South Sydney must find the best answer to Nathan Cleary’s torpedo bombs in the NRL qualifying final as they decide who will replace Latrell Mitchell at No.1.
Cleary will linger on the mind of Wayne Bennett all week as he weighs up what to do with South Sydney’s No.1 jersey.
Bennett is yet to decide how he will replace banned fullback Latrell Mitchell for the NRL finals, after trialling rookie Blake Taaffe there against St George Illawarra.
Mitchell’s absence will be most felt against Penrith in Saturday’s qualifying final, after Cleary terrorised South Sydney’s back three with his kicking last month.
Injured winger Josh Mansour struggled under Cleary’s bombs, as the Panthers half’s kicking game changed the entire match.
“If he (Taaffe) goes back there I will be confident he can handle (Cleary’s kicking),” Bennett said.
“If I am not confident on it he won’t be playing.”
Other options for Bennett include playing Cody Walker at fullback and putting Benji Marshall at five-eighth, although it seems unlikely he would want to split up Walker and Adam Reynolds in the halves.
Alternatively Alex Johnston could return to fullback for the first time since Round 7, in turn opening the door for Taane Milne to start on the wing.
Regardless, Bennett is adamant Souths are better placed than in their past three preliminary final finishes.
Their 20-4 record is the best of Bennett’s long coaching career at any club, while it also marks the most wins in any Rabbitohs regular season.
The Bunnies’ only losses have come against the top two teams in Melbourne and Penrith, but it will no doubt worry Bennett that they have not pushed them in any of those games.
“We’ve had players injured, Origin players missing, you name it,” Bennett said.
“To think we have only lost four games in a season, it’s certainly the best team I have coached.
“I believe we have had a better team each year I have been here. I do believe are a better team than the one we were last year.
“We’re a better team across the park. Latrell adds to that, but he’s not going to be there.
“But in terms of the whole team with 30 players across the squad and the football we have played this year compared to last year…it’s pretty special.”
Tim Carter
Roar Pro
It's realistic, though. When Reynolds came out a few weeks ago (regarding Mitchell on Manu) and said that no player tries to hurt another, he wasn't being accurate. 99% of players wouldn't want to INJURE an opponent, but most would want to put on the biggest hit possible, which would obviously hurt. And if you're fit enough to take the field, you're fit enough to take the hits.
Joey
Guest
Negative commentary of the year award.
mach4
Roar Rookie
I am a Dogs fan through and through and all I can say is Panthers beware of a Bennett-coached FINALS team, love the Panther's style of play and their enthusiasm, professional approach, just beware. Glad to have those ex Panthers at the Dogs next year, could Naden shine? and maybe Kikau?
Joey
Guest
Why are Panther fan comments being taken off ? Hardly credible journalism to be doing that.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Suggesting someone take out a player is different than testing fitness. And I'm not suggesting anything grubby or illegal
Big Mig
Roar Rookie
Turn the tables Reynolds kicks to Edwards. Might just square things up.
Paul
Guest
You don’t think that other teams have already thought of that & tried it? Luai can kick & run too. Plus the kicker can just stand a little further back .
Tony
Roar Guru
And run a lot of the attack at him
Tony
Roar Guru
Time to get up! Taaffe won't find any similarities to playing Penrith and yesterday's training run
Wait a minute!
Guest
The same could be said for Walker. If you’re suggesting an act to put Cleary out of the game? Penrith could just put a not very good player on as a replacement. Target a high hit on Walker. All you get is 10 minutes. Walker out. South’s zero chance of winning the game.
Nat
Roar Guru
Kick pressure, every time, to the Storm standard.
Paul
Roar Guru
sounds like you're embracing lockdown in style!
Paul
Roar Guru
Completely agree DP, I'd have thought it's up to any team to test any or all weaknesses in the opposition, be it fear of a high ball, a wonky shoulder, a dodgy hammy, or what ever. Coaches and players take a punt when allowing guys clearly carrying injuries onto the field. If the opposition's good enough, they can exploit that, if not, like the "Cronk Grand Final", they try to, fail and lose the game.
Paul
Roar Guru
What sort of ridiculous comment is this? DP's comment was perfectly fine, yours was laughable.
Full Credit to the Boys
Guest
The young replacement - Blake Taaffe - looked very good yesterday. He won't have the explosive power of Mitchell but he might be very competent in the line and taking the high ball. Still, that's easy for me to say still lying in bed with a lovely cuppa.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
That could be interpreted as insulting, and if so, unwarranted. Choose your words carefully lest negative commentary from other sources about you be proven astute.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Good comments and apology not necessary. I wasn’t suggesting anything grubby, but as was suggested after both times above, the fitness of said individuals wasn’t tested enough. Not enough traffic directed at the weak point. EG. If the Fox plays on Friday and DCE doesn’t kick behind him and give that hammy a workout, that’s madness. There’s a difference between grubby targeting and strategic testing. As for Cleary, if I were on the field I”d just tackle him, hard. I wouldn’t particularly target the shoulder, but if he wanted to be a jerk and keep struggling or fighting my tackle, or if roles reversed was trying to rip the ball from me then woe to him. I’m going full beserker and no sympathy if his shoulder gets detached. I’m not going soft just because he’s come in with an injury.
James Green
Roar Rookie
I'd say deliberately targeting a known injury is risky because: 1. Obvious and blatant targeting can lead to a penalty, ref. Sam Thaiday's grab on J. Bromwich's broken thumb. 2. Trying to target the injury can put the attacking player in the wrong position, ref. Nelson Asofa-Solomona's attempt to run over Cronk which backfired. 3. The risk of it all just going horribly wrong when you're focussed on a narrow target rather than the bigger picture. There's a difference between exploiting a weakness and targeting an injury. And that's just from a practical standpoint. I'd like to think grubby behaviour of that kind was out of the game and players no longer have to wear strapping on the good knee so that the bad knee isn't hit. Note: I may have misinterpreted the direction of your comment, if so, the points still stand but I apologise if unfair aspersions have been cast.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Surely there's an answer. It might not be a nice one, but it's there. He's going to take the line on when 20 or less out and he won't shirk his defence so that shoulder could see some action. I noticed in the last game with Souths he was grappling with some defender who, weirdly, seemed determined not to put too much pressure on his shoulder. What is it with star players and dodgy shoulders that opposition won't exploit? JT in Origin, Cronk in GF. Is it some contractual or friendly agreement? Or players just don't want to seem 'dirty' by targeting an injury.