James Hook should stand his ground

JPRs thoughts with regards to James Hook at 15

"It's a different ball-game attacking from full-back than it is from midfield," said Williams. "I think he's a 10 or 12 - I always have done.

"If I was him I would stand up and say 'I'm not going to play full-back'."

"Byrne hasn't played well over the last two seasons," said Williams, widely regarded as Wales' greatest full-back.

"It's hard to believe that two years ago he was one of the best full-backs in the world. He hasn't shown that form for a couple of years.

"I thought Leigh Halfpenny played very well and effectively won the game against Samoa.

"The one thing I do know is the one thing the Welsh selectors don't seem to know is that James Hook is not a full-back. I think everybody in Wales will tell you that.

"He's not comfortable under the high ball. He's out of position. It's a very difficult position and you can be exposed very easily.

"I'm very surprised that [Wales] keep picking him at full-back."


And thoughts on Tavis Knoyle

"Mike Phillips is still very slow in getting the ball out," added the former 1971 and 1974 Lions star.

"I think we've got to play the game at pace - that's why we lost against South Africa. The last 20 minutes we should have made changes and brought on some fresh legs.

"Knoyle should have been there to get the ball out wide because South Africa were out on their legs.

"We are better when we move the ball."

Wales great JPR Williams says James Hook should stand his ground and refuse to play at full-back.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/14981106.stm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would be very disappointed if a Welsh player said he did not to want play just because he was not selected to play in his preferred position.
Some of the other points JPR made are valid though.

Hook is a good utility player, but lets be honest he is not first choice in any position. If he does not want to play 15 the best he can expect is a spot on the bench.

He has always stated that his best position is 10 but for Wales Jones and now Priestland are prefered and for the Ospreys Biggar is prefered.

I have allways liked him at 13, but he tends to go missing in defence and runs away from his support.

I genuinely hope that his big money move to France is a success, because the kind of money Perpiginan are paying they will demand results on the field.

I don't want James Hook playing outside half for Wales. He isn't the man to get our back line moving.

hook should not listen to this 'advice'.

Fresh legs are the points I thought were valid, I don't believe we should find a position for Hook if the 10 spot is already taken.

No position should be "taken." That's a disastrous way to think. Fact is Stephen Jones has been on the slide since the Lions tour and we haven't won a game against a top six team with him at the helm since February 2008! Since then we've lost all 12 against the top 6 that he's started.

Priestland is much more sparky , but still raw. He's had 3 starts against top 6 teams, and the only one of those we won was when Hook replaced him at halftime, when the scores were level.

Filled taken I'm sure you knew what I meant.

OK - I see what you mean. But all positions should be filled by the best players to do the job at that time. It might be Priestland, it might be Hook, it might be Jones. Depends on performances, form in training, gameplan, balance of team, and a host of other issues. It's not an open-and-shut case by any means.

BTW, I don't agree with JPR that a player should refuse to play where he's asked to, though the rest of his comments are senisible.

To counter Samurais' Jones & Hook Played v Loss theory

JPR is a sensationalist and is a well know stirrer. He has always banged on this drum.

If you look at the history Hook has always struggled for consistency even looking as far back in his 2007/8 "best" year

In the 14 months Hook played in all the matches for Wales (Gareth Jenkins stubbornly persisted with him)

16 games in total (12 starts 4 subs)
8 games as a flyhalf................. others were Robinson 2, Sweeney 1, Jones 5

He won 3 of them and lost 5.

3 wins
Canada at home (without any of their european players)
England (Famous MOM)
Agentina (WC warm-up)

After the MOM performance he went to Australia as the first choic 10

Aus 29 -23 Wal -
worst ozzie side in decades Sam Norton-Knight debut as a centre!!!!
Aus 31 - 0 Wales

You can read the reports on Hooks performance arriving at the WC2007 and its not comfortable to assess, suffice the same things are happening FOUR yrs later (French match zzzzzz )

missed spot kicks
missed tackes
highest turnovers against (headless chickenrunning)........ resulting in tries and pens

