Players who should have chosen a different position.

I was just reading a comment on the Lions thread "Scrumhalf choices" and saw someone suggesting Mike Phillips should not have been a scrumhalf.

So it got me thinking about players who should have made different choices with the positions they should have preferred to play.

Pierre Spies - Outside Centre

When you think of the pace Spies posesses, his upright running style and contrast it to the requirements of being an eigthman.

Compare the playing style, physicality and work rates of Keiran Read and Sergio Parisse as examples, what ever posessed Pierre Spies to want to be a number 8?

Read has the ability to drive or breakd through defensive lines with but a few meters running start, he has the ability to drive over rucks.

Has anyone ever seen Spies shine unless he has space to manouvre in?

Mike Philips - Flanker.

When you consider the (usual) slow service Mike Philips provides off a ruck, and then when he decides to attack the channel on the blindside or a ruck or scrum (you'll notice I didn't say snipe, as Philips doesn't snipe, a guy like Murray or Genia snipes, they are small, quick and lithe) he will often break through a number of tackles because of his strength and physicality.

When you compare his size, he ways but 4 kilo's lighter than Spies and is only 4 centimeters shorters than Spies who is often a good line out option for SA.

Hence my Thinking that Philips should have been a 6.

Think about players you think should have (not that you would like to see) chosen a diffferent route in their careers.

Brendan Laney - short order cook.

Chris Patterson - 10.

Ritchie Vernon - centre

Tom Youngs should have started at hooker rather than center?

Gavin Henson

Is celebrity wannabee/house-husband - should have chosen inside centre

North - Flanker
Cuthbert - 8
1/2P - S Half

Gethin Jenkins - outside centre. Judging from his try against Namibia in the world cup

Stuart Hogg - Matador.


Cue lots of Scottish vitriol. There's a lot of them on here today judging by some of the threads and votes.

Ashton - Whinger

RubyGuby wrote:Ashton - Whinger

doctornick - doctor of philosophy - should have been "big foot"

bluestonevedder wrote:Tom Youngs should have started at hooker rather than center?

I reckon he could have been a cracking 7.

Hibbard in the centre opposite Basterau would be a good watch

LondonTiger wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Tom Youngs should have started at hooker rather than center?

I reckon he could have been a cracking 7.

Didn't think of that. Like it a lot. Almost like our own Brussouw?

Said on another post yesterday but will say again... I think Spies gets a lot of undue criticism. He's a decent player, one that the media have raised in profile due to his fortune for playing behind probably the most dominant pack in club rugby (the 07-11 Bulls).

People look into his stats too much; his Da was a sprint hurdler, he can run the 100m in sub11 seconds, he's 115kg etc and 1.90 tall.

In reality he's a very good lineout operator, one of the best, if not the best in back of the line jumping in test rugby. His leadership in a new bulls team has been very good whilst many of its stars have up and left and he carries the ball very well both in the tight and the loose.

If he went to Europe he would be amazing and people would love him... look at Schalk Brits for instance, tearing up the European club scene yet he was a nobody in SA... 5th choice bok hooker and never did the runs he does in England.

Does he match up to players like Read... perhaps not but few do. Is he the best No8 in SA.... Vermeuleun got the shirt by the end of last season, Daniel is keeping out Kankowski in Durban (mainly to play Coetzee). But Meyer will always look at Spies in terms of leading the pack and thats why he will continue to be in the bok setup somewhere.

The modern day flanker/centre are very similar in size so I can see why some say he would fit in there. Anyone with pace, strong in the tackle and is between 6'2-6'4 and 100-110kg can play in both positions.

As has been said many time - Mike Phillips is the worlds best 8 1/2 !

Scott Gibbs - prop
Halfpenny - flyhalf
North - Outside Centre
Shane Horgan - Blindside
Stringer - No. 8 (maybe not)

bluestonevedder wrote:Gethin Jenkins - outside centre. Judging from his try against Namibia in the world cup

I'd have him as a seven. Great engine and good at jackalling. Also same could be said for BOD.

Tipuric to 13 is a shout judging from the England game.

Andy Goode as a loosehead (Gethin Jenkins mould).

Brits - Centre
Croft- wing
Banahan - number 8

Some Irish examples I can think of:

Tomas O'Leary comes to mind. A very good rugby player but not a very good scrumhalf.

Keith Earls is another. Did well early in his career bursting onto the scene as a back three player but chose the number 13 jersey for himself which led to poor form and has set his career back slightly.

Tony Buckley is a further example. Cut from the same cloth physically as John Hayes but had not the aptitude to play tighthead prop. Would have made a decent number 8 in the mould of Ulster's current Kiwi lad Nick Williams.

I think Sean O'Brien would have made an excellent inside centre.

Halfpenny 10
North 13

Changes that could actually improve the welsh side.

