I’ve already explained this, most of those teams went with a taller 22 than we are, so they can afford a small sub.
Jeez dude, we only have 2 kpf for this game. You obviously didn’t read it the first so I’ll just tag my first response again.Statistically a team is most likely to lose a smaller player, so that is why subs are smaller players. We have 3 ruck/kpfs, the likelihood that one needs replacing is much lower than a smaller player. We have chosen our structure and a small sub provides the greatest protection to that structure in the event of 8njury. Just as it is with pretty much every sub for every team every week.
Going in with a shorter side, if one of the talls goes down with injury it would hurt structures. If a small gets injured then we would just return to the normal balance
Don't worry - most people not under the influence get it.Jeez dude, we only have 2 kpf for this game. You obviously didn’t read it the first so I’ll just tag my first response again.
Jeez dude, we only have 2 kpf for this game. You obviously didn’t read it the first so I’ll just tag my first response again.
Don't worry - most people not under the influence get it.
If you go in small, you can have a tall as a sub (like we have this week... though I would still use Jones).
If you go in tall, it is very unlikely you would select a tall as a sub.
We have seen talls picked as a sub plenty of times, including Soldo today for Richmond.
geez dude, obviously you can't work it out. We have fixed our structure in at selection. There are 5 talls in total and 17 smaller players. To protect our chosen structure we select a sub from the group that is statistically more likely to get injured. Which is very obviously from the 3+:1 shorter player group. It's so bleedingly obvious that I can't understand how you don't see it. What you're proposing puts our structure at greater risk because the ratio would change from 17:5 to 16:6, obviously that's why clubs select nearly always smaller players as sub. To protect their preferred structure.
We haven't beaten the Roos ever in Tasmania so I wouldn't be getting too confident.I'll be travelling while the game is on so won't be able to comment in the GameDay thread. So I'll just put my comment here:
"Surely we can't lose this. I mean that cannot happen, right?? Right???"
If you weren't such a pathetic troll, you'd understand the very obvious point I'm making and why clubs almost always select running players as sub. But play on, I'm assuming you've had your fair share of reds again tonight. Missing points by wide margins as you often do in the evening.