Why the obsession with putting players out of position?

Let's get away from the Johnson stuff for a bit and instead concentrate on a particular gripe of mine instead!

England selectors seem to have long had a bit of an issue with certain players. They like to play them out of their preferred slot rather than using them in the positions that they are truly good at. Sometimes it can work: Dallaglio & Hill have both played successfully in all 3 back row positions and Austin Healey seemed to slot in pretty much anywhere in the back line and play well. However these were more the exception than the rule.

Look at the "Banahan experiment". Garbage. Monye at full-back? One of the worst International decisions I have ever seen. Playing Armitage on the wing. Stevens at Loosehead against some of the World's best Tight-heads. Haskell at 7. Moody at 7. (Actually just about any recent England 6 as a 7). Tindall as a 12.

Why the obsession with this? Why not actually look for the best possible options in positions they play week in week out?? It has IMO been a big failing of the selectors over the past few years and is one of the big things to sort out with the changes going on at the top at the moment. If a certain player is not good enough to get into the team in their preffered position, then they should use that as an incentive to play better.

Very good post. Wholeheartedly agree. I have very similar opinions on this matter.

I agree as a general rule, however the problem starts when there is no standout performer in a position. For example i believe Haskell (a blindside) is england's best option at number 8 because of the lack of outstanding out and out number 8's.

We also fall into the trap of playing current internationals in a position where they can 'do a job' instead of bringing in a player from outside the squad who is a good specialist, which imo can be extremely counter productive.

Yes, you don't want to shake up the team too much. In fairness Monye had been playing pretty well at 15 for his club.
Haskell like Dallagio may have started at 6, but developed into an 8 with time.

Playing Roberts in the centre?

Its a case of wanting all your best players on the pitch at the same time i think.

The All Blacks only just broke a 12 year tradition of playing people out of position at 13. The result? Richie lifted the cup.

I think Ireland has to make a tough call with O'Brien and Ferris. O'Brien is NOT a 7.

O'Brien is totally versatile and can play all 3 backrow positions equally well. His best game for Ireland has been at 7. How is he not a 7?

Also his turnover skills are actually very underrated. He is very effective in the rucks and as good as any other fetching 7 in that area. If you don't agree, watch him play more. He is also best as a support runner (like Wallace), where he can use his pace and strength to rip defences to shreds.

His best game for Ireland-you mean the Australian game? In the wet with an Irish pack smashing back their counterparts in a rain-soaked Auckland pitch? Where the conditions were not at all conducive to expansive play and with David Pocock not in the Australian side?

How did he go against Wales? Ireland played a good strategy because they knew Wales had the upper hand at the breakdown if play went wider, yet he was still ineffective. Leinster's game against Montpellier in the weekend was another where he failed to impose himself in the 7 jersey. I'm a big fan of the guy just not in that position.

Look I know he had a bloody good game but the ducks were all lined up for him to do so. His fetching isn't in the same class is Brüssow, McCaw, Pocock nor Warburton. Physically I'd say he is the best of that lot but it's because he is a natural 6. He can play 6 and 8 but isn't a total flyer which you need against expansive teams in dry conditions. I'd have him in for Ferris but I think Ireland needs an out and out 7 (I don't rate Wallace in that area either) for the balance of their back row.

Us Scots have similarly suffered.

Jacobsen at tighthead.
Jason White at lock.
Nathan Hines at blindside.
Ali Hogg and Jason White at openside.
Brendan Laney at fly half.
Simon Webster at centre.
Chris Paterson on the wing.
Roland Reid on the wing.
Andy Henderson on the wing.
Kenny Logan at 15.

It baffles me completely how an international team can hope to prosper when putting players in different positions at international level than the position they play regularly for their clubs. It always seems needless, and so rarely works.

The one I enjoyed most was when Andy Robinson contrived an entire out of position back-row, when he had all the components for a true to position back row. I seem to remember him playing:

Pat Sanderson - a 7 at 8
Martin Corry - an 8 at 6
And Lewis Moody - a 6 at 7.

I agree. Our biggest failing has been in the backrow recently. We seem to have been playing 6s consistently at 7. As a result, our standout breakdown player has gone off to play in France (Steffon Armitage) and will therefore no longer be eligable for England.

Some players just don't quite seem to fit into any position - and I will get shouted down for this - but I put Tom Croft into that catergory.

The Banahan experiment has not been successful, but then I am not a big fan when he plays on the wing.

