Impact in 20 minutes

A giant asteroid is heading towards Earth. The end result is inevitable as well as imminent. All we have to put in its way is Bruce Willis, his daughter's lover and his daughter's biological father's tired track Don't wanna miss a thing. To say the situation is hopeless is understating things.

It may not seem as life threatening but the situation might appear as tense and dire to a rugby coach in the closing minutes of a game. Generally a coach is looking to influence the end result with his bench. If things haven't gone well - injury, a player exposed in his position - the coach has already made a switch. But if things are going more or less to plan, changes are made to try to win that all important final quarter. Some teams look to dominate early, some like to strike in the middle of the game but knowing where you're at and where you need to be in that final quarter largely dictates where you make the changes and in what capacity.

However, you cannot cover for all eventualities. You have to largely anticipate where you will be in a match and know the limits of the players you have coming off the bench. If SA or England select Alberts or Vunipola the coach knows that these players have 60 minutes in them to wear down that opposition and the other starting back row players must cover possible injury.

It's impossible to cover every eventuality in the back row and utility back. You can opt for insurance like Crotty or impact like Piutau. You can try to cover multiple positions like Luatua or Higganbotham or you can opt for specialist roles like Morgan or Cane. The choices you make largely depend on the gameplan you have in mind and the gameplan you think your opposition will provide.

The specialist players on the bench are not so much a question of who you include but when you include. The front row, lock to a lesser extent, the halfback and fly half require specialist cover. You can certainly debate who you include and how they complement the team but eyebrows are raised if you don't have specialists covering these positions. The big question is when to bring them on. This is where hindsight can be cruel and a coach can be damned if he does like SL and damned if he doesn't like Robbie Deans. Obviously losing a game brings a focus to the bench changes a coach makes.

To preempt not to preempt: that is the question. Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of the outrageous media or to take arms against a sea of troubles and bring them on at pre-determined times and end them. This is the hardest trick in the book. You have the option to bring on fresh legs but you must adapt to how your starting team is playing. Genia or Carter at the height of their powers may have had cover but I don't think it crossed the coach's mind to replace them. Some players you know only have limited game time and other players don't have the same quality in class to call upon. If a prop is doing well at scrum time do you ring the changes knowing that might end or are you conscious of future games and don't want to overburden their workload. Do you bring on a halfback because he can protect a lead but do you bring him on if you want to take the lead?

Obviously some coaches have a more rounded squad to call upon. In the old days of Carter without Evans, there was genuine panic when he broke down. Now Hansen has the luxury of bringing on Barrett who has 64 points from some last minute appearances.

Obviously it's a dream for players to start a test. But test rugby is a game of small options and the contribution a player can make from the bench can be considered as vital in the context of a game as any starting player. How much room is there for a coach with the selections and changes he can make and how critical is the impact from the bench in deciding games and how adept do you think your coach is in selecting and bringing on the bench players? I think Hansen knows his starting team for Saturday's game. What'll give him sleepless nights this week is selecting his bench players. Link on the other hand has injury strife and will be worried about not only some starting positions but the cover as well for those inexperienced players.

So many references, head hurts, must lay down...

The only part about this I dislike is that you didn't use the double meaning...

'20 minutes to impact'

Definately Dont ask SL....hes done alot for English rugby whilst he's been in charge but his bench work has been less than flattering.

It's important to know who is on your bench. Let's hope there are no more 'typing errors' this championship

 to be fair Mealamu and Coles are easy typos to make. Often when NZ plays in Oz, the players get confused and ask if there's a Mealamu supermarket nearby....

Neutralee wrote:The only part about this I dislike is that you didn't use the double meaning...

'20 minutes to impact'

That could be seen as having triple meaning in that you could construe that as meaning the second half has begun and twenty minutes remain until you bring on impact. I prefer my less ambiguous title.

Whats the 1 and 2 then, because my double meaning was

# 20 minutes until making impact ala deep impact

# 20 minutes to make an impact ala coming off the bench

Impact in 20 minutes like the film and the time generally allotted to the bench to make an impact rather than be injury replacement or someone horribly exposed.

A ruck it, I just don't want to a acknowledge having watched that Hollywood shlock!

I havn't, I was talking about a more smutty version of the Holywood namesake...

You win on both counts then...

Good article
Terrible film