General Warriors Use Of The Interchange Bench (lowrie's Last Stand)

[Hitman82]

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion relating to Matthew Elliot's use of the interchange bench.

Points of particular interest:

A) Using a defensive lock off the bench (Todd Lowrie) for relatively high minutes, presumably as a close-out tactic.

B) Having a winger / centre / second rower utility (Dominique Peyroux) as either an energy injection or safeguard for a tiring Hurrell or left on the bench for the full 80.

C) Using one of the starting props as a battering ram then benching him the remaining 65 minutes (Matagi) or returning him for the final 10-15 (Packer).

D) No longer utilising an attacking / spine player (Pita Godinet) off the bench.

E) Often operating with only 1 prop on the field.

This weekend (with Rapira and Matulino named to start versus Wests Tigers) we will have a bench chosen from:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/8930448/Packer-and-Gubb-ruled-out-of-Warriors-squad

Interchange:
Jacob Lillyman
Todd Lowrie
Dominique Peyroux
Ngani Laumape
Suaia Matagi
Sam Lousi

Will Elliot mix things up and include Ngani Laumape? He's a popular choice among fans, but will he offer the versatility of Peyroux? You'd have to say there is no chance of both of them being on the bench.

Will Todd Lowrie continue to raise the ire of fans as a defensive player who seems to come on to replace Mateo? This move at times makes sense to me, but unless we have a huge lead I view it as a negative and utterly unnecessary tactic.

Will we see something entirely different in Sam Lousi off the bench as an attacking forward, presumably subbing for Mateo?

Is Elliot's use of Lowrie simply following the current trend among NRL sides' use of the interchange bench....?

https://www.foxsports.com.au/league...uts/story-fn2mcuj6-1226618638075#.UecaRdKnDYF

Season 2013 has already produced the highest percentage of teams to be kept scoreless in the history of rugby league and, according to former Cronulla coach and referees boss Stuart Raper, the only way to buck the trend is to reduce the interchange.

According to Fox Sports Stats, one in five 40-minute halves of NRL played this season has had a team kept scoreless.

It’s an amazing stat and has 2013 poised to break a record for the most shut-outs of all time.

Raper believes the reason for the growing trend is largely due to NRL club’s heavy defensive focus and predictability in attack.

"The game is becoming so defence-orientated; my concern is the interchange is still too high," Raper told foxsports.com.au.
"I think we’ve got too many fresh players on the field and it’s not my thoughts only, a lot of people have said this.
"These fitter sides are defending well and because they are fit they are utilising their interchange better than other teams.
"I don’t know if there is much else you could pick as to why sides are being kept to nil."

Raper believes there is a growing trend of predictable and generic attacking plays by NRL teams which is reducing the amount of offloads made and ultimately contributing to teams’ inability to score points.

"All sides are attacking the same way," he said.

"Everybody knows the deep double block out wide shifting so the fringe defence is working a lot better. Sides have scored the year before and last year with that play aren’t doing it anymore because some sides are defending it better than others.

"This year we don’t have as much second phase football and again that comes down to the interchange. Sides are controlling that ruck a lot better so we’re going to get that predictability play.
"It’s great to see someone like Sonny Bill Williams play, but two weeks back I don’t think he played the ball because he was offloading and I think the interchange plays a big part in that."

So what is the solution to buck this trend?

Raper says during his time in control of the NRL referees, alongside Bill Harrigan until being sacked at the end of last year, he continually suggested they reduce the number of interchanges allowed to be made.

Raper confirmed that the idea has been discussed within the NRL by the rules committee but it is yet to receive the support of the majority.

"I hate tinkering with rules in the game. I think we have great rules but the thing is as our game has become a modern game, players have got a lot fitter, bigger, stronger, faster than they were 10 years ago and even five ago," he said.

"Sports science is going through the roof in the way these sides are prepared. We’re still maintaining a 10 interchange, we changed it about five or six years ago from 12 and they haven’t budged on it since. The game gets a little quicker and harder each year and we still have fresh players on.

"You look at any team’s pack of forwards and nearly the majority of the team would only have to rotate one or two.

"Hookers are playing 80 minutes, back rowers are playing 80, all you really need on your rotation is front rowers and you don’t need 10 interchanges for injuries and front rowers and until we bring that interchange back I can’t see any major changes to our game."

