PRE-GAME [Round 9, 2024] Broncos vs Roosters

[BroncsFan]

A few different scenarios that could work but teams would exploit it. Like you could play a front rower for 40 then sub him out for a fresh 18th player and have a 4 manbench with a couple fresh players.

Or the 18th man can be interchanged into the 17 but you use up a interchange to bring him into the 17, which in the case of a HIA the player leaves the field under a free interchange and once he's ruled out by independent doctor you can then use a interchange to bring In the 18th man, if it's foul play the 18th comes in for free.
2 changes without HIA
1 change under HIA
No Change under foul play

Yeah the first point you made is a team trying to game the system ... but if they lose a centre they're fucked because they've only got a 110kg prop that can come in.

Don't mind the alternative you put forward.

I think NRL will start to consider something to make the 18th man available... they'll probably **** it up completely like normal, but losing an outside back in the first minutes is ruining a lot of games at the moment.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I understand all the chat about having a bench player who can cover the backs but if they can’t contribute in the forwards they’re useless to us. Oates needs to play QCup in the back row for a month to prove he can play that role to a decent level before he can earn that bench position.

 

[McHunt]

You have to have a genuine utility to be able fill that role. We don't, a lot of the other clubs don't. Quite a few clubs carry two hookers.

And to confirm my earlier post, I had a quick look over the named sides for the first five games, the bench consists of either all forwards (primarily middles with an occasional second rower thrown in) or three forwards or a hooker. About the only that might have a weak claim to a utility is the Cowboys with Sam McIntyre who can cover middle, second row and centre. I think he is primarily a forward though.

The role doesn't necessarily need to be covered by a bench hooker but you have to have SOMEONE who can play in the outside backs AND in the forwards. AND you need to have their forward position covered by the bench.

As an example, the Roosters have Connor Watson, named at lock, who can also cover half, centre, hooker and fullback.

Connor Watson

The NRL profile of Connor Watson including career statistics, season stats, games, tries, goals, tackles and fantasy scores.

www.roosters.com.au

But you don't really want someone as valuable in the middle as Patty playing some other bandaid position. Hence it makes more sense to have a Mr Fixit on the bench.

You're right, though: we don't have anyone on our roster who can fix our bench other than Oates, and for whatever reason, Kevvie appears loathe to use him. And if Sailor has the defensive liabilities many believe, he's not fit for NRL.

You're also right in that you can get by with 2 specialist hookers BUT someone on the bench needs to be fast enough to play in the backs.

We're in a bit of a pickle because our problem players are Walters, Smoothy and Hetherington. They're all good enough to take the team to a Grand Final in their respective positions but their collective lack of versatility causes knock-on problems. If we try to solve it by replacing them with other players, we might succeed in putting insurance in place, but might weaken the team otherwise.

For a hypothetical solution, let's start with our current hooker rotation, which is eating up two interchanges.

Walters: adequate hooker for a short burst, adequate cover in the halves. Can kick and pass. Not a playmaker. Too slow to play wider.
Smoothy: slightly better hooker for longer periods. Can kick and pass. Not a playmaker. Can play a middle defensive role. Too slow to play wider.

If a half goes down, Walters moves into the halves, Smoothy stays at dummy half. It works well enough.

Otherwise, Walters plays 25-40+ minutes looking increasingly sluggish over 25. Smoothy plays 30+ minutes, the team gathers momentum. This is our killing time. Then Walters returns, Smoothy disappears into some mystery position - lock, I think - and the team becomes a rabble. We usually lose this period.

If we were to drop Walters - which will never happen until he retires - and bring in Mozer, he might be an improvement at hooker, or his inexperience might cost us. But he's a pure hooker who covers no other position, and we'd lose Billy's utility.

If we were to drop Smoothy and bring in Mozer, again we might gain something at hooker (or not), but it would otherwise be a like for like.

To solve our bench problem, therefore, we would need to omit two of these players, and bring in a more versatile, faster utility. Humour me here: but one example might be:

Mozer at 9, Madden at 14. Mozer would need to play long minutes and be better than either of our current hookers AND Madden would need to expand his positional play, particularly dummy half. He is fast enough and has the ball skills to play wider. BUT, he's unproven, and untrained in that role.

Otherwise, we look at replacing Hetherington with a Capewell clone. Which would allow us to bench two middles like Willison and Te Kura. I've liked what I've seen from Josh Patston for this role. But I wouldn't like to say he's a better hitman than Hetherington.

The issue with all this is the players we have are all good enough to make the team on their own merits. But someone we rate will have to make way for someone we rate lower, for the sake of insurance.

