Quote Smiffy27="Smiffy27"*I think Russell played predominantly at Full Back. So not really appropriate.
I thought this might happen. I personally don't think Russell is a winger. But he has some strengths as a rugby player. Teams quite often put two hookers on the pitch e.g. Hodgson/Baptiste, Dwyer/Clark and Papua New Guinea (last Saturday). He could be a loose forward as they seem to have a variety of rolls in the modern game. He runs as strongly as anyone and there are many times in a game when you just want someone to make some tough yards. I'd love a new winger but wouldn't dish the crap out on Matty Russell as much as some on the forum.'"
Yes, fair point about playing FB. I forgot he was supposed to be on the wing, but played FB to cover for injuries to Ratch then Sandow.
I completely agree that the Russell-bashing on here is a bit over the top. I actually think he's been coached/told to play that way over the past couple of seasons, so doesn't 100% deserve the rap he's got. Our other wingers, including the likes of Chris Riley used to also have to make similar central yards from the ruck early in the tackle count. It's just that Russell has been pretty damn good at performing this task, but all the other elements of wing play let him down.
He is no winger unfortunately. However, I disagree with moving him forward. We have far better back-rowers in our 13 + squad than him. I don't think he could do a better job there than who we already have.
He's possibly a victim of TS. I genuinely believe he was signed as our long term FB, so Ratch could play 6. But because of our halfback shambles and Ratch ultimately nailing the 1 shirt, he's been shunted on the wing to "do a job".
Had he been kept consistently at FB, and thusly allowed to improve his FB play from there, I imagine no one would be complaining about Russell today.
Like I said, an unfortunate victim of TS.