Crusader wrote:
Rod Spooky Galt wrote:
Think with a fully available sub, playing two rucks isn't quite the gamble as it has been in the past few years.
Ideally Pittonet subbed off midway through the third for Fisher/Honey.
I can’t see it working out that way.
- You play two rucks to maintain strength in that role for the full game. I just can’t see how you stay on track with that by pulling one out after half a game.
- You can’t hide one on the bench without affecting the rotations elsewhere, so they’re both on the field.
- Limited interchanges, on top of all the usual logistics with getting a follower to the bench makes it impossible to play ‘short n sharp’ shifts in the position.
- If you bury one in the forward line & they can’t have an impact, then the need for the extra transition defender is going to come on in a hurry.
Some perfectly valid points there, and I think I agree with a few.
I'd look at it as, you go in with two as insurance, because you feel that if the main one falls over, either your structural integrity goes to shit having to move whiteboard magnets around, or you feel that their main ruck having that much dominance would impact the result too much. I don't think we're going to win too many games from the ruck, but we'll probably lose a few.
In our very specific case - I think you're right because Harry - Charlie - TDK - Silvagni - Martin is too top heavy. That's more of an issue around playing Martin half-fit, and finding a different role for Jack or deciding he offers more than TDK.
In an ideal world, you'd see how TDK fared on a wing if for no other reason than because we're running out of options there, but the TOG metrics are putrid and I don't think he'd have the fitness to do it.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
