Didn't go down to London on saturday but am i right in saying Ade Gardner was not used?
If so with the interchange rule dropped to 10 i find this strange again from Royce with forwards having to do more minutes and a sub not used for what ever reason?

It's a lingering question. I suppose Royce would answer his interchange policy was good enough to get us to a Grand Final. And let's be honest - there HAVE been games where playing a specialist back off the bench has paid off. I mean, I still find the practice counter-intuitive. But whether it's as serious as others suggest I have my doubts.

Might well have worked last season.But there are 2 major differences this season.Interchanges down to 10 and no Jammer.The policy baffles me.

I have to say I thought it was strange too, the back on the bench policy is going a little too far. Flannery could have been there and rotated the forwards a bit more. At a push he could have even have gave Ade a run at Second Row.

No he couldn't. He took ill. Andrew Dixon was played as his direct replacement.

Royce has said he is going to rotate his squad for a few weeks and give 'everyone a chance' at playing.

I'm a fan of the back on the bench and had Shenton not dislocated his elbow in the grand final, taking our backline injuries to three (including Lomax who couldn't walk with his ankle), that policy might have won us the championship. It certainly saved us in a number of games last year. For that reason alone I'm content to trust his judgment on this.

I was a fan last year, but this year is different. We haven't got Jammer doing big minutes and we have only 10 interchanges. I think if we still use the back on the bench policy, they need to be used in some way otherwise our forwards will burn out. If he rotates the squad from game to game it would preserve match fitness but may do harm come the end of the season.

True, flannery was due to start in the backrow as I was told Friday night by a player, when I seen him yesterday and I told him The team was wrong that he told me, he told me flannery dropped out Saturday.


I still can't work out why any coach in the right mind would constantly play with 16 men.

I'm with Backrowsaint in that Ade could have been used in the second row or maybe use Flannery on the bench next match (if fit) that can cover the centres and back row?
Wello will probably be back this week so more movement in the squad? headache for Royce

With Lance in the squad, it could work. Lance could be used off the bench as a hooker or 13 in order to spell our forwards and in the backs if there was an injury.

However, if he impressess sufficiently at #1, perhaps wello will end up as our reserve back?

gaskell will take the bench spot and Gardner will drop out flannery will come in for Dixon if tp fit clough will drop out shenton will come in for wheeler when he is fit

If a prop isn't fit enough to play 40 mins then they aren't fit enough to be in the team. All it means is that we go back to having a few 80 min back rowers in the side. It isn't that long ago that we used to have them, the likes of Bennett, Jonkers, Joynt, etc never had to be subbed due to fitness issues.

The tactic got us to a GF in a season when we were crippled by injuries, it's not a tactic that has hindered us in any game we've played using it. I understand that people have different ideas about the game, and that not everyone will agree with the thought behind it, but the same arguments come up every time this thread appears.

Can anyone point me to a game when not having three props/one back rower or two props/two back rowers on the bench has cost us?

As for French and Rooney, they can't remember the last time a team had a sub on the bench that wasn't used? They don't remember last season?

That's a tough one to prove though isn't it.

It's very easy to see a dislocated elbow and then say there you go back on the bench had a positive effect.
Much more difficult to say well that try was down to mental or physical fatigue that would have been boosted had the 17th man played.
Or that loss was because we did not use everyman to the max.

If we did pick a game and put down the loss to a back on the bench, it could be argued it was not the back but the lack of fitness or the lack of concentration or effort.

So the back on the bench is an insurance policy. The question is not whether it works, it clearly does as at some point in the season a back will have to be taken off, law of probability.

The question is, is that insurance policy worth the cost, well the cost is hard to measure. We have a very good team who can cover that loss of the 17th man against most teams, but against Huddersfield, Wigan and Warrington, we had 0 wins before beating huddersfield in the last 2 or 3 games. So you could argue against top sides using only 16 men, meant we did not have enough to compete over the full 80.

My problem with it is it's dogmatic use. If for some games Royce went actually we need a bigger pack, so hey lets not use a back for this one better to beef up the pack. Then you could say there is some thinking behind it other than having 100% insurance.

