Hogg at 10 for Scotland

by bsando Sun 01 Sep 2013, 12:29 pm

Looking ahead to the new season I am beginning to think this could be a really good idea, despite the fact I was marginally against this idea when it was mentioned in June.

My main reason for thinking this could be a good decision is due to Murchie's summer performance. I thought he played very well against SA and he could be a valuable player for Scotland at fullback. Hogg is such a talent that he needs to be involved in the Scotland setup one way or another. If he always plays fullback, Murchie could go to waste, as could Tonks.

Luckily, both Hogg and Murchie represent Glasgow. Therefore, if Townsend were to occasionally play Hogg at 10 this season, Murchie would get more game time at fullback. This would be great as it would bring him on more as a player. If Murchie were to be injured, Maitland could switch to fullback and allow Seymour to get more game time on the right wing. Having Hogg at flyhalf for Glasgow could also be beneficial for Weir and Jackson's game as there'll be new competition.

Hogg is a talented player, who I think could be a tremendous flyhalf. As there are now four good fullback options for Scotland, I think the risk is worth taking. I also think Murchie would be better suited at fullback for Cotter's style of coaching.

Thoughts?

by tigertattie Mon 02 Sep 2013, 10:35 am

by funnyExiledScot Mon 02 Sep 2013, 11:07 am

I think tigertattie has summed it up best.

I think it's a horrible idea. Hogg is our best fullback by some distance, and has the ability to become one of Scotland's great players. Mucking him about between 2-3 different positions is not how to capitalise on his talents at 15.

That he can run and pass the ball simultaneously only opens up the possibilities as to how effective he could be at 15 (i.e. second receiver/coming into the line).

Murchie is solid, nothing more. I thought he was solid in the summer but nothing special, and demonstrated that we have adequate cover at 15 (with both Tonks and Murchie) should we need it. Shifting Hogg out of position to accommodate Murchie would be utter madness.

Moving players out of position is such a Scottish obsession!

by tigertattie Mon 02 Sep 2013, 12:27 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:Moving players out of position is such a Scottish obsession!

The Welshies like doing it too!

by flyhalffactory Mon 02 Sep 2013, 12:28 pm

tigettattie has put up an icon!!

Where is the summation?. The topic is valid, as a national we have struggled with the 10 role, I am not confident we have anyone top notch yet coming through and if I am honest I think Hogg has more ability and potential than any of the other candidates. However we also know he is potentially not only a country mile ahead of anyone else in the 15 shirt but is potentially a world class FB. We need an innovative halfback who can structure the link play between forwards and backs, and is destructive in his offensive play. Tom Heathcote is maybe the future but at this point I would say the jury is still out, Ruaridh Jackson is our most naturally flaired player, and on his day can be outstanding but with 21 caps and no tries to his name.... his "days" unfortunately are few and far between.

Its a difficult call and we don't want Hogg to become our version of James Hook, but its a valid topic.

by tigertattie Mon 02 Sep 2013, 1:01 pm

My icon was put in as it is one of these topics that was done to death in the summer.

As already mentioned, moving a potenially world class 15 is daft as this detrements the 15 position. Further to this though, Hogg has not even proven himself at 10. He got an armchair ride for the lions in the game he played that they won.
I don;t get the whole moving folk to fill other positions! Leave them where they are best suited!

Its like having a superbike and using it to tow a trailer coz your four wheel drive isn't quite working too well!

by Solid8 Mon 02 Sep 2013, 1:06 pm

No, just no!

Let him play the position where he is most comfortable. Let him drop into the line and keep the opposition guessing.

Having a world class player who is able to light up a match with a touch will do much more for the game in Scotland than having an incredibly gifted player who never quite reached his potential because he was forced to play in a position he doesn't feel as comfortable playing in.

NO!

by funnyExiledScot Mon 02 Sep 2013, 2:31 pm

flyhalffactory wrote:tigettattie has put up an icon!!

Where is the summation?. The topic is valid, as a national we have struggled with the 10 role, I am not confident we have anyone top notch yet coming through and if I am honest I think Hogg has more ability and potential than any of the other candidates. However we also know he is potentially not only a country mile ahead of anyone else in the 15 shirt but is potentially a world class FB. We need an innovative halfback who can structure the link play between forwards and backs, and is destructive in his offensive play. Tom Heathcote is maybe the future but at this point I would say the jury is still out, Ruaridh Jackson is our most naturally flaired player, and on his day can be outstanding but with 21 caps and no tries to his name.... his "days" unfortunately are few and far between.

Its a difficult call and we don't want Hogg to become our version of James Hook, but its a valid topic.

Are you basing that on his display for the Lions against the Aussie Farmers XV? Did you watch him at 10 against the Brumbies?

I'm not saying it isn't a "valid topic". Apparently whether Scotland becomes an independent country is a "valid topic" as well, but it doesn't stop there being only one sensible conclusion.......

Run

by bsando Mon 02 Sep 2013, 3:27 pm

I know this was discussed in the summer quite extensively. However, a new season is about to begin and I suspect this topic will be raised again at some point anyway.

But my main reason for now thinking Hogg at 10 is a good idea is my sudden realisation of the strength in depth we have at fullback. Tonks and Murchie are both really good players and I think it would be bad to squander their talents. Maitland too, he is a brilliant player, but as we saw in the 6N, if he doesn't get the ball he can't do much other than try and come off his wing looking for it as much as possible.

