What would your views be, on having a bigger bench?

Instead of 4, would our game benefit from having say 6 on the bench?
Still have only 12 interchanges.

Would it also give clubs an opportunity, to give the youngsters more of a chance.

Maybe a good idea.

Yesterday we played around 20 minutes with no interchanges due to injuries.

i only remember you suffering 1 injury? :S

O'Hara went off first half, Tangata Toa was injured, Aled James and the last player injured was Luke Dyer who got up like Bambi in front of the stand.

remember Dyer getting injured, didnt know about others.

Yeah O'Hara ripped quad, James bad shoulder I think, not sure what's wrong with Tangles and Dyer knocked out.

That kind of explains why we faded so badly second half. I didn't realise until I spoke to John Dixon after the game myself.

Any news on Matty Smith?

Still a few weeks off.

We need him back in the team badly as JVD is our only real kicking option and he is being targeted and his kicking is suffering as a result.

Agar cant manage 4 subs let alone 6.

I would appreciate it if you would keep on topic, and FC Baldy, this is not about one club, but the game as a whole.

Then no, clubs manage just fine now with 4 subs, 6 subs would mean the bench would load up with 4 forwards, a halfback and a 3/4

No planning, no tactics, no need.

I would keep with 4, adds more skill and excitement to the game. If you have 6 on the bench, you're pretty much covered for all eventualities, with 4 there is an element of risk on who is picked.

I would have 4 subs and 8 interchanges.

with summer rugby, i think 12 interchanges is sensible. 6 on the bench is a good idea, i can't see a reason not to.

In't "good old days" there wasn't even substitutes and people played with broken limbs etc.,

The softees today don't know they are born!!!


Another Woodbine and pint of mixed please luv "Cough ,Cough ,Cough "

Definately a good idea. Maybe a rule which means at least one player must be 'home-grown' and under the age of 21?

That is a good idea, the 2 extra spots to academy trained players under 21. A great way to promote youth and academies

Now that I agree with. Perhaps the issue withthis though would be that the two academy players will miss their academy game but may not recieve game time during first team action.

That is what first led me to look at this. Also it may give long term injured a chance to be slowly reintroduced.

Agree with him.

I think it would be good for a few reasons.

It would make for a more exciting game with more players alot more fresh, they would not get tired.

It would be great seeing the impact of a young half-back coming on like we have done with Tomkins.

It would make for excitement with more big runs from the impact props as they would not have to play as long.

Young players would be more likely to get a game.

Why change something that isn't broke?
As it is i say.

No, its fine as it is

Could you imagine teams loading the bench with 6 forwards determined to batter their opponents. It would make a physical game even harder as fresher players run and hit harder. More injuries worse for players.

The only way i could see it would be something like in RU where you can replace a specialist wioth another specialist ie 4 on the bench but with 3 others available ie full back and a half back who could only come on to replace injured players .

Someone posted about more interchanges but having some earmarked for the backs - i.e. changing the halves and allowing youngsters to come through that way.

Would it make for a better game?