Keating and the bench

As someone who has consistently said that I think our performances will get even better if Kris Keating was to replace Jeff Robson, I think Robson this weekend really lifted his game to another level. Clearly the side is playing very cohesively at the moment and I thought Robson really was at the centre of much of that tonight. He again defended well and he's never deserved his spot in the side more than he did this week. However, I also thought at times he looked a little lost when we were attacking. That's the weakness in his game, IMO. He tends to panic when we're on the attack and just can't come up with the try-making play. Fortunately, at the moment we have Jarryd Hayne who does. Pretty much every try-assist when we're on the attack is coming via Hayne (or Lowrie!). As we get into the business end of the season, Daniel Anderson will be looking at not just his starting game plan but also his contingency plans. When you go into the finals, you don't get a second chance. If Jarryd Hayne gets injured in the first 5 minutes of play - there has to be a second option. That's where Kris Keating will give Anderson options. He can come on to give his brother a rest or alternatively Anderson can push him into half if he feels we need a bit more attacking potency (say if Hayne was injured?). Kevin Kingston is playing well but his game is relatively one-dimensional. Feleti Mateo, of course, also gives Anderson options as he is a talented playmaker who will take pressure off Hayne and if needed could move to five-eighth. When we get to finals time, I do believe we need at least one of Mateo or Keating because we can't go into the finals with everything riding on Jarryd's shoulders. Remarkably, we're probably not in sudden-death territory right now. We should be able to drop one of our next three games and still make it through. However, once we hit finals and one loss ends your season, risk management must also come into play as much as having your best 17 on the park.

I think you have to leave Lowrie in at the moment. The reality is that Lowrie, Ben Smith and Mateo would play are similar type of role (before you start, Mateo is obviously the best of the three by the length of the straight) while Brod Wright is playing a prop type role.

Lowrie deserves his spot - no question! Yes, we have bagged him the past - and deservedly so, but at present, it is entirely unreasonable to knock him the way he's playing (both in attack and defence).

Ben Smith is aggressive, fast and skilful for a backrower and the mongrel he adds when replacing Galuvao cannot not be understated.

The question is can we afford to play only 3 specialist props - two of which (Moi Moi and Mannah) have 40 and 25mins in them a game respectively? At present, I think the answer is yes. Wright doesn't really bend the line back when he comes on and while he's always solid, you could use Hindmarsh or Galuvao at prop for short spells to relieve Cayless, Moi Moi and Mannah). This allows the selection of Mateo on the bench and the retention of Lowrie and Smith in the 17.

It is kind of unusual to play 4 backrowers in your 17 but not unheard of, and when you have the X-factor of a Feleti Mateo, you just have to find room for him - despite his relative lack of fitness and occasional defensive lapses.

"Funnily enough, the logo of TCT is Price holding aloft the Winfield Cup.
They love reminiscing the halcyon days but they do everything they can to defend the losing status quo."

Replies

Active August 17, 2009 at 11:06am

I cannot believe that we don't have Mateo in the side. Yeah I get the 5 straight thing, don't mess with a winning formula and all that, but Mateo is a game breaker. He must be there. Who do you leave out?? Tough question to answer. There is probably three options all with +/-'s to each option. But Mateo has to be there.

On Mateo. Is there a problem with Mateo & Anderson? Is that the reason why he is not in the 17?

This week is a must win, we cannot go into R26 having to beat Saints at Kogarah. Mateo has got to get some footy under his belt. This is now or never.
Parra Dude August 17, 2009 at 11:44am

Mateo in... Lowrie out.

Nothing wrong with Lowire's recent performances but Mateo's flair cannot be underestimated!
- shwgrl > Parra Dude August 17, 2009 at 5:25pm
  
  totally right!
Bourbon Man August 17, 2009 at 11:58am

I think you have to leave Lowrie in at the moment. The reality is that Lowrie, Ben Smith and Mateo would play are similar type of role (before you start, Mateo is obviously the best of the three by the length of the straight) while Brod Wright is playing a prop type role.

Lowrie deserves his spot - no question! Yes, we have bagged him the past - and deservedly so, but at present, it is entirely unreasonable to knock him the way he's playing (both in attack and defence).

Ben Smith is aggressive, fast and skilful for a backrower and the mongrel he adds when replacing Galuvao cannot not be understated.