I am confident Cotter will make some good decisions as the new coach next year, so if that means Hogg is permanent 1st choice fb, I would be pretty happy with that as I am sure he'll shape the team to work with that.

But as I said, if Hogg becomes like hp is to Wales, Murchie and Tonks will really only be useful if Hogg gets injured and may not develop into decent cover if they get little or no game time for Scotland. Maitland would probably end up being the most obvious choice for that role. But I really feel Murchie and Tonks have good roles to play for Scotland.

Its worth trying out if you ask me, at club level at first obviously. It may well happen anyway if Jackson and Weir are still injured. To not accept it as a viable option seems silly to me and comparing it to Scottish independence FES haha, tad different I think, but I agree with your comments regarding that debarcle.

by kiakahaaotearoa Mon 02 Sep 2013, 3:36 pm

Hogg at 10 is like Mogg at 15. Not suited to test rugby.

by flyhalffactory Mon 02 Sep 2013, 3:40 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
flyhalffactory wrote:tigettattie has put up an icon!!

Where is the summation?. The topic is valid, as a national we have struggled with the 10 role, I am not confident we have anyone top notch yet coming through and if I am honest I think Hogg has more ability and potential than any of the other candidates. However we also know he is potentially not only a country mile ahead of anyone else in the 15 shirt but is potentially a world class FB. We need an innovative halfback who can structure the link play between forwards and backs, and is destructive in his offensive play. Tom Heathcote is maybe the future but at this point I would say the jury is still out, Ruaridh Jackson is our most naturally flaired player, and on his day can be outstanding but with 21 caps and no tries to his name.... his "days" unfortunately are few and far between.

Its a difficult call and we don't want Hogg to become our version of James Hook, but its a valid topic.
Are you basing that on his display for the Lions against the Aussie Farmers XV? Did you watch him at 10 against the Brumbies?

I'm not saying it isn't a "valid topic". Apparently whether Scotland becomes an independent country is a "valid topic" as well, but it doesn't stop there being only one sensible conclusion.......

I am basing it on his very short stints he had for Glasgow, his very short stints he had for the Lions........ considering he hasn't played in the position he did more than ok. I am basing it on his ability to see an opening, and the scorching acceleration off a standing start, the gas to outsprint most over 200 metres. I am basing it on a pretty decent return off the boot: pens and conversations for club and lions.

I just think if he had a season at 10 then we would be seeing a guy head and shoulders above anyone wearing our shirt..... unfortunately the same applies to the 15 shirt as well and that is the crux.

I don't think there is one sensible conclusion (and I am of the opinion to keep him at FB) but I would be looking beyond our present batch of 15s in case Hogg gets injured. All I am saying is Hogg at 10 could open up all manner of attacking options with his speed of thought and foot that perhaps (with the exclusion of an on fire Jackson) no one other option can.

by funnyExiledScot Mon 02 Sep 2013, 3:54 pm

Perhaps I'm slightly more optimistic on the fly half front, but I think Weir, Jackson and Heathcote are three pretty decent options. I'd say that they are as good at playing 10 as Tonks and Murchie are at 15.

Hogg may well have the potential to be an awesome 10, but there's no evidence of that in my view so far beyond a hunch. He was as good against the Farmers XV as he was bad against the Brumbies. He could also be an awesome 12 or 13, and in fact he's played more rugby at centre (including an impressive hattrick last season against Munster) than he has at 10, and I don't think we're any stronger at 13 than we are at 10. So why not try him at 13 as well??

He is a fullback and already a very good one. He has the potential to be right up there with Hastings in my view as one of Scotland's great fullbacks when all is said and done. The biggest threat to his career is being shunted to different positions. We need a world class fullback more than we need a decent utility back, and the great players get to stay in the same position throughout their careers.

If Hogg is well advised he'd make it clear that he's a 15.

by tigertattie Mon 02 Sep 2013, 5:03 pm

to be fair to basando et al, I think it's because 10 is such and influential position. 9 and 10 have far more say in how a game will pan out than any other position.

I think had the OP been "hogg at 10 for Glasgow" then it may be received better. Try at club first before country!

by bsando Mon 02 Sep 2013, 9:17 pm

I will be interested to see if Hogg gets any game time at 10 for Glasgow this season, I am sure the coaches must have been watching how he got on at 10 during the Lions tour.

FES, I think all of Scotland's current flyhalf's are not bad. But compared to Biggar, Farrell, Sexton and co, I think they're lagging in quality slightly. Sexton and Farrell are both quality players. Biggar is decent too. Wier and Jackson are perhaps around the same mark as Biggar or slightly below him.

In my opinion we have good players at centre, Hogg playing at centre would be a huge waste in my view. There is Bennett, Dunbar, Scott, Horne who I feel are the future of Scotland at centre. Then there is Evans, NDL, Lamont (not his position though).

Fullback is well covered as I've said, however, flyhalf.. hmm its an iffy one. I feel it is a weak area, hence me pondering the Hogg question in the first place. Flyhalf is not a position that fills me with much confidence at the moment.

by Dontheman Mon 02 Sep 2013, 9:59 pm

tigertattie wrote:My icon was put in as it is one of these topics that was done to death in the summer.

