15 to 10 - Not a new concept.

The finest 10 of my generation started his international days at 15.

Phil Bennet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Bennett)

Born in Felinfoel, Carmarthenshire, Bennett made his Wales debut on 22 March 1969 against France in Paris at the age of 20 when he became the first ever Welsh substitute in international rugby, replacing an injured Gerald Davies.[1] Initially, Phil played in a number of positions including fullback and centre, but settled in the fly-half position in 1972.

and there have been others, so the posts calling for Halfpenny, Hogg, etc to move from full back to fly half, is not as ridiculous as they may seem. However, we (Wales) need Halfpenny at 15 more than blooding him at 10, so I dont think that is a good idea. We need to stick with Biggar and (dare I say it Priestland) whilst the up and coming young guns develop.

However, Scotland dont seem to have many options there at 10, so it may be an idea to develop Hogg there now, whilst he's still young. Also, you have Scott the clown Johnson in charge (and that comes from a Welshman and Osprey fan - so I know the joy having this clown in charge means), so I wouldnt bet against Hogg moving to 10.

As for Foden going to 10... that's just silly. One position England is not short in, is 10s...


Sorry to start another thread, but there are to many on this topic to reply to each ...

For the record the NZ 5/8 system formed the basis for a players skills covering 10,12,15 at least.A.C.[Carbine] Wallace was All Blacks class in ALL the backs positions back in 1905 and
he was by no means the first.Originally picked at 10 he moved to 15 to accommodate a relative on the 1905 tour.Dan Carter at one time was playing 10,12,15 for Canterbury,Crusaders,and AllBlacks.Utility sadly often means futility but often the team comes
first.Pat Walsh another great All Black the brains behind Aucklands Shield side under a member of the Graham family[Wilson Whineray stood down because of AB duties.Played evevrywhere but SH.That Auckland team included Des Connor,Nathan,Paul Little,Malcom Dick,
Whineray,Frank Colthurst,Mac Herewini,Kel Tremain not a bad bunch of AB`s.either.

Just how old are you Alan?

I recall the suggestion Dagg move to 10 during the RWC 2011 injury crisis. He does join the attacking line at 10 frequently nowadays...

From a Scotland perspective our options at 15 are no better than our options at 10 (Murchie and Tonks vs Weir, Heathcote and Jackson). Much of a muchness really.

We have few players with the potential to become world class in their position, but Stuart Hogg at 15 is one of them. We'd be taking a huge risk spending a couple of seasons at club level trying to transition him into a new position.

I'd also question the Phil Bennett comparison. Different era. Defences are far more structured now than they were back then. It's actually very rare these days to see a stand-off jinking through defences and making a clean break, certainly off first or second phase. A few world class operators such as Stephen Larkham and Dan Carter have managed it in recent times off early phases, but it tends to be in broken play or after a barrage of phases that the real space and mismatches occur, and by then it's not always your designated fly half acting as first receiver, and if it is, you don't need to be particularly skillful or fast to capitalise (even the likes of Stephen Donald, Dan Parks, ROG and Jonny Wilkinson managed to score the odd try!).

Pace and quick footwork at 10 are of course nice to have, but as JOC proved rather nicely for the Lions, the ability to control the game, distribute accurately and kick cleverly are more important. You need a 10 that can control the backline and run the moves. What made Larkham and Carter so special is that they were/are superb broken field runners as well, but having both is extremely rare at the highest level.

funnyExiledScot wrote:From a Scotland perspective our options at 15 are no better than our options at 10 (Murchie and Tonks vs Weir, Heathcote and Jackson). Much of a muchness .

Personally I feel they are better. If I could rate them individually as players...

Hogg - 9
Tonks - 7.5
Murchie - 8

Jackson - 6.5
Weir - 7
Heathcote - 6.5

That is my feeling just now, I would hope by 2015 heathcote would be an 8 and weir an 8 or 7.5 minimum if they're to be Scotland's future fly halves.

For me the 10 must control the game otherwise they aren't doing the bare minimum of their job. BUT then they need to do more. and the occasional run/break is very important for keeping the defence guessing.

Cruden will break the line at least once per game often 2/3 times - sometimes clean sometimes just half a break. And its not just off broken play far from it. He was doing this a few years ago which is why he was given a chance with the ABs. But his inability to control the game meant that he wasn't first choice back up over Slade. Now he's able to control the game more which makes him more selectable but he's always had the ability to break the line. To me some pace and footwork are now prerequisites for the 10.

15 to 10 may not be a new concept - but usually it is because tghe player is really a 10 but being introduced away from the firing line.

In fact over the years there have been a fair few high profile 10s who were intriduced to international rugby in "less pressured" positions.

Michael Lynagh played 12 on his first tour of the UK and Ireland.
Stephen Larkham started at 15.
Jonny Wilkinson (if we ignore his off the bench debut covering wing) initially played 12 for England.
Dan Carter started at 12 for NZ.


The difference is that these were all really 10s, being introduced out of position. Talk about Halfpenny and Hogg switching from 15 to 10 (we will ignore Foden as that post was a joke that people seem to have not noticed, despite the OP being very clear) is very different as these are not people who have been playing week in, week out in the more advanced position. They are not 10s covering 15. Yes they are very good (maybe in time can be classed as great) footballers, but why weaken a position of strength to create a solution for which there is no problem?

Whilst its not a new concept, it is an entirely different prospect than it was back in the 70s as others have mentioned.

