McManus Dropped?
- Thread starter MattyM
- Start date
He can do some good short range kicks, but can also come up with some shockers (as seen on Wednesday night).
His general kicking game can be ok as times, people exaggerate when they say it's terrible ... but Mullen's is of course miles better.
His general kicking game can be ok as times, people exaggerate when they say it's terrible ... but Mullen's is of course miles better.
A.Snowden
Willie Mason
Joshhh
Danny 'Bedsy' Buderus
Just wondering James, where would you put Gidley? I know you don't like him in the halves, you don't think he's a starting hooker & fullback is ruled out by Boyd. So where would you put him?
Ofcourse though we shouldn't ever trust Wayne on what he says this far out from 2012 so maybe he'll play fullback & Boyd in the halves. You never know.
I really don't know ... I think fullback is by far his best position ... otherwise - bench hooker?
Unlikely to ever happen.
I don't say that with any malice either ... I love Gidley, he's a great player. I'm just not sure how he fits in for us next year, and I hope it's not in the halves.
Unlikely to ever happen.
I don't say that with any malice either ... I love Gidley, he's a great player. I'm just not sure how he fits in for us next year, and I hope it's not in the halves.
Novocastrian90
Brock Mueller
That would have to be a contender for stupidest thing said on this forum.
Maybe not at rep level. But at FG level he surely is.
Why's that? I don't rate him in the halves and I don't think he's a starting hooker. Is it that tough to work out?
Show some respect for other's opinions please, it's all I ask of people on this forum.
Now that is a very good plan. Liam ... I think you've got it (throw a by jove in there somewhere).
Yes let's play the 80 minute players on the bench, just so Gidley doesn't have to play 1 position for the full 80. Why don't we put Boyd on the bench and play Gidley at fullback for the first 20, and then move him to hooker and bring Boyd on?
He could easily play hooker for the full 80, played 65 minutes on Wednesday there, made 40+ tackles and still looked fine at the end.
1. Boyd
6. Mullen
7. Stig
9. Gidley
Should be the way it is, not shifting all these players so an 80 minute player doesn't have to play 80 mins.
He could easily play hooker for the full 80, played 65 minutes on Wednesday there, made 40+ tackles and still looked fine at the end.
1. Boyd
6. Mullen
7. Stig
9. Gidley
Should be the way it is, not shifting all these players so an 80 minute player doesn't have to play 80 mins.
Yeh, Stones shown his hand with Roberts already this year, and will do it again tomorrow. It keeps Gidley out of a high defensive workload for the first 20-30min, and enables him to inject a fresh Stig too. Its win-win. I wouldnt be suprised to see Bennett employ this next year too, unless we sign another hooker.
Added after 6 minutes:
So whats your plans reguarding Hilder, Housten, Taia and Costigan?
Last edited:
knights22, Gidley did play 60 minutes at hooker in Origin 3, but you're overlooking the fact (imo) that he was one of NSW's worst players!
and you'd play Housten/Taia and Hilder for 80mins?
Now knowing Snowden and Costigan have big motors for props, how'd you integrate the bench players into the game?
My point is, just because they are capable of playing 80mins, doesnt mean thats beneficial to the team, or gives us our best chance of victory. Its called player management. And i see nothing wrong with Stone/Bennett employing this strategy of bringing Stig/Roberts off the bench, as I believe we have won the 2 games we've tried it this year. Remember 2005/2006, we did a similar thing with Mullen.
Now knowing Snowden and Costigan have big motors for props, how'd you integrate the bench players into the game?
My point is, just because they are capable of playing 80mins, doesnt mean thats beneficial to the team, or gives us our best chance of victory. Its called player management. And i see nothing wrong with Stone/Bennett employing this strategy of bringing Stig/Roberts off the bench, as I believe we have won the 2 games we've tried it this year. Remember 2005/2006, we did a similar thing with Mullen.
Liam
Zeb Taia's Lovechild
Totally missed Jonno's point that just because a player can play 80 minutes, doesn't mean they need to.
name me one team where all three backrowers play 80min? (by the way, Johnson no longer plays 80min in a full strength side, and we are yet to see how the titans will play their backrow post origin).
Our team is stacked with 80min capable backrowers. Hilder, Housten, Taia, Costigan are the main ones. You cant give them all 80minutes, not to mention there are players on the bench that need to get game time.
Next year, Taia and Housten will most likely be our big minute backrowers. Either Costigan will play front row, or Hilder will play big minutes at hooker. Cause they are both too good to be getting little to no game time. Then a guy like Edwards will get time to fill the gaps. A lot will depend on how that 4th bench spot is used too. If Gidley starts hooker, its likely that that spot will be filled by an impact forward, further reducing the minutes of some players.
Bennett is not afraid to leave players unused on the bench - he did it all the time when he first started at the Dragons. It's a huge benefit to have second rowers play 80 minutes, and the more the better. Opens up more interchanges for props, and allows more leeway for injuries.