Jenkins was forced to try Sweeney (against England at Twickenham!!!) based on these inconsistent performances, that was the start of the end for Jenkins

By the way Wales have beaten Australia TWICE around the same period, with Jones as a 10

Jones was Gatland 1st choice going into this WC for a reason, but for his injury he still would be. I would say its lucky you have another "rookie" who has done well in his absence. Otherwise you would have been playing dead rubber matches

standing his ground , or trying to, at club level didnt get him very far. even the intervention (misguided) of jiffy in a full expose on tv as to why he wanted 10, and jiffy pushing it, that shut the door i felt on any chance of 'another go ' in his favoured position.

centre at best, ive always thought , but not against the big boys, good bench player. surely the hook camp who want him at 10 are not suggesting that the club and international coaches are wrong.

JPR is a strange fella, loved by many but extremely arrogant and rightgeous - This is what he would do in Hooks shoes, its not what Hook will do however.

Absolutely the coaches of the Ospreys were wrong! Do you really think that Biggar is a better 10 then Hook? In terms of Wales it is the fact that he covers so many slots that has been his undoing. He played 15 against SA because he was the best kicking FB that we had available - if Byrne had been on song then Hook would have played at 10 - and we probably would have won given how dominant our pack was.

In-fact however well Priesltand played he managed to fail to win us a game in which we dominated a SH team more completely then we have ever done. He was part of that sure enough but so would Hook have been if he had been 10. IMO with Hook at 10 in that game we would have scored more points with the possession we had.

Suggesting that the O's coaches are getting it wrong? God forbid!

Gatland started Hook @ 10 in 3/5 six nations games this year, and he played 10 for 1.5 / 3 warm-up games, being unavailable for the first of them.

WG must know what he's doing, right?

Would you take any sort of advice from a medical man who thinks that sucking pennies will help you to cheat a breathalyser test?

deadfred wrote:IMO with Hook at 10 in that game we would have scored more points with the possession we had.

And 'IMO' you're wrong. Rhys Priestland's game management is better than Hook's.

Neil Jenkins eventually said it when he was played at center and full back, so I wouldnt be suprised, especially now hook has 60 odd caps, an isnt a young kid anymore.

however I think he needs to be careful, with him playing in France he may find himself surplus to requirements anyway.

hook supporters are known for saying ' ah, if only hook was at 10 we would have......' bet priestland would love that comment!
and when at 10 hooks miracle passes , interceptions, turnovers, defensive errors , others around him not doing well, all compound for us to question his play they say ' ah, but he hasnt been playing 10 regularly''

players (jd2 ! ) play out of position and dont make as many errors as hook does in HIS favoured position.

Some players just dont do it, despite their immense potential and early promise(dont bring HIM up), Hook seemed to be all the rage when it came to outside halves in 2008, but hes failed to nail down the 10 shirt at both regional level and country.

As many have said over and over hes a victim of his own versatility, he should have remained in 1 position instead now hes become a jack of all trades master of none. And now that Wales are developing players in every position in the back line, Hook is now finding it very difficult to find a place.

Who knows though, maybe a season or 2 in France hopefully playing 10 he will realise his potential and return to us a better player, I would rather have 2 great outside halves than 1, seeing as Jones is due to retire in the next few years.

he's not nailed on as 10 in perpignan, and this rwc hasnt done him any favours.

Andy Howell thinks Hook should be playing ten. That tells me all I need to know.

samuraidragon wrote:Suggesting that the O's coaches are getting it wrong? God forbid!

Gatland started Hook @ 10 in 3/5 six nations games this year, and he played 10 for 1.5 / 3 warm-up games, being unavailable for the first of them.

WG must know what he's doing, right?

Its not just the Os coaches , just about every other coach hasn't selected him at 10.

He had no option Man................ Priestland had a slight niggle and Jones was injured!!!

If Jones had been fit he would have played against England , and Priestland 15. Preistland would have taken over 2nd half at 10, They would have won the match IMHO. At Cardiff Priestland would have started 10 with Hook taking over in the 2nd half.

