The bench

Looking at the Lions selection (and also Scotland's) it seems that every time a squad is announced there is always a debate about who has been missed out or what positions are not being covered by the bench.
I know that these debates will always be but I think it is time the IRB looked at the match squad and allowed a change

I propose that the bench for international games is increased by one player to bring the squad up to 24.

Lets look at the Lions bench
Replacements
16. Richard Hibbard (hooker)
17. Makovina Vunipola (prop)
18. Dan Cole (Leicester (prop)
19. Geoff Parling (2nd row)
20. Dan Lydiate (backrow)
21. Ben Youngs (Scrummie)
22. Owen Farrell (standoff/centre at a push)
23. Sean Maitland (Wing/Fullback at a push)

Now I know you can move players into other positions eg North is starting and can slot into centre and Maitland comes onto the wing but it is not his natural position!
In the Lions case, if the No 8 has to come off, you are going to see a 6 or 7 covering the position.  If the No 7 comes off, its a another 6 covering it again.
Would it not just make more sense to have another sub space? Someone like SOB could then cover the back row???

The arguement aginst this is teams with little depth get penalised, but at international level I'd think teams could cover the extra man easily?
I've seen games where a scrum half is sent out to the wing or you get a loose forward covering the 9 position!  It just ruins the game more than anything!

Thoughts?

24 seems a bit much, 23 is about right, the point is that you choose your bench option correctly, you have versatile guys both in your team and on the bench to prevent such a sitaution arising.

I dont think any more players on the bench would be a good thing for the game as a whole. There is an absolute need for a replacement front row - beyond that you need a bare minimum otherwise you lose the mismatches caused by tiring players and wear and tear (injuries) - the things that help to make rugby games interesting.

Games tend to go to pieces when there are mass substitutions anyway

I still think it is a shame that "sham" replacements meant they stopped allowing replacements only for injury. I used to love the way you would could (mainly up front) wear a team down in the first hour and really capitalise in the last 20.

I certainly do not want to see more replacements available and/or the dreaded rolling replacements.

I cant be bothered with so many subs.

For me the idea of subs were so a few players could be swapped if they were shattered or getting their a$$ handed to them...not to simply sub the whole team.

I happy with 23/24 squads...but maybe limit the actual subs allowed to 3/4.

Then players/squad fitness etc would come into it...

Hate tactical substitutions. Should be injury only.

12th July 1980. Last time Lions played a test where neither side made any replacements. Of course back then you could only replace injured players (with a 6 man bench)

offload wrote:Hate tactical substitutions. Should be injury only.

I agree, but we were seeing so many feigned injuries that they had a choice - crack down on the feigning of injuries or allow tactical ones.

Tiger - I know it's hard to police, but I spoils the game for me.

Personally I would have a match doctor who agrees that there is an injury

How about increasing the number on the bench but only allowing either subs for injury or say 4 or 5 subs can be used?

That way you can change like for like but reduced the number of subs being made?

Personally I prefer to see a player play hard and get tired and replaced (in this increasingly fast and harder hitting game) than to have a player beaten by the clock on his endurance potential and an opposition player's peptide or blood doped fitness and stamina.

Personally I prefer a wooden one with quality leather padding and back rests and a foot stool, as an accomplished player of course I rarely got the enjoy the bench option but those would be my preferences.

More subs would potentially ruin the game, if we bring in more subs it would change the game from on endurance to one merely about strength and power. Players would spend more time bulking up and less time on stamina and skills. We would end up with even less players on the pitch and players would end up stronger and run harder at each other and eventually become injured.
What I would say is that coaches should be able pick an injury bench that would only be allowed to be used should there be an injury and there was no suitable replacement left on the subs bench. So say on Saturday, O'Connell got injured and was replaced by Parling but then Jones was also injured, rather than throwing in a back row to cover the place ruining the lineout and risking injury in the scrum, Gatland could nominate Richie Gray as injury cover.

23 is the right number as it allows for the safety factor and a full front row on the bench.

Don't forget coaches dont have to pick 3 back they could always go with a 6/2 split if they wanted more forward cover on the bench.

RubyGuby wrote:Personally I prefer a wooden one with quality leather padding and back rests and a foot stool, as an accomplished player of course I rarely got the enjoy the bench option but those would be my preferences.

Padded seats lull you into a false sense of comfort. Nails is what I'd use! Keep them on their toes.

Injuries will happen and they will happen most likely in the high impact positions... centre, backrow, prop. Backrow cover looks limited. Lydiate, Croft, Heaslip... not much variation there. Good in the tackle, lineout, ball carrying.... floor work, expect either 3 to compete with Hooper and Gill is unfair.

This is how I would see an injury replacement in the centre's.

12 - Farrell straight swap.
13 - North switches to 13, Maitland into left wing.

123456789 wrote:More subs would potentially ruin the game, if we bring in more subs it would change the game from on endurance to one merely about strength and power. Players would spend more time bulking up and less time on stamina and skills. We would end up with even less players on the pitch and players would end up stronger and run harder at each other and eventually become injured.

I agree 100%. Personally I would like a bench to be 6 players only, with all 3 frontrow positions covered. Then a back 5 forward, a scrum half and utility back (although that would be down to a coaches preference of course as there was a full reserve frontrow). Increasing the number of positions certain players have to cover could improve their skill set as well as their stamina. You never know, we could even see more centers like BOD or Conrad Smith emerging