We had a problem in the 90s with Mark Carter. John Hart kept picking him at 7 when his best position was in about Row C

disneychilly wrote:His best game for Ireland-you mean the Australian game? In the wet with an Irish pack smashing back their counterparts in a rain-soaked Auckland pitch? Where the conditions were not at all conducive to expansive play and with David Pocock not in the Australian side?

How did he go against Wales? Ireland played a good strategy because they knew Wales had the upper hand at the breakdown if play went wider, yet he was still ineffective. Leinster's game against Montpellier in the weekend was another where he failed to impose himself in the 7 jersey. I'm a big fan of the guy just not in that position.

Look I know he had a bloody good game but the ducks were all lined up for him to do so. His fetching isn't in the same class is Brüssow, McCaw, Pocock nor Warburton. Physically I'd say he is the best of that lot but it's because he is a natural 6. He can play 6 and 8 but isn't a total flyer which you need against expansive teams in dry conditions. I'd have him in for Ferris but I think Ireland needs an out and out 7 (I don't rate Wallace in that area either) for the balance of their back row.

Once again, the reason we lost to Wales was nothing to do with having O'Brien at 7. SOB and Ferris were being relied on far too much, and were the only players we used to carry the ball forward and break the gainline. Two flankers cannot be expected to carry a team forward. In fact in the first half the Irish pack dominated the Welsh at the breakdown. O'Briens' fetching is actually very good and potentially could be as good as those 7s you mention. Also you would have O'Brien in for Ferris? Ferris has been playing the best out of any of the Irish backrowers.. if he stays fit, Ferris won't be going anywhere.

Also about the Leinster game, it is more to do with Heaslip under performing and McLaughlin's style of play not suiting the game O'Brien plays. Ferris and O'Brien work very well together, as they both compliment each other's game. McLaughlin and O'Brien however do not gel particular well. I think for Leinster O'Brien should play 6 with Jennings at 7. For Ireland, O'Brien at 7.

disneychilly wrote:His best game for Ireland-you mean the Australian game? In the wet with an Irish pack smashing back their counterparts in a rain-soaked Auckland pitch? Where the conditions were not at all conducive to expansive play and with David Pocock not in the Australian side?

Soaking wet pitch? What game were you watching? I love how history gradually starts to get rewritten bit by bit. First it was spoiling tactics, now it was the weather.

If the Wallabies start at a 9 point disadvantage every time Pocock is out and there's a bit of light drizzle maybe they should call the game of next time.

I don't recall many people saying the odds were all stacked in O'Brien and Irelands favour before the game?

Another thing, since Pocock didn't actually play, who is to say O'Brien wouldn't have had the upper hand anyway? It could have went either way, O'Brien made plenty of turnovers in that game and was all over the pitch. I'm sure Pocock is the better fetcher, but O'Brien offers a lot more than just fetching.

Rory its a point not worth debating. Pocock didn't play so we'll never know. You play with the players you have available and you play the conditions. End off.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Us Scots have similarly suffered.
Jacobsen at tighthead.
Jason White at lock.
Nathan Hines at blindside.
Ali Hogg and Jason White at openside.
Brendan Laney at fly half.
Simon Webster at centre.
Chris Paterson on the wing.
Roland Reid on the wing.
Andy Henderson on the wing.
Kenny Logan at 15.

Did you forget to list Dan Parks at 10?

doctor_grey wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Us Scots have similarly suffered.
Jacobsen at tighthead.
Jason White at lock.
Nathan Hines at blindside.
Ali Hogg and Jason White at openside.
Brendan Laney at fly half.
Simon Webster at centre.
Chris Paterson on the wing.
Roland Reid on the wing.
Andy Henderson on the wing.
Kenny Logan at 15.

Did you forget to list Dan Parks at 10?

Every team plays players out of position.
At this level of rugby, the lines between and open side and blind side flanker are a lot more blurred than they used to be.

If you therefore have a stand out 6, then I can see the logic in playing them at 7, if there is already a great 6 playing.

Similarly with the centres, in the modern game, there's not a lot of difference between IC and OC.
We can all point at different ideal qualities that the positions require, but rarely do you find a players that matches that template exactly... therefore the boundaries between an IC and an OC become blurred.


However, so many teams have fallen foul of this kind of behaviour.
The one I like most is the French obsession with playing Freddie Michalak somewhere... although they didn't know where.
I was expecting to see him play in the forwards one day.

