Should Hogg get a run at 10 for Scotland?

I know he has just had one game at 10, and it was against pretty poor opposition, but by all accounts it sound like Hogg had a strong game at 10 today. So that begs the question – should he be played at 10 for Scotland? I thought I’d look at the arguments.

For

Hogg is the most naturally gifted player in the Scotland squad.

He has a massive boot, good passer, outrageous sidestep and gas to burn.

He also has a good rugby brain and, at 20, has plenty time to develop.

Scotland have not had a good stand off for a long time, and lets face it our options for the future aren’t exactly setting the heather on fire.

Turns out he is a pretty good goal kicker – removes the reliance on Ladilaw


Against

Can Hogg produce for Scotland against top opposition when he has Matt Scott and De Luca outside him instead of Roberts and BoD, and his pack are getting a limited supply of ball?

Do we need to consider him at 10 when we have put a lot of time and effort into Weir, Jackson and youngsters such as Heathcoat, Leonard, Hunter, Rusell etc?

Do we sacrifice one of the best attacking fullbacks in NH rugby for a solid yet unspectacular fullback such as Tonks or Murchie?

Will Glasgow want to play Hogg there when they have plenty 10s but a limited number of 15s?

His tackling is generally pretty good but with the odd laps – is this an issue?


My view

Hogg is an incredible talent and, at 20, has a whole lot of developing still to do. At fullback he gives us real security with his big boot and a lethal counter attacking option. However I think it’s fair to say our current 10s are solid if unspectacular, and he could be the spark that sets off Scottish rugby.

However I don’t want him to be messed around like Mossy was and to a certain extent Laidlaw – he needs his position to be sorted.

Saying that my personal view is to continue the experiement for a season – primarily play him at 15 but slot him in for the odd game for Glasgow and maybe Scotland. This will give him time to decide whether he likes to play there, and also give the Scottish coaches time to determine whether he is a viable option.

No. The better question is should Hogg be tested at 10 for Glasgow? He should not go to 10 for Scotland without a proper run in a Glasgow jersey (which by definition would mean he's getting game time ahead of Weir and Jackson).

Can't see it being a good idea personally. He may thought be considered as back up for that position though going forward, giving Scotland more flexibility around who we have on the bench.

I've got mixed feelings, on one side it sounds like he did very well and could fill a big gap, on the other hand do we risk losing out on someone with the potential to be the best full-back in the world. Also we don't want to do to him what happened to our last player with so much natural talent, Paterson was shunted around so much he never really made one position his own until the end of his career by which time it was too late for him to make the Lions.

Come to think of it Mossy was a bit of a different situation – he was a standout 10 from the start but was moved to 15 and wing for Scotland. Hogg is different – he is a standout 15 being moved to 10.

Not sure if that really means anything though….!

I'm undecided, but there are very good reasons for giving it a go...

- Hogg passes beautifully, keeps the midfield defence interested and can vary his distribution
- His awareness of space and understanding of the game is excellent
- He can boot the ball an effing mile.
- Maitland is a very good option at FB.

I'm not sure whether Hogg is the right stand off to play in the trenches during a muddy, wet, close fought encounter. Weir is probably more suited to that. But, there's no doubt that he'd get our attacking options fizzing.

If we were to play Hogg, we'd need to build an attacking structure around him. Quick ball from the forwards, multiple runners, lots of pace and variety. None of this flapping around and waiting for five minutes at every breakdown that we saw from Laidlaw on Saturday, or endless box-kicking. Feed the Hogg and he will score.

It's interesting that Horne has been seen as Glasgow's auxiliary flyhalf recently. Maybe it's actually been Hogg all along. I think Townsend should bring Hogg into the game at flyhalf more often next season. Start him at 15 but get him operating at first receiver from time to time, and bring him to flyhalf properly in the second half. If that goes well, we'll see from there. He's only 20, but we need to make this decision pretty quickly.

So, the Glasgow line up could look like this next season

Niko
Weir
DTH
Horne
Dunbar
Maitland
Hogg

Second half, Hogg goes to 10, Maitland to FB and Seymour on at wing. Pyrgos and Bennett to be the other backs subs.