As already mentioned, moving a potenially world class 15 is daft as this detrements the 15 position. Further to this though, Hogg has not even proven himself at 10. He got an armchair ride for the lions in the game he played that they won.
I don;t get the whole moving folk to fill
mother positions! Leave them where they are best suited!

Lets have a competition where we nominate the coolest converted fly-halves. I'll start - Dan Carter! Everybody seems to be fixated on individual performance nobody seems to want to tackle the leadership aspect. Are all the posters on here forwards?

by flyhalffactory Mon 02 Sep 2013, 10:31 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:Perhaps I'm slightly more optimistic on the fly half front, but I think Weir, Jackson and Heathcote are three pretty decent options. I'd say that they are as good at playing 10 as Tonks and Murchie are at 15.

Hogg may well have the potential to be an awesome 10, but there's no evidence of that in my view so far beyond a hunch. He was as good against the Farmers XV as he was bad against the Brumbies. He could also be an awesome 12 or 13, and in fact he's played more rugby at centre (including an impressive hattrick last season against Munster) than he has at 10, and I don't think we're any stronger at 13 than we are at 10. So why not try him at 13 as well??

He is a fullback and already a very good one. He has the potential to be right up there with Hastings in my view as one of Scotland's great fullbacks when all is said and done. The biggest threat to his career is being shunted to different positions. We need a world class fullback more than we need a decent utility back, and the great players get to stay in the same position throughout their careers.

If Hogg is well advised he'd make it clear that he's a 15.

Cant disagree with anything you said FES, albeit perhaps I think we are stronger at 13 than we are at 10 or 15 (discounting Hogg).

We also need a world class 10 more than we need a world class 15 in my opinion, suddenly we have Scott and Dunbar who played well in the summer and Lamont was excellent but we spurned a lot of chances from the halfback channel and we were second best arguably against Samoa, SA and Argentina which in my mind was disappointed. I don't think Weir is the real deal, Heathcote maybe and Jackson on top form is way ahead of them offensively and is the only 10 that compliments Scott and Dunbar

by bsando Mon 02 Sep 2013, 11:00 pm

Dontheman wrote:
tigertattie wrote:My icon was put in as it is one of these topics that was done to death in the summer.

As already mentioned, moving a potenially world class 15 is daft as this detrements the 15 position. Further to this though, Hogg has not even proven himself at 10. He got an armchair ride for the lions in the game he played that they won.
I don;t get the whole moving folk to fill
mother positions! Leave them where they are best suited!

Lets have a competition where we nominate the coolest converted fly-halves. I'll start - Dan Carter! Everybody seems to be fixated on individual performance nobody seems to want to tackle the leadership aspect. Are all the posters on here forwards?

Haha! My turn.. Johnny Wilkinson

by reallybored Tue 03 Sep 2013, 12:35 am

What an utterly stupid thing to do with one of our few potentially world class players. By the time the RWC rolls round, Hogg could be one of the best full-backs in the game.

With Maitland and Visser, that makes one hell of a back-three.

There are good options coming through at 10, just may require patience. I think Weir's kicking game, plenty of threat in the backs anyway so I'd prefer to ensure we play the game in oppositions 22.

by kiakahaaotearoa Tue 03 Sep 2013, 7:42 am

Look at what happened to JOC in the Lions series. A 10 needs to be adept at kicking in every facet. Having a punt on him is not enough. Dagg for example can kick goals, can punt a very long way, but to be a flyhalf you need a lot more kicking variety than that.

Hogg would have to spend his entire time at flyhalf practising his trade. It's not a position you can just walk into. There'd be no guarantee that he'd ever work out in that position and you lose a quality fullback in the process.

Look at Sean Lamont. Playing in the centres to plug a gap. Is he any good there? Is he f...

There are players who can change from the wing to centre, from inside centre to flyhalf. These players have transferable skills to make it work. I don't see with Hogg the kicking variety to make that leap. Plus you lose his counter attacking ability which Scotland badly needs at the back.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 03 Sep 2013, 8:22 am

It's a simple trade-off for me - if you move Hogg to flyhalf, then by reason you must believe that the alternatives at fullback (either moving Maitland to 15 and creating a gap on the wing, or Murchie or Tonks) are better than having the existing outside half options or indeed those coming thru (i.e. Rhubarb, Meatball, Heathcote, and the youngsters like Finn Russell, Leonard or Hunter). Personally, I don't

Braveheart

by RuggerRadge2611 Tue 03 Sep 2013, 9:57 am

Why do we need Hogg at fly half? IMO he would be behind Weir, Heathcoate, Jackson and Laidlaw to play there.

He is a potent attacking weapon coming in from full back. If he wants to establish himself as a place kicker he can establish himself as one from full back.

Moving one of our best players out of position, when we have perfectly capable guys to play there would be a mistake.

by **George Carlin** Tue 03 Sep 2013, 10:08 am

Absolutely valid thing to debate - the more threads the merrier on these boards. Unless they're created by the terminally unpleasant GloriousEmpire/GG, of course.

The main issues have already been covered. Over the next 1-5 years, are we likely to have cover at 10 that is promising enough not to have to take a current specialist out of his position? I think that my views on that have actually changed over the past year, notwithstanding the quite obvious additional point that a good 10 is more influential on a game than a good 15.

