Quote: jonh "What a strange post again Phuzzy.
His coaches literally in the article describe him as an organising kicking “half back” but say he does take the line on 2.
That’s the entire point of the conversation. He is a half back. Our entire team is currently set up around a half and a 5/8th so we would need to change the entire way we play to bring him in to replace Field.
Playing with Smith would minimise his effectiveness because whilst he can run his key attributes are organising passing and kicking.
I will leave you to it.
I’m guessing you don’t understand the concept of a half and 5/8th and how they compliment each other particularly in the way we currently play.
It’s why Cust lost his place in the team as he has a half too, him and Smith in some instances were both doing the same job and their impact on the game was reduced.'"
But he doesn't have a running game Jon. You said so.
You also said Thurston's try strike rate is the same as Deacon's though which is also garbage.
The problem is you keep doubling down on your ramblings.
I never said he wasn't a half. I said he was a half with a running game. I also mentioned 2 other halves (Deacon and Leuluai) who also played successfully together and indeed won a title so I clearly know the difference. I never said we wouldn't have to alter the way we play.
The problem with you, Jon, is you can't (or won't) read what is actually written and instead go off on some disingenuous tangent. You ignore anything that doesn't support your argument. For example comparing Thurston's try scoring ratio to Deacon's (it's better) rather than John's (similar) or Luai's (Thurston's is better). I wonder why?
To reiterate: Jack has a running game. We don't know if the combination with Smith would work as it hasn't been tested. Every other viewpoint is supposition. All facts
What's hard to understand about that?
