agreed you never know where injuries will strike. we did have moon who could have dropped in.
without trying to score points I think it was a great 2 points but had we lost I think there would have been questions asked.

I have defended the coach over many years against a constant stream of criticism because his record does not deserve the constant sniping. Of course he will make errors because like the rest of us he is human. But overall he has been the most successful coach we have had.

You accuse "some" of having an agenda yet it is you who is the one being critical. I did not know you can have an agenda by defending uncalled for criticism. In you own words you say "95% of what he does he does brilliantly" yet you regularly concentrate on the "5% he messes up on" I would not object to your comments if 95% of your posts about our coach had been positive. So I would say it is you that has an agenda.

You speak of unused subs as though there is some law that says they have to be used. He is the one to know which players can best achieve his game plan and which players present a greater risk. Players carrying niggling injuries or lacking in experience or form on the practice pitch can be affect decision as can events during the game.

But events proved the coach made the right call and it would have been nice had you acknowledged this.

just can't help yourself can you? bit embarrassing for a man your age to have a crush

I learnt in the 60s to love not hate

I don't hate anyone, except my ex wife!

I have every respect for the coach but if I don't agree with him I'll say so. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but this is what a forum's for.
I'll say this for you. unlike others you aren't abusive with people you don't agree with

After Minichiello's extended rant at the ref on Friday (after we'd bundled a Hull player behind his line for drop out) I'm curious just how far Danny went earlier in the year to warrent a yellow card. Minichiello was even tapping his temple in the classic 'you're nuts!' fashion.

It was surely worth at least a penalty.

I assume that was the reason for one of the incidents put on report.

If it is archaic thinking then why is it so rare for other coaches to not use a sub on either side of the equator? I would actually say not using your interchanges properly is the true act of a dinosaur as it shows a lack of understanding for how fast and energy sapping the game has become.

Macs poor use of interchanges has cost us in many games in the past, the one that sticks most strongly in my mind was 2015 against Cas where we only used one sub for the first 50 mins and the Cas halves managed to tear our middle unit to shreds at the start of the second half until 2 of the other subs were put on, but by then the game was already lost.

They are very nice stats but if Mac just wanted pace then why not start Walker and move Ward to the second row?
I know that the injuries meant the subs proved useful, but by the end of the game Hull were easily getting down field as our forwards tired, and with better finishing they would have converted this field position into points, so only 2 forward subs was not a masterstroke.

Having said that I do have to credit Mac with instilling some pride back in our defence after last year.

I don't necessarily have a problem with not using a back if they're picked on the bench. I do have a problem with picking then not using a forward.

Other coaches have other squads and have prepared their game plans to suit their players or prepared their players to suit the game plan. I too do not always understand Mac' use of subs either but often circumstances in a game mean that your pre match plan of timing for substitutions goes out of the window and you have to decide which 13 offer the best chance of a win.

I am not a fan of players being prepared to just put in short spells. It is generally the case that props only play in shorter spells by there are exception like JP for instance. In a tight game would you choose to bring on Walters or keep the likes of JP, JJB and Ablett out there? On other occasions you have a young player on the bench that you wanted to give 10 minutes to but the way the opposition are playing makes this too risky. Other coaches also sometimes do not use all their bench.

BM's record suggests he gets things right for most of the time

most of the time is spot on.
which is exactly what I put. thanks for agreeing.
eventually

I take your point but you could put your worst player on for say 10 mins at the 50 min mark and then have your best team on the park for the final quarter.

If Mac doesnt trust a player to play 10-20 mins in a league game then they shoudnt be in the 25 man squad

Its generally more preset than that, in the NRL at least. Players rotate at predetermined times in the game to try to ensure that the best players are on the field at the most important times in the game (e.g. last ten minutes). The only reason they don't in normal league games is due to injury, not the scoreline. The reason for this is quite simple - the coaches know how long players can play before their performance starts to fall off, and that not rotating them would be worse than having a weaker player on the field for ten minutes.

This can obviously get thrown about by injuries, but I can't remember seeing a bench forward not used in the NRL. I genuinely do not understand picking a forward on the bench and not using them at all.