For a long time, every time I've suggested Chris Sandow playing in the 14 role, I was met with almost the exact same response. We're paying him big bucks, he can't play off the bench.
My rationale for Sandow as a "super sub" has been that it would make it much, much harder to target him in defence, especially if he came on variously as a seven or nine depending on the game. It's very tough to build an attacking game-plan around a player when you don't know when or if they're going to come onto the field and in what position.
And secondly, it would allow Sandow to come on play his natural game, rather than having the pressure of having to lead the team around the park.
To me, it makes perfect sense and I've always believed the 14 role when used right, is a role that can change games and it should almost be seen as a specialist and valued position.
People also automatically seem to think that your 14 must interchange with your dummy half, rather I see it should be seen as an attacking position, where you can pull-out a defensively oriented player and inject a high-tempo attacking player. Could be your nine, seven or six depending on your team.
Despite my recent rant about Sandow's defence, I think he's a wonderful player to watch and I'd hate to see players like Sandow lost to the game, because of the low-risk, big bopper trend that the game seems to be ever heading towards. I think Sandow can possibly set a benchmark for the type of player you pick at 14 because of their ability to win you a match, and by embracing the super sub role, you stop having to worry so much about how they might lose you a match.
Replies
You could very well be right, Eeldeal. There were definitely games this year, where Sandow looked like he was going to take that next step forward and be a complete seven.
But also, what you've written about 14 being an insult or reflective of him not being good enough, is kind of what I'm talking about in this blog - that the 14 shouldn't be seen as the player who's not quite good enough to be in your 13. That it actually can be basically a position in its own right.
Sandow the next Dean Widders
Dummy, right foot step.
TheEeldeal, I believe that being classed as an allrounder is the ultimate compliment.
All teams need that special player that can cover all positions.
I agree with you that Sandow is not a utility player. He is a 7 or he is not in the side
There have been games this year that Sandow has been positively awful with the boot, though. Repeatedly finding the defenders on the full, getting rushed because of his own positioning, repeatedly attempting his little chip over the defensive line, etc.
I think it's about attitude, to be honest. Like you said, there are plenty of other average defenders about. There are also plenty of other smaller guys about. Thurston isn't especially big, but he's clever, and HE TRIES. I swear, if Sandow looked like he gave a shit, you could excuse his problems, but when he just stands there on his heels and lets people walk around him, you have a right to be annoyed at him.
We're paying him big bucks, he can't play off the bench.
Maybe undyed of sandow we need to be looking for a forward who adds that something different
Denis Moran like?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next