2026 Pre-Season Discussion

Benches will vary a little bit based on players they have... like wahs have Capewell so are they ok with him covering centre and they have Roger to cover fullback, so do they just pick a winger for the outside backs.

We have Bhunt and later on Billy, so do we need to pick a half.

Excluding all of that I'd say the general thought for a bench make up is something like.

14. Hooker coverage (best if one of the hookers can fulfil a role elsewhere like lock (Smoothy, Bsmith, etc.) or halves (Bhunt, Billy)
15. Middle
16. Middle
17. Pure edge or hybrid middle/edge
18. Outside back (best if they can cover wing, centre and fullback... Cobbo a perfect fit here)
19. Halves

With the halves spot, it can be hard to find a pure halfback that can fill in somewhere else as well.

We've got Billy and Bhunt, another example is someone like Hayward who covers halves and lock, and dogs are trying to make him into a hooker.

I know there are calls this bench will be the death of utility players, but there will still be a ton of value in players that have versatility, because you still cant cover everything.

A winger/centre will be on everyone's bench because that is the hardest spot to cover... but how many players can do both, and even further how many can play all 3 spots of wing fullback and centre without having a huge deficiency at one of the spots.

I think the versatility will be across 17, 18 and 19.

17 jersey for us barely gets on the field. If that 17 jersey is someone that can play centre and second row, then that frees up us having to pick centre coverage at 18... but we also have Mariner starting at wing who can play centre... we also have starting centres that cant play any other position.
 
BroncsFan said:
Benches will vary a little bit based on players they have... like wahs have Capewell so are they ok with him covering centre and they have Roger to cover fullback, so do they just pick a winger for the outside backs.

We have Bhunt and later on Billy, so do we need to pick a half.

Excluding all of that I'd say the general thought for a bench make up is something like.

14. Hooker coverage (best if one of the hookers can fulfil a role elsewhere like lock (Smoothy, Bsmith, etc.) or halves (Bhunt, Billy)
15. Middle
16. Middle
17. Pure edge or hybrid middle/edge
18. Outside back (best if they can cover wing, centre and fullback... Cobbo a perfect fit here)
19. Halves

With the halves spot, it can be hard to find a pure halfback that can fill in somewhere else as well.

We've got Billy and Bhunt, another example is someone like Hayward who covers halves and lock, and dogs are trying to make him into a hooker.

I know there are calls this bench will be the death of utility players, but there will still be a ton of value in players that have versatility, because you still cant cover everything.

A winger/centre will be on everyone's bench because that is the hardest spot to cover... but how many players can do both, and even further how many can play all 3 spots of wing fullback and centre without having a huge deficiency at one of the spots.

I think the versatility will be across 17, 18 and 19.

17 jersey for us barely gets on the field. If that 17 jersey is someone that can play centre and second row, then that frees up us having to pick centre coverage at 18... but we also have Mariner starting at wing who can play centre... we also have starting centres that cant play any other position.
Click to expand...
THe half spot gives you some flexibility if you wanted to manage someone like a Reynolds throughout the year if he has those niggles.
Play him and get to a good lead and then put him on ice. If our future half was at the club at the moment this would be a great way to transition into next year.
 
The change to penalties within the 20m is ****ing stupid. It does nothing to benefit the game. It makes no sense.

The sole reason/motivation i can see is to prevent scrutiny on referee's calls, as 6 agains are thrown out willy nilly and not scrutinised. It is a real worry as it can be used to manipulate the game.

Penrith and other squads will just take advatage and be offside early to strangle sides, similar to when it was 6 again every where on the field.
 
I bleed Maroon said:
Perfectly happy with the 6 man bench. Why? Because it doesn't **** with the core principles of the game itself. Unlike the other garbage the NRL try to push on us.
Click to expand...
But attrition and adversity are big parts of what I love about the game. When madge gave his speech to the team at the end of the gf "we lost our halfback, we lost our 5/8th..." and stagg yells out "but we didnt lose the game baby!" Send absolute chills down my spine. Origin when we have 1 player left on the bench, when your team gets a win with a 2nd rower on the wing. These will be things of the past now. You could have a gun half as a 2nd stringer, have every position covered and an injury wont bring adversity, it will simply be "an adjustment"...
 
Lockysillegitimatechild said:
But attrition and adversity are big parts of what I love about the game. When madge gave his speech to the team at the end of the gf "we lost our halfback, we lost our 5/8th..." and stagg yells out "but we didnt lose the game baby!" Send absolute chills down my spine. Origin when we have 1 player left on the bench, when your team gets a win with a 2nd rower on the wing. These will be things of the past now. You could have a gun half as a 2nd stringer, have every position covered and an injury wont bring adversity, it will simply be "an adjustment"...
Click to expand...
You can still only use 4 of the 6 it will change nothing except for players injured in the first 20 minutes possibly having a like for like replacement. Still only 3 players you can use off the bench regardless and coaches aren’t going to only use 2 players off the bench across the first 60/70 minutes incase they need a specialist player.
 
NSW stables said:
The change to penalties within the 20m is ****ing stupid. It does nothing to benefit the game. It makes no sense.

The sole reason/motivation i can see is to prevent scrutiny on referee's calls, as 6 agains are thrown out willy nilly and not scrutinised. It is a real worry as it can be used to manipulate the game.

Penrith and other squads will just take advatage and be offside early to strangle sides, similar to when it was 6 again every where on the field.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was thinking it needed to go the opposite way if anything. 6 agains only when attacking past halfway.
 
I listened to Kevvie`s podcast about the establishment of the Broncos .
Continuity in the game was a point of detail . Lots of sports stop and start constantly .

