Eels Blogs

Resting Players

Posted by Matt Peterson's Hair on March 17, 2017 at 7:35am

From the sounds of things this week Norman could have played if we needed him to.

Resting players is always a gamble because you coulld be telling other players in your team to switch off, that you don't regard this game as important. It gives the Titans extra motivation too to come out firing.

For me this is Arthur's biggest test so far this year and if we win well tonight it will be down to him. Can he keep the momentum from last week whilst resting our most important player?

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

★

Votes: 0

Email me when people reply –

Replies

The French Fullback #1 March 17, 2017 at 7:56am

Agree. I really dislike the connotations around "resting" a player. If Normz is injured, say so. You don't "rest" players on round 3, they're hardly burnt out quite yet are they? It would've been a lot easier to cop if they just said injured rather than rested. IMO this is a game we win 9/10 with Norman considering their injury list, I'd rather rest him against the Sharks. Our odds of being 3-0 are far greater with Norman, whereas now, a 2-2 start is an even money chance with Norman out, and then a tough Sharks side next week. Norman playing would pretty much guarantee we're no worse than 3-1 to begin. I know people will say "what if he does the hammy and is out for 5 weeks?" but it still comes back to not using "rested" if that is the case.
1Eyed Eel March 17, 2017 at 8:20am

As someone who has dodgy hamstrings, its absolutely stupid to play unless you are 100 per cent. One, your paranoid about them and so your reluctant to stretch out so you dont play well anyway and two you will make the problem worse and that includes hurting the other one because you overcompensate.
Plus BA has made a point of saying he wants to build a style of play where the playera are basically interchangable and if thata the case you have to believe it and live by it.
- RIDER > 1Eyed Eel March 17, 2017 at 2:26pm
  
  Hahaha Im trying to picture Phil stretching out even with good hammys.
Nitram March 17, 2017 at 8:20am

We will be fine without Norman. Don't forget we have Manu Ma'u. We've all heard of permanent "bitch face", well in ma'u we have permanent "angry face". Look for him to run all day at their young halves. Go Parra.
ParraTime March 17, 2017 at 8:32am

He is not resting him because he feels like Norman deserves a week off. He is resting him because he is injured, so effectively, he is not resting him, the guy is injured.
Eel for life March 17, 2017 at 8:45am

i dont believe he is resting him. Hamstrings can be really difficult to manage, a simple twinge can lead to 4-6 weeks on the sideline. Like he said it with the short turnaround it was probably a better decision in the long run to give him a rest this week instead of risking a longer time period out of the game.
The Eeel March 17, 2017 at 9:14am

Probably a good game to see if another halves combo is where we need them in case Norman breaks a leg and is out for the season maybe.....
Frank The Tank March 17, 2017 at 9:20am

100% agree.
Other teams have got bigger 'Stars' than us but they rarely if ever rest them.
I don't agree this is the way to go but time will tell.
I'll either be back on here later today congratulating BA or saying I told you so.
Let's hope it's the former.
Thooper Dooper Maltese Sparrow March 17, 2017 at 9:32am

If we were playing Sunday and didn't have a short turn around he would have played.
Hamstrings can be a long term problem. Better to lose him for one game than the season potentially.
If we were playing the Storm or similar and it was round 20, not round 3, I think BA would have taken the risk and played him?
Mitchy March 17, 2017 at 10:08am

He has a strained Hamstring; and it is only round 3; as others have said if we had more time between games he could have played; I fail to see how this is Arthur's biggest test but as it is round 3...we have a team.