I have been impressed with Tom Heathcote and Finn Russell lately and whilst rugby players are like shares (past performance is no indication of future success) - I think that either or both of them will push Weir to be the incumbent for Scotland in the fly half berth and will be genuinely international quality players. That promise is good enough for me and I agree with Kia's comments above which is that it takes an entire career to be a good 10 and so if he's going to move, it would have to be now and it would have to be accompanied by an agreement at Glasgow to give him regular game time there. As a former 10 himself, I would be gobsmacked if Toonie entertained that.

I also think that the gap between Hogg at 15 and The Rest is quite large and I would also have Hogg and Maitland on the pitch at the same time.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 03 Sep 2013, 12:27 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:It's a simple trade-off for me - if you move Hogg to flyhalf, then by reason you must believe that the alternatives at fullback (either moving Maitland to 15 and creating a gap on the wing, or Murchie or Tonks) are better than having the existing outside half options or indeed those coming thru (i.e. Rhubarb, Meatball, Heathcote, and the youngsters like Finn Russell, Leonard or Hunter). Personally, I don't

A very rare +1 for ASBO Wink

by tigertattie Tue 03 Sep 2013, 12:48 pm

get a room kiss

by **George Carlin** Tue 03 Sep 2013, 1:10 pm

Asbo, FES and Bennett sitting in a tree.

by flyhalffactory Tue 03 Sep 2013, 1:27 pm

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Look at what happened to JOC in the Lions series. A 10 needs to be adept at kicking in every facet. Having a punt on him is not enough. Dagg for example can kick goals, can punt a very long way, but to be a flyhalf you need a lot more kicking variety than that.

Hogg would have to spend his entire time at flyhalf practising his trade. It's not a position you can just walk into. There'd be no guarantee that he'd ever work out in that position and you lose a quality fullback in the process.

Look at Sean Lamont. Playing in the centres to plug a gap. Is he any good there? Is he f...

There are players who can change from the wing to centre, from inside centre to flyhalf. These players have transferable skills to make it work. I don't see with Hogg the kicking variety to make that leap. Plus you lose his counter attacking ability which Scotland badly needs at the back.

I think you will find that Lamont has always given a good account of himself at 13 had a bloody good couple of WC games and was excellent against Wales a few years ago, as he was when playing for The Scarlets at O/C a few seasons ago.

The difference between JOC and Hogg is acceleration from a standing start and flat out speed and that's why JOC (in my opinion) now that he is more tightly marked will not be as effective as his first few seasons, I believe a better comparison is Halfpenny seamlessly slotting from wing to FB historically not the easiest transition to make but because of his innate speed it clearly worked.

If you look at the summer internationals we had some excellent performances from Scott, Dunbar and Lamont but the distribution from the 9/10 channel was poor. I ask the question with the up and coming centres, FBs and 10s what will be the weak links and in my mind out of the three areas the 10 position is the weakest. The sign of a quality player is not his first rookie season but when he begins to get recognised and thus more tightly marked I just can't see Weir, Heathcote (to a lesser extent) be the pivotal players that we require when those nano seconds are taken away from them, Jackson on the other hand has had some sterling performances but as I said before very few and far between.

The good thing now is we don't need a 10 to be the dead ball kicker as we have two very good players in Laidlaw and Hogg and even Scott can fill that role, we just need a very good game manager and speedy offensive halfback who is a game changer

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 03 Sep 2013, 1:28 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:It's a simple trade-off for me - if you move Hogg to flyhalf, then by reason you must believe that the alternatives at fullback (either moving Maitland to 15 and creating a gap on the wing, or Murchie or Tonks) are better than having the existing outside half options or indeed those coming thru (i.e. Rhubarb, Meatball, Heathcote, and the youngsters like Finn Russell, Leonard or Hunter). Personally, I don't

A very rare +1 for ASBO

They mean so much more for their rarity tho! Wink

by tigertattie Tue 03 Sep 2013, 1:47 pm

George Carlin wrote:Asbo, FES and Bennett sitting in a tree.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Tue 03 Sep 2013, 1:55 pm

tigertattie wrote:
George Carlin wrote:Asbo, FES and Bennett sitting in a tree.

Can we no make some room on the branch for fES's new fave, RV?

by **George Carlin** Tue 03 Sep 2013, 2:08 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
tigertattie wrote:
George Carlin wrote:Asbo, FES and Bennett sitting in a tree.
Can we no make some room on the branch for fES's new fave, RV?

He can hold the video camera.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 03 Sep 2013, 5:14 pm

George Carlin wrote:
AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:
tigertattie wrote:
George Carlin wrote:Asbo, FES and Bennett sitting in a tree.
Can we no make some room on the branch for fES's new fave, RV?
He can hold the video camera.

Better than giving it to Bennett. He'd drop it - those things are heavy!

by flyhalffactory Tue 03 Sep 2013, 6:04 pm

I think this "potential" back line is pretty much as good as any other option we could put out, if we take every player having some time and experience in the role.

FB Maitland
W Lamont
W Visser

OC Dunbar
IC Scott

FH Hogg
SH Laidlaw

I know it won't happen but its potential to be an awesome attacking unit is undeniable!.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 03 Sep 2013, 6:30 pm

If you put Maitland back into the correct position on the wing, Hogg back into his correct position at 15, and Jackson into his correct position at 10, I think you have an even better backline with even more potential.