That was 38 years ago . PVL is continuing that theme . Less stoppages is better .

Might make it harder to run to the fridge for a beer or take a piss after you`ve had a few . LOL .
 
Big Del said:
I listened to Kevvie`s podcast about the establishment of the Broncos .
Continuity in the game was a point of detail . Lots of sports stop and start constantly .

That was 38 years ago . PVL is continuing that theme . Less stoppages is better .

Might make it harder to run to the fridge for a beer or take a piss after you`ve had a few . LOL .
Click to expand...

It's an interesting psychological exercise and I actually think they're going completely the wrong way.

Stopping and starting builds tension. drama and emotion - and really these are the things that affect you and stick with you beyond watching a freak athletic play. Having a frantic, end-to-end non-stop spectacle may be fine on the surface but it takes alot of the weight and emotion out of the game. Look at college football in the US, the standard of play is miles worse than the NFL, but viewership and attendance is higher - because people care and are emotionally invested. This is the key.

The whole 'more points = better' mentality is totally untrue. The most watched and rabidly followed sport in the entire world has almost no points scored. It means that every time there is a scoring play, it is a momentous event - filled with drama and elation (or sorrow) and significance. When points are at such a premium, they mean more. When points and scoring plays are a dime-a-dozen it becomes routine and boring and meaningless.

Nearly every top-end sports league in the world has an inferior competitor / variant whose point of difference is 'more points, more action' and these leagues never pose any actual threat to the slower, more traditional products. They are a novelty and never have the same engagement or traction.

I think a hard-nosed, tough, physical gladiatorial affair is much more unique, genuine and long-lasting than the high-sugar, meme-ified spectacle PVL is pushing.

It's like taking a masterpiece like The Sopranos and saying 'oh there's not enough action and mob sequences' and taking out the slower-paced elements to force in more action for the sake of it. Sure, you might get a bunch of bozos who think it's awesome because of all the violence, but you'd end up with an empty and soulless piece of fluff instead of a masterpiece.
 
Well ,,, the game is more popular than ever and is richer than ever .
So ?
 
Big Del said:
Well ,,, the game is more popular than ever and is richer than ever .
So ?
Click to expand...

Short-term sugar fix

Spike and then crash when the novelty wears off.

Keep going down this path and pretty soon the game is ~30 teams that nobody really passionately cares about with awful AI-made logos and a squad of players who are barely reserve grade quality playing totally continuous games with constantly changing rules, a never-ending amount of injuries and scores like 72-48 every weekend.

And the low-attention span audience which this game catered to will exercise their lack of focus and turn away to something else more flashy and new in a split second with no real loyalty or connection to the game.

Just in the opinion of an old dinosaur, anyway.
 
Harry said:
Short-term sugar fix

Spike and then crash when the novelty wears off.

Keep going down this path and pretty soon the game is ~30 teams that nobody really passionately cares about with awful AI-made logos and a squad of players who are barely reserve grade quality playing totally continuous games with constantly changing rules, a never-ending amount of injuries and scores like 72-48 every weekend.

And the low-attention span audience which this game catered to will exercise their lack of focus and turn away to something else more flashy and new in a split second with no real loyalty or connection to the game.

Just in the opinion of an old dinosaur, anyway.
Click to expand...
I do pretty much agree with you.

However fans of T20 cricket probably would disagree you..

Im not a fan of T20 for the reasons you stated about,
what is happening to the NRL.

ODI matches are good but they took it too far with T20 and the rules changes.

Which I fear is the way The NRL are going....

Who knows... maybe there will be a new competition starting in the future..

Where they play this new fast style crap.

And another where they play the more traditional rules...
 
Krampus said:
I do pretty much agree with you.

However fans of T20 cricket probably would disagree you..

Im not a fan of T20 for the reasons you stated about,
what is happening to the NRL.

ODI matches are good but they took it too far with T20 and the rules changes.

Which I fear is the way The NRL are going....

Who knows... maybe there will be a new competition starting in the future..

Where they play this new fast style crap.

And another where they play the more traditional rules...
Click to expand...

I think the difference is that T20 is so different due to the length of play that it's almost a completely different product.
I reckon the overlap between those who enjoy test matches and the T20 crowd is pretty minimal.

Not saying these products aren't fun and exciting and don't have a place, but turning a rich, storied sport which became popular on the back of being tough and
physical into a track meet seems silly.

The better idea would have been for the NRL to start a separate 9's competition which could have been the fun. fast, wacky, exciting, high-octane, fluff complement to the traditional league OR start an NRL-backed touch football league.. Could have even grown the women's game by making it a mixed competition.

Then those that like and want that can enjoy it, without cannibalising your entire product.
 
Harry said:
I think the difference is that T20 is so different due to the length of play that it's almost a completely different product.
I reckon the overlap between those who enjoy test matches and the T20 crowd is pretty minimal.

Not saying these products aren't fun and exciting and don't have a place, but turning a rich, storied sport which became popular on the back of being tough and
physical into a track meet seems silly.

The better idea would have been for the NRL to start a separate 9's competition which could have been the fun. fast, wacky, exciting, high-octane, fluff complement to the traditional league OR start an NRL-backed touch football league.. Could have even grown the women's game by making it a mixed competition.

Then those that like and want that can enjoy it, without cannibalising your entire product.
Click to expand...
Actually they aren't bad ideas..

If the NRL doesn't do something similar to what you have suggested...

Some Rogue competition may start up.
Like has happened in golf.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least..
 
627790918_1331296919031351_5844576101250181498_n.jpg
 
New Posts

Unread

Back
Top