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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Interesting piece on Farrimond on the Love Rugby League site, with them talking to John Duffy about him. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ja ... n-warriors

Interesting piece on Farrimond on the Love Rugby League site, with them talking to John Duffy about him. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ja ... n-warriors

Yeah exactly. Everyone over-analysing it to a ridiculous degree. Just play them together and see if it works.

Quote ="NickyKiss"Interesting piece on Farrimond on the Love Rugby League site, with them talking to John Duffy about him. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ja ... n-warriors'" Jack’s a super-talented half-back,” Duffy adds. “He’s a scrum-half, but he does like running the ball and taking the line on as opposed to just giving the ball to a team-mate. Can't be true. Jon says it's not!

Quote ="NickyKiss"Interesting piece on Farrimond on the Love Rugby League site, with them talking to John Duffy about him. https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/ja ... n-warriors'" Jack’s a super-talented half-back,” Duffy adds. “He’s a scrum-half, but he does like running the ball and taking the line on as opposed to just giving the ball to a team-mate. Can't be true. Jon says it's not!

What a strange post again Phuzzy.

His coaches literally in the article describe him as an organising kicking “half back” but say he does take the line on 2.

That’s the entire point of the conversation. He is a half back. Our entire team is currently set up around a half and a 5/8th so we would need to change the entire way we play to bring him in to replace Field.

Playing with Smith would minimise his effectiveness because whilst he can run his key attributes are organising passing and kicking.

I will leave you to it.

I’m guessing you don’t understand the concept of a half and 5/8th and how they compliment each other particularly in the way we currently play.

It’s why Cust lost his place in the team as he has a half too, him and Smith in some instances were both doing the same job and their impact on the game was reduced.

But he doesn't have a running game Jon. You said so.

You also said Thurston's try strike rate is the same as Deacon's though which is also garbage.

The problem is you keep doubling down on your ramblings.

I never said he wasn't a half. I said he was a half with a running game. I also mentioned 2 other halves (Deacon and Leuluai) who also played successfully together and indeed won a title so I clearly know the difference. I never said we wouldn't have to alter the way we play.

The problem with you, Jon, is you can't (or won't) read what is actually written and instead go off on some disingenuous tangent. You ignore anything that doesn't support your argument. For example comparing Thurston's try scoring ratio to Deacon's (it's better) rather than John's (similar) or Luai's (Thurston's is better). I wonder why?

To reiterate: Jack has a running game. We don't know if the combination with Smith would work as it hasn't been tested. Every other viewpoint is supposition. All facts

What's hard to understand about that?

Nothing at all.

What I am saying is that both Smith and Farrimond are natural halves and I don’t think they make the best combination whilst Field is out injured as both their strengths and skill sets are similar.

If we run with Smith and Farrimond for the next 8 weeks and it works great. I don’t think we will.

It’s a bit like playing a fullback on the wing or vice versa sure they can play there and do a job but do they get the best out of themselves and contribute to the team probably not.

If you want us to totally chsnge the way we play whilst Field is out fair enough I don’t I’m guessing Peet doesn’t either which is why Rocky got first crack at 1 and then as Smiths partner.

Let’s see how the team lines up over the next couple of months to see what Peet decides is best for the team.

I will 100% say if Smith picks up a knock Farrimond is straight in the team in my option over Rocky and anyone else.

It’s that simple.

As soon as Keighran's back I would like to give Eckersley a run at full back. That keeps the team as near as possible to what it normally is, and he has played there in the past. That said, Hampshire will get better with more regular game time. He is clearly not as good as Field or French and never will be, but being dropped in for a game here or there with long gaps between gives him no chance to build form or understanding. Also, if Rocky is not able to find some form and nail a place down with Field out for a couple of months then it's time to ship him on at the end of the season. He was signed because he covers halfback and fullback. If he can't do that then we should let him go somewhere else, where he can hopefully get himself the security of a longer contract now he's at the back end of his career.

Can Keighran not play full back and leave Eckersley at centre.

Round 1 to Phuzzy

Round 2 Phuzzy

Round 3 Phuzzy

I think Jonh owes Phuzzy an apology.

i'm only listening to the commentary, but it sounds like Farrimond has been given a running role, and seems to be doing OK, so perhaps he's not *just* an organiser!

Well, that line was well and truly "Run at".

All jokes aside (and I did think straight to this thread as he broke the line with an image of Phuzzy sat with a cigar) it was great to see the kid play like that. He’s got a bit of everything from what I see and doesn’t need to be pigeon holed as just being one thing or another. It’s so early in his career but from what I’ve seen to date he’s got enough about him to play any role we need from him as a halfback (in time).

Only just watched it but came straight here too as he proved me wrong tonight and long may that continue.

The only caveat I have was how poor London were we were taking the mick at times and there was literally nothing they could do about it in a totally dominant performance.

Great to see that first try though showed genuine strike.