So you want to use a better player as sub. That makes a lot of sense. I you say you know a bit about footy.BigMart wrote:So when this was known......he was still made sub....
He is clearly a role player and has not got any of the assets required to be an effective sub...
Baker ...... Small back
Either
Geary, ray, gram as sub.......
Not difficult i would think...
Like to hear ross' philosiphy on the role of the sub, and how to best use them
Baker the Sub
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
Moods
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4914
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 335 times
- Been thanked: 481 times
Who says the sub has to be the last person picked? It's about team balance. If Baker was to be picked could you think of a worse position to play him in? I can't. I don't agree about Ray or Gram as being named a sub, but why not Geary? I understand the team was thrown into disarray with the gastro bug only 15 hours before the game, but we may as well have played with 21 players for all the impact that Bakes was going to have on the game.plugger66 wrote:So you want to use a better player as sub. That makes a lot of sense. I you say you know a bit about footy.BigMart wrote:So when this was known......he was still made sub....
He is clearly a role player and has not got any of the assets required to be an effective sub...
Baker ...... Small back
Either
Geary, ray, gram as sub.......
Not difficult i would think...
Like to hear ross' philosiphy on the role of the sub, and how to best use them
The sub plays about a quarter baring injury. If it was a late change and the only 2 players available to play were Lynch and Baker then I think we had no choice but to have Baker as sub. If he isnt sub then he plays at least 3 quarters and Geary who has been improving weekly only plays a quarter. In this case I think our worst player had to be the sub. And you certainly wouldnt have Ray or Gram as sub as BM suggested.Moods wrote:Who says the sub has to be the last person picked? It's about team balance. If Baker was to be picked could you think of a worse position to play him in? I can't. I don't agree about Ray or Gram as being named a sub, but why not Geary? I understand the team was thrown into disarray with the gastro bug only 15 hours before the game, but we may as well have played with 21 players for all the impact that Bakes was going to have on the game.plugger66 wrote:So you want to use a better player as sub. That makes a lot of sense. I you say you know a bit about footy.BigMart wrote:So when this was known......he was still made sub....
He is clearly a role player and has not got any of the assets required to be an effective sub...
Baker ...... Small back
Either
Geary, ray, gram as sub.......
Not difficult i would think...
Like to hear ross' philosiphy on the role of the sub, and how to best use them
-
Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
I am pretty sure only two extra guys ever get on a plane as emergencies.
So if two guys go down at the last minute you have to play the two guys in the plane. dont think the coach had any choice on that one.
From a bigger picture perspective I have no idea how we are going to make list mgt decisions in 8 weeks time when we have pretty much wasted the year in terms of development. What did we really learn/gain from playing Blake and Bakes in 2011?
No doubt I will get attacked from the "Rossy can do no wrong" crowd and the "we are still a chance at a flag this year" crowd.
These are the same people still telling me that getting zero for a number 2 draft pick at his peak age was a good strategy. Im still waiting to know when and how the benefits of that masterstroke will come to us.
So if two guys go down at the last minute you have to play the two guys in the plane. dont think the coach had any choice on that one.
From a bigger picture perspective I have no idea how we are going to make list mgt decisions in 8 weeks time when we have pretty much wasted the year in terms of development. What did we really learn/gain from playing Blake and Bakes in 2011?
No doubt I will get attacked from the "Rossy can do no wrong" crowd and the "we are still a chance at a flag this year" crowd.
These are the same people still telling me that getting zero for a number 2 draft pick at his peak age was a good strategy. Im still waiting to know when and how the benefits of that masterstroke will come to us.
I'd say that with the gastro, Ross just picked the 22 least effected players out of those taken to Sydney. Baker happened to be number 22 and Ross would have preferred to keep the structure as much as possible for as long as possible so Baker had to be the sub because we needed a forward and not another small defender.