What's your opinion...
What is Elliot doing right or wrong?
Is he flexible enough from game to game?
Is he sticking to a formula or evaluating the specific needs for each opposition?

 

[Jay M]

For me:
1. It's not flexible enough, it's almost like he has his gameplan and sticks to it, no matter what is happening on the field.

2. Mateo needs more minutes. When Shaun Johnson isn't firing, Mateo is our most creative player on the field.

3. I'm not completely averse to Lowrie on the bench, but there is NO value in having both Lowrie and Peyroux on the bench. If Lowrie is to play - 20 minutes max of his time should be replacing Mateo! If they want to give him more minutes they should be coming at the expense of someone other than Mateo - the problem with this is Taylor and Mannering can both play 80 minutes. I wouldn't have an issue if Lowrie subbed Mateo for 20 and Taylor for 20 though.

4. Our forward pack sometimes struggle for impact and metres - there is no benefit to having only one prop on the field. This results in Manu/Hurrell having to do more work, which a) wears them out and reduces their attacking threat and b) is more likely to result in injury running into props.

5. Having a back row at times of Taylor, Mannering and Lowrie is ineffective. You have one great defender, and two weaker ones, and no real attacking threats. At most IMO, two of these players should be on the field at the same time (unless we have injuries or a HUGE lead)...

6. Coming back to #3, while not completely averse to having Lowrie on the bench, he is not the ideal candidate for me. He can play one position (the back row). He struggles for impact on attack. He is a good defender, but is quite small. He brings no impact off the bench. End of the day, we brought him across as an experienced head in an attempt to replace a true warrior in Michael Luck.
Experiment is over - Lowrie isn't Luck. His defence isn't as good. He isn't commanding a starting place in the side. Right now - who here can say they'd rather have Lowrie over Taylor at lock?
We're losing Taylor - that sucks. Next year, with Bukuya coming across and further development in our other players - Lowrie should not be in the 17 IMO unless we have a dearth of injuries.

*EDIT* who formatted my post? I did not put spaces between each of my points/paragraphs

 

[Hitman82]

Haha, that would be me! I couldn't read it without the spaces... old eyes. PS it's narcissistic to re-read your own posts.

 

[Apus]

He's far too conservative for my liking.

This Lowrie thing....I can kinda see why Elliot wants to use him, but surely he must see it completely disrupts the side. Lowrie got injured, Taylor moved to 13 and has been playing far too well to drop. Lowrie recovers, but his form wasn't poor prior to the injury so do you really want to drop him if you're Elliot? The problem is, it's coming at a detriment to the side. You only need to look at our second half efforts for confirmation of this. vs the Broncos and the Rabbits we went into half time with leads and in both of those games we seemed to just be defending that lead with very little ability to get go forward and attack.

Lowrie is completely useless when not playing at 13. His go forward is hilariously bad, his defense is alright but already more than covered for by other players. I mean really whats the rationale behind playing him for such long minutes? I wouldn't mind it if he got 20mins before half time and Mateo got a bit of a breather, ready to play for the whole second half.

Elliots use of the props is also baffling. In what world is playing a prop for one 15-20min stint a good idea? Especially when they're going great like Matagi/Gubb have been. You add this to the fact that we often have one prop on the field, and it really makes you wonder wtf is going through Elliots head.

Generally our second halves make me sad. Mostly because we're so much better than how we're performing. Lowrie needs to be dropped. It sucks for him, but it needs to happen. We need 2 props on at all times and we should be giving all of them 2 stints. I would have thought it was a trust/development thing, but he also only gave Packer 1 short stint before he got injured. Something funky is going on there and it's hurting us badly.

 

[Hitman82]

For me:
1. It's not flexible enough, it's almost like he has his gameplan and sticks to it, no matter what is happening on the field.

2. Mateo needs more minutes. When Shaun Johnson isn't firing, Mateo is our most creative player on the field.

3. I'm not completely averse to Lowrie on the bench, but there is NO value in having both Lowrie and Peyroux on the bench. If Lowrie is to play - 20 minutes max of his time should be replacing Mateo! If they want to give him more minutes they should be coming at the expense of someone other than Mateo - the problem with this is Taylor and Mannering can both play 80 minutes. I wouldn't have an issue if Lowrie subbed Mateo for 20 and Taylor for 20 though.

