If you had to make a choice between a conservative kicking 10 or a free running 10 who would you choose?

This is a question currently a hot topic in SA. Previously they have always chosen the best place kicker at flyhalf no matter how conservative their distribution game is. Now we are seeing emergance of players such as Elton Jantjies who are seen to have superior ball running games but lesser skills with the tee.

So who would you choose?

1) a guy who hits 5/6 in most conditions and has the range to hit any pen in the opposition half. Perhaps a little limited come playmaking.... typical example Morne Steyn, Owen Farrell.

2) a playmaker who can cut defensive lines in two. Kicking is not as good as player 1... typical examples are Elton Jantjies, Carlos Spencer, Quade Cooper, George Ford, Gregor Townsend.

All this could cease to be an issue if say another player kicks the goals be it the fullback, wing or scrumhalf. However such players are more rare than they used to be. The boks were able to choose Butch James when Percy came back from Newport a changed man, Australia chose a host of players to cater for Stephen Larkham as did Scotland when Townsend was playing.

There are players who can state they are both..... Dan Carter is probably the one true player who ticks all boxes.

My own feelings are that you must always go with player no.1, the conservative goal kicker. My reasons are that in close test matches, teams that take their penalty shots are often the one who ends up victorious. Say both teams are equally matched, they both get pens but the conservative kicker is making his shots over the less reliable 10.... well that opens up a gap and then teams have to open up more. It leaves them more open to turnover and they have to chase the game.

World class goal kicking and just as important, a world class pressure temperament I don't think can be taught as easily as someone who can adequately run a backline. I also think that teams treat the opposition differently when they have a class kicker in their side. You become more respectful and won't dare give penalties away. I recall when Morne was at his pomp... he was deadly all over the park and woe betide any side who infringed in their own half... and if anything within the 10m line of the opposition half.

There's a third option: a creative free running 10 with another member of the back division capable of 85+ place kicking success. If that kicker happens to be a very decent international 12, then you've solved the problem.

If option 1 is a game controller...then for me its that option, with a big play runner, playmaker at 12.

Ive seen the difference first hand with my club team in the prem.

Dan Carter is probably the one true player who ticks all boxes.

Not factually true...you forgot Andy Goode....

SimonofSurrey wrote:There's a third option: a creative free running 10 with another member of the back division capable of 85+ place kicking success. If that kicker happens to be a very decent international 12, then you've solved the problem.

a second five eigth is a great option to have... but they are very rare to be truthful.

SimonofSurrey wrote:There's a third option: a creative free running 10 with another member of the back division capable of 85+ place kicking success. If that kicker happens to be a very decent international 12, then you've solved the problem.

Like on Saturday coming:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/36536016

As a former back rower - I always preferred the better tactical kicker at 10 to make sure we went forward when winning ball.

Of course that does not fit with your question as you are concentrating solely on goal-kicking.

LondonTiger wrote:As a former back rower - I always preferred the better tactical kicker at 10 to make sure we went forward when winning ball.

Of course that does not fit with your question as you are concentrating solely on goal-kicking.

Wouldn't you say that the best ball to hand kickers tend to be the best goal kickers too.... generally that is. I'm sure there are some exceptions to the assumption.

Well, I view Ford as a better tactical kicker, but Farrell the better goal kicker.

From hand they strike the ball with similar consistency, but Ford tends to make better and quicker decisions. Goal kicking is far more about coping with the stress before you kick. Farrell has bad days from the tee - like all kickers - but is more consistent with marginally more range. He seems to be affected by nerves less.

LondonTiger wrote:Well, I view Ford as a better tactical kicker, but Farrell the better goal kicker.

From hand they strike the ball with similar consistency, but Ford tends to make better and quicker decisions. Goal kicking is far more about coping with the stress before you kick. Farrell has bad days from the tee - like all kickers - but is more consistent with marginally more range. He seems to be affected by nerves less.

