2026 Sharks Discussion

bort said:
Depending on make up Hohepa pretty valuable too
Can cover 6 or 9 if you needed him to and a genuine forward for decent minutes if needed for that.
Click to expand...
Yeah for sure. I was thinking he’s a genuine option for the 17 after an injury or two though, rather than “designated sitter”. I don’t really like him at hooker but I like him at hooker more than having a prop do it.
 
Sharks NRL Prospects said:
Yeah for sure. I was thinking he’s a genuine option for the 17 after an injury or two though, rather than “designated sitter”. I don’t really like him at hooker, but I like him at hooker more than having a prop do it.
Click to expand...
Still falls into the sitter/cover category way I look at it, just because even with Cam out we are still squeezing 10 forwards (AFB, Rudolf, Nikora, Wilton, Colquhoun, Talakai, Hazelton, Burns, BHU & Kaufusi) into 9 jerseys in front if Hohepa (from a best 17 play perspective).

Now, it doesn't take many more injuries for him to move into the playing17 - but likely at least 3 to middle forwards (but not strictly just props or it could be Tuks called up instead), which hopefully we won't be carrying tooo often.

I'd say there is all the obvious suspects in the 'playing 17' + 2 (because we have enough good experienced forwards)
The we have sitter/cover players in Hiroti, Berrell, Jones, Hohepa
And the last category are probably 'as needed' only - Ison, Gabrael, Niwhai, Stonestreet, Hau Tapuha, Vea'Ila - might make the occasional 18 or 19 appearance, but their best chance to play is injury promotion rather than 18 or 19 player that ends up with a run.

(Vea'ila and Hau Tapuha not on our sharks.com.au team page... but only 27 are. Vea'ila also not on NRL.com list, but is on zero tackle, who also have Hosking as a top 30 player but are missing Hiroti)
 
bort said:
Still falls into the sitter/cover category way I look at it, just because even with Cam out we are still squeezing 10 forwards (AFB, Rudolf, Nikora, Wilton, Colquhoun, Talakai, Hazelton, Burns, BHU & Kaufusi) into 9 jerseys in front if Hohepa (from a best 17 play perspective).

Now, it doesn't take many more injuries for him to move into the playing17 - but likely at least 3 to middle forwards (but not strictly just props or it could be Tuks called up instead), which hopefully we won't be carrying tooo often.

I'd say there is all the obvious suspects in the 'playing 17' + 2 (because we have enough good experienced forwards)
The we have sitter/cover players in Hiroti, Berrell, Jones, Hohepa
And the last category are probably 'as needed' only - Ison, Gabrael, Niwhai, Stonestreet, Hau Tapuha, Vea'Ila - might make the occasional 18 or 19 appearance, but their best chance to play is injury promotion rather than 18 or 19 player that ends up with a run.

(Vea'ila and Hau Tapuha not on our sharks.com.au team page... but only 27 are. Vea'ila also not on NRL.com list, but is on zero tackle, who also have Hosking as a top 30 player but are missing Hiroti)
Click to expand...
Agree with all of this. Hohepa is definitely a good option. I just mean that he is far more likely than Jones or Berrell to actually make his his way into the 17 anyway, and was already providing some value at #18 last season.

Those other two aren't getting picked in the 17 outside of an injury crisis, but can provide some value under this new rule as player #19.
 
bort said:
Still falls into the sitter/cover category way I look at it, just because even with Cam out we are still squeezing 10 forwards (AFB, Rudolf, Nikora, Wilton, Colquhoun, Talakai, Hazelton, Burns, BHU & Kaufusi) into 9 jerseys in front if Hohepa (from a best 17 play perspective).

Now, it doesn't take many more injuries for him to move into the playing17 - but likely at least 3 to middle forwards (but not strictly just props or it could be Tuks called up instead), which hopefully we won't be carrying tooo often.

I'd say there is all the obvious suspects in the 'playing 17' + 2 (because we have enough good experienced forwards)
The we have sitter/cover players in Hiroti, Berrell, Jones, Hohepa
And the last category are probably 'as needed' only - Ison, Gabrael, Niwhai, Stonestreet, Hau Tapuha, Vea'Ila - might make the occasional 18 or 19 appearance, but their best chance to play is injury promotion rather than 18 or 19 player that ends up with a run.

(Vea'ila and Hau Tapuha not on our sharks.com.au team page... but only 27 are. Vea'ila also not on NRL.com list, but is on zero tackle, who also have Hosking as a top 30 player but are missing Hiroti)
Click to expand...
I wonder if this rule helps create more of a rotating starting 17. I've often thought that with the length of the season and some decent competition for spots these days, if you really should be looking at rotating your bench or occassionally even your starters. Kind of like the way NFL coaches rotate players in and out of roles (though I get that's for specific plays, I think you get my drift).

