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

Round 2 Phuzzy

Round 3 Phuzzy

I think Jonh owes Phuzzy an apology.

i'm only listening to the commentary, but it sounds like Farrimond has been given a running role, and seems to be doing OK, so perhaps he's not *just* an organiser!

Well, that line was well and truly "Run at".

All jokes aside (and I did think straight to this thread as he broke the line with an image of Phuzzy sat with a cigar) it was great to see the kid play like that. He’s got a bit of everything from what I see and doesn’t need to be pigeon holed as just being one thing or another. It’s so early in his career but from what I’ve seen to date he’s got enough about him to play any role we need from him as a halfback (in time).

Only just watched it but came straight here too as he proved me wrong tonight and long may that continue.

The only caveat I have was how poor London were we were taking the mick at times and there was literally nothing they could do about it in a totally dominant performance.

Great to see that first try though showed genuine strike.