The season after that, for Scotland we could see

Laidlaw/Kennedy
Hogg
Visser
Scott/Horne
Dunbar/Bennett
Seymour
Maitland

Captain - you are correct in that we could move Maitland to 15, but that then leaves a solid but unspectacular player on the wing.

Seymour and Fife have been OK this season but our back 3 would be significantly less potent if it was

11 Visser
14 Seymour / Fife
15 Maitland

Instead of

11 Visser
14 Maitland
15 Hogg

Such a tough decision!!

Wouldn't you be better off just getting Hogg to come in at first receiver rather than sticking him at 10 for a whole game? Scotland dont have a better FB, but they have better 10s. Leave Visser and Maitland on the wings where they are genuine threats (Maitlands a great footballer but not the same threat from FB when I've seen him there in the past - albeit a while ago now).

If he was to do that you can use him when you're chasing the game or to mix up your attacking options from phase play without losing his boot/counter attacking prowess from the back...

I think the point about Hogg coming into the line more is a good one. He usually comes in on the wider channels, but he could clearly come in more as first or second receiver. I'd prefer to keep him at 15 and use him in that way.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Captain - you are correct in that we could move Maitland to 15, but that then leaves a solid but unspectacular player on the wing.

Seymour and Fife have been OK this season but our back 3 would be significantly less potent if it was

11 Visser
14 Seymour / Fife
15 Maitland

Instead of

11 Visser
14 Maitland
15 Hogg

Such a tough decision!!

Yes, it really is. But, we're talking about setting up Hogg as our flyhalf for the next decade. If we can get him sorted as a quality flyhalf, that's worth putting Seymour on the wing. Quality FH's are worth their weight in gold, and tend to create chances that benefit the whole team, including solid wingers like Seymour (who is a very good finisher in my book).

Also, who knows what wingers we'll have in the future? Farndale looks promising, for one.

Comfort wrote:Wouldn't you be better off just getting Hogg to come in at first receiver rather than sticking him at 10 for a whole game? Scotland dont have a better FB, but they have better 10s. Leave Visser and Maitland on the wings where they are genuine threats (Maitlands a great footballer but not the same threat from FB when I've seen him there in the past - albeit a while ago now).

If he was to do that you can use him when you're chasing the game or to mix up your attacking options from phase play without losing his boot/counter attacking prowess from the back...

Good point. We should definitely do more of this before chucking him in at FH in a proper Test.

The thing to remember is that in International rugby there are rarely gaps for a 10 to exploit these days, so I wouldn’t base a game plan purely to try and exploit something that doesn’t happen often…

He's played one game at 10 against a bunch of nothing players cobbled together. He was surrounded by the finest players in Britain and Ireland, and given an arm chair ride. This is no basis upon which to be deciding where he plays for the rest of his career.

If we're serious about this, he needs to make the switch at Glasgow at the start of the next season, forget about Scotland in the AIs, and prove himself in the first half of the season at 10 for Glasgow in the league and in the Heineken Cup to be ready to start at 10 in time for the 6 Nations.

Personally I think this is pie in the sky. He's a top class 15, and proven it. I wouldn't mess him around.

No

Why? He is a good 15. Dont do a Mossy and move the boy about and stuff that up. He has also played in a team full of talented professionals against a team of sparkies and plumbers. You cannot base his talent set on that game. I could have played at 10 in that game and the lions would still have won by 50 plus!

Anyone got a spare time machine handy so we can go into the future and see what happens if we move Hogg to 10, and similarly do it for keeping him at 15??

RDW_Scotland wrote:The thing to remember is that in International rugby there are rarely gaps for a 10 to exploit these days, so I wouldn’t base a game plan purely to try and exploit something that doesn’t happen often…

Absolutely right. It's wrong to think we'll see more of his running abilities (his biggest strength) by playing him at 10, in fact we'll see less.

At 15 he has far more freedom and scope to attack, and use his pace and stepping abilities. We can be a lot more creative in the way we use him in that role. With Heathcote, Weir, Jackson and Leonard I think we should leave the 10 jersey to players who play 10.

funnyExiledScot wrote:He's played one game at 10 against a bunch of nothing players cobbled together. He was surrounded by the finest players in Britain and Ireland, and given an arm chair ride. This is no basis upon which to be deciding where he plays for the rest of his career.