 

[Manofoneway]

The role doesn't necessarily need to be covered by a bench hooker but you have to have SOMEONE who can play in the outside backs AND in the forwards. AND you need to have their forward position covered by the bench.

As an example, the Roosters have Connor Watson, named at lock, who can also cover half, centre, hooker and fullback.

Connor Watson

The NRL profile of Connor Watson including career statistics, season stats, games, tries, goals, tackles and fantasy scores.

www.roosters.com.au

But you don't really want someone as valuable in the middle as Patty playing some other bandaid position. Hence it makes more sense to have a Mr Fixit on the bench.

You're right, though: we don't have anyone on our roster who can fix our bench other than Oates, and for whatever reason, Kevvie appears loathe to use him. And if Sailor has the defensive liabilities many believe, he's not fit for NRL.

You're also right in that you can get by with 2 specialist hookers BUT someone on the bench needs to be fast enough to play in the backs.

We're in a bit of a pickle because our problem players are Walters, Smoothy and Hetherington. They're all good enough to take the team to a Grand Final in their respective positions but their collective lack of versatility causes knock-on problems. If we try to solve it by replacing them with other players, we might succeed in putting insurance in place, but might weaken the team otherwise.

For a hypothetical solution, let's start with our current hooker rotation, which is eating up two interchanges.

Walters: adequate hooker for a short burst, adequate cover in the halves. Can kick and pass. Not a playmaker. Too slow to play wider.
Smoothy: slightly better hooker for longer periods. Can kick and pass. Not a playmaker. Can play a middle defensive role. Too slow to play wider.

If a half goes down, Walters moves into the halves, Smoothy stays at dummy half. It works well enough.

Otherwise, Walters plays 25-40+ minutes looking increasingly sluggish over 25. Smoothy plays 30+ minutes, the team gathers momentum. This is our killing time. Then Walters returns, Smoothy disappears into some mystery position - lock, I think - and the team becomes a rabble. We usually lose this period.

If we were to drop Walters - which will never happen until he retires - and bring in Mozer, he might be an improvement at hooker, or his inexperience might cost us. But he's a pure hooker who covers no other position, and we'd lose Billy's utility.

If we were to drop Smoothy and bring in Mozer, again we might gain something at hooker (or not), but it would otherwise be a like for like.

To solve our bench problem, therefore, we would need to omit two of these players, and bring in a more versatile, faster utility. Humour me here: but one example might be:

Mozer at 9, Madden at 14. Mozer would need to play long minutes and be better than either of our current hookers AND Madden would need to expand his positional play, particularly dummy half. He is fast enough and has the ball skills to play wider. BUT, he's unproven, and untrained in that role.

Otherwise, we look at replacing Hetherington with a Capewell clone. Which would allow us to bench two middles like Willison and Te Kura. I've liked what I've seen from Josh Patston for this role. But I wouldn't like to say he's a better hitman than Hetherington.

The issue with all this is the players we have are all good enough to make the team on their own merits. But someone we rate will have to make way for someone we rate lower, for the sake of insurance.

I just think that considering all these changes off the back of losing two games against the best two teams in the comp is a bit drastic. We made a GF last year with 3 forwards and a hooker on the bench.

Wouldn't it be smarter to just follow the evidence and not the anomaly?

You are also not bringing up the 'insurance' aspect of having a back as 18th man. Which we can and have used this to great effect - Think Cowboys game last year where Oates was injured and Arthars, 18th man could be used. It just so happens that alot of injuries these days are caused by foul play and the 18th man is essentially another bench player for those circumstances. Having a back as 18th man hedges the risk of not including one on the bench and it ensures we don't have a useless utility taking up a bench spot.

Pretty sure Kevy has got it sorted.

 

[Ondi]

A must win game for me. We are at home, the fans and surely even more so the players want this 'W'. Kev just has to keep it level headed behind closed doors yet demand a frenzy from the home support. Time to show the comp who's boss.

 

[McHunt]

I just think that considering all these changes off the back of losing two games against the best two teams in the comp is a bit drastic. We made a GF last year with 3 forwards and a hooker on the bench.

Wouldn't it be smarter to just follow the evidence and not the anomaly?

You are also not bringing up the 'insurance' aspect of having a back as 18th man. Which we can and have used this to great effect - Think Cowboys game last year where Oates was injured and Arthars, 18th man could be used. It just so happens that alot of injuries these days are caused by foul play and the 18th man is essentially another bench player for those circumstances. Having a back as 18th man hedges the risk of not including one on the bench and it ensures we don't have a useless utility taking up a bench spot.

