Greig Laidlaw - 9 or 10?

I think the time has come from someone (Robinson?) to make a decision about where Laidlaws future lies - he is an extremely talented player and you don't want to see him messed around like Mossy was and have us thinking "what if".

I reckon there are some good argument for either position, which I'll try and sum up here.

Keep him at scrum half:

He has played there all career - it is his position he is most comfortable at. Also, with Blair, Lawson and Cusiter soon to be passed it in the next couple of years he is the next inline to the starting berth for Scotland. However, keeping him there means that another very talented Edinburgh player, Mike Blair doesn't play. He does get his criticism for Scotland but he still has a large part to play for Edinburgh. It does mean that some young stand offs at Edinburgh get some decent gametime (not good God-man hopefully).

Move him to stand off:

More risky, but could have more reward. Edinburgh aren't exactly blessed with stand offs just now and the young pups have looked pretty hit or miss. Plus last season him and Mike Blair looked very good when played together - very good for the way Edinburgh play. On the downside, is he Scotland's long term option at 10? Weir and Jackson seem to be fighting it out for that one just now. I reckon Laidlaw is just as good as those two just now as a 10 and is a much better place kicker.

Also, would playing him at 10 limit the opportunities for the young guys at Edinburgh? They are only 19/20 and got a lot of developing to do, which they might not be able to do if he is playing there regularly.

My personal view is move him to 10. From an Edinburgh point of view I think him and Blair were extremely impressive together and the team looked sharp and threatening. From a long term Scotland point of view I think he could make the 10 shirt his own. Both Jackson and Wier have their faults so if he gets in there and plays well it could be his future.

Thoughts people?

I just hope they don't mess him around and ruin what is looking like a great talent.

This is a really hard one for me as both a Burgh and Scotland fan. Laidlaw is club captain at Edinburgh for this season so I would expect him to start the bulk of the games either at 9 or 10.

What I think would be best for Edinburgh and for Scotland would be for Blair and Laidlaw to form a good club partnership that promotes running free flowing rugby that can be translated to Scotland in a less jarring nature when Jackson plays.

The foundation of excellent international partnerships is forged at clubs :
Philips and Hook/Priestland (Ospreys)
Flood & Youngs (tigers)
Killer B's (Glasgow)
Jacobsen, Ford & Cross (Burgh)
POC & DOC (Munster)
Darcy & BOD (Leinster)
Cooper & Genia (Reds)

Lets see if it works at the Burgh 1st. If it does lets try it at international level. I for one would be pretty happy to see both Laidlaw and Blair on the field at the same time.

So you are happy for him to be moved about between 9 and 10, as opposed to letting him stick at one position and master it?

I think an International 10 needs to be playing 10 regularly to get right up to speed.

I personally see him as a 9 rather than a 10. I think he offers useful cover at 10, but he's a better 9, and the fact that he's getting his kicking up to scratch is a helpful factor in allowing Jackson to play 10 without needing CP to play 15.

Blair should just accept that he now has genuine competition at 9, and will have to up his game to get a start.

I would argue Blair did that at the world cup. I felt he had a much better tour than Lawson who was average and Cusiter who should never have traveled.

Blair's distribution seemed much better, he brought back those sniping runs that had him on the IRB player of the year shortlist and he scored a quarter of our tries, however that stat says a lot more than it means.

I thought there was much speculation over moving Jackson to 12 and playing with a more creative back division (playmakers at 10 and 12)? Surely then you'd have the younger guys Weir and Laidlaw battling it out for 10 with one of the current plethora of Scottish scrummies at 9.

Hmm, good question, RDW.

SCRUM-HALVES

Age of incumbents - Blair (30), Lawson (30), Cusiter (29)
Win % - Blair (40%), Lawson (43%), Cusiter (34%)
Matches per try - Blair (6), Cusiter (19), Lawson (never scored)
Honours - Blair (B&I Lion, IRB PoY nom, Sco), Cusiter (B&I Lion, Sco), Lawson (Sco)

At a stretch, I reckon we'll likely get 2-3 years out of BLC, but they are unlikely to be around for the next RWC, so from a Scotland perspective, Laidlaw must stay at SH. In terms of other young SHs coming thru, at Embra there's journeyman Chris Leck (26), Alex Black (21 - Dev Player) & at a stretch Sam Hidalgo-Clyne (18 - 7s squad). At Glesgae, there's Colin Gregor (30) & Henry Pyrgos (22). So, nobody really coming thru' at 9 that will challenge GL for the Scotland shirt.

Fly-HALVES

Age of incumbent - Ruaridh Jackson (23)

Potential competition coming thru at Embra, we've got (good-)Godman (29), Gregor Hunter (20 - Dev Player), Matt Scott (21 - Dev Player), Harry Leonard (19 - Academy) & Sam Hidalgo-Clyne (18 - 7s). At Glesgae, there's just Duncan Weir (20) and Scott Wight (25). Plus you've got Tommy Allan (18, nephew of former Scotland hooker, John) who was in Wasps academy (not sure when he is now?). Actually a fair bit of competition, and some potential quality in RJ, DW (and hopefully we can encourage Alex Blair back into the game).

Conclusion: stay at 9 pls

Good argument aslongas.

When you put it like that I am quite worried about our scrum halves just now for Scotland for the next world cup!

That's his long term position argued against - what about Edinburgh in the next 2 years or so when we still have Mike Blair at his peak condition? Would Edinburgh potentially be more successful with a 9-10 combo of Blair and Laidlaw than having to rely on very young stand offs or (good) Godman?

RDW_Scotland wrote:Good argument aslongas.

When you put it like that I am quite worried about our scrum halves just now for Scotland for the next world cup!

That's his long term position argued against - what about Edinburgh in the next 2 years or so when we still have Mike Blair at his peak condition? Would Edinburgh potentially be more successful with a 9-10 combo of Blair and Laidlaw than having to rely on very young stand offs or (good) Godman?

Maybe Lievremont has set the trend?!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:Priestland is a Scarlet not an Osprey just so you know.

Pedant! At least he didn't write Llanelli which is what I'd have done!!

very true!

rugbydreamer wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

rugbydreamer wrote:Priestland is a Scarlet not an Osprey just so you know.

Pedant! At least he didn't write Llanelli which is what I'd have done!!

very true!

Why are we writing so small tho?

It's just such a shame Alex Blair wasn't able to stick around. With Laidlaw at 9 taking the kicks and Scott at 12, providing support, Alex Blair could have really offered something, especially with those sharp outside backs that Edinburgh have.

I still haven't heard word of anyone snapping him up.

Me neither, fES, in fact I fear he is lost to the game

rugbydreamer wrote:Priestland is a Scarlet not an Osprey just so you know.

I would think that Laidlaw should stay at 9 - I like the idea of a halfback hinge where both are good footballers. Let's not take Jackson away from the shirt - I think it's fair to say that he's on a relatively upward trajectory.

Cannot believe that Cuss is 29. Must have spent longer at Perpignon than I thought.

Am very interested in the list of youngsters at the clubs - can you tell me more about the Edinburgh options? I haven't heard of a lot of them.