You would have seen the quality of the three options and I am sure Hook would have been training for the 15 slot only from then on, maybe a possible centre slot, altho unlikely.

gavstar wrote: hook supporters are known for saying ' ah, if only hook was at 10 we would have......' bet priestland would love that comment!
and when at 10 hooks miracle passes , interceptions, turnovers, defensive errors , others around him not doing well

Think you're mixing up the Hook supporters with the Stephen Jones supporters. They're the ones forever saying it's Mike Phillips service that's the problem, or the pack isn't producing quick ball or whatever.

And when their man throws a match-losing interception pass against England or misses touch versus Ireland, allowing them to take the GS, or makes about 20 yards with a touchfinder - no criticism allowed, right boys?

BTW, I'm not anti-Scarlets. I totally agree with JPR's comments about bringing on Knoyle too.

deadfred wrote:Absolutely the coaches of the Ospreys were wrong! Do you really think that Biggar is a better 10 then Hook? In terms of Wales it is the fact that he covers so many slots that has been his undoing. He played 15 against SA because he was the best kicking FB that we had available - if Byrne had been on song then Hook would have played at 10 - and we probably would have won given how dominant our pack was.

In-fact however well Priesltand played he managed to fail to win us a game in which we dominated a SH team more completely then we have ever done. He was part of that sure enough but so would Hook have been if he had been 10. IMO with Hook at 10 in that game we would have scored more points with the possession we had.

The rookie Biggar proved he was better than the seasoned Hook, his form has dropped last season but he still had a few MOM performances.

The reason Hook is a utility back is that he was not consistent at 10 like I said he had more games than any other player at flyhalf when he first came on the scene but he went progressively worse or the other sides sussed him out.

If Byrne had been on form Hook would have been a sub at best. If Jones had been fit then priestland would have covered the 15 and 10 slot on the bench and Hook would have been watching from the stands

[quote="flyhalffactoryIf Jones had been fit he would have played against England , and Priestland 15. Preistland would have taken over 2nd half at 10, They would have won the match IMHO. At Cardiff Priestland would have started 10 with Hook taking over in the 2nd half.

You would have seen the quality of the three options and I am sure Hook would have been training for the 15 slot only from then on, maybe a possible centre slot, altho unlikely.[/quote]

Well, there we're going to have to agree to differ. When was the last time we beat England with Stephen Jones @ 10?

At Cardiff, that is exactly what happened. You'll remember the outcome. A draw when Priestland left the field. A comfortable victory when Hook took over. More to the point, we won with very poor possession and territory stats. Hook can do that for us. Stephen Jones definitely cannot. Priestland? Too early to say.

'A comfortable victory?!' what was the score again?

Another thing that some people seem always to overlook is that when Hook has made breaks playing at outside half (his break for Shane's try against Scotland, his try against England), he's done so against scrambling defences, so he's had front rowers to beat. When he's facing the opposition's real midfield, he takes that split-second too long looking for a gap that isn't there before shipping it on to the centres, who have no space as the defence has come up in that time. It happens every time he starts at ten for Wales, but some people choose not to see it. He's not good at getting our midfield firing.

AlynDavies wrote:Neil Jenkins eventually said it when he was played at center and full back, so I wouldnt be suprised, especially now hook has 60 odd caps, an isnt a young kid anymore.

however I think he needs to be careful, with him playing in France he may find himself surplus to requirements anyway.

Alyn,

I think that's a little bit different cos as great as Jenkins was as a 10 he should NEVER have been moved into the centre of XV.

Hooks ability to play at a decent standard there is doing him no favours. Jinks was a terrible XV and if SA had realised that in 97 we could have seen a different outcome to that Lions tour.

They hardly ever (if at all) tested him out.

I don't think Hook as ever had a really bad game at XV but its just we all know he is better suited elsewhere

The score was 19-9, two scores away, so comfortable enough. In fact our biggest win against England in 20 years.

We did this with massive inferiority in possession and territory.

Hook can do that for us. No other 10 can.

did hook win it on his own ?was it game management or just kicking? and why wasnt he our 10 for the rwc if hes the only one who can do these things

Coz Gatland decided - wrongly in my view - he needed a full back with a howitzer boot against both the Boks and Samoa as he didn't have any confidence in Byrne.

