Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vieux Talonneur" data-source="post: 1215003" data-attributes="member: 73144">True, but the RWC was his first target and he did whatever was necessary. Only 5 of the 10 backs involved in the semi are even available to SB now before you even start thinking about the vagaries of form and fitness. Only 3 of those 5 were involved on Sat and Mitchell was the only back who started both (in 23 Daly started and Lawrence was on the bench). Plus 2 of our major attacking weapons in IFW and Furbank aren&#039;t around. IFW looks the real deal and is capable of individual moments, while Furbank seemed fairly central to the way SB wanted to play.I&#039;m no SB apologist but it&#039;s not exactly a shock we&#039;re not that fluent at the moment. Being on our 4th 10 in fairly short order doesn&#039;t help either (largely self inflicted). Although style wise I&#039;m still at a total loss as to what happened on Sat and can only put it down to one of those mysteries of the universe.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vieux Talonneur, post: 1215003, member: 73144"] True, but the RWC was his first target and he did whatever was necessary. Only 5 of the 10 backs involved in the semi are even available to SB now before you even start thinking about the vagaries of form and fitness. Only 3 of those 5 were involved on Sat and Mitchell was the only back who started both (in 23 Daly started and Lawrence was on the bench). Plus 2 of our major attacking weapons in IFW and Furbank aren’t around. IFW looks the real deal and is capable of individual moments, while Furbank seemed fairly central to the way SB wanted to play. I’m no SB apologist but it’s not exactly a shock we’re not that fluent at the moment. Being on our 4th 10 in fairly short order doesn’t help either (largely self inflicted). Although style wise I’m still at a total loss as to what happened on Sat and can only put it down to one of those mysteries of the universe. [/QUOTE]

Verification