That's just faulty logic. Correlation does not imply causation.

I'm not concerned with the fact he puts a back on the bench, I'm concerned that he don't use him, so ultimately each week we play 16 v 17 which has to be a disadvantage

It's only a disadvantage if the 16 can't cope effectively without him.

It makes sense to give the big guys rests tho, it's not rocket science.

Quite right

Royce is thinking of putting Tom van vollenhoven on the bench for the game with Salford

What would have happened if we had not had Wheeler on the bench in the Grand Final when Wellens went off? We would have had a second rower on the wing (Sia or Dixon probably) and Leeds would have won by 30. If we had players like Lee Gilmour, who can play anywhere, in the team I would tempted to agree that a forward would be more useful. But we don't so Wheeler allowed us to continue with a sensible backline and all most win it. May what we should be saying is that we need more utility players?

If not given the chance off the bench players like Makinson, Foster and Ashe may have spent all last year in the second team.

If we did have an interchange hooker like everyone else we would not have Roby, the best player in the League, on the pitch for half the game. Leeds did this with Buderus and it was a waste.

In the end it is Royces call, if he wants to play with a back he can have a back. If he wanted to have 4 forward he could do that. There is nothing wrong with either way of doing it. As long as the team is playing well and are getting results then he can have whoever he wants on the bench. In the end it is the results that count.

It isn't rocket science. But it isn't as simple an issue as you're claiming, either. Royce wouldn't have made it even halfway up the NRL ladder if he couldn't judge the fitness and stamina of his props. Maybe he's looked at Laffranchi, Perry, LMS & Clough in training and concluded that additional support wouldn't make that much difference. After all, we're not talking about an all-size-no-stamina front row such as Bradford's a decade ago. Laffranchi was a back row forward. LMS can play forward or back and is pretty mobile. Clough played back row and has a good engine. There's only Perry who's a dedicated prop and IIRC he used to play for long spells back in the NRL.

It just don't make sense to play 16 v 17.

I very much doubt Royce made this decision based on a tarot deck. He must have a reason.

Maybe every coach in super league, the NRL and all the amateur leagues will copy Royce but I somehow doubt it.

I'm with Pete all the way on this one.

As for not having forwards that can play in the backs, Wilkin? Flannery? Wilkin can play pretty much all positions now. Flannery was playing centre for nearly a whole season. If we did not have Wheeler, we would have had another forward, who ever that was could have slotted nicely into the second row and Wilkin or Sia could have covered the centre spot. Which is infact what happened when we lost the 2nd back. But I don't hear calls for 2 back on the bench incase that little trick crops up again.

Surely with 10 minute or 20 minutes to go, legs get tired and Gardner could have been put on the pitch on saturday to run at tiring legs. He would be more effective than he was on the bench.

I don't mind a back for this game an extra forward for this game a half back for another. It's always a back who will take no part baring injury.

My ptoblem isn't how many forwards or how many backs we have on the bench, it's the fact we don't use a sub. He sits on the bench for 80 mins while his mates are on the pitch out on their feet.

Id feel enbarressed if I was that player who's just sat on bench for 80 mins while my mates have been out on the pitch putting their body on the line.

I'm not going to say to much as I don't want to get anyone in trouble but I know for a fact it surprises players with this policy.

And what happened after that?

The big guys do get a rest because we've got two interchange props in the team (albeit that one started at loose before going into that rotation last year). And the replacement hooker interchanged with the back rowers, so the pack [iwas[/i covered for rest periods.

But we still playing 16 v 17 every week which is crazy.

Like I said, I do understand the arguments against it, I just don't think it's that much of an issue.

I do think the youngster on the bench to gain experience is a better option than the 30 year old though.

I think having the best four subs possible on the bench that can benefit the team and help get the win is the best option.

After all, wining is all that matters and I I'm pretty sure playing with 17 has got to be better than going with 16.


We might as well pick a 18 man squad instead of the 19 all the others do.

I'm sure that's what he's doing to the best of his ability. You just don't agree with his reasoning.

Most of the arguments people put forward claim - intuitively - that it is somehow better to "spread the load" of work among 17 players than 16 because those on the pitch are less likely to tire. If every game were played at a million miles per hour against teams of equal or close to equal strength I could kind of understand the reasoning. But we all know this isn't the case. In truth opposition strength, ability and sometimes fitness aren't equal in at least half our games.

In any case, it is practically impossible to come to any valuable conclusions about the effects of 80 minutes rugby on the stamina levels of 16 players as opposed to 17 without some manner of scientifically determined data (which no one here possesses). Arguments based on limited observation (none of us are close enough to the players to really see the effects) and intuition are effectively worthless.

For all we know the effects are negligible. My best guess (given what I know about the attention to detail NRL coaches have toward fitness) is that Simmons knows they are negligible.

Like you say there is no scientific way to find out which means its a great talking point. If the debate was do you support Saints it would be a very short thread as we all know even Rouges secretly loves us too. He's just battling those inner demons from the way he was raised.

In the end we all want Saints to do well, we just disagree on the minor points of the method.

I'm sure some manner of data is gathered during a match by the coaching team. But they aren't likely to share it on the big screen.

Although I agree with the points you are making, how many other NRL coaches regularly name sides with no intention of playing all 17 unless a player gets injured?

If they don't do it, and they have "NRL attention to detail", why don't they do it?

I know it is all supposition without the data, but wouldn't you agree that it seems reasonable to assume that spelling an extra forward is more likely to result in a fresher pack than not spelling an extra forward? The cumulative effects of doing this every week must make a difference too, given how much all coaches talk about fatigue at the back end of a season?

The NRL is a completely different competition. It's played faster. The defensive intensity is higher. The talent level is greater. The tactics are unique. The fixture structuring (and thus the workload placed upon teams) is different. Each side can draw upon two reserve grade teams - a good proportion of whose players are NRL ready from the first game. The relationship with the fans is different. They have access to cutting edge data analysis on every facet of individual and team behaviour etc. etc.

I don't think it makes any sense judging Royce by what goes on over there.



Let's say for a moment you are right - the pack is fresher. This begs the question - HOW MUCH fresher? If the answer is - not enough to make any significant difference then, by your rationale, we must [igain[/i towards the end of the season (in comparison to every other side) because we're achieving a similar level of effectiveness without having to call upon the services of a 17th player. If we completely rest a player in 20-25 games per season we're that much fitter come the business end.

Hull under the coaching of aussie Peter Gentle never used the full compliment of 17 players against Warrington.

Jordan Turner was left to freeze on the bench, so its not just a tactic of Royces.