WWW.RLFANS.COM
https://rlfans.com/forums/

switch malarkey
https://rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=518474		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Paul T - HKR [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:43 am ]
Post subject:  switch malarkey
Craig Hall is showing real promise at off-half but does the forum think this switch malarkey is over complicated (at 6 when we have the ball, at 2 when defending)?
Author:  Mild Rover [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: switch malarkey
Paul T - HKR wrote:Craig Hall is showing real promise at off-half but does the forum think this switch malarkey is over complicated (at 6 when we have the ball, at 2 when defending)?


I'm sceptical, tbh, but happy to be proved wrong (I'm happy quite often).
Author:  rover49 [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: switch malarkey
I thought it worked well. Hall is not the best defender, so it makes some sense to switch it depending on defence or attack.
Author:  Wildmoose [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: switch malarkey
Don't think it's as complex as it appears. Jack Gibson was doing a similar thing 30 years ago with Peter Sterling. Only the 1st tackle transition may be an issue. Hall seems to have a bit of a roaving commission when we have the ball & it suits him, still a bit uneasy about Lovegrove on the wing though, can see this costing us some tries.
Author:  R.B.A [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: switch malarkey
Paul T - HKR wrote:Craig Hall is showing real promise at off-half but does the forum think this switch malarkey is over complicated (at 6 when we have the ball, at 2 when defending)?




I dont think that it is particularly complicated and it wouldnt bother me if it were to continue but i do have a couple of concerns.
Firstly i think that Lovegroves absence from the back row is putting to much pressure on Mika and Horne. They were out on their feet on friday night and we need an interchange option for them.
Secondly, are we employing the switch because Sandercock doesnt trust Halls defence or because he doesnt think Johnson and Latus are good enough to play on our right wing? If it is the latter we will have issues if we pick up injuries on the wings.
Author:  major black [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: switch malarkey
switch malarkey. I thought you'd made another overseas signing when I saw the topic.
Author:  roopy [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: switch malarkey
Kurt Gidley has been doing it for years.
Usually plays fullback in defence where he does very little work and stays fresh, and moves to 5/8 in attack or sometimes even dummy half.
We have even named the position - rover.
Jarrod Hayne does it too.
Author:  Captain Charisma [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: switch malarkey
Wildmoose wrote: still a bit uneasy about Lovegrove on the wing though, can see this costing us some tries.



Cant be as bad as having Dean Andrews on the wing :shock:
Author:  Barnacle Bill [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: switch malarkey
Captain Charisma wrote:Cant be as bad as having Dean Andrews on the wing :shock:


He might have been picked on the wing but in his mind that obviously translated to second row. :lol:
Author:  Wildmoose [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: switch malarkey
Captain Charisma wrote:
Wildmoose wrote: still a bit uneasy about Lovegrove on the wing though, can see this costing us some tries.



Cant be as bad as having Dean Andrews on the wing :shock:


I'll see your Dean Andrews & raise you a Frank Parker :wink:

Remember having 8-9 props on the field vs Oldham, pretty sure Paul Fletcher & Rich Wilson were our wingers that day :CRAZY:
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/