Jackson is a better passer and kicker of a rugby ball than Stuart Hogg. His issue is consistency, not ability. I've seen Stuart Hogg play 10 twice. He was decent in one performance (against a horribly overrun side) and poor in a second (against a Super 15 outfit). All evidence suggests that Hogg is equally inconsistent when played out of position, and I'd prefer not to waste two years of an astonishingly promising career teaching him how to play a new position to the extent he's ready for international rugby in that position.

Make no mistake, the transition to 10 is not an easy one and having the raw materials does not mean he'll be able to take that skillset and become an international quality fly half.

Anyway, once Piers Francis qualifies to play for Scotland, this question will be resolved.

by **George Carlin** Tue 03 Sep 2013, 7:14 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:If you put Maitland back into the correct position on the wing, Hogg back into his correct position at 15, and Jackson into his correct position ~~at 10~~ in a different postal code, I think you have an even better backline with even more potential.

Now I agree with this.

I am genuinely bemused at peoples' desire to stick with Jackson at international level. I find it very difficult to get excited about a 25 (near 26) year old with 21 caps and a grand total of 18 points. We've posted on this before but my view is hardening that at a time when the cupboard was very bare indeed for Scottish 10s, we just wanted him to be so much better than he actually was. I think that we expect too little from our 10s if we are happy with Jackson. Let's see if Jackson can take gametime from Wight, Weir and Russell this season first.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 03 Sep 2013, 7:37 pm

George Carlin wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:If you put Maitland back into the correct position on the wing, Hogg back into his correct position at 15, and Jackson into his correct position ~~at 10~~ in a different postal code, I think you have an even better backline with even more potential.
Now I agree with this.

I am genuinely bemused at peoples' desire to stick with Jackson at international level. I find it very difficult to get excited about a 25 (near 26) year old with 21 caps and a grand total of 18 points. We've posted on this before but my view is hardening that at a time when the cupboard was very bare indeed for Scottish 10s, we just wanted him to be so much better than he actually was. I think that we expect too little from our 10s if we are happy with Jackson. Let's see if Jackson can take gametime from Wight, Weir and Russell this season first.

What does that have to do with the price of fish?? He has very rarely been called upon to take the shots at goal, with CP and Laidlaw taking on those duties.

I fairly confident that Jackson is and will remain ahead of Scott Wight in the pecking order, and Finn Russell will I suspect be in apprentice mode this season. Clearly if these guys oust Jackson at Glasgow, or Weir recovers from his strained stomach injury, then I'll happily go for the form choice. I just think Jackson is a very talented player and when on song our most creative option at 10, and the best equipped to play the style of rugby I think would suit Scotland (and certainly Glasgow) best.

If someone steps up and performs better, I'd be delighted.

by **George Carlin** Tue 03 Sep 2013, 8:08 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
George Carlin wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:If you put Maitland back into the correct position on the wing, Hogg back into his correct position at 15, and Jackson into his correct position ~~at 10~~ in a different postal code, I think you have an even better backline with even more potential.
Now I agree with this.

I am genuinely bemused at peoples' desire to stick with Jackson at international level. I find it very difficult to get excited about a 25 (near 26) year old with 21 caps and a grand total of 18 points. We've posted on this before but my view is hardening that at a time when the cupboard was very bare indeed for Scottish 10s, we just wanted him to be so much better than he actually was. I think that we expect too little from our 10s if we are happy with Jackson. Let's see if Jackson can take gametime from Wight, Weir and Russell this season first.
What does that have to do with the price of fish?? He has very rarely been called upon to take the shots at goal, with CP and Laidlaw taking on those duties.

I fairly confident that Jackson is and will remain ahead of Scott Wight in the pecking order, and Finn Russell will I suspect be in apprentice mode this season. Clearly if these guys oust Jackson at Glasgow, or Weir recovers from his strained stomach injury, then I'll happily go for the form choice. I just think Jackson is a very talented player and when on song our most creative option at 10, and the best equipped to play the style of rugby I think would suit Scotland (and certainly Glasgow) best.

If someone steps up and performs better, I'd be delighted.

I don't disagree (although if Jackson's points had come from 6 smartly taken drop goals, I think that point would have more merit) and as someone who watches Glasgow a lot, I think he's a very competent club player. His problem is inconsistency and the simple fact is that he can vanish from matches where the team as a whole is not dominant. Eventually it comes back to the same issue - how much does anyone else need to show in order to usurp him at international level? We are well beyond the "anyone but..." selection school of the bad old days of Andy Robinson but as the Paddy Jackson debacle showed last year, you cannot just drop a replacement into the international waters and expect him to swim so the phasing in of youngsters is necessary and I'll be happy to see it more.

I think that there is much more to come from the likes of Heathcote and Finn Russell. That's not a wishful swoon at youthful promise, these players have real skill. I just think that I've seen all I'm going to see from RJ and I'm not convinced that it's the best Scotland can do.

by Totalflanker Tue 03 Sep 2013, 8:56 pm

Perhaps a little further out there, but think Horne is potentially the best option at 10 for both Glasgow and Scotland in years to come. Current injury aside and as long as you don't have him doing the goal kicking, think he shows more attacking potential than the others from stand off, passing game is good as well as kicking from hand.