Would Leigh Halfpenny have made a good #10? Apart from the fact that he kicks at goal why do people suggest this?

I certainly don't see that he "should have chosen a different position".

As a back three player he been a part of 2 Six Nations winning team, has just won Player of the 6 Nations and is about to head on his 2nd Lions Tour at age of 24.

I dont see how he should ever have decided than playing as a back three player wasn't for him.

I find it a shame that pre-teen youth rugby tends to determine a players position and future.

It often occurs between the ages of 8-12... If you're short and on the larger side you get thrown in as a prop forward, if you're tall and thin you're a lock etc. Players can move around a bit... I myself did as I grew olders yet its not as interchangable as other sports such as football.

Scrums do tend to pigeon hole kids into positions rather quickly when perhaps at that age we should be concentrating on building rugby players and there skills. Literally ends when kids stop playing mini rugby aged what 10???

Would it be better for kids in general if scrums where simple restarts up to say U15? Perhaps it would breed better skills individuals and allow kids to find their best suited role as they moved into adulthood. We all grow at different rates yet our positions are often taken at a time when our height and size ratio to our peers is far different to that once we reach adulthood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fURXo9kcP1o

Yep, Philipps is no sniper.

fa0019 wrote:I find it a shame that pre-teen youth rugby tends to determine a players position and future.

It often occurs between the ages of 8-12... If you're short and on the larger side you get thrown in as a prop forward, if you're tall and thin you're a lock etc. Players can move around a bit... I myself did as I grew olders yet its not as interchangable as other sports such as football.

Scrums do tend to pigeon hole kids into positions rather quickly when perhaps at that age we should be concentrating on building rugby players and there skills. Literally ends when kids stop playing mini rugby aged what 10???

Would it be better for kids in general if scrums where simple restarts up to say U15? Perhaps it would breed better skills individuals and allow kids to find their best suited role as they moved into adulthood. We all grow at different rates yet our positions are often taken at a time when our height and size ratio to our peers is far different to that once we reach adulthood.

They do this in France I believe.

fa0019 wrote:I find it a shame that pre-teen youth rugby tends to determine a players position and future.

It often occurs between the ages of 8-12... If you're short and on the larger side you get thrown in as a prop forward, if you're tall and thin you're a lock etc. Players can move around a bit... I myself did as I grew olders yet its not as interchangable as other sports such as football.

Scrums do tend to pigeon hole kids into positions rather quickly when perhaps at that age we should be concentrating on building rugby players and there skills. Literally ends when kids stop playing mini rugby aged what 10???

Would it be better for kids in general if scrums where simple restarts up to say U15? Perhaps it would breed better skills individuals and allow kids to find their best suited role as they moved into adulthood. We all grow at different rates yet our positions are often taken at a time when our height and size ratio to our peers is far different to that once we reach adulthood.

Teehee - 6ft at 15 years old I made a decent lock. Still 6ft at 18 I ended up playing 2nd row because I knew how to and not many others did. Funniest thing was playing alongside a scottish hammer thrower who was 6ft 9 and probably around 20 stone....

ChequeredJersey wrote:Brits - Centre
Croft- wing
Banahan - number 8

I would like to have seen Banahan at no.8 as well. Moving from lock to no.8 at 20 odd would have given him a good chance to work on his tight carrying. With the kicking game he's developing now he would have been a real prospect at 8.

red_stag wrote:
Tony Buckley is a further example. Cut from the same cloth physically as John Hayes but had not the aptitude to play tighthead prop. Would have made a decent number 8 in the mould of Ulster's current Kiwi lad Nick Williams.

Mushy Buckley would have also made a fine tighthead lock if he lost a few stone. He has good hands and is a very good ball carrier.

Give Allan Jacobsen the 11 jerseys to give him a valid reason for hanging about on the wing.
A guy called Roland Reid played back row and wing for Scotland (or at least some sort of representative Scottish team) but rugby is so specialised nowadays that it seems to be too difficult to totally master two diverse positions

Would have been interesting to have seen Mike Blair (either the 08 or 10 vintage) have a crack at flyhalf. Great eye for a break & great distribution skills, pretty decent tactical kicking.

Dan Cole could have been a decent 7.

Brad Barritt a decent 6.

Chris Robshaw a 12.

Tom Croft..Winger

Brad barritt...Flanker. He has no offensive ability at all but by god he tackles and gets stuck into rucks.

red_stag wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I find it a shame that pre-teen youth rugby tends to determine a players position and future.

It often occurs between the ages of 8-12... If you're short and on the larger side you get thrown in as a prop forward, if you're tall and thin you're a lock etc. Players can move around a bit... I myself did as I grew olders yet its not as interchangable as other sports such as football.

Scrums do tend to pigeon hole kids into positions rather quickly when perhaps at that age we should be concentrating on building rugby players and there skills. Literally ends when kids stop playing mini rugby aged what 10???