Am not saying Pocock would have had the upper hand I'm just saying that he is miles better than McCalman who I think isn't up to international rugby in any position.

The game I watched? Well I was watching Ireland vs Australia in the 02 in Dublin thanks. Funny it looked wet in Auckland to me, someone who has lived in Auckland.

Ferris is really stepping it up and good on him. O'Brien I think has his nose in front but that could well change and that competition will hopefully get them all playing better. I agree with you about Heaslip underperforming. As far as fetching, well I think SOB has a long way to go in that regard. A 7's job is to get to the tackle first, ideally before it becomes a ruck so he can legally come in from whenever, and I don't think SOB is as fast as those others. McCaw's engine is staggering and if you had a wide open game with him vs SOB, SOB would be stuffed by 60. It happens a lot with NH teams, matching NZ for the 60 then the ABs pull away.

The Wallabies could beat anyone in that comp but were far more inconsistent than previous Aussie teams, plus Australia is notoriously bad in wet weather due to their lack of physicality. They have nowhere to hide. I picked Ireland to do them beforehand. WTF are you on about rewriting history Rodders? Even with those things Ireland still had to do the business and they did. Even if it had been dry Ireland would still have probably knocked them over. I'm not an Aussie making up excuses.

Why? Because modern professional players are reasonably adaptable. Armitage can play wing at international level, Stevens actually played almost all his rugby last season for Sarries at LH, Haskell has had some good games for England at 7.

Sometimes it's the wrong call, but England played Dallaglio at 8 before he played there for Wasps.

The Wallabies have developed a habit of playing Australians at prop. Can't they see this wont work? Patricio Noriega is the sort of specialist wallabies prop we should be playing.

I entirely agree !!

Bloomin management love it !!! and it hardly ever works, like you say stevens at loosie was the biggest shocker considering he'd been repeatly smashed their PRIOR to being picked at loose again against arguably the best scrummaging tighthead on the planet!!! then the whole Flood at @ IC debacle, monye at FB is the most painful thing i've ever witnessed, banahan (the jurys out) but he should have never been near that RWC squad as 12 cover...total shocker...what else have we got...shane gegarthy at 12..that ended his england career, courtney Lawes at 6 has given away at least one try from a scrum....and the worst thing i've ever seen caused by the decision of a former candidate to save englsih rugby is mauro bergamasco at scrum half .....enjoy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7877034.stm

disneychilly wrote:
The Wallabies could beat anyone in that comp but were far more inconsistent than previous Aussie teams, plus Australia is notoriously bad in wet weather due to their lack of physicality. They have nowhere to hide. I picked Ireland to do them beforehand. WTF are you on about rewriting history Rodders? Even with those things Ireland still had to do the business and they did. Even if it had been dry Ireland would still have probably knocked them over. I'm not an Aussie making up excuses.

Well sir I stand corrected

If you gave Lawes the choice he's been clear he'd rather play 6, and Shane Geraghty's England career came grinding to a halt because he played 12 outside of a very, very deep Wilkinson, not because he couldn't have done a decent job there.

disneychilly wrote:Am not saying Pocock would have had the upper hand I'm just saying that he is miles better than McCalman who I think isn't up to international rugby in any position.

The game I watched? Well I was watching Ireland vs Australia in the 02 in Dublin thanks. Funny it looked wet in Auckland to me, someone who has lived in Auckland.

Ferris is really stepping it up and good on him. O'Brien I think has his nose in front but that could well change and that competition will hopefully get them all playing better. I agree with you about Heaslip underperforming. As far as fetching, well I think SOB has a long way to go in that regard. A 7's job is to get to the tackle first, ideally before it becomes a ruck so he can legally come in from whenever, and I don't think SOB is as fast as those others. McCaw's engine is staggering and if you had a wide open game with him vs SOB, SOB would be stuffed by 60. It happens a lot with NH teams, matching NZ for the 60 then the ABs pull away.

The Wallabies could beat anyone in that comp but were far more inconsistent than previous Aussie teams, plus Australia is notoriously bad in wet weather due to their lack of physicality. They have nowhere to hide. I picked Ireland to do them beforehand. WTF are you on about rewriting history Rodders? Even with those things Ireland still had to do the business and they did. Even if it had been dry Ireland would still have probably knocked them over. I'm not an Aussie making up excuses.