If we're serious about this, he needs to make the switch at Glasgow at the start of the next season, forget about Scotland in the AIs, and prove himself in the first half of the season at 10 for Glasgow in the league and in the Heineken Cup to be ready to start at 10 in time for the 6 Nations.

Personally I think this is pie in the sky. He's a top class 15, and proven it. I wouldn't mess him around.

Also a very good point. It's a very tough choice. Stick or twist, stick or twist, stick or twist?

I’m hearing all these arguments that it was a one off against a bunch of semi-pros, but why does that matter? We shouldn’t be basing it on this one game, but looking at his potential in that position going forward. All today has really done is spark the debate of whether he should be moved there!

Risk ruining one of our most talented players, or potentially unearth one of our best 10s for a decade? Glad we’ve got Scott Johnson making that decision….

RDW_Scotland wrote:Anyone got a spare time machine handy so we can go into the future and see what happens if we move Hogg to 10, and similarly do it for keeping him at 15??

I've just used the time machine.

Turns out Heathcote is about to produce the finest performance from a fly half anyone has seen in decades against the Boks, steering Scotland to a famous away win and ending any speculation about moving our best back out of position.

Oh, and the Messiah captains the Lions to victory for the Lions in 2017. ASBO weeps from the stands in happiness as the Messiah coasts under the sticks at the House of Pain for the clinching score......

Duncan Taylor turns out to be useless, so Vern Cotter duly appoints IBD as chief talent scout for the Scotland rugby team.....

Should Johnson decide that Hogg will have a go at 10 then we could always replace him in the back three with this guy, Robbie Robinson of the Chiefs; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwu7t_b0j20
Spoken about before and apparently SQ. Something of the Glenn Metcalfe about him.
Obviously we should also be looking to develop homegrown players ,eg Farndale, but Maitland has been a big success and the stronger Scotland is the better.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Glad we’ve got Scott Johnson making that decision….

RDW_Scotland wrote:I’m hearing all these arguments that it was a one off against a bunch of semi-pros, but why does that matter? We shouldn’t be basing it on this one game, but looking at his potential in that position going forward. All today has really done is spark the debate of whether he should be moved there!

Risk ruining one of our most talented players, or potentially unearth one of our best 10s for a decade? Glad we’ve got Scott Johnson making that decision….

We're not desperate for a 10, as Heathcote, Weir and Horne all look promising. Then start thinking about Allan, Russell etc. But Hogg as a fantastic 10 is a very tempting prospect.

On balance, I think he should be used more as first receiver for Glasgow or Scotland as a first step. Perhaps brought into the 10 berth towards the end of his club games. We'll see how it goes from there. I don't think that would constitute 'ruining' him. He's got bags of confidence, we know that much.

Comfort wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Glad we’ve got Scott Johnson making that decision….

Well he will be the main selector for the next year obviously, don't even know if we've got a selection committee anymore or whether that ended back in the amateur days.

Just watched the highlights of the game. It's safe to say that he had an armchair ride, but his passing looked very good and he was confident - particularly for the first try, a lovely quick miss pass of his wrong hand.

I happen to agree, however, with the comments that he should stick to 15, but have licence to come in at first receiver - he can pick his moments and still offer a threat out wide.

On the other hand, Glasgow are a very good 10 away from being one hell of a side - if Hogg shows up well there next season Toonie might be quite tempted to leap frog him above Jacko and Weir.

Gatland may have done Scotland a big favour by putting a talented player in such a key position. Hogg looks as if he needs to work on his passing as many of them were high today but he has a lot of speed and can cut the line as he showed. It is strange that Gatland has given Hogg this chance as he normally picks slow predictable flyhalves that don't make breaks.

[quote="funnyExiledScot"]

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Duncan Taylor turns out to be useless, so Vern Cotter duly appoints IBD as chief talent scout for the Scotland rugby team.....

Youve just made an enemy for life.

funnyExiledScot wrote:He's played one game at 10 against a bunch of nothing players cobbled together. He was surrounded by the finest players in Britain and Ireland, and given an arm chair ride. This is no basis upon which to be deciding where he plays for the rest of his career.

If we're serious about this, he needs to make the switch at Glasgow at the start of the next season, forget about Scotland in the AIs, and prove himself in the first half of the season at 10 for Glasgow in the league and in the Heineken Cup to be ready to start at 10 in time for the 6 Nations.