Pretty sure Kevy has got it sorted.

Oh I don't think Kevvie is going to make any drastic changes like I suggested. Like I said, he's faced with the paradox of potentially weakening the team to cover the case of injury. That said, it will bite us on the arse at some point - as it's already done more than once this season. We will lose Mariner, Staggs, Cobbo, Walsh or Arthars. We might not stumble if it's late enough in the match. But if it happens early we're truly running on one engine.

As for Kevvie having it sorted. No he hasn't. He's winging it. He admitted that earlier in the season.

Gosiewski isn't the answer, either. Oates is all we have. And apparently he's not up to it.

 

[kman]

It's terrific finally seeing us at full strength and I'm expecting a big game from us for sure. Our forwards will need to step up and we need to keep our errors down.

 

[Skathen]

The issue with all this is the players we have are all good enough to make the team on their own merits. But someone we rate will have to make way for someone we rate lower, for the sake of insurance.

Hethro can cover hooker (he's done it before in a pinch)

Suggest we get one of our hookers training to cover a 2nd Row defensive position.

Wingers train to cover centre. Arthars and Mariner both have done the job (Mariner at a lower grade).

Teams hide players on the wing when they have to play busted, so you take the L there and park whoever you can on the wing.

Big Willie for fullback and your sorted. lol

 

[Manofoneway]

Oh I don't think Kevvie is going to make any drastic changes like I suggested. Like I said, he's faced with the paradox of potentially weakening the team to cover the case of injury. That said, it will bite us on the arse at some point - as it's already done more than once this season. We will lose Mariner, Staggs, Cobbo, Walsh or Arthars. We might not stumble if it's late enough in the match. But if it happens early we're truly running on one engine.

As for Kevvie having it sorted. No he hasn't. He's winging it. He admitted that earlier in the season.

Gosiewski isn't the answer, either. Oates is all we have. And apparently he's not up to it.

You seem to still be omitting the fact that Oates is 18th man and there is a chance if Staggs, Mariner, Cobbo, Walsh or Arthurs is injured.. he may take the field (depending on the circumstances)

That is an insurance policy in itself, without having to waste a bench spot.

 

[The Strapper]

I would like to see Te Kura get another run soon.
I thought he went alright in his first game against the storm but hasn't had another go since.
If not this week I think Kevie should give him another go soon.

 

[Morkel]

Teams generally struggle defensively with two halves that are weak defenders. You can hide one, but not two. Keary and Walker are both poor defenders. BUT, you have to have enough possession, and go through the middle first to expose them on the edges.

The Roosters leaked points last year because they had enough injuries to limit their pack. They are looking better this year, but if there is any forward pack that can push through the middle it's ours. If we respect the ball (WALSH!!!) we could really carve them up (also WALSH)...

 

[Santa]

I would like to see Te Kura get another run soon.
I thought he went alright in his first game against the storm but hasn't had another go since.
If not this week I think Kevie should give him another go soon.

Origin is coming up, he'll get his chance then.

 

[Broncosgirl]

Wolfmother to 'Rock Out' At Suncorp

Ahead of their International Tour next month, Aussie rock band Wolfmother have been announced as the headline halftime entertainment for the Broncos clash with the Roosters at Suncorp Stadium on Friday night.

www.broncos.com.au

 

[Skathen]

If we respect the ball (WALSH!!!) we could really carve them up (also WALSH)...

He giveth, and he taketh away. lol

 

[Midean]

Anyone want to place a wager on the odds that either Radley or JWH takes Walsh out of the game in the first 20 minutes?

You know, Penrith style footy?

 

[Manofoneway]

Anyone want to place a wager on the odds that either Radley or JWH takes Walsh out of the game in the first 20 minutes?

You know, Penrith style footy?

Yep. But I think he can cop it. We are gonna need our forwards to be bullies that's for sure.

 

[Scorchie]

Anyone want to place a wager on the odds that either Radley or JWH takes Walsh out of the game in the first 20 minutes?

You know, Penrith style footy?

He cant be taken out if they cant catch him. So I'd keep Walsh out of play for the first 20 minutes, wait for JWH to go off for his nap and Radley to start getting gassed and then bring him into the game.

 

[YeahNahMate]

Seriously I don't have a problem with that bench. Willison or heatherington can move to an edge if needed and piakura can play in the centres as well. I mean it's not like we don't have options there. We made a grand final last year with three forwards kn the bench. I don't think we need change everything just because we lost games to the two premier teams in the competition.

Can he? or are you just saying that because he was chucked in there against panthers. At least Capewell was fairly competent at centre, having played a couple of origins there and what not.