Pretty much since the first year of Chris Sandow's tenure with Parramatta, I've advocated playing Chris Sandow as a super-sub off the bench.
My argument has been that you put Sandow on the bench and then depending on the flow of the game, you either throw him into seven, six or one if you're chasing points (or have him float as an extra playmaker like Queensland tend to do) or if you just want to lift the tempo you drop him into dummy half and Peats a break. I think Chris would do find with a short-stint in the middle. His linespeed would be good and his low-tackling has really improved. Defensively, the fact that the opposition doesn't know where Chris is going to pop-up makes it very difficult for them to plan any attacking strategies around him. In fact, if you're in front and in control of the match, there's no need to bring Chris on at all.
I also believe that the NRL would have to give us an exemption if we chose Sandow in this role. Isaac De Gois is injured and we could argue that we need an interchange hooker and our only option is to use Sandow in that role and have Kelly at seven.
The number of times I've floated idea, people's argument has been why would you play your marquee attacking half off the bench; well, it's now gotten to the point where we get far greater value from his as a bench player than we would as a Wentworthville player.
The other argument that people have made against this is that it's suicide to bring mid-game instability into the halves. i've long-argued that a team made up of professional, full-time athletes should have no drama with a more fluid attacking, and now in the case we're in, dropping back into a familar situation they have played the last number of years in should certainly not be a stretch.
The Sandow Super Sub experiment is time!
P.S. On a personal note for Chris, this could be a really good thing for his career because if he could demonstrate his value in this kind of role; he would again become a recruitment prospect. I don't see any NRL club betting on Sandow as their number one half, but I stil believe he would be of enormous value to any team that can use him in this capacity.
Replies
Phil, I'd just like to point out the Queensland spine is Thurston, Cronk and Smith. Having an extra play maker is managed easily as both JT and Cronk are dominant halves and both can expertly marshal a side around the park. Us, on the other hand, struggle to have even one controlling half. Over calls occur regularly and we end up with no clear game plan. I still think playing Sandow off the bench weakens your middle as Peats leads the defensive line. With Sandow, he's so unpredictable that his teammates have no idea what he's going to do. I'm not sure how the side would cope going from a somewhat structured game with Kelly at 7 to Sandow doing what he wants is going to help.
"dropping back into a familar situation they have played the last number of years in should certainly not be a stretch." That familiar situation landed us a 14th place, two wooden spoons and a 10th place (courtesy of Jarryd Hayne). I fail to see how that's a positive.
Super, we'd easily play all three of them onto the park at the same time because Kelly takes the Seffa role and Sandow and Norman slip back into their wider second-receiver roles. You take Watmough off and Peats plays his role and Sandow plays Peats role in defence. That absolutely weakens your defensive line, but the point is it gives the coach the opportunity to chase points. Sandow can deliver you points and if he is freed to just be an impact player, then he would have the ability to put you back into a match we'd otherwise struggle to get back into.
As I said, I'm quite happy if we're doing well, for him to spend the eight minutes of the bench. We don't need to carry two second rowers - particularly as Pauli re-adjusts to the NRL and starts playing more minutes which is something else I want to see..
Think he would be great off the bench - so long as this does not encourage high risk plays
Souths have also used this tactic successfully against us
Doesn't BA bring Sefa on to play that role? Yet to work in my estimation.
No Seffa plays a very specific role as a middle playmaker - with Luke Kelly in the side you don't need the Seffa role because he runs the middle of the park.
I beat you to it Phil, I wrote a blog on the very same subject a few months back....I reckon with the new reduced interchange Chris Sandow would be an absolute superstar in the last half hour of a match against tired, slow defence...
http://www.1eyedeel.com/forum/topics/how-the-reduced-interchange-co...
As you can see I got howled down by a few Sandow Lovers namely namely Poppa and Glenn Lifetime Eel their comments were laughable.
here is the sobering truth
there is nobody else on our roster than can consistently manufacture "game winning" or "match turning" plays that is BETTER than Sandow
.....nobody
it is therefore essential that if Sandow is not in the starting 13
he MUST be on the interchange bench
i totally agree with Phil here
BA just can't help falling in love with tackling forwards, and is so conservative in his thinking when it comes to using his "bench" as a tool to create impact or momentum swings - I could NEVER understand why Peats and IDG were selected in the 17.....and worse....why BOTH of them were on the field at the same time.......absolutely ludicris
sandow on the bench "makes sense" to me (at least)
Ok maybe for a couple of games, but surely you wouldn't be suggesting we re-sign Sandow as a bench player.
And there's no way he could be a future bench player as he would definitely want to earn a larger contract than a 200k benchi.
I agree. The number of hospital passes or passes thrown too hard are shocking.
Judging by Sandow's consistency issues week in week out and during games, it could be worthwhile.
If he can't concentrate for 80 min, give him 20 min bursts.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next