I see where your coming from but its an idea if it doesnt work then dont do it again but if it works they could be devestating

you seen Long play recently?

Yes he has been shocking for the last few games.

and now i get the image of life of brian where brian gets thrown in the dungeon and the bloke hung up says " I hang awake at night dreaming of.... Manu Moa Lauaki all creating mischief"



I'm with you on that one cos i think we rely on too many plodders rather than exploders.

We still dont use our "Exploders" properly imo which is annoying used properly Manu especially would be unplayable.

some of post I wrote went missing so here's rest of it



We'd only spell 1 of back 3 at a time ( or I would) so Manu slots in there.



Covering FB and Wing? He could go in centre with whiting covering FB or wing.



I know Long not on list but he'd be on mine and I don't have any doubt Long can step into hooker at all.

Why would you spell a winger and FB in the first place? And with MANU!? Are you for real?

i wouldnt spell FB or FB them UNLESS THEY GET INJURED or play crap. Your substitute bench needs to cover as many eventuallities as possible, even positions you dont normally change like centre wing full back and even half backs.



if you read it properley it doesn't say manu to FB or wing.

FFS he means second row and loose forward. Is that not obvious?

No mention of second row or loose forward. But mentions of back 3, which I would take as the wingers and FB.



If he meant that Manu COULD cover the centres, then yes he COULD. But I woulnd't having him spelling them at any time, just like I would never have Long spelling Houghton, which was also suggested.

He's quite clearly reffering to the back row.

Then I sincerely apologise, I never read it that way.



There are only 2 back rowers in the pack, so when he said back 3 and "Covering FB and Wing? He could go in centre with whiting covering FB or wing" made me think otherwise.