WWste wrote:From what I understand it was always that French and field checked in with the club on their fitness. I be reluctant to force it on them however maybe it could be adapted maybe. Maybe more stringent like booking them in with PT’s physios whilst over there. May already happen
There always looks to be zero worries with Field, he's as fit as a fiddle and looks like it comes naturally to him. French didn't look to come back in the best of condition but he's a freak and very quickly seems to get in better shape when he starts playing. He's benefitted IMO from being heavier with him playing in the line now, although that will be tested more if he stays at fullback in these next few weeks.
Ultimately the arrangement looks to work really well for all parties concerned. I'm pretty sure that without it they wouldn't be here, so we can't complain.
jonh wrote:I’m saying his running game wasn’t his strength he was an organiser and a passer and those were the best part of his game.
I’m not sure why it matters what number he wore on his back in a split half system, something you have already mentioned!
Credibility? What you on about. Can’t people have a conversation/debate on a forum expressing opinions without trying to score points on “credibility”? What an odd thing to say.
Back on Thurston listen to most of the podcasts he is on particularly the Bloke in a Bar one (I think) and he discusses his strengths and weaknesses.
It wasn't his main strength but that doesn't mean he didn't have a running game Jon! That's exactly the point of this discussion. One doesn't preclude the other. It's quite possible to have both. The credibility comment is because you claimed that Thurston didn't have a running game and was merely an organiser. Check out some of his tries. They're world class! You can't say "yes but they don't count because his organizational skills were even better". I'm sorry if you took offense at that comment (it wasn't my intention to offend) but do you think that to say a man with his try scoring record didn't have a running game is a credible viewpoint? He scored over a hundred career tries at just short of 1 every 3 games in the best comp in the world! He did it at every level, including SOO and international level.
With regards to playing split halves, you still have to have running threat there to be world class otherwise it's too easy to defend.
Thurston had a similar try scoring record to Andrew Johns who you readily admit "had it all". How do you think he did that if he was just an organiser? I'm genuinely curious as to how you square that circle.
Joined: May 27 2003 Posts: 20505 Location: educating League Freak on all things rugby league
Phuzzy wrote:It wasn't his main strength but that doesn't mean he didn't have a running game Jon! That's exactly the point of this discussion. One doesn't preclude the other. It's quite possible to have both. The credibility comment is because you claimed that Thurston didn't have a running game and was merely an organiser. Check out some of his tries. They're world class! You can't say "yes but they don't count because his organizational skills were even better". I'm sorry if you took offense at that comment (it wasn't my intention to offend) but do you think that to say a man with his try scoring record didn't have a running game is a credible viewpoint? He scored over a hundred career tries at just short of 1 every 3 games in the best comp in the world! He did it at every level, including SOO and international level.
With regards to playing split halves, you still have to have running threat there to be world class otherwise it's too easy to defend.
Thurston had a similar try scoring record to Andrew Johns who you readily admit "had it all". How do you think he did that if he was just an organiser? I'm genuinely curious as to how you square that circle.
….but we are talking about his strengths. Like I said he even admits himself he wasn’t a great runner of the ball and it was his ability to pick passes that made his career.
It’s the reason he floated around clubs and didn’t get picked up initially due to his lack of athleticism, that’s from the man himself.
When I think of Thurston I certainly don’t remember him as a strike half back.
It’s all about levels I agree though and again my comment was based on the best way to replace Field for the next 8 weeks.
I don’t think Farrimond and Smith is the right call. Rocky is clearly struggling so I think we need to look at other options.
We have gone from commenting on the ability of an 18 year old to making comparisons with Johns, Thurston etc.
Smith and Farrimond at the moment for me doesn’t work, or certainly we lose significant strike threat moving French to 1 if we replace him with Farrimond.
Unofficially the most boring poster on Cherry and White.
Smith and Farrimond *may* be not the right call, but it surely wouldn't hurt to give them a few games together (starting with London), and see how it goes before we write them off as an option? Anyway, we always have switcheroo options.
jonh wrote:….but we are talking about his strengths. Like I said he even admits himself he wasn’t a great runner of the ball and it was his ability to pick passes that made his career.
It’s the reason he floated around clubs and didn’t get picked up initially due to his lack of athleticism, that’s from the man himself.
When I think of Thurston I certainly don’t remember him as a strike half back.
It’s all about levels I agree though and again my comment was based on the best way to replace Field for the next 8 weeks.
I don’t think Farrimond and Smith is the right call. Rocky is clearly struggling so I think we need to look at other options.
We have gone from commenting on the ability of an 18 year old to making comparisons with Johns, Thurston etc.
Smith and Farrimond at the moment for me doesn’t work, or certainly we lose significant strike threat moving French to 1 if we replace him with Farrimond.