4. Our forward pack sometimes struggle for impact and metres - there is no benefit to having only one prop on the field. This results in Manu/Hurrell having to do more work, which a) wears them out and reduces their attacking threat and b) is more likely to result in injury running into props.

5. Having a back row at times of Taylor, Mannering and Lowrie is ineffective. You have one great defender, and two weaker ones, and no real attacking threats. At most IMO, two of these players should be on the field at the same time (unless we have injuries or a HUGE lead)...

6. Coming back to #3, while not completely averse to having Lowrie on the bench, he is not the ideal candidate for me. He can play one position (the back row). He struggles for impact on attack. He is a good defender, but is quite small. He brings no impact off the bench. End of the day, we brought him across as an experienced head in an attempt to replace a true warrior in Michael Luck.
Experiment is over - Lowrie isn't Luck. His defence isn't as good. He isn't commanding a starting place in the side. Right now - who here can say they'd rather have Lowrie over Taylor at lock?
We're losing Taylor - that sucks. Next year, with Bukuya coming across and further development in our other players - Lowrie should not be in the 17 IMO unless we have a dearth of injuries.

*EDIT* who formatted my post? I did not put spaces between each of my points/paragraphs

1. I feel Elliot has chosen his game plan and is possibly over confident in it. This seems slightly similar to his persistence with Taylor at hooker during the early season. It didn't work, but he stubbornly kept at it. I do believe we have a GOOD game plan, but question how open Elliot is to adapting it for each game.

2. Agreed. I find myself swearing and asking where Mateo is. As soon as our halves start lapsing, Mateo should be offering his creativity. He's had a couple of amazing games this season: needs to have them more often.

3. There is no reason to have Mannering + Taylor + Lowrie in the same 17. Not when we have Lousi, Gubb, Matagi, etc evailable. This is compounded by Peyroux being a relatively low-impact bench forward.

4. Agreed. And it's even worse when we are missing one of the big Tongan bros. The only game the 1 prop approach worked happened to be the game when we had Laumape, Hurrell and Manu all playing. They acted as extra props and we carved up.

5. Correct.

6. Mannering should be our lock.

 

[gREVUS]

He's far too conservative for my liking.

This Lowrie thing....I can kinda see why Elliot wants to use him, but surely he must see it completely disrupts the side. Lowrie got injured, Taylor moved to 13 and has been playing far too well to drop. Lowrie recovers, but his form wasn't poor prior to the injury so do you really want to drop him if you're Elliot? The problem is, it's coming at a detriment to the side. You only need to look at our second half efforts for confirmation of this. vs the Broncos and the Rabbits we went into half time with leads and in both of those games we seemed to just be defending that lead with very little ability to get go forward and attack.

Lowrie is completely useless when not playing at 13. His go forward is hilariously bad, his defense is alright but already more than covered for by other players. I mean really whats the rationale behind playing him for such long minutes? I wouldn't mind it if he got 20mins before half time and Mateo got a bit of a breather, ready to play for the whole second half.

Elliots use of the props is also baffling. In what world is playing a prop for one 15-20min stint a good idea? Especially when they're going great like Matagi/Gubb have been. You add this to the fact that we often have one prop on the field, and it really makes you wonder wtf is going through Elliots head.

Generally our second halves make me sad. Mostly because we're so much better than how we're performing. Lowrie needs to be dropped. It sucks for him, but it needs to happen. We need 2 props on at all times and we should be giving all of them 2 stints. I would have thought it was a trust/development thing, but he also only gave Packer 1 short stint before he got injured. Something funky is going on there and it's hurting us badly.

Matagi and Gubb are both young and new to the NRL, I personally have no issue with him thinking beyond this season and blooding players carefully, as he is doing with Laumape.

Packer is unfit and over weight. He looks like me and I know I shouldn't be out there, 15 mins and hes toast. They tried the cold gloves and I understand they work in getting him back on the field but stopped using them for some reason (maybe they made him go pee pee, like walking outside on a cold winters morning)

I disagree that Lowrie adds nothing to defence or that it is covered for by other players, but I do think he is out there to long and I would like to see him used in a more impact role (which is possible as a defender, stop the player and stop them hard).

