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.