We'll have to agree to differ on Thurston. You don't score over a hundred tries by picking a pass. Quoting him saying he wasn't a great runner of the ball is disingenuous. He wasn't a great runner of the ball but he was a good one! You're talking about a player who is one of the game's all time greats. No one is going to be harder on him and his game than himself. Put it this way, if Farrimond reaches Thurston levels of running game I'll be more than happy. I suspect so will Peet and Farrimond himself.
With regards to them playing together I don't disagree that now isn't their time against the top teams. But we don't play top teams all the time. There's no reason not to try them against London (England duty notwithstanding) for example. That said, Cas and London after Friday are now gone and Hull are possibly on the up so I agree it probably won't happen in the immediate future.
Joined: May 27 2003 Posts: 20505 Location: educating League Freak on all things rugby league
moto748 wrote:JT scored a lot of tries from close range; how well I remember, "Don't fall for Thurston's dummy!" What a cracking player he was, and a top guy too.
Correct.
He also averaged less than 6 tries a year actually his try return per year is identical to Deacon’s.
Hardly the stats of a strike half and clearly Deacon wasn’t a strike half but clearly Phuzzy and I have different interpretations of a strike half.
Unofficially the most boring poster on Cherry and White.
He also averaged less than 6 tries a year actually his try return per year is identical to Deacon’s.
Hardly the stats of a strike half and clearly Deacon wasn’t a strike half but clearly Phuzzy and I have different interpretations of a strike half.
Hang on a minute Jon! You're being disingenuous again. I never said he was a strike half. I said he had a running game, which he did. Also Deacon scored 85 tries in just shy of 400 games. Thurston scored Scored 109 in a similar amount. Even basic maths tells you that's around 25% more than Deacon and that's before we even get to the fact that he did it in a much, much tougher competition including State of Origin! The comparison should be with Andrew Johns who had a similar strike rate in the same comp, not Deacon who scored far fewer in an easier comp. In fact Jerome Luai who you put forward as a half with a running game has scored 30 tries in 140 games. A try ratio worse than Thurston's! If you're going to be that flexible with the truth I think the discussion has run it's course.
Moto: Thurston scored plenty from distance as well. More importantly, his dummy resulted in a lot of tries that other players scored too He didn't have to put the ball over the whitewash himself every time to have a running game. And in any case, scoring short range tries is still a running threat. It certainly isn't organisational play or "picking a pass" as Jon would have you believe.
Edit: I'm just rewatching the 1st SOO from this year and almost all the tries have come from a different player's running threat than the one who put it down over the whitewash.
Joined: May 27 2003 Posts: 20505 Location: educating League Freak on all things rugby league
Phuzzy wrote:Hang on a minute Jon! You're being disingenuous again. I never said he was a strike half. I said he had a running game, which he did. Also Deacon scored 85 tries in just shy of 400 games. Thurston scored Scored 109 in a similar amount. Even basic maths tells you that's around 25% more than Deacon and that's before we even get to the fact that he did it in a much, much tougher competition including State of Origin! The comparison should be with Andrew Johns who had a similar strike rate in the same comp, not Deacon who scored far fewer in an easier comp. In fact Jerome Luai who you put forward as a half with a running game has scored 30 tries in 140 games. A try ratio worse than Thurston's! If you're going to be that flexible with the truth I think the discussion has run it's course.
Moto: Thurston scored plenty from distance as well. More importantly, his dummy resulted in a lot of tries that other players scored too He didn't have to put the ball over the whitewash himself every time to have a running game. And in any case, scoring short range tries is still a running threat. It certainly isn't organisational play or "picking a pass" as Jon would have you believe.
Edit: I'm just rewatching the 1st SOO from this year and almost all the tries have come from a different player's running threat than the one who put it down over the whitewash.
I guess it comes down to the definition of your post maker.
Thurston was a half back much like Deacon (and they have very similar try returns), Smith, Farrimond etc.
French is a pure 5/8th.
We have set our team up to play around a pure 5/8th hence why Rocky got the nod against Cas as he too is suited to the 5/8th role.
If we bring in a second half hack to play in the halves we lose the strike we hand as we don’t have a Tomkins, O’Loughlin, Sculthorpe, Sinfield, Cam Smith type ball playing threat to compliment them.
For the next 8 weeks I personally want to see French at 6 and Smith at 7 as our starting 6 & 7. I don’t like French at 1. I don’t think 2 half backs in the team (Smith and Farrimond) is as effective keeping Smith and French in their roles and exploring other opportunities at 1.
Rocky could have cemented his position in the team for a few months but hasn’t managed to do so, so my preference would be to look at Kerighan (once ban is served) 1 due to his passing game and strike threat whilst bringing Eckersley into the centre.
Unofficially the most boring poster on Cherry and White.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
What a cracking player he was, and a top guy too.
He didn't have to put the ball over the whitewash himself every time to have a running game. And in any case, scoring short range tries is still a running threat. It certainly isn't organisational play or "picking a pass" as Jon would have you believe.