Without changing a winning side; just by reducing Lowries time, introducing Peyroux at 15 mins left and giving Mateo time back on the park for 10 to 15 mins in the second half, I think you could make a better result. BUT, all this makes little difference if the warriors don't have a playmaker that can kick for position.

 

[Jay M]

Haha, that would be me! I couldn't read it without the spaces... old eyes. PS it's narcissistic to re-read your own posts.

wasn't narcissistic - added a minor edit to point #6, and was like wtf, I don't remember putting it in paragraph form [DOUBLEPOST=1374106537][/DOUBLEPOST]

6. Mannering should be our lock.

It's funny you put this here, because I was so close to making a point 7... saying how much better our team will be territory wise defensively next year if we have TL at hooker and Mannering at lock. We concede a lot of metres in the middle this year, and no small part of this is due to Friend and Taylor/Lowrie being in the middle. Don't get me wrong, they're all good defenders - they can all tackle the stuffing out of what runs at them, but they're not what I'd call strong defenders... i.e. they don't stop momentum on first contact, and concede additional metres after contact...

Leuluai and Mannering will add so much starch to the middle of the field, we could potentially concede 10+ metres less every set the other team take possession in their own half... Rapira, Packer, Mutts, and Lillyman are all strong defenders, capable of stopping runnings. It's one of the reason's Friend's tackle count is so high - who would you rather run at...

Apologies for the slight derailment.

 

[WellingtonOrca]

Everybody knows the deep double block out wide

I'm not convinced the Warriors attack do

 

[eudebrito]

Assuming the interchange does not change from 10 a game, in a perfect world (everyone fit) I would like the warriors bench to be:

2 props
1 second rower with impact (either some whack in defence or an offload threat or line breaking runner not just someone to fill a gap)
1 hooker or utility who can play hooker.

Just because Friend, Mateo, Mannering, Taylor are capable of playing 80 minutes, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea every week.
In the 2nd half of the South’s game Friend would make a tackle, barely get back to marker, get involved in another tackle… he wasn’t missing them but he was barely hanging on at times.
In attack just distributing to the next one off runner, no kicks, no engaging the markers.
It’s not that he was making mistakes or letting the team down, but there’s no impact there.
I think they can afford to use 2 interchanges to give him a 20-25 minute spell, maybe the 50 minute – 70 minute mark, Godinet, Mara or Havili are the options to fill that role at the moment.

If ME doesn’t think that we can continue to win those nail biters, then one way to make sure it isn’t a desperate struggle for the final 40 is to inject some spark onto the field and put some pressure on the opposition defence with a fresh dummy half, make them scramble instead of us.
We also don’t know if TL is a 80 minute hooker for next year, so there is a need to give whoever his backup is some more experience too.

The props are self-explanatory, don’t really care who starts and who comes off the bench, there should always be 2 on the field, playing 1 is just being perverse when you have 4 good ones.
40 minutes apiece, maybe Matulino/Lillyman would be closer to 50 and Rapira/Packer closer to 30 but depends on the state of the game.

Second row, can cut ME some slack here, Benry’s gorne, Lousi has only now had enough game time in Vulcans (and wasn’t that impressive in those games from the ones sky have shown) so he didn’t really have viable option for the bench instead of Lowrie. His use of him might have been questionable but can’t really argue him being in the 17 as cover.

Mateo’s stamina confuses me, against the Knights he was running wild, every touch looked full of purpose, other games he’s sort of labouring about. When he is having one of his better games I’d sub Taylor instead, under this setup the bench 2nd rower might not get that many minutes, one stint of 20 – 30 minutes probably. I’m really hoping big Sam goes well against the smaller tigers and locks up a spot on the bench. But if he’s ineffective, can’t really blame ME for going back to Lowrie.
Peyroux on the bench is a waste, might be a bit tough on him as he has done well in limited minutes, but I think a 2nd hooker would have a much more positive impact on the team.

