Smith and Farrimond *may* be not the right call, but it surely wouldn't hurt to give them a few games together (starting with London), and see how it goes before we write them off as an option? Anyway, we always have switcheroo options.

We'll have to agree to differ on Thurston. You don't score over a hundred tries by picking a pass. Quoting him saying he wasn't a great runner of the ball is disingenuous. He wasn't a great runner of the ball but he was a good one! You're talking about a player who is one of the game's all time greats. No one is going to be harder on him and his game than himself. Put it this way, if Farrimond reaches Thurston levels of running game I'll be more than happy. I suspect so will Peet and Farrimond himself.

With regards to them playing together I don't disagree that now isn't their time against the top teams. But we don't play top teams all the time. There's no reason not to try them against London (England duty notwithstanding) for example. That said, Cas and London after Friday are now gone and Hull are possibly on the up so I agree it probably won't happen in the immediate future.

JT scored a lot of tries from close range; how well I remember, "Don't fall for Thurston's dummy!" What a cracking player he was, and a top guy too.

Hang on a minute Jon! You're being disingenuous again. I never said he was a strike half. I said he had a running game, which he did. Also Deacon scored 85 tries in just shy of 400 games. Thurston scored Scored 109 in a similar amount. Even basic maths tells you that's around 25% more than Deacon and that's before we even get to the fact that he did it in a much, much tougher competition including State of Origin! The comparison should be with Andrew Johns who had a similar strike rate in the same comp, not Deacon who scored far fewer in an easier comp. In fact Jerome Luai who you put forward as a half with a running game has scored 30 tries in 140 games. A try ratio worse than Thurston's! If you're going to be that flexible with the truth I think the discussion has run it's course.

Moto: Thurston scored plenty from distance as well. More importantly, his dummy resulted in a lot of tries that other players scored too He didn't have to put the ball over the whitewash himself every time to have a running game. And in any case, scoring short range tries is still a running threat. It certainly isn't organisational play or "picking a pass" as Jon would have you believe.

Edit: I'm just rewatching the 1st SOO from this year and almost all the tries have come from a different player's running threat than the one who put it down over the whitewash.

Interesting piece on Farrimond on the Love Rugby League site, with them talking to John Duffy about him. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ja ... n-warriors

Interesting piece on Farrimond on the Love Rugby League site, with them talking to John Duffy about him. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ja ... n-warriors

Yeah exactly. Everyone over-analysing it to a ridiculous degree. Just play them together and see if it works.

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?

As soon as Keighran's back I would like to give Eckersley a run at full back. That keeps the team as near as possible to what it normally is, and he has played there in the past. That said, Hampshire will get better with more regular game time. He is clearly not as good as Field or French and never will be, but being dropped in for a game here or there with long gaps between gives him no chance to build form or understanding. Also, if Rocky is not able to find some form and nail a place down with Field out for a couple of months then it's time to ship him on at the end of the season. He was signed because he covers halfback and fullback. If he can't do that then we should let him go somewhere else, where he can hopefully get himself the security of a longer contract now he's at the back end of his career.

Can Keighran not play full back and leave Eckersley at centre.

Round 1 to Phuzzy