The question is can we afford to play only 3 specialist props - two of which (Moi Moi and Mannah) have 40 and 25mins in them a game respectively? At present, I think the answer is yes. Wright doesn't really bend the line back when he comes on and while he's always solid, you could use Hindmarsh or Galuvao at prop for short spells to relieve Cayless, Moi Moi and Mannah). This allows the selection of Mateo on the bench and the retention of Lowrie and Smith in the 17.

It is kind of unusual to play 4 backrowers in your 17 but not unheard of, and when you have the X-factor of a Feleti Mateo, you just have to find room for him - despite his relative lack of fitness and occasional defensive lapses.
- 1Eyed Eel > Bourbon Man August 17, 2009 at 12:20pm
  
  The distinction between front row and back row is blurring anyway. However, if DA was ever to have gone with this option, you would have thought he'd have done it against the Warriors?
  
  Then again the Tigers are a smaller pack. I think this would be my ideal pack/interchange
  
  8. Cayless 9. M Keating 10. Moimoi 11. Hindmarsh 12. Lowrie 13. Mateo 14. K Keating 15. Mannah 16. Smith 17. Galuvao
  - Wild_Eels > 1Eyed Eel August 17, 2009 at 9:55pm
    
    I like this team.
- blueNgold > Bourbon Man August 17, 2009 at 12:40pm
  
  I said something very similar to this before last weeks game. Like you bourbs i believe we could easily accomodate for the loss of one of our props. We have Hindy, Galuvao or even Lowrie who could all play a relieving props role at some point during the game..
  
  Mateo has to play this game, we aren't good enough to give the title a crack without him. Currently Hayne is our only point of attack (he is obvioulsy killing it) but the good teams will find ways to decrease his potency. Imagine if teams had to worry about Hayne aswell as a Mateo both at the top of their games, it is seriously mouth watering stuff..
Jarrod August 17, 2009 at 12:19pm

Don't get me wrong. I think Robson has done so much better than anyone first expected of him and he has played better ever since he has had Mortimer to play off, but I think you summed it up 1eyed saying "However, I also thought at times he looked a little lost when we were attacking. That's the weakness in his game, IMO"

What is a halfback for? Attacking. Not defending. Keating is more likely to come up with a game winning play.

That's just my opinion.
Stu-Eel August 17, 2009 at 1:34pm

Here is one from left field - how about playing Feleti Mateo from the bench or even at hooker?? Now before you all start laughing and shooting me down in flames for saying hooker... Can everyone remember Jim Dymock in the finals series of 2000? Where did Jim Dymock play, in the hooking role and we were on fire!! That year we came 7th, we beat Roosters in week one of finals (who came second & eventual grand finalists), we beat Penrith in week two and came within a whisker of beating the eventual premiers Brisbane in week 3. All with Dymock in the number 9 jersey. If that is too much left field, I would bring Feleti back from the bench... We must have him back, he is a game breaker. I believe Anderson was on coaching staff in that year so he would be aware of that impact. Kris Keating should only get a run if injury happens to one of starting 17.
- Bourbon Man > Stu-Eel August 17, 2009 at 2:12pm
  
  The problem with this - and it is a BIG problem - is that Mateo is too tall and rangy to be of any effect at all out of dummy half. To play him at 9 is to sacrifice the entire dimension of dummy half play.
  
  You could get Robson to play dummy-half, but that would mean Mortimer would have to come into first receiver on every play. They who do you play at second receiver (traditionally the 5/8th role)??
  
  You could move Hayne to second receiver, but as we saw earlier in the season, if he is forced into the pivot role for the entirety of the match, his effectiveness is greatly reduced.
  
  Alternatively, you could move Reddy into second receiver but who would he pass it to in the centres?? Answer, Mateo - playing out in the centres in attack!
  
  All of this so you can offload Matt Keating???
  
  Sorry Stu - this is a very, very bad idea!

of 3

This reply was deleted.

Eels Blogs

Keating and the bench

Replies

More stuff to read

Eels blogs

Moses unlikely for next week+ Origin.

Magic Round 11 v Melbourne: In the Eye of the Storm

WHO WOULD OF WON IN A PUNCH UP BETWEEN BRAITH & LATRELL?

Sivo been quietly shopped around

Note: this page contains paid content.

Social Blogs

NRL admits bunker got it wrong on roosters obstruction call

Danny Weidler

Nuclear Power a Balanced View

What is everyone's preferred BBQ meat choice?

Note: this page contains paid content.