Look, if Priestland plays a blinder, he keeps the shirt. For that matter, if SJ plays a blinder he keeps the shirt. That's the way it should be. Just saying - that's not where we are right now.

samuraidragon:

Don't bother it is obvious to me Hook is our best option at 10 but certain supporters choose to twist the reasons for him not playing 10 as he covers other positions. He by far is our best 10 in the 6N and he would have played 10 against Italy had it not been for an injury at centre (JD2 I think) hence he was at centre and helped with the two tries and made the drop goal at the end to close out the game. Hook also proved a match winner against England not for the first time (Third) and Argentina. Against Argentina he did not miss a a tckle turned over a lot of ball from his ripping (and England), kicked the goals and was the link for the third try. I believe the only reason Hook was not 10 in the two games in the RWC is Gatland considered him our best option at FB, I don't share that view as I would have started him at 10 and Bryne at 15. With the percentage of the ball against SA were should have won by 10 points even giving SA a try with a number of missed tackles excluding Hook's last ditch effort that could have been better.

I suspect we have seen the last of Hook in this RWC so if we are going to get past the QF our forwards must win 70-75% ball to win the game as we waste so much ball kicking it away. If we need a drop goal to win the match give it to 1/2 penny!

"James Hook should stand his ground"

No JPR, he should be honoured to be asked to appear anywhere from starting at 10, down to and including driving the team bus.

Amazing comments.

Samurai / Alun
You both bang on about the win ratio............ I have shown you Hooks first 16 games during 2007/08. This was arguably his best period in the position

* Selected more times at 10 than any other player.
* Wales LOST 5 OUT OF 8.
* 3 wins
Canada - no european players available
England - MOM
Argentina - WC Friendly
* 5 Losses
10-03-07 Italy 23 20 Wales
26-05-07 Australia 29 23 Wales
02-06-07 Australia 31 0 Wales
26-08-07 Wales 7 37 France

For gods sake the last three games saw Hook orchestrate a 97 -30 points loss,
Now in that same time period Robinson and Sweeney's welsh careers was all but ended. What happened to Hook.... Oh yes "Gatlands Law" if Hook is rubbish in one position, we pick him in another, if he is rubbish in that position we pick him in another.

Run the film on 4 yrs What No Change......... re: the recent French match

ps Jones was 10 when Wales beat Australia TWICE around that period.

I would rather a 10 orchestrate wins against top sides like Australia than see a win ratio against the Canada, Italy, or Argentina of this world. I would rather a 10 be slower in pace but be able to create more attacking options, I would rather a 10 be weaker in the boot but be more accurate under pressure, I would rather a 10 not be able to score 1 try but be able to defend 3 tries

Lets lay the cards on the table.............. you two are influenced by headline runs, handoffs and tries........ period.

The guy is behind Jones and Priestland at 10, and Priestland and 1/2p at 15, and lets not talk about the centre positions. Gatland would not have picked Hook at all if Jones and Byrne was available.

In fairness to flyhalffactory - this No.10 issue is a lot more complex now that Gatland has committed to the pick & drive, kick down the middle game, hoping to grind out wins.

Hook is a Rolls-Royce of a 10 next to Priestland's Mondeo and Stephen Jones's 1987 Vauxhall Nova diesel, but with Wales playing a conservative game it doesn't make a huge difference.

The informed view is that Hook is still a better bet as he punts the ball a lot further, and doesn't drop kick like a girl - but with the cuurent gameplan we might as well play Sweeney or Biggar.

Flyhalf:

You are twisting the true again and filtering results The Italian game S Jones was captain (known within the team as captain krap) and he was 10, he got a sly punch and went off for 20 mins and most of the Welsh points were scored during this period, Hook was 12, nice try. You also ommitted the previous Aust game when Wales and Aust had a 29 all draw thanks to S Jones going off in the first half when we were being stuffed at the time, who took over, you know! The two games Wales played in Aust, we almost won the first game and got hammered in the second game, this Welsh team were alleged to be on the lash and was the worst prepared team in years, the pre RWC hammering the same year against England Hook was not the flyhalf. Anyway this is 2011 and Hook is still much better that S Jones as he was then 2007 ((Hook was 10 against England 2007 (we lost the other games with captain S Jones controlling the games) and Hook was MOTM also 2008).

