Parker and Slater MAY miss Origin 3 - who to move where?

[QUEENSLANDER]

Game one in a fresh series, not a decider for a record setting 7th in a row. I am sure the selectors have the same reservations as most people do about Barba under the pressure of Origin (frankly this game is one of the biggest deciders ever) with the high ball and defence. He'll play one day, but not this day.

The ONLY 2 options I think need to be considered:

1. Inglis
2. Boyd
3. Neilsen
4. Hodges
5. Tate

OR

1. Boyd
2. O'Neill
3. Inglis
4. Hodges
5. Tate

As Coxy said, Tate is a ball hog. He can still defence in the centres when he needs to.

If Tonga was fit he would slot straight into the centres Inglis to fullback no questions.

I really dont want nielsen in the team coz he has no attack whatsoever, and we are already struggling for points. However, the more i think about it, inglis moving to fullback will probably double or triple our attacking potency since he is the only one that has looked dangerous all series. Bringing barba in would give some much needed attack and speed, but inglis at centre is currently being wasted so the more ball he gets the better.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Tate at left centre won't work IMO

 

[Coxy]

Tate at left centre won't work IMO

Agree. I love Tate in Maroon. He is just an absolute machine. But...he's a ball hogging machine. Boyd didn't see any ball on Wednesday as it was because of the defence coming up on Inglis. He'd get even less with Tate inside him.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I think we lose more moving Inglis to fullback. So I'd be putting Boyd at fullback and bringing in a winger. Minimal change and impact to the defensive line and our attack IMO.

 

[Anonymous person]

I think we lose more moving Inglis to fullback. So I'd be putting Boyd at fullback and bringing in a winger. Minimal change and impact to the defensive line and our attack IMO.

i disagree.

Boyd has been dreadful at fullback this year. hes got absolutely zero confidence under the high ball, doesnt go looking for the ball, and generally has just been rubbish. Inglis on the other hand has been outstanding. not just good - outstanding. hes been making 1-2 line breaks per game, a try assist or 2, and scoring 1 or 2 himself. we NEED inglis to have the ball in his hands as much as possible if we are to win game 3. our attack has been poor this series, with Slater and Inglis basically being the only 2 players that looked dangerous. well Slater is gone, so we're left with inglis. we NEED changes to our attack, thats the thing. barba needs to be that change, along with inglis to fullback IMO.

 

[Porthoz]

I think we lose more moving Inglis to fullback. So I'd be putting Boyd at fullback and bringing in a winger. Minimal change and impact to the defensive line and our attack IMO.

I have no doubt that Boyd will do a good job in defense, but with our already disjointed combination between Thurston and Cronk, I'd prefer someone with a bit more of punch in the fullback position.
I'd move Boyd to centre and put O'Neill outside of him, with Inglis at fullback.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I don't see Boyd moving to centre as a good option. Minimal change is the key. Our attack is disjointed playing musical players won't help it. We just have to be better with what we have got rather than change heaps of things.

 

[anzac7]

One thing that has to be set in stone is Inglis at fullback. He is a freak under the ball and NSW will not want him bringing it back. Hayne managed to find Thurston on the field with the morris try and I'm sure Inglis can do the same vs NSW when bringing it back.

Hard to bring rookies into the side for such a big game so Nielsen would be a good choice (has been reliable in the past but agreed, he is not an attacking machine) - people are saying on the wing but has anyone seen how he goes with high balls etc? Because NSW will ask him questions early on if he's on the wing.

 

[Dexter]

I just can't see how Barba fits into this side. He is not a winger, he won't get that much ball on the wing to be an attacking machine and he becomes a huge liability under the high ball because of his size.
Yes he is capable of generating something from nothing (at NRL level ) but to me he only fits on the bench then who do you drag to put him on.
If he is on the bench then he only gets a run if we are in trouble otherwise he is DCE all over, taking up a bench spot in case we need him.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Barba is either named fullback or doesn't play IMO. It is a risk to pick him but so was Slater at the same stage of his career.

 

[Porthoz]

Barba is only 4cm shorter than Slater, so his size is not really the problem. But there are huge question marks about his defense is an Origin decider against an absolutely ruthless NSW team. He is young and will get his chance no doubt.

For this game, it has to be GI or Boyd at fullback. The next question is who comes in and where...

