Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
As can be expected, squad depth is playing a major role in the way the season is playing out, but even a little more than was probably expected before the comp started.
Some teams are almost seamlessly replacing players and keeping a consistent game plan going while others really struggle.
Depth is not just about quality of players but the ability of coaches to integrate the replacements into the game plan so that the loss of the first choice bloke makes as little an impact as possible. Team culture also seems to play a role. It actually lifts some teams if they lose a couple of key players ala Highlanders.
Some of the teams and how their depth is helping them or hampering them:
Highlanders - prime example of great culture, coaching and game plan making up for the fact that no name players and oldies like Tony Brown are the backups. They just seem to soldier on. Amazing.
Tahs - lack of quality depth in the backs and at hooker. Really costly. Lack of quality backup for TPN, Palu, Horne and Barnes forcing too many changes in the way the team plays. Depth not great at all. Also have issues in leadership when Waugh isn't playing.
Bulls - total shambles when it comes to depth. Forgot to recruit wisely. No apparent depth at all (except for Greylin at LH who is a find). The old big names are battling but the Bulls really have nobody to replace them with. Bakkies is slow and host lost his aggression (for better or worse) Rossouw looks half asleep. Dippenaar at 13 just about cost them the game against the Force and the fact that vd Westhuizen is the outside back on the bench is telling of where they are.
Sharks - Lambie went down and the whole Sharks game plan went down the toilet. To some extent they make up for it with probably the best depth in the pack of any team.
Reds - almost like the Highlanders. Link slots players into the backline with apparent ease and the young guys are very versatile. Sure the loss of Slipper hurt the scrums but they drag themselves through it. Cooper goes down and they are in shit but that's their only really big risk area. Prop backup still dodgy but they get through it.
Force have coped well with the back row injuries and the backs are versatile (they just need to beleive a little more that they can win).
Crusaders - a bit surprised here. I thought they would carry on with business as usual but the Clan exposed a soft underbelly. They are a totally different team without SBW, Carter and Reid. Whitelock at 12 was a disaster, Chris Jack struggles when the game picks up pace, and the bloke who played 8 thiw seek was completely out of his depth.
Blues - better backline depth than most but does it actually cause some selection problems for them as they can't seem to decide which is the best combo?
Brumbies - Can't seem to get new combinations to gel at all. There are bigger issues there than depth it seems.
Anyway, some rambling food for thought and most of it states the obvious but it's interesting to see how the squads seem to stack up in this respect.
Some teams are almost seamlessly replacing players and keeping a consistent game plan going while others really struggle.
Depth is not just about quality of players but the ability of coaches to integrate the replacements into the game plan so that the loss of the first choice bloke makes as little an impact as possible. Team culture also seems to play a role. It actually lifts some teams if they lose a couple of key players ala Highlanders.
Some of the teams and how their depth is helping them or hampering them:
Highlanders - prime example of great culture, coaching and game plan making up for the fact that no name players and oldies like Tony Brown are the backups. They just seem to soldier on. Amazing.
Tahs - lack of quality depth in the backs and at hooker. Really costly. Lack of quality backup for TPN, Palu, Horne and Barnes forcing too many changes in the way the team plays. Depth not great at all. Also have issues in leadership when Waugh isn't playing.
Bulls - total shambles when it comes to depth. Forgot to recruit wisely. No apparent depth at all (except for Greylin at LH who is a find). The old big names are battling but the Bulls really have nobody to replace them with. Bakkies is slow and host lost his aggression (for better or worse) Rossouw looks half asleep. Dippenaar at 13 just about cost them the game against the Force and the fact that vd Westhuizen is the outside back on the bench is telling of where they are.
Sharks - Lambie went down and the whole Sharks game plan went down the toilet. To some extent they make up for it with probably the best depth in the pack of any team.
Reds - almost like the Highlanders. Link slots players into the backline with apparent ease and the young guys are very versatile. Sure the loss of Slipper hurt the scrums but they drag themselves through it. Cooper goes down and they are in shit but that's their only really big risk area. Prop backup still dodgy but they get through it.
Force have coped well with the back row injuries and the backs are versatile (they just need to beleive a little more that they can win).
Crusaders - a bit surprised here. I thought they would carry on with business as usual but the Clan exposed a soft underbelly. They are a totally different team without SBW, Carter and Reid. Whitelock at 12 was a disaster, Chris Jack struggles when the game picks up pace, and the bloke who played 8 thiw seek was completely out of his depth.
Blues - better backline depth than most but does it actually cause some selection problems for them as they can't seem to decide which is the best combo?
Brumbies - Can't seem to get new combinations to gel at all. There are bigger issues there than depth it seems.
Anyway, some rambling food for thought and most of it states the obvious but it's interesting to see how the squads seem to stack up in this respect.