Just wanted to balance a twisted set of facts.

Cannot disagree with these comments, as he states nearly everybody I know thinks the same what are the managemnt team doing. It is the same with some of the selections over the last few years, we could have won many more games.

JPR thinks this and so do I and so do the VAST majority of folk that I know.

Hook is never a 15, Phillips is slower than my Granny and Byrne should be tucked up in bed in Swansea.

Can one of the Gatland apologists post here and explain what we are all missing?

My thoughts are .... First game Halfpenny was probably not 100% fit and thats why Hook went to 15 First and second game were very physical and Phillips is a big lad who is used to it.

Cwmroglan, I do agree with the physicality that Phillips brings but is it enough to make up for such a slow delivery for 80 mins? I've also noticed that he's not using his size enough around the breakdown as he used to. I will concede that his defence has been strong.

I would let knoyle play for the 80 against Namibia but start with Phillips against Fiji.

It you want speed of service, Williams is your man maybe on the bench if we take the risk with Knoyle and Williams.

I must admit if I were Gatland, I certainly would not be scared to put any of the youngsters into the test team as they have all proved their worth and ability.

Phillips played well in the warm ups and played well against SA. He was a good selection. He also didnt have a bad game against Samoa and his physicality is useful.

Byrne I dont know, he hasnt hit good form for a while, mostly due to lack of game time because of injury.

As mentioned above I guess that the management were concerned about Byrnes fitness and the fact that Halfpenny has hardly played fullback.

Luckily we know we have other options, a luxury that many teams dont have. And we are already missing several decent players through injury.

The only certainty here is that the two sides aren't going to agree on this issue. It's clear to me that when Hook has played outside half, our midfield has suffered. This might be because Hook has played so little rugby at ten that he's forgotten how to get a backline moving, or possibly that he's just not a ten who gets the best out of his midfield.

Let's be clear, he's a talented player and can make breaks when the game's loose; but when it's our centres against theirs, he takes away the space our centres need by holding on to the ball too long, loping across field and then passing.

glamorganalun wrote:Flyhalf:

You are twisting the true again and filtering results The Italian game S Jones was captain (known within the team as captain krap) and he was 10, he got a sly punch and went off for 20 mins and most of the Welsh points were scored during this period, Hook was 12, nice try. You also ommitted the previous Aust game when Wales and Aust had a 29 all draw thanks to S Jones going off in the first half when we were being stuffed at the time, who took over, you know! The two games Wales played in Aust, we almost won the first game and got hammered in the second game, this Welsh team were alleged to be on the lash and was the worst prepared team in years, the pre RWC hammering the same year against England Hook was not the flyhalf. Anyway this is 2011 and Hook is still much better that S Jones as he was then 2007 ((Hook was 10 against England 2007 (we lost the other games with captain S Jones controlling the games) and Hook was MOTM also 2008).

Just wanted to balance a twisted set of facts.

To insinuate that I have left data out on purpose to skew the picture even in a light hearted forum such as this is............ not good on your behalf.

I set up a program to pull out results when Hook started or came off the bench as a 10 during the first 15 months as I assumed this was his "best" and most consistent period as a flyhalf, I used a win / loss inadvertently forgetting to add in "draw" scenarios. Nothing covert there Alun

The facts (DATA) are not twisted apart from the 29-29 draw with Australia which I now know that Hook was given MOM. I take offence at that TBH.