Just because a 15 appears at first receiver every so often in a game to keep the defence guessing, it doesn't mean they could be a flyhalf or are being thought of as a flyhalf.

I would not put halfpenny into the 10 position for Wales at all, I wouldn't do it for the Blues. The 2 positions require very different strengths, even down to the type and variation of kicking from 15 to 10. Its a different beast, Halfpenny if by far Wales' best 15, the only change I would make is to give him more license to counter attack when he deems its on. This is when having someone like Priestland (who's a decent fullback aswell as flyhalf) is pretty useful because he can cover FB when Halfpenny's set off.

I would suggest its not about who's playing where, so to speak, but the manner in which they play and the little combinations and patterns which they incorporate. There's so many ways to play all over the field its about adapting your game plan to cover your weakensses and bring your strengths into the game as much as possible, wherever those strengths are playing.

Just looking at Wales since I can remember (mid 90s) we have played Neil Jenkins, Stephen Jones, Gavin Henson, James Hook and Rhys Preistland all at fullback, but we have also played Stephen Jones, Henson and Hook at inside centre too.

I think as many have said fullback (and inside centre) are positions where a young fly half (or good goal kicker) can be feilded in order to give them some experience but not forcing them to have to deal with the pressure of being in the fly half roll.

Both Nick Evans and Luke McAllister started their AB careers at 15 at some point, didn't they? Also, you've got that scamp Cipriani that played some great HC rugby at FB before taking the 10 shirt - and doing pretty much nothing with it, since!

Scotland are different to some of the other nations being mentioned here.

We don't have the depth of player pool to start trying to create utility backs, we need guys who are the best in their positions. Hogg has laid the foundations to be our best full back since Gavin Hastings. However we did have an outstanding fullback in the form of Chris "Mossy" Paterson, which brings us full circle to players being chopped and changed.

Paterson (as most Scottish postser will probably agree) has been one of the best players Scotland produced in our woeful past decade. Guys like Blair, Cusiter, White and Hines all had skills but Paterson had it all and IMO has been the best player in our shambles of a last decade. He came onto the scene as a winger however had all the skills to be a world class 10. He played 10 for a while before being shifted around the backs so he could be on the pitch in some way or another.

The constantly shifting postions for Patterson IMO runied his career and set Scotland back in a big way. He eventually went on to become a very competent and talented international fullback but in his early days he could have been the 10 Scotland lacked for the last 13 years. Had Patterson been given the chance to make the 10 shirt his own we might have avoided the likes of Parks or GoodGodman. I'm not saying Scotland could/would have been world beaters but the combination of Blair/Cusiter and Paterson at 10 would have caused problems for the opposition.

As a result Paterson became a jack of all trades and eventually mastered fullback whilst we were really struggling for talent at 10.

My position on this would be to ask the player. As a coach it's what I do, ask the player where they WANT to play, and allow them to blossom and develop into the players they can be. The talk of moving guys like Halfpenny and Hogg is trully insane. Certainly from a Scottish point of view I reckon Hogg is a far better fullback than any of our alternatives and he can attack the line from deep and hit the ball at pace rather than the static ball 10s sometimes have to deal with.

Halfpenny IMO is even with Izzy Dagg as the best fullback in the world. My only complaint about him is more directed at coaching style. I would love to see Halfpenny with the ball in hand more, but with that in mind I would think moving him to 10 would be a bad move for him, Wales and the Blues.

If my coaches listened to me I would have been a flyhalf instead I was shipped into the front row and told to improvise.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Paterson (as most Scottish postser will probably agree) has been one of the best players Scotland produced in our woeful past decade. Guys like Blair, Cusiter, White and Hines all had skills but Paterson had it all and IMO has been the best player in our shambles of a last decade. He came onto the scene as a winger however had all the skills to be a world class 10. He played 10 for a while before being shifted around the backs so he could be on the pitch in some way or another.
The constantly shifting postions for Patterson IMO runied his career and set Scotland back in a big way. He eventually went on to become a very competent and talented international fullback but in his early days he could have been the 10 Scotland lacked for the last 13 years. Had Patterson been given the chance to make the 10 shirt his own we might have avoided the likes of Parks or GoodGodman. I'm not saying Scotland could/would have been world beaters but the combination of Blair/Cusiter and Paterson at 10 would have caused problems for the opposition.

As a result Paterson became a jack of all trades and eventually mastered fullback whilst we were really struggling for talent at 10.

He actually came onto the scene as a fly half, having played that position for Gala (if my memory serves). McGeechan (as he subsequently did with Cipriani at Wasps) felt that moving him to 15 would enable him to better develop his game, as from that position he'd gain a better perspective of the game as it unfolds in front of him, plus give him more time to develop away from the pressure position at 10.

I bow to McGeechan's knowledge of whether or not such a move does genuinely benefit stand-offs (Larkham is the only other real success story I can think of, and I suspect he'd have become a world class stand-off regardless), but in CP's case I don't think it maximised his abilities, or turned out the best option for Scotland. In the end we ended up with Hodge, Ross and latterly Parks at 10, and when Southwell and Lamont came through as useful option at 15, CP got shoved onto the wing. He was never given the run of games at club level, and for Scotland, that he needed, and ultimately his key development years were spent out of position, such that he became a back three player. In that positon he wasn't particularly quick (by the standards of international wingers), nor was he powerful. He was a good winger and a very good fullback, but I think he could have been a world class fly half, had we not mucked him about.

Lessons need to be learned with Hogg.