WA SCHOOLBOYS ANNOUNCED FOR 2009 DIVISION II AUSSIE CHAMPIONSHIPS

[AndyS]

Or, more likely, the other way 'round as the "senior" player starts bringing through the next young tyro...

[Burgs]

[AndyS]

Sorry, JOC 10, Godwin 12 coming up to speed.

[Burgs]

Oh ok.
That's what 2012 is for

Interesting the school of thought to "blood" players at outside positions and then bring them to #10.
I stand to be corrected, but pre Gits I don't really recall it happening too much?
There are always multi positional players but not so much as a way of developing.

[AndyS]

I think that is probably reflective of the changing nature of the game. For a long time it was 10, crash-ball 12, lighter and faster 13. The Kiwis went down the second 5/8th path, Aus went down the two centres path, so there was not a lot of scope here for that apprenticeship thing with 10s more likely to come from 15 (a la Larkham). Now it seems to have inverted, with Nonu for the ABs and Barnes for us. God knows what the thinking will be by 2012/13.

[Burgs]

Must admit, my natural preference is for a #12 of the Staniforth type, who can step, but more importantly has the size to bust the line as well.
For me a good #10 has an excellent kicking game, but is the "pivot" to service the Centres.
The talent of Gits to pick a gap I am sure has lead to more of this style at both #10 and #12 globally and I can certainly see merit in an even pairing of a left and right footed combination.
Also horses for courses I guess with selection being a balance between your own game plan and defending the opposition selections. Such as when Tana was playing he was always going to be #13 so you knew what you had, same with Stirling at the moment it would seem for other nations.
Relates back a little to a question I asked a few weeks ago re the relative importance and difficulty (perceived, for me) of each position, #1 v #3, #10 v #12, #12 v #13, #11 v #14 etc.
Personally I believe there are no passenger positions, there is no Back Pocket in Union, every player is totally accountable and needs to match every other in skill otherwise a bus will go over them.

[AndyS]

I'm inclined to think that the two playmakers are becoming the default position mostly because of the speed of defensive lines now. With a single playmaker, the defense is able to focus on shutting down just one player so he has to stand deep, kick more often etc. The second player creates uncertainty, and they can't all run up without gaps opening. But even so, I wish I could see someone offering that hard-running 12 option within the Wallabies (and Force) set-up for the variety/horses-for-courses option it would offer. I suppose AAC (and Tatupu respectively) would be the most likely option at the moment, but...

[James]

A Staniforth style 12 is good but only if you have a playmaker at 15. Otherwise these days you tend to have one guy running the whole show and he becomes easier to shut down. If you have a fullback like Latham or Cam Shepherd who can kick the ball a monster distance and attack the line really well I think a ball playing 12 is needed. Perhaps to a lesser extent if your forwards are dominant but if you are on the back foot a bit (as the Force and the Wallabies have often found themselves in the past couple of years) having one player who is bound to receive the ball really hurts the cause.

[AndyS]

I thought the first half of our season this year a case in point, where we only really started to look genuinely dangerous once the decision was made to play JOC at 12. Prior to that, everything had to go through Gits and he ended up just kicking away a lot more ball that was good for us.

[The Ethicist]

Oh ok.
That's what 2012 is for

Interesting the school of thought to "blood" players at outside positions and then bring them to #10.
I stand to be corrected, but pre Gits I don't really recall it happening too much?
There are always multi positional players but not so much as a way of developing.

Ella 10, Lynagh 12. I could go on

---------- Post added at 20:25 ---------- Previous post was at 20:22 ----------

Manasseh Gudgeon Rockingham Bunbury CC

This kid is hard. The Force should sign him up. His brother played first grade NRL. He could be anything

---------- Post added at 20:27 ---------- Previous post was at 20:25 ----------

I'm inclined to think that the two playmakers are becoming the default position mostly because of the speed of defensive lines now. With a single playmaker, the defense is able to focus on shutting down just one player so he has to stand deep, kick more often etc. The second player creates uncertainty, and they can't all run up without gaps opening. But even so, I wish I could see someone offering that hard-running 12 option within the Wallabies (and Force) set-up for the variety/horses-for-courses option it would offer. I suppose AAC (and Tatupu respectively) would be the most likely option at the moment, but...

NZ rugby has traditionally played two playmakers at 10-12. It's about time we woke up. It's only taken over 100 years