I will say this. Portoz makes a valid point about game to game tactics in that Bennet doesn't orchestrate teams game tactics to the same degree that say a Bellamy or Gould would do. There is direction given to team weaknesses, but the how is largely left to the spine.
Is this a weakness? Some could see it as such in a team that lacks the ability to organise itself at times.
But thats always been the way of Bennet's teams. I don't think it's a lack of authority to do so, but a willingness to give players a chance to express their strengths (and yes sometimes weaknesses) in a loose structure that offers as much leahway for the halves and fullback as he can. By doing so he is giving them a chance to grow as players.
If we were Melbourne, milford would not have a kicking game, remained a fullback, and probably be discarded when his primary attributes: speed and agility proved insufficient to team structure. Likewise tpj would be used as a prop, Oates would be a reserve grade second rower and opacic would have played maybe 30 more games as a centre. Why?
Bellamy shapes players to a like-for-like fit, in a team where everyone plays a chosen role.
It's a different strategy, and I'm sure some players have suffered for it, but you can't argue with results. Let's just see if produces results, post Cronk, slater, Smith.
They turn the screw and everyone knows their role, but addo-carr will never play centre, Munster won't move from the halves. If he falls or fails, his replacement will be there to fit the role.