Personally I think this is pie in the sky. He's a top class 15, and proven it. I wouldn't mess him around.

I think he would do well at ten. He has all the right attributes as are credited above, most importantly he makes good decisions and did so today. Far better decisions than many other established flyhalfs.

Upping the quality of the opposition makes his game far more difficult but it is the thought process and the vision that remain the same and the way he showed his style today showed very clearly he is a good flyhalf.

Many talented flyhalfs play well at centre and fullback, from what I have read Hogg who only left school two years ago played most of his youth rugby at ten and was converted to the back three due to his excellent pace. Pace is something that can really save your day, give you time as a flyhalf, most greats had fantastic pace. Think John, Bennett and Davis just for starters but also Carter, Larkham and current Lion supremo Sexton.

Scotland and Glasgow really should look to playing him there more often. For now, most importantly he really could well prove to be a very useful lad on this Lions tour. I have been a fan of his for a while and every game he impresses all the more.

Answer is yes, simply because 10 is crucial position for sucess and you Scots haven't been blessed with lots of good tens. So glasgow should be encouraged to play him there and if it works out give him a run in the 6N.

While it was sh*te opposition he did well enough to warrant a real crack at it....

Hogg had a great game today against opposition that was poor

He has great talent and skill

Lets wait and see what happens against sterner opposition.

I think he may just wear 10 for his region and Scotland in the future

I'm not sure that you can compare Paterson with Hogg as how ever much I loved Paterson he didn't have the self belief for an international ten and bottled it when he was given his chance which is why he never made a success of it there despite being a great ten for gala.

I think we would waste one of hoggs best features using him at ten which is his pace and his style of rugby wouldn't work in a dogged six nations game. Using him as a first receiver option like England do with Goode is a good suggestion above. I'm really glad he and Maitland got there shots today and hope it gives them confidence moving on in the tour.

In today's game Hogg hit his receivers every time from memory. When the backs were on the run he passed into the space in front so they didn't have to break stride*.

An impressive performance, and the Lions' coaches should be well satisfied with the gamble of taking Hogg as cover at 10.

For Scotland you potentially now have a mini dilemma. I appreciate you want Hogg at fb, but you also need a 10 who can unleash the rest of what could be a potent back line (*see above).

I really hope they don't.

There are a host of young fly-halves coming through, with Weir and Heathcote looking the most promising currently but I'm excited to see how guys like Leonard, Hunter, Russell and Allan develop over the next couple of season. And bare in mind Jackson is still only 24.

Hogg's greatest asset is his counter-attacking, moving him to 10 would eliminate that. I have no doubt he'd be a great 10 but he has the raw tools to be a World Class full-back and to be demonstrating them at such a young age is incredibly exciting, he's comfortably the most exciting Scottish player I've seen (1990-). At fly-half he'd be more restricted, more involved perhaps but less able to pick his moments to join the line or move into first receiver and less opportunity to run from deep. Scotland could still use his big boot in the kicking strategy and he looks pretty confident goal kicking considering he only seemed to start a couple months ago.

With Maitland and Visser on the wings, he forms a very potent weapon for Scotland that could be together for the next couple of RWCs. The midfield will come together but we just need a bit of patience, there are youthful options at fly-half and a handful of promising young centres breaking through currently.

I'd love to see us arrive at RWC 15 with this back-line having had 7/10 Test matches together,

9 - Cusiter
10 - Heathcote
11 - Visser
12 - Scott
13 - Bennett
14 - Maitland
15 - Hogg

21 - Laidlaw
22 - Weir
23 - Dunbar

Really bored - being picky, Jackson is 25, not 24!

Old enough and experienced enough to not be so massively inconsistent.

Good thread and good responses from everyone. At the least, it's well worth considering in in the time it takes to get a decent pint of Guinness to settle.

What I don't think is sustainable is playing him at 10 for Scotland without that also being his reciprocal position for club and I just don't think that Toonie would ever choose to do that unless forced by the most dire of injury circumstances.