 

[mt.wellington]

Good thread. I like Elliott and have faith in him as the captain of the ship (or the bus driver to use a Blueyism!) but his naming of the bench and his use of the interchange is the one thing Im a little unhappy about. This is how Id pick my bench:

Two bench spots pick themselves when fit and available and which ones start:

14. BEN MATULINO / RUSSELL PACKER
15. JACOB LILLYMAN / SAM RAPIRA

Peyroux IMO is a must. He is the only player in our roster outside of the starting 13 that can cover 2nd row, centre and wing. Should Konrad be getting overworked defensively and need a rest for the last 10 minutes (as in the Manly game of Round 13) then Peyroux can step in to tackle his ass off. If you look at Hurrells tackle stats for the last few games its an obvious tactic that teams are using to not only make a linebreak via Konrad but also tire him out to limit his attacking ability. Should Manu get injured (as in Round 1 after 17 minutes against the Eels and Round 16 against the Broncos where he hopped off the field. Also the Raiders game of Round 6 where he bravely limped and hobbled around after being forced to play because we had no one to play in his spot) or even Fish then Peyroux can slot in their spot. Both Fisiiahi and Manu have a history of injuries. All going well in our backline he can still sub Mateo for 10-20 minutes.

Look at it this way, preferably that bench spot would be taken by a fit Benry. Peyroux is the only similar alternative.

16. DOMINQUE PEYROUX / BEN HENRY

The last spot is the one that baffles me. Just too many options. Do you go for some spark in Godinet or Laumape? Do you use an extra prop in Matagi, Gubb, and the Lousi boys or go with Elliotts preferred option of having an extra 2nd rower in Lowrie, Ikahihifo or Steve Rapira?

I dont think Godinets fits in the team anymore. We have enough spark in the team to not have to use him. Unless he's going to be subbing Shaun Johnson or TL. He's a halfback not a hooker. I also dont like the idea of playing Laumape in the 2nd row. I get the need of some to just try squeeze him in the team somewhere but I want him developed as a specialist centre and feel that Elliott is handling his development well. In saying that it would be interesting to see Ngani sub Mateo. We do seem to lose a bit of our attack when Feletis off.

Personally I dont see the point in having Lowrie on the bench either as some have already stated. Mannering and Taylor both play 80 minutes. Feleti and injuries are covered by Peyroux. I get that Todd has a lot of experience but what we need is a more ball playing orientated 2nd rower rather then yet another tacklebot who has little impact when hitting up the line. The silliness of having an extra 2nd rower was evident during the Rabbitohs game in Perth. Peyroux didnt even take the field! I realise most teams carry an extra 2nd rower but then again most teams dont have a 2nd rower and a lock that play 80 minutes.

I would prefer to see us use another prop on the bench. I cant confirm this but Im sure there are short periods during some games where we dont have a prop on the field at all. Sometimes we have 3 of them on the bench. Thats crazy IMO! We were having major problems getting out of our half towards the last 20 minutes against the Bunnies. This would have been the perfect time to inject a fresh prop with a licence to kill. Which prop you choose to take that spot is a matter of personal preference. I like Gubb and his workrate. Runs hard and tackles well. Matagi has that bulldozer potential in him. Sione Lousi is a quieter version of Gubb IMO and Sam has the potential to play 2nd row in mould of Mateo or even become a ball playing prop like a Kasiano type. They would all look good in the squad.

17. CHARLIE GUBB / SUAIA MATAGI

Elliotts use of the bench is quite puzzling TBH. Love to know why he didnt get Peyroux on against the Rabbitohs? A few on our team could have done with a rest. And why does he only leave us with one prop on the field instead of benching a prop for a prop? Is he trying to protect his lead by loading the field with tacklebots? Is he giving the props a rest to use them in one final surge on the front line? Anyone?

Elliott also seems to have an obsession with playing Lowrie and gets him on for Mateo, then Mateo comes back on for a prop and Lowrie goes to lock and moves Taylor to prop! I may be wrong but I dont think he has ever named just 17 players on a team list. We have also only ever played the named 1-17 twice this year in 15 games. Some have been because of injury or returning from one but he also seems to get off on switching the team up at the last minute.

Like I said, I agree with the direction the club and team is heading under Matt but his interchange is the one Id like to change. I'll be watching and reading this thread with interest...

