember.
A kick in this game is like a rather nasty alcoholic shooter, only as good as it's chaser...
Courtesy of quality South African commentry
that was my thought as well as the fact that OConnor can slot into 10, 12 , 14 or 15 if required and that Cullet is our go to guy for injuries across the Park... makes sense for him to be a super sub as Inman is not a great option for any other position other than 13 and neither is fairbanks as versatile.
So great to see that we have not necessarily depth but options... unlike last year when we had players clearly uncomfortable in the positions they covered... poor Harris, DHP and Barto really were thrown to the lions.. less so DHP of course, his was more inexperience...
Gotta say, I'd prefer to see Shep at 15 if we are expecting the Sharks to kick. Returning their kicks with interest would be the quickest way to force them to run, which plays to our real strength at the breakdown. As useful as O'Connor might be, I wouldn't expect the Sharks to be giving him time and space to counter - they'll be lifting the high ball and putting two chasers on his hammer.
I call that depth, of a sort, if we can put a genuine starting option on the bench, we have a level of depth. The waratahs have the next level, where they have to leave players who would start with other teams out of the 22. As long as we don't get injuries, we'll be quite happy.
C'mon the
any news on willie ?
Willie out for Saturday.......... gee another great marque deal by the force....
Posted via Mobile Device
Oh well - back to same backline as vs the Reds !!!!!
No bad thing really