I think that Comfort's point is the main one for me, which is that we have better alternative 10s than alternative 15s at the moment. I wouldn't have said that before but with Heathcote, Weir, Russell and Allan waiting in the wings, the cupboard is not as bare as we think and the days of watching Dan Parks through the gaps in my fingers are thankfully a receding memory. The best counter-argument is LittleJohn's point above which is that 10 is a position of considerably more influence (and therefore significance) than 10, which may make an experiment worthwhile. I have no problem with that, but it needs national and club buy-in.

I am glad that people are starting to appreciate Hogg a little more on the tour. Clearly everyone has their favourites from which a lot of posters seem unlikely to deviate but I think that we can at least agree that Hogg was a competent distributor at 10, kicked 4 out of 6 (I think, from looking at the highlights again) and took the high percentage option most of the time. Nothing more he could have done given the opposition placed in front of him.

I think we should wait until Heathcote has bedded into the 10 position as well before making decisions about Hogg at 10. I really think Heathcote will develope into a decent 10 for us!

George Carlin wrote:

I am glad that people are starting to appreciate Hogg a little more on the tour.

Totally agree on this one – we all know how much Hogg bashing there was on here before the tour started and it is great to see most people from all nations saying how good a talent he is. Again it was against poor opposition yesterday but he did not look inferior to his illustrious team mates – far from it – and most certainly is an asset to the Lions.

George Carlin wrote:I think that Comfort's point is the main one for me, which is that we have better alternative 10s than alternative 15s at the moment. I wouldn't have said that before but with Heathcote, Weir, Russell and Allan waiting in the wings, the cupboard is not as bare as we think

Russell and Allan?? Have they even played a pro rugby match yet?

If they constitute depth at 10, then at 15 you can cite the following options: Tonks, Murchie, Maitland, Southwell, Cuthbert and Brown. I'm not at all convinced the depth is better at 10 than it is at 15.

I still don't think Hogg should be moved to 10 though. He's a top class fullback, let's stop shunting him to centre, and let's end this nonsense of moving him to 10. He has the ability to become one of the great fullbacks in my view. Only in Scotland could we seek to ruin one of our best assets by shifting him into different positions. We don't need yet another utility back. We need a world class fullback.

This is just Chris Paterson happening all over again.

The one thing I do think is worth noting is that Hogg looks to be a much better goal kicker than Peter Horne. Toonie take note!

Question – if Hogg gets gametime at 10 against the Brumbies, Rebels or even somehow during the tests and shows up well, would that sway people’s opinions?

funnyExiledScot wrote:

George Carlin wrote:I think that Comfort's point is the main one for me, which is that we have better alternative 10s than alternative 15s at the moment. I wouldn't have said that before but with Heathcote, Weir, Russell and Allan waiting in the wings, the cupboard is not as bare as we think

Russell and Allan?? Have they even played a pro rugby match yet?

If they constitute depth at 10, then at 15 you can cite the following options: Tonks, Murchie, Maitland, Southwell, Cuthbert and Brown. I'm not at all convinced the depth is better at 10 than it is at 15.

Interesting question and one definitely up for debate. By "strength", what I meant was a series of people with the potential to be top quality specialists in their positions. The players in bold above are a winger, someone who will never wear a Scotland shirt again and was frequently ineffectual when he did, someone with the turning circle of the QE2 and someone who has suffered horribly from second season syndrome.

Heathcote is 21, Weir is 22, Allan is 19 and Russell is 20 so there's room for serious development there. All have professional team contracts and the latter two will be getting professional gametime in three months. I think I'm still happier with the future of our 10s than with our 15s (although young Damien Hoyland is starting to get my attention).

He might have to work on his defense a little if he wants to stay at FH. ESPN stats had him down as 3/4 tackles made/missed against that bunch.

I know its not a FH's primary job but you know in a serious match the opposition will be attacking his channel all day.

This isnt a criticism of his overall defense - its just that there are different requirements defending at FB and FH

RDW_Scotland wrote:Question – if Hogg gets gametime at 10 against the Brumbies, Rebels or even somehow during the tests and shows up well, would that sway people’s opinions?

I think that the only game that's likely to happen is against the Rebels which means that there will inevitably be a line of naysayers saying 'nay' to any claim that he has faced quality opposition in the position. Whatever that may mean.

GC - on the point of young 10s, we have had promising young 10s come through the ranks every year but how many of them have actually turned into top class fly halfs? Some have been decent pros but we just aren't producing many international class 10s anymore.