The Italian game!!......... didn't Hook take over the flyhalf berth from an injured Jones? and term "Capt Crap" didn't come from inside the team (originating from a certain reporter of a certain welsh paper of ill repute shall we say)

Ok if you want to omit (twist) facts............. lets push this
Australia 29 -23 Wales
Very poor weak Ozzie side considered by Australian press to be the weakest side in their history (a certain Sam Norton-Kinght debuts for Oz!!!) Hook turnover lets Australia in for try, Hook misses between post etc.
Australia 31-0 Wales
Hook misses easy easy kicks early on. Gets turned over for try in 2nd half

These are the next few matches after his MOM performance against England .... as I said before he is consistent for his inconsistencies

This was during Gareth Jenkins tenure as Welsh coach, he was considered one of the worst welsh coaches but you gotta give the guy credit he really stuck with Hook. I think if he had put half his effort in developing Robinson (a much more naturally talented player) then he (Jenkins) he would have achieved much more in the WC and beyond.

Its quite clear the win / loss ratio you and others bang on about with Hook is not a reality. Jones has orchestrated wins against the SH sides Hook hasn't been incapable of doing that

With Hook, he has all of the natural talent needed to play at 10/12/13 or 15.

Problem is, he wasnt as successful as we had hoped he would be at 10 straight away (this is a problem with the Welsh public and the craving of a messiah at 10). So he was pushed between 12/13/15 for 2/3 seasons instead of being dropped from the national side and persevered with.

Problem being, he's never really learnt and become fully confident in the techinical aspects of any position (defensive positioning/tackling, ability under the highball/kick returns, distribution/decision making at 10, distribution at 12/13 etc etc) and thus he's never been all around fully competent in any position.

This is the reality of it (for me anyway), he has no right to stand his ground, hes not the club/country's coach and as such will be used when and where fit, thats not his decision, if he decides not to play in a certain position, the coaches should leave him out altogether, no room for player power in this new young professional team.

He needs to stick to a position (whether that be 10/12/13/15) and he needs to learn every aspect of that position, as I said, Im a hook fan and believe he has the ability to become a world class player in any of those positions.

At the moment, hes just a game breaker we need to have on the field, this can be to the detriment of the team in a number of ways (depending on the position he is chosen in for that match).

I hope that made sense, it did when I wrote it!

Comfort

Spot on I would say.

I am a Hook fan as well, loads of potential natural instinctive player, who can do many things a 10 or 12 requires, unfortunately he hasn't been able to complete his armoury but aquiring the other vital skills.

I think the French excursion has come at the right time for James, as another rookie has replaced him and arguably performed better. The Welsh view is slowly turning and more and more are re-assessing his actual "potential". It'll be interesting to see if he becomes the French Player of the Year like Jones did, and comes back your nailed on 10.

I for one would love him to complete his core skills and that a "complete" James hook will be running the next Lions backline .

JPR WIlliams says Hook should refuse to play full bakc for Wales - belivieng that Hook should be partnered with Roberts in the centres. Rather than raising the Hook positional debate again, do people think it's right for a player to ever refuse to play as asked by his manager?

In a related issue, should Haskell state that he is a number 8 and refuse to play elsewhere in the back row?

Surely the manager is in charge and players play where they are told.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/welsh/14981106.stm


Merging this with the existing article

rugbyfan wrote:JPR WIlliams says Hook should refuse to play full bakc for Wales - belivieng that Hook should be partnered with Roberts in the centres. Rather than raising the Hook positional debate again, do people think it's right for a player to ever refuse to play as asked by his manager?

In a related issue, should Haskell state that he is a number 8 and refuse to play elsewhere in the back row?

Surely the manager is in charge and players play where they are told.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/welsh/14981106.stm

Did JPR actually say that?

Yes obviously the Manager is in charge, Lets see
Johnno: "Haskell you are playing 8 against Scotland"
Haskell: "No I'm bl00dy well not I am going to play left wing"
Johnno: "Oh OK then...... Oi Flood you are playing 8"
Flood: Barstewards"

Quote form the bbc article "Williams feels Wales have an obvious place for Hook in midfield, where his "creativity" is needed to compliment the power of Jamie Roberts."

To go back to your original question

Every person has a right to refuse work............. whether that person will get a chance to work again is another thing.

You do know that anti-establishment "minto" JPR bangs his Bridgend drum every year usually the same topic............... and yes we shan't go into that centre pairing history shall we, much too painful