Why move an excellent full back when we have so many options at 10, its surely just a case of developing one of Jackson, Weir, Horne, Wight, Russell, Francis, Leonard, Heathcote into really quality..............3rd, 4th and 5th Scots pro team anyone, to allow enough game time for at least one to develop. Danger is surely we back too many horses.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 03 Sep 2013, 10:07 pm

I may have missed something, but on what basis are we declaring Finn Russell a player of real skill. I thought he had played nothing more than a small number of minutes of pro rugby.

I thought this was a Scotland thread, rather than a thread about the identity of glasgow's 4th choice rookie fly half.

Heathcote i'll give you. He's played some good stuff for Bath in the Aviva.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 03 Sep 2013, 10:09 pm

Forgot Horne. He has potential, thought he played well last season at 10 in places, although I think 12 is his best position.

Guess that makes Finn Russell 5th choice!

by Guest Wed 04 Sep 2013, 1:46 am

flyhalffactory wrote:I am basing it on his ability to see an opening, and the scorching acceleration off a standing start, the gas to outsprint most over 200 metres.

Is that a necessary ability for a 10, or a rugby player in general? Hogg to 10 was like Phillips and Bowe in the centre; something that worked adequately, and the player could certainly do a job there, but in the long term his skills are better suited to another position. 10 is less important these days in terms of it being occupied by one of the most talented players in the side. Jackson and Weir look decent options, stick with them and let Hogg flourish in his second season of international rugby in the 3/4s.

by Guest Wed 04 Sep 2013, 2:00 am

flyhalffactory wrote:I think you will find that Lamont has always given a good account of himself at 13 had a bloody good couple of WC games and was excellent against Wales a few years ago, as he was when playing for The Scarlets at O/C a few seasons ago.

The difference between JOC and Hogg is acceleration from a standing start and flat out speed and that's why JOC (in my opinion) now that he is more tightly marked will not be as effective as his first few seasons, I believe a better comparison is Halfpenny seamlessly slotting from wing to FB historically not the easiest transition to make but because of his innate speed it clearly worked.

Not to solely pick you out flyhalf, but Lamont is a fairly average centre, he simply doesn't have the comprehensive game suited to the midfield. He's great when coming off his wing into the middle, but he's only a stop gap at 13.

Also, I'd argue it was Halfpenny's attitude to the game and his approach to learning the role of 15 which has made him so successful, his dedication has led to exemplary positional play and a canny ability to do the right thing almost every time. 10 has a unique skillset, and one which we've seen many talented players, James Hook being a prime example, fail to hold down at Test level due to innate deficiencies in their game. I would guess, and it is only a guess, that Hogg simply isn't good enough or familiar enough with the position to be a success there; how many years would you give him to learn the role? Is it worth the risk to lose several seasons that could be spent perfecting and learning the 15 role?

JOC has looked pretty good at 10, 13, 14, and 15 in Super XV. Doesn't mean he's up to the task at Test level.

by flyhalffactory Wed 04 Sep 2013, 4:01 am

miaow wrote:
flyhalffactory wrote:I am basing it on his ability to see an opening, and the scorching acceleration off a standing start, the gas to outsprint most over 200 metres.
Is that a necessary ability for a 10, or a rugby player in general? Hogg to 10 was like Phillips and Bowe in the centre; something that worked adequately, and the player could certainly do a job there, but in the long term his skills are better suited to another position. 10 is less important these days in terms of it being occupied by one of the most talented players in the side. Jackson and Weir look decent options, stick with them and let Hogg flourish in his second season of international rugby in the 3/4s.

I think its absolutely vital for a player to have a burst of speed that combined with speed of mind will reveal you to have the potential to be world class.

If you see Hogg is a tight situation at the moment he can just put his foot down hence he looks (and is) world class at speeding away, yet people don't realise but he hasn't been on the scene that long (Lions tour at 19), so to put him at 10 wasn't just alien to him but considering he only had a full season (ok two games in 2011) to his CV and to write him off at flyhalf is a bit premature.

Mr G played Hogg at 10 against the Brumbies (after good displays at full-back and a good run-out at stand-off and comfortable win over the New South Wales-Queensland Combined Country XV) always going to be the toughest challenge other than the Tests. Even worse he had a backline of ageing and inexperienced players hastily flown out to Australia. Unsurprisingly, the Lions suffered their first tour loss and Hogg’s hopes of a Test bench spot evaporated.

Hogg commented after the tour

"When you look at it, five of the seven players in the back line were playing their first game. Playing ten is tough enough, but to have guys who weren’t sure of the moves made things even tougher. Shane Williams got there the day before the game, and Billy Twelvetrees, Christian Wade and Brad Barritt were there three days before the game"

Now all of a sudden we are thinking he just can't cut it at 10...... in my mind its just not the case. I believe he could seamlessly move into the role as easily as he has played 15 in his first full season.

With Murchie putting in some strong performances (along with Lamont at 13 and Dunbar at 12) in Glasgow's warm-ups against Harlequins and Exeter, he will start the first few matches at 15 and if he has a cracking game against Cardiff then it will be interesting to see where and when Gregor plays Hoggy.

by funnyExiledScot Wed 04 Sep 2013, 3:08 pm

flyhalffactory wrote:
Mr G played Hogg at 10 against the Brumbies (after good displays at full-back and a good run-out at stand-off and comfortable win over the New South Wales-Queensland Combined Country XV) always going to be the toughest challenge other than the Tests. Even worse he had a backline of ageing and inexperienced players hastily flown out to Australia. Unsurprisingly, the Lions suffered their first tour loss and Hogg’s hopes of a Test bench spot evaporated.