From memory some examples from over the years people have been getting excited by (when they were late teens / early 20s):

Godman (got plenty caps but was hardly a world beater)
Jackson (jury is still out)
David Blair (good solid pro but nothing more)
Alex Blair (still has a chance)
Rory Hutton (lost in the wilderness)

So my point is this - we create numerous exciting prospects but very rarely do they turn into international standard 10s. The closest we have just now is Duncan Weir and Heathcoat, but I'm not convinced they are going to be significantly better than anything else we have had in the last decade.

I know the opposition weren't up to much but at no point watching yesterdays game did it look like he hadn't played much in that position before.

Give him a go.

I wonder what Hogg's opinion is? It is his career after all. I remember when the debate was between Hogg at 13 or 15 and he clearly stated his preference at 15 in that instance.

He has to play where he feels best suited, theres nothing worse than seeing someone being played out of position and then hearing them say "I'm just happy to be involved", eg Paterson or Hook. Thats the attitude of a utility player and it does them no favours - test rugby is a game of specialists. Hogg should stay at 15

If Hogg is to be moved to 10 then not only does it have to be for Glasgow and Scotland but it must also be because he thinks he can play better there and wants it more than the 15 jersey. The next scottish reporter that comes along has to ask him that question.

RDW_Scotland wrote:GC - on the point of young 10s, we have had promising young 10s come through the ranks every year but how many of them have actually turned into top class fly halfs? Some have been decent pros but we just aren't producing many international class 10s anymore.

From memory some examples from over the years people have been getting excited by (when they were late teens / early 20s):

Godman (got plenty caps but was hardly a world beater)
Jackson (jury is still out)
David Blair (good solid pro but nothing more)
Alex Blair (still has a chance)
Rory Hutton (lost in the wilderness)

So my point is this - we create numerous exciting prospects but very rarely do they turn into international standard 10s. The closest we have just now is Duncan Weir and Heathcoat, but I'm not convinced they are going to be significantly better than anything else we have had in the last decade.

Absolutely - the Alex Blair thing scared the hell out of me in terms of how players can be mismanaged.

I agree that we have been starved of a truly world class 10 since Rutherford but as I mentioned above, it depends what you mean by 'strength'. If you mean 'a larger number of people who have played international rugby already in that position', then of course it's correct to say that full back (for example) is a stronger position. However, I'm always an optimist and think that things will change. On that silly cigarette smoking basis, there seem to be a larger crop of youngsters poised to give themselves every chance at fly half in good clubs (Bath, Glasgow and Perpignan) than there are with the likes of full back or even wing.

Really annoying that I saw Rutherford play first. I thought that we always got players like that. Feel sorry for thousands of Irish rugby fans in their teens/early 20s who think that another O'Driscoll will be along in a couple of minutes.

George Carlin wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

George Carlin wrote:I think that Comfort's point is the main one for me, which is that we have better alternative 10s than alternative 15s at the moment. I wouldn't have said that before but with Heathcote, Weir, Russell and Allan waiting in the wings, the cupboard is not as bare as we think

Russell and Allan?? Have they even played a pro rugby match yet?

If they constitute depth at 10, then at 15 you can cite the following options: Tonks, Murchie, Maitland, Southwell, Cuthbert and Brown. I'm not at all convinced the depth is better at 10 than it is at 15.

Interesting question and one definitely up for debate. By "strength", what I meant was a series of people with the potential to be top quality specialists in their positions. The players in bold above are a winger, someone who will never wear a Scotland shirt again and was frequently ineffectual when he did, someone with the turning circle of the QE2 and someone who has suffered horribly from second season syndrome.

I think RDW makes a good point though. Whilst you're absolutely right that Southwell will not play for Scotland again, Maitland is principally a winger than can play 15 and Cuthbert is not very good, they are all considerably more able to play 15 for Scotland at this moment than say Allen or Russell are to play 10.

Potential is all good and well, but in truth you don't know anything about a player until they've worn a pro club jersey and played a bunch of games.

