Yeah, I get the argument.agree with the last sentence, but that doesn't square with Edwards as sub. Aside from not stuffing around, he's a proven finals player, and he has run into form last few games, and he won't play what might be his last game as a sub (not this week at least, if we win this week but Shedda has a shocker, that could be a possibility week 2).
But here's the way I see it. The sub could either be Sons or Shed.
But both coaches gave Sonsie votes last week. 14 score involvements?
He's been a part of our form recently, as young as he is.
As much as I love Shedda, he's not impacting as he used to. However, I think he offers a lot as the sub.
Think of it this way: Things are going badly. One player is struggling. We can rort the sub rule (as we are happy to do), and bring on Edwards. Calm.
He's shown he can pinch hit in a bunch of roles. He also doesn't really have a starting role anymore. Will he start mid with Dusty back and Ross playing so well? Does he fit into our stacked forward line?
I don't really think so. But he's the perfect sub to fill any of those gaps.
I think it is the least disruptive to our current structure and form. And if it's the wrong decision, it can be corrected with the mention of a full body cramp.
Having said that, if we do go
In: Dusty
Sub: Sonsie
I'd probably be okay.