Cleary you haven't seen enough of either Ferris or O'Brien. Ferris is the inform Irish player right now and has been consistently fantastic before and after his injury. O'Brien is not ahead of him in any way, and it shows as he cannot displace him at 6 (and he won't unless Ferris gets injured). I think however O'Brien is better than any others we have at 7 and you say he isn't as fast as the others?? Like I said, you need to watch O'Brien more. You need to see him making turnovers and his pace at getting to the first tackle as you say. O'Brien is a very pacy flanker, very strong, a very balanced and all around player. Like a good 7 should be imo.

disneychilly wrote:Ferris is really stepping it up and good on him. O'Brien I think has his nose in front but that could well change and that competition will hopefully get them all playing better.

Ferris has been Ireland's best blindside since 2008 and only injuries have kept him out. Its O'Brien who has stepped up to the plate. With both fit, Ferris is the more complete and better blindside in my view, hence O'Brien playing 7 when both are available. O'Brien is an awesome ball carrier and has a fantastic workrate but in terms of all round flanker play: tackling, rucking, lineout work etc. Ferris still has the edge. In fact only Kaino is better imo.

O'Brien has better hands and is quicker off the mark hence he is better suited to playing 7 than Ferris. He's also shorter and actually very good at getting over the ball and forcing turn overs. I do agree he is probably better at 6 or 8 but I don't think the difference is as significant as some people make out and as Rory has pointed out several of his best performances have come in the 7 jersey.

DaveM wrote:If you gave Lawes the choice he's been clear he'd rather play 6, and Shane Geraghty's England career came grinding to a halt because he played 12 outside of a very, very deep Wilkinson, not because he couldn't have done a decent job there.

The last time i saw Lawes cover 6 for england he gave away a try cause his positioning wasn't good enough, i'm sure he loves playing six just as nathan hines probably does but they are both second rows. If Lawes wants to be six he needs to be playing there week in and week out at club level for at least a season and i still doubt he would be good enough to oust wood, croft, haskell robshaw johnson etc etc he's a second row...end of.

As far as Shane Geraghty i think time has twisted what really happened for you see the article below titled "Englands Jonny Wilkinson was phenomenal but Shane Geraghty needs to wise up"....... if you don't read it here are a few snippets

"look outside Jonny and ask how many mistakes did Shane Geraghty make? The answer is far too many."

"When Jonny was standing in the No 10 position he attacked the ball, took it up to the line and slipped deft little passes into the space. He was always a threat despite the fact that Australia concentrated a lot of their defensive forces on him.
But when Shane was in the No 10 position he often stood several yards behind the gain line. There were a couple of times when he showed the ball and then took off. It looked good, but he was doing it from so deep that the Aussies were able to close down the gap"

so basically the opposite to what you said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/6521245/Englands-Jonny-Wilkinson-was-phenomenal-but-Shane-Geraghty-needs-to-wise-up.html

Kaino, perhaps Dusautoir too. I know the French 6 plays like more of a 7 but Dusautoir seems more of a hybrid. He's an absolute tackling machine but doesn't create as much havoc at the breakdown as he perhaps should. He is terrific though. One to watch (if Deans picks him) is Scott Higginbotham. Really looks the goods for the Reds and as Elsom seems to be very much off the pace at present I'd want to see him thrown in.

Yeah I agree that the difference isn't huge, but IMO it's enough to make a difference in international rugby. I'm hoping SOB gets enough of a go at 6 with Jennings back at 7. Good balance in that backrow for the HC, shame that I don't think Jennings is up to international level. I know Ferris has been super for Ulster this season but I can't help but feel the Irish backrow needs a bit more balance. For Ireland's sake I hope they prove me wrong as I like both of them. Wondering if Heaslip could be in danger then as he's been prett innocuous lately.

Yes I may be a Kiwi but living in Dublin I see a lot more of Ferris and SOB than you think mate. How else do you think I'm going to get my rugby fix at this time of year? Gets me to take my mind off the fact that the Kiwi cricketers are just about to get mulleted by Australia.

Disney yes Dusitoir is a fair call. Class player but I am talking in terms of an out and out 6, a player who you wouldn't play else where. In this position I see Ferris, Kaino, Lydiate etc. as the standout players.

Along the spectrum you have more 'hybrid players' Dusitoir, O'Brien etc. I don't think you can compare the two as you are not comparing like for like.

In my opinion regardless of which flank you play O'Brien on you are gaining something and losing something as he is not a specialist on either flank but something in between like David Wallace.