Would it be better for kids in general if scrums where simple restarts up to say U15? Perhaps it would breed better skills individuals and allow kids to find their best suited role as they moved into adulthood. We all grow at different rates yet our positions are often taken at a time when our height and size ratio to our peers is far different to that once we reach adulthood.

They do this in France I believe.

I love this idea. I was always quite a chunky lad growing up, so I was stuck in at prop first, then hooker, then back to prop. Right now I'm 24, 5'11 and just under 15 stone (around 95kg) and I'm probably the smallest prop in my league. I don't think my skills were properly developed growing up because, as a front-row forward, the set-piece was seen as a more important area to work on. I love playing prop, but now by body shape and size is completely unsuited to it. I hold my own in the scrums because I've been playing in the front row since I was 8 and I still get picked because I am mobile and make an impact around the park, but I wonder how different it could have been if there had been more of a focus on skills through youth rugby.

If they do do it in France it shows it must be working, because they still manage to produce some fearsome scrummagers.

robbo277 wrote:

red_stag wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I find it a shame that pre-teen youth rugby tends to determine a players position and future.

It often occurs between the ages of 8-12... If you're short and on the larger side you get thrown in as a prop forward, if you're tall and thin you're a lock etc. Players can move around a bit... I myself did as I grew olders yet its not as interchangable as other sports such as football.

Scrums do tend to pigeon hole kids into positions rather quickly when perhaps at that age we should be concentrating on building rugby players and there skills. Literally ends when kids stop playing mini rugby aged what 10???

Would it be better for kids in general if scrums where simple restarts up to say U15? Perhaps it would breed better skills individuals and allow kids to find their best suited role as they moved into adulthood. We all grow at different rates yet our positions are often taken at a time when our height and size ratio to our peers is far different to that once we reach adulthood.

They do this in France I believe.

I love this idea. I was always quite a chunky lad growing up, so I was stuck in at prop first, then hooker, then back to prop. Right now I'm 24, 5'11 and just under 15 stone (around 95kg) and I'm probably the smallest prop in my league. I don't think my skills were properly developed growing up because, as a front-row forward, the set-piece was seen as a more important area to work on. I love playing prop, but now by body shape and size is completely unsuited to it. I hold my own in the scrums because I've been playing in the front row since I was 8 and I still get picked because I am mobile and make an impact around the park, but I wonder how different it could have been if there had been more of a focus on skills through youth rugby.

If they do do it in France it shows it must be working, because they still manage to produce some fearsome scrummagers.

Robbo, my fighting weght as a prop was very similar to yours, 92 kg and same length. I was the smallest prop in our club league.

Started off at 7, but our club needed a loosehead.

Robbo, play a little at 9 during training if you get the chance, you'll be amazed at how quickly those skills come along when you practice them solidly for a few sessions. Try and play 9 during touch rugby if you're a masochist

Biltong: too much pace to be a prop and uses moisturiser and hair gel so should have been on the wing.

Would have loved to see Lomu at 8 or 6 where he used to play for Wesley College. I sometimes think we didn't get to see enough of his capabilities on defence. Imagine him as well receiving the ball off the fringes of the ruck as well. His kidneys may well have taken a hammering with all that contact and he gave us NZ fans so much viewing pleasure on the wing. I guess the saddest thing is that we never got to see him at his physical peak, which is a frightening prospect.

I might try that yappy. We have a slight lack of props at our club though, so they might not be keen to let me move!

For me I'd say Barritt is the one who sticks out in the England team. A great defender and a very hard worker, if he'd had intensive work on his breakdown skills he could be a top flanker. His distribution ability is lacking slightly at the top level, but his distribution skills would allow him to be a great link man between forwards and backs in a similar role that we see Robshaw employ.

I think in the case of France, it's more players who should have chosen a different coach as I've lost count of the crazy selections for their team. It seems every test there's a player or two who are out of position.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Biltong: too much pace to be a prop and uses moisturiser and hair gel so should have been on the wing.

I wanted to be a halfback.

You only kick if you play halfback in SA.

OK, I wanted to be a prop.

It was your team mates who wanted you out on the wing.

I was decievingly fast, couldn't turn worth Sh%%^t, had no sidestep, but once I got going I had the momentum of a mini titanic.

Sidesteps are for players who recognise they will lose in a tackle situation. Run straight and bring me to the ground if you can.

Props can be a source of great value. My favourite or at least most lucrative AB player was Kees Meuws the super sub. I can't remember how many bar tabs he paid for me and then left me with still cash over because of his uncanny ability to score tries and TAB's stubborn refusal to believe that a prop could not continue to score tries and that eventually the house would win.

Brian o'driscoll would have been a brilliant 7.

Picamoles - winger

littlejohn wrote:Brian o'driscoll would have been a brilliant 7.