As Saints fan points out in the GF it did not help cause we had 2 backs injured, so why not have 2 backs on the bench just in case? Or 3?

Also it's a fair point that Ade could have given a 2nd rower a break. Or even come on for another back to have fresh legs run at tired men.

I have no problem with the back, but he needs to be used and the tactic varied up a little. Leeds brought Burrow's on to run at our tired legs something similar would help the rest of the team.

Of course it is, this isn't a black and white issue though





I understand the thinking of those that do not like the use of a back on the bench, but in reality who would you replace that back with? Does a team with five props in the 17 do better than one with four, what's the point of having more than one back rower on the bench?



Lack of fitness is a red herring in these arguments, we weren't unfit last year, no successful teams are. I can think of only one game when fatigue cost us and that was Wigan away, but that was due to the loss of two players during the match rather than any bench combination.



Discount Wire at home, we had the whole issue of Eastmond going on there, that effected us far more. We also beat Wigan twice in the play offs with the exact same system, which says that we did have enough to beat a top side over the 80.



I've no issue with that thinking.



Would another forward on the bench have prevented that defeat? Would sticking a second rower in at centre when we had to replace Wellens have made a difference to the end result? It didn't help due to the number of injuries sustained, so that example is not a good one IMO to shoot the practice down.



He'd get battered in the pack, that's a none starter for me.



He was the interchange hooker though wasn't he? We had one of them and he was continuing his mediocre work at Widnes on Friday...

Not this thread again.

As it has been said in earlier posts. If you are not able to play at least 40 mins then you shouldn't be in the team.

Most other teams have 2 props, a second rower and a hooker.

We have an 80 min hooker so instead we have a back. We do not have any less working forwards on the bench as anyone else. For every game we have had a player not used on the bench we have also had a game that we have been saved by having a back on the bench.

The way I see it, the rules state you can have 17 players, so use 17!!

Obviously we are at a disadvantage playing with 26 when the opposition play with 17.

I felt pretty angry last year seeing the likes of roby, jammer, sia and others totally out on their feet while we had a player sat in the bench for 80 mins

Royce is going to continue with the back on the bench policy because when wellens is fit wellens lomax gaskell or lance will take that spot

Sense has been spoken.

Do you think it's sense to play 16 v 17 nearly every week?


We've got a option of four subs but mostly only use three, that to me suggests they get more rest than us and that could make the difference.

Players these days are trained as multi skilled players, I don't think it would make a huge difference of a back got hurt as we'd do what other teams do, we'd shuffle. We've got sia, roby, wilkin and flannery that can cover backs positions with ease.

If we can start the game with a number players already playing out of postion (lance, Meli, wheeler, lomax) I fail to see what difference it make by shuffling around if we do get injuries. Other teams do this so I'm sure we can.

If a back did get injured, where the hell was Ade going to cover?


Maybe the fact robes form dropped off at the back end of the season was due to playing to many 80 mins games while we have a player sat on the bench for 80 mins.

IMO its just silly and gives us a disadvantage

Yep. That's why we made it to the GF again last year. It definitely gave us a disadvantage!

Maybe if the likes of sia, roby and jammer had more rests they would have been more fresh?

Robes dropped off a little at the back end of last year and IMO had been flogged.

It's just totally stupid to only use 16 players when we have 17! It's just unreal if you think about it and also very very strange.

It's an issue, so it's going to be discussed. You may agree with the tactic, others don't. Hense it's a discussion point and will continue to be so as it's not cut and dried that we made the GF so hey it works.

Wigan won the CC, Leeds Won the GF, so hey it doesn't work is an equally viable counter arguement as they did not use the tactic.

Very good point. The two teams that won things play with 17, so that puts to bed the 16 players got us to the grand final rubbish.


Your allowed 17 so fooking use 17.

But we lost GFs under coaches that didn't put a back on the bench.

The point is, it didn't hinder us achieving exactly the same as in years when we haven't had a back on the bench.

ie it makes no difference in terms of advantage.

Can't see the sense in having a back on the bench just in case if needed. Most back row forwards can play in the backs.ie.Flannery,Dixon,Wilkin,Flannagan.Thus covering any eventuality.

....plus NZ international centre Soliola!