 

[Matulino's Left Shoulder]

The game is too defensive these days ? I'LL GIVE YOU DEFENSIVE

LOCKE
PEYROUX
MANNERING
BENRY
NIELSEN
MATEO
TL
RAPIRA
FRIEND
LILLYMAN
MATULINO
TALYLOR
LOWRIE

Win every game 1-0 motherlovers.

 

[Jay M]

The game is too defensive these days ? I'LL GIVE YOU DEFENSIVE

LOCKE
PEYROUX
MANNERING
BENRY
NIELSEN
MATEO
TL
RAPIRA
FRIEND
LILLYMAN
MATULINO
TALYLOR
LOWRIE

Win every game 1-0 motherlovers.

how good is TL at kicking field goals? Without Shaun Johnson it might be a 0-0 golden point draw

Plus with Lowrie in there, we'll probably give away a couple of stupid penalties and lose 4-0.

 

[Far Away Fan]

.....
I disagree that Lowrie adds nothing to defence or that it is covered for by other players, but I do think he is out there to long and I would like to see him used in a more impact role (which is possible as a defender, stop the player and stop them hard).
....

With all due respect to you and to Lowrie...... you're joking aren't you?

I'd like to see Lowrie in an impact role, too, but it's a role that right now he can't fulfil, sadly.
Stop the player and stop them hard? *shakes head*

 

[Jay M]

With all due respect to you and to Lowrie...... you're joking aren't you?

I'd like to see Lowrie in an impact role, too, but it's a role that right now he can't fulfil, sadly.
Stop the player and stop them hard? *shakes head*

That's the thing we do miss having moved from Luck to Lowrie... Luck could actually make a hit... there were times when his tackles had similar force to Mutts (based on the sensors etc that they would sometimes wear). Lowrie can fill a role, but I don't think it's the same one that Luck did...

 

[gREVUS]

With all due respect to you and to Lowrie...... you're joking aren't you?

I'd like to see Lowrie in an impact role, too, but it's a role that right now he can't fulfil, sadly.
Stop the player and stop them hard? *shakes head*

While hes playing so many minutes well never know will we. Honestly if he was getting the game time of a Packer or a Matagi then you would expect him to work his but off like crazzzy for those 15 mins, instead hes expected to remain effective for the near 60 hes out there

 

[Sup42]

I've already put my tin foil hat on and secound guessed the defensive shut out theory before Raper looked published his theories ( cheers for the stats that's vindicating he he he ).

Without being too smug about it :

Ivan did the same. The Warriors teams that were successful under him ended up top heavy on defensive secound rowers ( importing a Poly from Aussie for offloading after what Ivan did to our secound rowers is laugh able ).

So if you compare Ivan to Elliots use of defensive squads , Elliots using specialists instead of Secound rowers in his backline , he's only crowding the bench a bit with tacklers , I'm sure we all believe him when he says the team haven't got up to his full plan yet / still learning.

I recon Elliots most effective use of the bench was when he benched Johnson , he needs to keep tweaking him i recon till the boy changes his mind set.

Consider what is being invested in Johnson to change his mindset , he's got Daryl Halligan and Macca a successful half that's coaching him and he still thinks it's ok to say he will always have different ideas to the Media and Wave at Elliot after his benching like a smart Arse.

Guess wot you Johnson you are being a cock.

Andrew Johns and Alan Langer , Darren Lockeyer and Stacey Jones and Wally Lewis didn't give their coaches attitude in Public.

Wonder why they reached their potential and our physically more gifted half is still waiting to get to his in season three.

Elliots secound most important bench Move was benching Hurrell.

As for the finer points of the ins and outs of the Lowries / Perouxs......even if wrong / not the best approach , when playing well this squad wins 5/6 against quality

Keep it up Elliot put whoever you want on there mate.....I want to see how far this master plan takes us by season end.


I'd better Add that Elliots using Taylor and Mannering as attacking forwards....and after we threw the toys out of the cot over it ....how's it looking now ?

In that context Mateo off for Lowrie if Lowrie gets a bit of form is sweet as man.....hardly an imbalance in the side.....Bukuya is only going to add to that.

 

[Maraea]

What is Elliot doing right or wrong?​

Is he flexible enough from game to game?​

Is he sticking to a formula or evaluating the specific needs for each opposition?​

​

​

What Elliot's doing right is currently winning games.

I definitely think that ME is trying to be flexible in his approach to each game, whether he's wanted to or not at times.