Hey Rodders I forgot Juan Smith. The SA switch the 6 and 7 shirts around and he plays like a 6, and a bloody good one at that.

Yeah I think SOB is being turned into a hybrid which I don't think is good for him. I understand why they're picking both over Wallace though as they are world class and Wallace isn't. Really would like to see SOB with a flier at 7. Looking forward to the Lions tour-SOB Warburton and Faletau at present looks great. Are there any up and coming true 7s here at present? Still seeing the same old names in the HC and Pro12-with Connacht in the HC though you get the chance for another 7 to have top level exposure.

You don't think Wallace is world class? I think Wallace is arguably the best of the lot.

In terms of a 'true 7' there's Willy Falloon at Ulster but he's not getting in the side and maybe lacks the physicality at the top level. Dom Ryan at Leinster but I'm not convinced he's a 7, more a smallish 6.

Jennings obviously. Chris Henry is playing very well at Ulster but again he's more of a hybrid.

I think this 'true 7' thing has been overhyped a bit. Winning the breakdown is a team effort but it does help to have a link man if you want to play an expansive game I suppose, rather than a 7 who just takes contact.

Would NZ have won the RWC with O'Brien at 7 though? I believe they would, yes. Would Irelaand have beaten Wales with Pocock, no IMO.

I think whilst there have been valid points made about how much Warburton, Pocock, McCaw etc. have contributed I think it's far to simplistic to say that having a 'true 7' was the critical factor for the most successful teams and that those who came up short got that area wrong.

Think the refereeing had a bit to do with that too mate. I think SA may well have beaten Aussie had Brüssow not been hurt due to Lawrence's free for all.

Yeah I don't think Wallace is. Just my own opinion though.

McCaw does both in that regard-he's hugely physical in taking the ball up-you rarely see him fail to make the advantage line and his ball skills are fantastic-probably the best linking 7 in the world.

I think that Ireland's strength at the breakdown is that whilst SOB may not get there first, they hunt as a pack so their second guy gets to the ball quicker than the other teams. Richard Hill's experience at 7 really helped England as he and Back both were pretty mobile and with Dayglo coming in behind them not many teams got the upper hand. McCaw found this out the hard way as whilst he'd beat Back to the ball, Hill would smash him out of the way letting Back pilfer to his heart's content. I think we'll see that more in the HC with Jennings and SOB. Hope Heaslip can come back to form.

Maybe it's the philosophies of NZ and Ireland differing. We're all about the wing forward as you know. But the loosies have to work as a trio so it's not much use getting there first if you're going to be on your own all the time. Though backs like Conrad Smith and BOD are great at the breakdown too so you can see a definite trend towards 'total' rugby players in the professional era.

Wallace outplayed the Leinster backrow in the Magners League final last year and was our best player probably against England. I don't know why you have the opinion he isn't world class.. a bit strange.

Also SOB does get there first.. I don't know why you don't think he does. He is extremely fast off the mark.

Disney I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. It's just I don't think its as black and white that Ireland lost to Wales because of Warburton v O'Brien, O'Brien can't play 7 etc. etc.

We simply don't have a world class 7 but we do have 3 or 4 (IMO) World class back rowers of which O'Brien and Wallace are best suited to playing 7. If McCaw was Irish things would be different but they aren't.

Heaslip, O'Connell, Best and O'Driscoll in particular are very good at winning ball on the deck. Ideally this would be your 7 but you have to work with what you have. I don't think it is a major problem for us compared to say getting a more penetrative and powerful midfield.

The biggest problem in Irish rugby is conservatism not O'Brien playing 7.

Probably because the games against your own teams you remember more-against the All Blacks Wallace has struggled to impose himself. I only saw the second half of the Magners Final so I'll take your word for it for the first half. Agree in the second though.

I'm comparing SOB's ability to get there first with the four guys I mentioned above and not the HC. In that case I accept that may be unfair.

I wouldnt assume the Lions back row would be Warburton, SOB and Felatau. Personally i would prefer Ferris or Lydiate at 6. IMO the balance would be better with an out and out blind side. SOB could find himself being a great bench warmer unless he picks (or gets picked) in one position only, either trim down to increase speed and become a 7 or concentrate on being a better 6 than Ferris.

Sigh.. trim down to increase his speed? O'Brien IS extremely fast off the mark! You guys clearly need to watch him more.. he is probably the fastest of the backrowers we have (and Ferris is very fast also).