Hogg commented after the tour

"When you look at it, five of the seven players in the back line were playing their first game. Playing ten is tough enough, but to have guys who weren’t sure of the moves made things even tougher. Shane Williams got there the day before the game, and Billy Twelvetrees, Christian Wade and Brad Barritt were there three days before the game"

Now all of a sudden we are thinking he just can't cut it at 10...... in my mind its just not the case. I believe he could seamlessly move into the role as easily as he has played 15 in his first full season.

On the requirement for a fly half to have serious pace, I've already addressed the point earlier on this thread. It's a nice to have, but the ability to control the game, distribute and kick are far far more important. Serious pace is certainly not essential for a fly half these days.

I love the "all of a sudden we are thinking he just can't cut it at 10" line. He's a fullback, and has played 99.999% of his career at fullback. In his breakthrough international season he made it on the Lions tour as a fullback. He is fast becoming one of the best attacking fullbacks on the circuit. There's nothing sudden about it - I've never suggested for a nano-second that he should or could successfully be moved to 10 for Scotland, not without playing at least a full season at 10 for Glasgow to develop his game (basically missing a full international season whilst he learns a new position).

You say he could "seamlessly move into the role". I'm sorry but that just isn't right. International rugby is unforgiving, and when put under pressure against the Brumbies he really struggled, as you would expect. It wasn't just the cobbled together nature of the backline, he just didn't know and wasn't able to execute any form of control on the game. When Farrell came on suddenly there was structure and authority given to the backs. Now I don't blame Hogg for a single second. He should NEVER have been used at 10 against proper opposition. The Farmers XV was a silly kick around to make up the fixtures, and you could have played just about any professional rugby back at 10 in that match and thumped them. The forwards won about 95% possession, and had relentless front foot ball. That tells us nothing.

The only reason to move him would be if we had a player just as good ready to fill his shoes at 15, and had no-one at 10. Neither are the case. Murchie are Tonks are perfectly solid players, but they are not close to Stuart Hogg in terms of attacking ability from 15. On the other hand I'd take Weir, Jackson or Heathcote ahead of experimenting with Hogg at 10 every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

At the very least you must agree that this is a non-starter for Scotland until Hogg gets a decent run of games in the Glasgow 10 jersey, and I just can't see that happening, certainly not in tough games like the Irish provinces away, or in the HC, which is where he'd need to prove himself to win the Scotland jersey.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 04 Sep 2013, 3:23 pm

Can we have video evidence of Sean Lamont's prowess at centre please fly half? Personally I'm not convinced but have yet to resort to insults on twitter. Hug

by funnyExiledScot Wed 04 Sep 2013, 3:28 pm

George Carlin wrote:but as the Paddy Jackson debacle showed last year, you cannot just drop a replacement into the international waters and expect him to swim so the phasing in of youngsters is necessary and I'll be happy to see it more.

I think the Paddy Jackson debacle last year merely showed us that Kidney made a bad judgement call in selecting him ahead of Ian Madigan!

Jackson had only just broke into the Ulster side, and the lesson there (particularly relevant for those who think Hogg will seamlessly become an international stand-off) is that you need club experience in a position before running out in an international jersey.

Now Madigan had broadly the same experience as Jackson at the time; the real issue for Ireland was more that ROG had been retained too long and there wasn't cover for Sexton in place.

That is not an analogous position to Scotland.

Our issue is that once more fans want to pick players before they have done anything in club rugby. The mention of Finn Russell at this stage in a Scotland debate is frankly ridiculous. Reminds me of ASBO calling for Bennett to tour with Scotland two summers ago!!

Phase in young players, sure, succession planning is very important in international rugby. But we need to be realistic. Right now there are only three players in consideration for the Scotland 10 jersey: Jackson, Weir and Heathcote. So far I'd say Jackson and Weir are pretty level in terms of performances, with Heathcote slightly behind after underwhelming summer - still has good potential though. Other than Laidlaw (who is a 9), there is no other candidate with sufficient experience to be included in the debate at this stage. I hope that Edinburgh will soon be able to put someone forward into the mix, but thus far the Solomons regime doesn't look too interested in Harry Leonard, so we could be in for a bit of a wait on that front.

by **George Carlin** Wed 04 Sep 2013, 3:30 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
George Carlin wrote:but as the Paddy Jackson debacle showed last year, you cannot just drop a replacement into the international waters and expect him to swim so the phasing in of youngsters is necessary and I'll be happy to see it more.
I think the Paddy Jackson debacle last year merely showed us that Kidney made a bad judgement call in selecting him ahead of Ian Madigan!

Jackson had only just broke into the Ulster side, and the lesson there (particularly relevant for those who think Hogg will seamlessly become an international stand-off) is that you need club experience in a position before running out in an international jersey.

Now Madigan had broadly the same experience as Jackson at the time; the real issue for Ireland was more that ROG had been retained too long and there wasn't cover for Sexton in place.

That is not an analogous position to Scotland.

Our issue is that once more fans want to pick players before they have done anything in club rugby. The mention of Finn Russell at this stage in a Scotland debate is frankly ridiculous. Reminds me of ASBO calling for Bennett to tour with Scotland two summers ago!!