I'd prefer O'Neill because he is very quick and can find the line on the wing, while Nielsen offers very little in attack.
This would imply several possibilities:
1- GI to FB, O'Neill to the right wing, Tate to left centre (favourite positions for all involved players). Would make our right side defense vulnerable to NSW's most potent attacking weapon in Hayne, and our left side attack one-dimensional because Tate is a ball hog.
2- GI to FB, O'Neill to the left wing, Boyd to left centre. Not the players favourite positions, but I definitely prefer to see O'Neill defending Uate than Hayne. Question marks over Boyd's attack as a centre, but I reckon he would go alright with his ball playing ability.
3- Boyd to FB, O'Neill to the left wing. Least amount of changes but restricting our most lethal attacking player. (I reckon this will be the choice Qld will go with)

Personally I'd go with option 2, but any one of them has drawbacks really.

 

[Coxy]

I just can't see how Barba fits into this side. He is not a winger, he won't get that much ball on the wing to be an attacking machine and he becomes a huge liability under the high ball because of his size.
Yes he is capable of generating something from nothing (at NRL level ) but to me he only fits on the bench then who do you drag to put him on.
If he is on the bench then he only gets a run if we are in trouble otherwise he is DCE all over, taking up a bench spot in case we need him.

This. 1000%.

Let's all remember the Matt Bowen bench experiment. He played 10 Origins between 2003 and 2007. Queensland won 3 of them.

 

[Alec]

We don't really need 4 non-hooker forwards on the bench. 3 is enough, and then Barba (or DCE) can be there to cover any injuries...and possibly come on as a dummy half runner at the back end of the match. Fresh legs out of dummy half is an underrated tactic IMO. The only problem is his front line defence, you'd have to hide him out in the centres or the wing and move someone else infield.

 

[anzac7]

Barba is only 4cm shorter than Slater, so his size is not really the problem. But there are huge question marks about his defense is an Origin decider against an absolutely ruthless NSW team. He is young and will get his chance no doubt.

For this game, it has to be GI or Boyd at fullback. The next question is who comes in and where...

I'd prefer O'Neill because he is very quick and can find the line on the wing, while Nielsen offers very little in attack.
This would imply several possibilities:
1- GI to FB, O'Neill to the right wing, Tate to left centre (favourite positions for all involved players). Would make our right side defense vulnerable to NSW's most potent attacking weapon in Hayne, and our left side attack one-dimensional because Tate is a ball hog.
2- GI to FB, O'Neill to the left wing, Boyd to left centre. Not the players favourite positions, but I definitely prefer to see O'Neill defending Uate than Hayne. Question marks over Boyd's attack as a centre, but I reckon he would go alright with his ball playing ability.
3- Boyd to FB, O'Neill to the left wing. Least amount of changes but restricting our most lethal attacking player. (I reckon this will be the choice Qld will go with)

Personally I'd go with option 2, but any one of them has drawbacks really.

From those options I would go with option 2 also - but IS NIELSEN GOOD AT TAKING PRESSURE KICKS! Does anyone know!!?!?? NSW will test him if he is on the wing as much better than kicking to Tate or Inglis.

 

[Dexter]

Alec, If having a utility was our priority then the most sensible option would have been (from game 1 not now ) DCE at 7 and Cronk on the bench. Bringing Barba on as a DH means you drag Smith or rearrange the halves if you leave Smith on which is getting a little silly just to try and get Barba on.

Porthoz, I said size not height

 

[Anonymous person]

This. 1000%.

Let's all remember the Matt Bowen bench experiment. He played 10 Origins between 2003 and 2007. Queensland won 3 of them.

you have to remember though that from 2003 to 2005 our team was pretty terrible, and NSWs team was awesome. we didnt lose because of anything he did. in fact we won one because of something he did.

 

[Alec]

Alec, If having a utility was our priority then the most sensible option would have been (from game 1 not now ) DCE at 7 and Cronk on the bench. Bringing Barba on as a DH means you drag Smith or rearrange the halves if you leave Smith on which is getting a little silly just to try and get Barba on.

I was thinking that you'd sub a forward for Barba. Late it the game dummy half running is more effective than forwards taking hit-ups. Smith needs to be out there for the full 80, but having a little back up later on will keep him fresher. I think the only real flaw is the defence, but it's a pretty major one.

 

[Ari Gold]

If GI plays fullback and Nielsen centre you sub Barba for Nielsen and shift GI to centre. If we don't use Barba because we are winning who cares - we are winning. Harrison can play 80, so too Smith. We can afford one sub to get Barba on, particularly given Myles and Thaiday play big mins too.