And compared to the 4 you mentioned disney, he is faster than Pocock, McCaw (definitely), Brussouw and I'm not sure about Warburton. But from what I have seen he is faster than the others.

Agree to disagree then Rory G no harm done mate. Though I think when Ireland's playing NZ next he may have it over McCaw as despite Richie hopefully being on two feet again he'll be 31 and there aren't too many world-class 7's over the age of 30. Though his effort to best Pocock in Auckland on one foot and hold his own a week later was just phenomenal.

Scoi you're right about SOB being a possible bench option. I wasn't assuming anything there is still a long way to go yet.

I agree though that the players you mention would be better fetchers in general, but I disagree that they are quicker than SOB. They are smarter at the breakdown yes, but not faster. It is like saying Kaino is faster than the likes of Croft. He definitely isn't, however Kaino is the better player.

sirtidychris wrote:
The last time i saw Lawes cover 6 for england he gave away a try cause his positioning wasn't good enough, i'm sure he loves playing six just as nathan hines probably does but they are both second rows. If Lawes wants to be six he needs to be playing there week in and week out at club level for at least a season and i still doubt he would be good enough to oust wood, croft, haskell robshaw johnson etc etc he's a second row...end of.

As far as Shane Geraghty i think time has twisted what really happened for you see the article below titled "Englands Jonny Wilkinson was phenomenal but Shane Geraghty needs to wise up"....... if you don't read it here are a few snippets

so basically the opposite to what you said.

In the Australia match Wilkinson obviousy played well and Geraghty's didn't, but Mike Catt's comes across slightly bitter! Geraghty was dropped after the next game, which wasn't Johnny's finest. But anyway I'll put my hand up on that.

As for Lawes, it isn't end of. Having not played 6 for some time it's hardly surprising he struggled positionally at international level. He has all the attributes to be a great 6 and it is his favourite position. If he played there for Saints he'd be England's 6 as well - when you've got that sort of talent you can play in various positions (I reckon he'd do a job at 8 too, given some practice).

wasps

'If you therefore have a stand out 6, then I can see the logic in playing them at 7, if there is already a great 6 playing'

Isn't this just the point that the original poster is making?

Surely 6 and 7, at this level , are two very different positions? What sort of message are you sending to specialist 7's when you pick a 6 in their position?

The thing is, in England anyway, we don't have any decent specialist 7s, none that have really shoved their hand up and demanded inclusion. I'd rather play 2 of Croft, Wood, Haskell (although he isn't available) and Robshaw on the flanks in the Six Nations, even though none of them are specialist 7s.

To me 6 and 7 aren't specialist positions, while 8 is. 6 and 7 are both flankers. Either can be the ball carrier or groundhog, it doesn't matter as long as the balance is right. 8 is a specialist position as it has a certain skill-set and solidity that is needed at the back of the scrum. You are the link between the backs and forwards. 6 and 7 are generally interchangeable if the balance is correct.

rory
simply not true!

When was the last time you saw the world's best 7 (Mccaw) play anywhere but 7? Or for that matter Brussow or Pocock/

The SH simply find an outstanding 7 and play him there. Warburton has the potential to be equally as good and hopefully Wales will leave him in his true position.

Well he actually started out as an 8 firstly, and has played 8 a few times since, once in the world cup actually. He was wearing 7, but in attacking scrums he played at the back of the scrum. Brussouw and Pocock would both be small at 6/8, but are big enough for 7 definitely. They aren't specialist positions though, they just suit playing at 7 as they can use their skills best there.

What about Quinlan and Wallace when they played for Munster? Quinlan was the groundhog and Wallace was the ball carrier. Quinlan at 6, Wallace at 7. Warburton has played 6, 7 and 8 also, he is a much more all around player than the likes of Brussouw and Pocock. And I also rate him higher than the both of those players.

Remember that some players aren't even playing in there preferred positions for there club. Not necessarily because they're not good enough but because the coaches don't trust them.
Halfpenny's a good example, remember how everyone was saying that it was a bad selection from Gatland. Well fullback has always been his preferred position but he was played by Cardiff on the wing because of injuries and the rest his history.

Hook's failure is in part due to him being too flexible. But also that he shoudl have cemented his position, but he is a Sevens product and it shows...an allrounder who has no specific skillset other than, imo, at 12.

I would hardly call Hook a Sevens product. He only played in a few tournaments in 2006. If you were to look at Larkham's skillset you would say hes a 12, not saying that Hook's as good as him but they have similar games.