Phase in young players, sure, succession planning is very important in international rugby. But we need to be realistic. Right now there are only three players in consideration for the Scotland 10 jersey: Jackson, Weir and Heathcote. So far I'd say Jackson and Weir are pretty level in terms of performances, with Heathcote slightly behind after underwhelming summer - still has good potential though. Other than Laidlaw (who is a 9), there is no other candidate with sufficient experience to be included in the debate at this stage. I hope that Edinburgh will soon be able to put someone forward into the mix, but thus far the Solomons regime doesn't look too interested in Harry Leonard, so we could be in for a bit of a wait on that front.

None of that is actually what I said, but I do understand that you feel strongly about this. kiss

by funnyExiledScot Wed 04 Sep 2013, 3:32 pm

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Can we have video evidence of Sean Lamont's prowess at centre please fly half? Personally I'm not convinced but have yet to resort to insults on twitter.

I've personally always preferred Lamont on the wing, doesn't have the ball skills for me at centre, but Scotland have used him effective at centre before. In fact I think he was named at 12 in the 6 Nations team of the year at one stage, principally before we had Parks at 10 and used Lamont as a battering ram.

He carries the ball well, and is a strong tackler. He can get caught out in the midfield looking for the glory tackle (rather than the effective one), and I keep coming back to the main issue, which is his lack of distribution skills. Not much fun playing on the wing outside Sean Lamont.

I'd say he's been a mixed bag at centre. That's he's sometimes been our best back on the pitch when playing at centre isn't the ringing endorsement I wish it were.

by funnyExiledScot Wed 04 Sep 2013, 3:34 pm

George Carlin wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
George Carlin wrote:but as the Paddy Jackson debacle showed last year, you cannot just drop a replacement into the international waters and expect him to swim so the phasing in of youngsters is necessary and I'll be happy to see it more.
I think the Paddy Jackson debacle last year merely showed us that Kidney made a bad judgement call in selecting him ahead of Ian Madigan!

Jackson had only just broke into the Ulster side, and the lesson there (particularly relevant for those who think Hogg will seamlessly become an international stand-off) is that you need club experience in a position before running out in an international jersey.

Now Madigan had broadly the same experience as Jackson at the time; the real issue for Ireland was more that ROG had been retained too long and there wasn't cover for Sexton in place.

That is not an analogous position to Scotland.

Our issue is that once more fans want to pick players before they have done anything in club rugby. The mention of Finn Russell at this stage in a Scotland debate is frankly ridiculous. Reminds me of ASBO calling for Bennett to tour with Scotland two summers ago!!

Phase in young players, sure, succession planning is very important in international rugby. But we need to be realistic. Right now there are only three players in consideration for the Scotland 10 jersey: Jackson, Weir and Heathcote. So far I'd say Jackson and Weir are pretty level in terms of performances, with Heathcote slightly behind after underwhelming summer - still has good potential though. Other than Laidlaw (who is a 9), there is no other candidate with sufficient experience to be included in the debate at this stage. I hope that Edinburgh will soon be able to put someone forward into the mix, but thus far the Solomons regime doesn't look too interested in Harry Leonard, so we could be in for a bit of a wait on that front.
None of that is actually what I said, but I do understand that you feel strongly about this.

I'm taking the SNP approach to debating these days. Nothing quite beats arguing against yourself and winning. Feels good.

by ScarletSpiderman Wed 04 Sep 2013, 3:38 pm

When Lamont was at the Scarlets I don't think he ever gave a poor performance in the centre (and we have had some pretty decent centres over the last five or six seasons). I personally would prefer to see him playing in the centre now (as he is getting older) than on the wing, as he is pretty aggressive in defence still but IMO he is starting to look a little too warn to be on the wing against fresh young pups

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed 04 Sep 2013, 5:18 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
George Carlin wrote:but as the Paddy Jackson debacle showed last year, you cannot just drop a replacement into the international waters and expect him to swim so the phasing in of youngsters is necessary and I'll be happy to see it more.
I think the Paddy Jackson debacle last year merely showed us that Kidney made a bad judgement call in selecting him ahead of Ian Madigan!

Jackson had only just broke into the Ulster side, and the lesson there (particularly relevant for those who think Hogg will seamlessly become an international stand-off) is that you need club experience in a position before running out in an international jersey.

Now Madigan had broadly the same experience as Jackson at the time; the real issue for Ireland was more that ROG had been retained too long and there wasn't cover for Sexton in place.

That is not an analogous position to Scotland.

Our issue is that once more fans want to pick players before they have done anything in club rugby. The mention of Finn Russell at this stage in a Scotland debate is frankly ridiculous. Reminds me of ASBO calling for Bennett to tour with Scotland two summers ago!!

Phase in young players, sure, succession planning is very important in international rugby. But we need to be realistic. Right now there are only three players in consideration for the Scotland 10 jersey: Jackson, Weir and Heathcote. So far I'd say Jackson and Weir are pretty level in terms of performances, with Heathcote slightly behind after underwhelming summer - still has good potential though. Other than Laidlaw (who is a 9), there is no other candidate with sufficient experience to be included in the debate at this stage. I hope that Edinburgh will soon be able to put someone forward into the mix, but thus far the Solomons regime doesn't look too interested in Harry Leonard, so we could be in for a bit of a wait on that front.

No, it was a minimum of 3 summers ago, pre RWC - would have been in the QFs if he'd gone Cool

by Sponsored content