There's still an argument to be made of course. Heathcote, Weir and Jackson are all able players, and capable of playing 10 at international level, as is Greg Laidlaw. Harry Leonard should come into contention as well next season assuming the next head coach at Edinburgh isn't as stupid as the last head coach. I just don't think the depth in the respective positions is particularly relevant. I think Hogg's skillset is best depolyed at 15, and it just so happens that's the position in which he's played 99% of his career. It's a no brainer for me. Were he to play outstandingly well at 10 under pressure against a Super XV side, and were he to make the 10 jersey his own next season at Glasgow, then we'd be dealing with different facts. Right now, the evidence isn't compelling at all.

The thing is we don’t need 3 or 4 decent 10s, we need 1 or 2 international 10s. Look at the other similar nations over the years:

Ireland – O’Gara and Humphries fought it out, then O’Gara - Sexton and now Sexton is by far the best, with Madigan and Jackson showing promise. At the time though, take away O’Gara, Humphries and Sexton and the back ups were no where near the same quality.

Wales – Steven Jones and Hook were the main men for Wales for years, but again take those two away and the next in line were not nearly as good.

So again getting to my point – several ‘good standard’ 10s won’t make much of a difference. However if we manage to unearth a top international class 10 then that will make a massive difference. Not saying it will be Hogg, but there’s no one else that comes close in terms of potential I think

funnyExiledScot wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

George Carlin wrote:I think that Comfort's point is the main one for me, which is that we have better alternative 10s than alternative 15s at the moment. I wouldn't have said that before but with Heathcote, Weir, Russell and Allan waiting in the wings, the cupboard is not as bare as we think

Russell and Allan?? Have they even played a pro rugby match yet?

If they constitute depth at 10, then at 15 you can cite the following options: Tonks, Murchie, Maitland, Southwell, Cuthbert and Brown. I'm not at all convinced the depth is better at 10 than it is at 15.

Interesting question and one definitely up for debate. By "strength", what I meant was a series of people with the potential to be top quality specialists in their positions. The players in bold above are a winger, someone who will never wear a Scotland shirt again and was frequently ineffectual when he did, someone with the turning circle of the QE2 and someone who has suffered horribly from second season syndrome.

I think RDW makes a good point though. Whilst you're absolutely right that Southwell will not play for Scotland again, Maitland is principally a winger than can play 15 and Cuthbert is not very good, they are all considerably more able to play 15 for Scotland at this moment than say Allen or Russell are to play 10.

Potential is all good and well, but in truth you don't know anything about a player until they've worn a pro club jersey and played a bunch of games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWOlHtzlZ9U 

I am a little reluctant to comment on play in the backs, Hogg impressed against a bunch of nobody part timers, beyond that we can't say much else.

I get the feeling he would have been mullered along with the rest of the Scottish team on Saturday if he had been left behind by the Lions.

He is a 15, let's keep him there. I would only consider moving him to 10 if something happened to Heathcoate, Weir or Jackson.

I'm still hoping some of the young Burgh fly Halfs get more of a chance this season.

In a word, no. 

There is plenty of potential at 10 already which just needs to be nurtured and brought on carefully - Weir and Heathcote are there or thereabouts already, with Tommy Allan and Finn Russell the next pair for further examination and encouragement. I don't buy this nonsense about having to have played 3,457 games for your club and have 50+ caps before you can judge a player's ability. We knew all along that the Messiah was a star in the making, it was clear as feicin day for anyone not wearing dark glasses 

Funnily enough I agree with ASBO to a point - I personally do think that Weir and Heathcote are already there or there abouts, and I rate Jackson higher than most on here. The reason I know this though is because I've watched Weir in a Glasgow jersey and in the 6 Nations, and I've seen Heathcote controlling games for Bath in the Aviva. I think Scotland should stick by these three at 10, I think they give us nice options.

The real onus is on Edinburgh really. Whilst Glasgow have Weir and Jackson fighting it out (and now Russell as back up), Edinburgh really need to be developing 2-3 options of their own. Currently only Harry Leonard looks like having the potential to become a viable option for Scotland, and he really needs to play more games this coming season. I'm not hugely interested in watching Piers Francis if I'm being honest.

Where of course I disagree with ASBO is that I do believe players need to play club rugby before starting international rugby matches for Scotland, and I don't think you can decide that a player is international quality already by performances in U20 tournaments.

But then again I wear dark glasses because they make me look cool.