I don't think coaches have really cottoned on to an optimised management of players workloads and injuries. And I get playing is the best training, but I think in there near future there will be a place for it.

Burgo would agree..!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SF
Sparkles said:
I wonder if this rule helps create more of a rotating starting 17. I've often thought that with the length of the season and some decent competition for spots these days, if you really should be looking at rotating your bench or occassionally even your starters. Kind of like the way NFL coaches rotate players in and out of roles (though I get that's for specific plays, I think you get my drift).

I don't think coaches have really cottoned on to an optimised management of players workloads and injuries. And I get playing is the best training, but I think in there near future there will be a place for it.

Burgo would agree..!
Click to expand...
I think you'll see a little more of it, but not heaps, just because as soon as you put one of these 'deeper' guys on, you lock yourself out of playing someone better you have available.

In games that blow out early you might see it a little.

For our side, would you maybe see us run Tuks out instead of BHU if we have started well and second half also kept the momentum going, to spread workload?
Maybe. Good to give Tuks a run. But then BHU a bloke who can be slow to find form, and often not playing big minutes anyway if he is subbing in that late. May lose as much from him as we gain from Tuks (which could be a contract status consideration).

Carry Pollard and give him 10 minutes instead of... Burns? Kaufusi? by taking Nicho off when we are well up?
Again, maybe you'd see it occasionally, but not too often.

Where I could see it working is positioning yourself to choose between a fit forward and a fat forward (catchy way of saying big minute vs big body). So for example we name Tuks and H Puru in the 17 and 18 jersey (obviously got a couple injuries) and if all is going well you use Tuks for a short stint, if something goes wrong early and you lose a forward or two and need bigger minutes out of the sub, you put Puru on.
Other than having more specialised/skill/utility players available to come on in case of injuries, I think the use may be the main benefit.

In NFL you can give your running back 3 some reps but you're straight back to your running back 1 and situational #2 back as soon as you want them, with no restriction. So it is still quite different.
 
bort said:
I think you'll see a little more of it, but not heaps, just because as soon as you put one of these 'deeper' guys on, you lock yourself out of playing someone better you have available.

In games that blow out early you might see it a little.

For our side, would you maybe see us run Tuks out instead of BHU if we have started well and second half also kept the momentum going, to spread workload?
Maybe. Good to give Tuks a run. But then BHU a bloke who can be slow to find form, and often not playing big minutes anyway if he is subbing in that late. May lose as much from him as we gain from Tuks (which could be a contract status consideration).

Carry Pollard and give him 10 minutes instead of... Burns? Kaufusi? by taking Nicho off when we are well up?
Again, maybe you'd see it occasionally, but not too often.

Where I could see it working is positioning yourself to choose between a fit forward and a fat forward (catchy way of saying big minute vs big body). So for example we name Tuks and H Puru in the 17 and 18 jersey (obviously got a couple injuries) and if all is going well you use Tuks for a short stint, if something goes wrong early and you lose a forward or two and need bigger minutes out of the sub, you put Puru on.
Other than having more specialised/skill/utility players available to come on in case of injuries, I think the use may be the main benefit.

In NFL you can give your running back 3 some reps but you're straight back to your running back 1 and situational #2 back as soon as you want them, with no restriction. So it is still quite different.
Click to expand...
Yep, all good points mate. I'm just really not sure where the advantage can be found in this, outside of having specialists on call if needed.

Guess I'll just watch a few Melbourne and Penrith games to see... if any can figure out how to game it, it'll be them.

There's really no reason for us not to run four forwards on the 'bench' now though you'd think. You still have the issue of saving a sub just in case a spine player needs replacing.... Ideally though, you'd spend the extra sub on rotating a big minute forward rather than bringing an Atko on. There's no benefit to having a fatigued starting prop slogging out an extra 10 minutes for the sake of it. You could possibly see more 'impact' forwards. The way Nikora played off the bench sort of demonstrates what I mean.

I've also thought that you could possibly do the same with a winger. Have your starting winger get more heavily involved in hit ups (than they are now!) and running about like a chicken without a head when we have the ball, then replacing him with a fresh speedster. I don't think the effects of their extra workload is really properly understood yet (though defensively the bludgers get a good rest).

Could be grasping a little now..!
 
HaroldBishop said:
Fitz said Niwhai will take Atko's role
Click to expand...
7 minutes in the middle?

Fitz said more than that. He gave Niwhai a big wrap. Said his 2025 performance was great, he probably would have debuted in round 27 last year if he hadn't gotten injured, he is definitely ready for the NRL if given the opportunity, and he is a player the team is invested in.

There seems to be a large gap in how most fans/media rate Niwhai versus how the team and coach appear to rate him. He has possibly the most impressive lower grade resume of any player in the comp and is still just 23 but he cops a lot of criticism on the forum/podcasts and doesn't even rate a mention in any of the "Sharks best prospects" articles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top