Against the Tigers on Friday it looked to me like the players had been working on a new game plan/direction specifically for the match and then on the day had a collective brain fade in the first half trying to remember. It didn't help much when the opposition started so quickly either. But a few choice words and a crushed cup at half time seemed to change the facial expressions from ? to !
And the supporters rejoiced!

Things that I, and many others I'm sure, hoped to see were happening on Friday. TL took more responsibility for kicking for field position, he also stepped up his defensive efforts allowing NF to run more from dummy half and freeing Shaun Johnson up to take on the line more and do that which he does so well.

IMO ME's decisions on how he uses the interchange are based on our defensive shortcomings.

The main difference between us and the Rabbitohs are the amount of tackles that we miss. Look at all the work their halves are doing and all the sneaky metres that Luke can make because of it, not to mention their kicking game - but then of course they have a more accurate kicking game when they miss fewer tackles right?

Lowrie's not flash, but we need defensive consistency and that's what he brings. That consistency along with experience and a lack of viable alternatives is why he is on the bench and needs to stay there until our defensive efforts vastly improve. Warriors are the best team in the comp - we are that close to GF glory

 

[mt.wellington]

Not sure where to stick this and didnt want to start a new thread...

NRL: Dom's time to shine
By Michael Brown @Lionsden08
5:30 AM Sunday Aug 11, 2011

• Dominique Peyroux has tasted defeat just once for the Warriors this season. Photo / Getty Images
  Dominique Peyroux has proved his value as the closer for the Warriors, steadying things in the final minutes with the result on the line, but he's staking a claim for an expanded role and his coach seems ready to give it to him.
  
  Peyroux has played in seven games this season and experienced defeat only once - last weekend's 18-14 loss to the Sharks. He has usually come on for the closing minutes to shore up the problematical right-side defence. It has seen him average only 21 minutes a game, but against the Rabbitohs, he sat on the bench for the entire 80 minutes.
  
  It's been hard, but he's never complained. It doesn't mean he doesn't wish for more.
  
  "To be honest, I want more minutes," he said. "To be starting would be awesome but I have to stick to my role, which is coming off the bench, and adapting to whatever position I play and giving 100 per cent into that 15 or 20-minute stint.
  
  "You can't really do much in that amount of time but you just have to stick with it and hopefully Matty has got a plan for me in these last five games."
  
  
  Warriors coach Matt Elliott seems to be warming to the idea and it might even see a change in today's crucial game against Manly.
  
  "We have to expand that role and that's the challenge for us at the moment," Elliott said. "I probably have to take a little bit more of a risk occasionally and give one of our backrowers more rest, which increases their effectiveness.
  
  "When you play guys 80 minutes every week, what you find is they will keep doing it but the quality of their work diminishes because the NRL is so tough. I need to show a bit more courage and get Dom out there a little bit earlier at some stage."
  
  Peyroux has always battled to make it. He acknowledges he wasn't the best player as a junior and rarely made representative sides.
  
  He had to work hard to keep his dream of playing in the NRL - a goal he set as a 12-year-old - and had to trial to get picked up by the Roosters when many of his friends were recruited directly.
  
  He played under-20s at Bondi Junction before moving to the Gold Coast before eventually making his NRL debut in 2011. Even then, he played only 16 games over two seasons for the Titans before being picked up by the Warriors.
  
  In many ways, his current situation is just a continuation of the battle he's always faced.
  
  "It comes down to your will, your dreams and what you want to do with your life," he said. "I wasn't one of the most talented boys out there but I worked hard. It was what I wanted. I'm 24 now and hopefully there are more opportunities out there."
  
  He has plenty when it comes to international football. Born in Auckland to parents with Samoan, Cook Islands and Solomon Islands heritage, he has multiple options and it's little wonder he's often referred to as a fruit salad.
  
  He feels more Samoan than anything but played for the Cook Islands in 2009 and plans to stay loyal and play for them at this year's World Cup.
  
  His long-term ambition, however, is a little further afield.
  
  "Hopefully I will play for France," he said. "I don't really see any Islanders playing for them and I would like to be one of the first."
  
  For now, his goals are a little more immediate - helping the Warriors beat Manly today and getting more minutes on the park.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10911028