I'd just play Charnock. Sure, Quinlan is a more experienced player. But any advantage in experience must be weighed against the experience someone like Charnock already possesses working with this bunch of players. Quinlan has all that to make up.

Most overseas recruits don't begin to show their worth until six-months-plus into their first season. Which means whatever talents Quinlan possesses we aren't likely to see them in full.

Charnock isn't a full back though. Yes he played there a but for the 19's but he's visibly bulked up now with a view to playing hooker long term.

Neither was Wellens. Neither was Paul Atcheson. Neither was Lomax. Looking at the size of Quinlan I'd say he was a half-back before anyone selected him as the last line of defence.

The truth is players tend to start their careers in other positions and then move toward full-back. This is why I don't have a problem selecting someone like Charnock.

I mean, given Percy's fly-paper hands, brick-wall defence and rugby brain I reckon he'd make a cracking full-back.

Of course he would, it's not the point though is it? Roby would probably make a good fist of it too but he's needed elsewhere.

If we want to take out the title I think it's important we have a threat in the centres on both sides of the pitch.

Percy in the centres and AQ at fb is the way to go IMO unless AQs line defence shows up as poorly as Percys did last weekend.

I'm very happy we've brought AQ over, after all were bound to pick up more injuries in the backs at some point.

Charnock is definitely not a full back. It doesn't matter if Wellens, Atcheson, Lomax weren't when they started, they have the build to play it and have always been backs. Charnock has bulked up to play hooker, you will not see him playing at full back again.

If anything, he started as a full back (I think) and moved into the pack as he's grown. He won't go back now, he's too big.

Maybe Charnock is a bit big. But Fleming isn't. And he's no worse under the high ball than any other youngster his age (barring freaks like Connolly).

Besides, you can't call Charnock on his build yet give a free pass to Quinlan who seems TINY.

Quinlan is pretty small, and the kind of player that a decade ago would have had a decent NRL career. But if he wants to stay in the outside backs he'll remain a NSW Cup player because he is just too small. Probably his best hope of a first grade NRL career now is halfback.

Agree with whoever talked about kicks. The crossfield kick is the new weapon of choice in the NRL, largely because if done well its really hard to defend against as the attacking winger generally gets a run up to attack the ball whilst the defender is often static (the ideal kick is to land it right where the defending winger is standing). The only rule change I could see which could help is to penalise any contact with the defender if they're trying to catch the ball. I hate it when wingers get blamed for dropping those kicks when they've basically been bowled over by an attacking player who has jumped right at them. In fact all the attacking winger has to do is wave their arms in the general direction of the ball and they have free reign to take out a defender.

As I said [url=http://viewtopic.php?p=18146984#p18146984on the VT[/url I'm sick to the back teeth of kicks. It's "negative play" which seeks to profit more from chance and errors than skill. I don't think such is in the spirit of Rugby League which for decades prided itself on being a running and passing game. And don't get me started on kicking for repeat sets. If you can't put the ball over the line in your set then it's a rough deal for the defence when the scrum-half toes it into the in-goal for a fresh six. Things become truly farcical when a team FAILS TO SCORE on four consecutive sets and is then rewarded with a fifth after yet more negative play. I think the sport really must take a long hard look at the rules and make kicking far less profitable lest we too become Rugger Buggers.

I can only assume the reason Quinlan's not getting a run in the halves is his kicking isn't up to scratch. He's the ideal build. Quick on his feet. Good hands. Good awareness. Not sure about his organisational skills but right now he looks a lot closer to scrum half than full back.

Unless he has the quads of an NFL wide-receiver I really can't see him out-jumping ANYONE whilst contesting a high ball. Which is worrying since the argument for bringing him over and not running with someone like Fleming is partially conditional on his superiority in dealing with bombs.

Maybe they could bring in something like calling for a mark inside your 20 - if a player calls mark they are allowed an unimpeded attempt to catch the ball so long as they don't move their feet once they've called it? Then they have to play the ball from that spot and the team effectively loses a tackle. That would make such kicks much less attractive when in attack as the only way they can benefit is if the defender drops it cold or misreads the flight of the ball such that they have to move..

As for kicks in goal, the problem is its hard to differentiate between genuine attacking kicks and those aimed at getting a repeat set. But I do agree that its hard on a defensive side to have to face a repeat set after holding out the attack. Maybe you could give a team receiving a drop out only 5 tackles?

I guess the problem at the moment in both cases is that for some reason most sides starting from a reasonable attacking position (say halfway) find it relatively easy to get close enough to the goal line to be able to put a good kick in, but not score. That probably says a lot about the ways in which both attack and defence are coached nowadays.

Kicking in rugby league is as much a part of the game as heading in football. I think it's brilliant to watch especially when it's executed by a class player.

Kicking is part of the mix of the game. I don't feel it dominates the game like RU. We have the mix just right. It should not be all about ball in hand.

I would like to see Superleague adapt the Aussue rule giving 7 tackles if the ball is kicked dead by the attacking team.

Tap on 40 if kicked from outside the 40. Can't be punishing attacking kicks as they are entertaining to watch, it's the Leeds/Sinfield tactic of hoofing it dead from your own half to win the territory battle without any effort that needs removing.

It would be better if the tap was on the 40 metre mark or, where the ball was kicked from if further upfield.

Kicking for mistakes and interminable repeat sets bore the life out of me.

Are you Francis Meli?

Bet it didn't bore you in 1996 Challenge Cup Final or when we beat Brisbane in WCC.

We've had more than our fair share of success with kicks.

No.
He has got it according to Rush:

That's [url=http://viewtopic.php?p=18147435#p18147435TWO predictions[/url you've made. Both [uWRONG.[/u

You're not very good at this, are you?

Much like a winger trying to defend a perfectly placed cross field kick...that's gone completely over my head that mate. I haven't got a clue what you're on about.

I think he means that he did find Bobbie's bombs against Bradford and Long's kicks against Brisbane boring.
So as the majority of Saints fans were cheering great victories Mugwump was yawning and falling asleep from the tedium of it all.

MUGwump is comedy gold haha

Haha, right, cheers for explaining mate.

26-12 down, completely out the game, and the brilliant Bobby Goulding puts 3 huge bombs up for poor Nathan Graham, and we win our 1st Challenge Cup for 20 years. I can see why that might have been tedious for you Mugwump.