I think a lot of 10s who don't place kick can play with more ease in the other areas of the game because they don't have that pressure that comes with taking the shots at goal.
In some ways it would be better if the 10 didn't take the pots at goal because you don't want his other playmaking game to be impacted but I do feel that the very best like Morne, Wilkinson etc lapped it up, if anything he needed to have the responsibility to give him a mental edge for his all-round game.

I think it depends on the 12 as much as anything else. You need to have options in that part of the field imo.

If you have a controlling flyhalf its better to have a second playmaker outside them in my opinion to vary the play and take pressure off as a second receiver.

If you have a creative running 10 then you probably want a crashball at 12 to again take pressure off and vary the play.

Or of course if you're wales you want a controlling flyhalf and a crashball 12, to ensure that you cant vary the play or take pressure off yourselves.

In any scenario you want a high percentage goal kicker in your backline somewhere.

fa0019 wrote:

SimonofSurrey wrote:There's a third option: a creative free running 10 with another member of the back division capable of 85+ place kicking success. If that kicker happens to be a very decent international 12, then you've solved the problem.

a second five eigth is a great option to have... but they are very rare to be truthful.

Certainly they've proven hard to find over the years, though for England they seem to come along like buses: none for a long time and then all at once. We had Greenwood and Catt, then nothing for a decade, and now Farrell, Slade and Mallinder all look like they could fill that role with Brophy-Clews and Marchant (who's more of a third 5/8ths - generally plays 13, but can also play 10) a little further down the line.

If I was going into a tough away fixture, or if the game was being played in poor conditions, then I'd prefer option 1.
If the field is dry, weather is fine, then option 2.
Neutral venue then I'd probably go on the weather conditions. for preference.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Andy Goode

The greatest player of all time:  he could make his passes, kick his goals, and eat cheeseburgers at the same time.

doctor_grey wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Andy Goode

The greatest player of all time:  he could make his passes, kick his goals, and eat cheeseburgers at the same time.

I recall he got binned in his first super rugby game for the sharks. Think he clotheslined dan carter... probably deserved it!

This was Goode's first return to Welford Road with Worcester:



Apparently he was just trying to get to the buffet before the Tuilagi's

doctor_grey wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Andy Goode

The greatest player of all time:  he could make his passes, kick his goals, and eat cheeseburgers at the same time.

Just not 'pound for pound'

lostinwales wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Andy Goode

The greatest player of all time:  he could make his passes, kick his goals, and eat cheeseburgers at the same time.

Just not 'pound for pound'

the best 1/4 pounder for 1/4 pounder!

free running 10 every time. Then get the best kicker in the 15 to take the kicks.

A creative 10 will win you more games against top opposition than a non creative 10 who kicks well. One thing I don't understand is why in the english game does it have to be the ten who takes the place kicks?

What other top quality players do I have available, can any of them kick reliably at goal and for territory and are any of them strong secondary playmakers? What is my set piece like? My backs' handling?

TJ wrote:free running 10 every time.  Then get the best kicker in the 15 to take the kicks.

A creative 10 will win you more games against top opposition than a non creative 10 who kicks well.  One thing I don't understand is why in the english game does it have to be the ten who takes the place kicks?

Pretty sure right now it's our 12 taking our kicks!

Aye but its unusual and by shoehorning Farrell in at 12 you lose out on having a specialist centre. could Farrell play 15?

Not in a month of Sundays. What do you feel we lose at 12 that Burrell brings?

TJ wrote:Aye but its unusual and by shoehorning Farrell in at 12 you lose out on having a specialist centre.  could Farrell play 15?

Exceptionally badly! But Daly could and he's a good kicker, Slade probably could too and there's always Goode and Cipriani (though his kicking is currently worse - at goal- than Ford's). Think Pennell can kick too

:-)

If you had to make a choice between a conservative kicking 10 or a free running 10 who would you choose?

For me, the question is what else the player brings to the table. Especially playing defence.

Dan Parks.

NeilyBroon wrote:Dan Parks.

*bangs head on wall*

We (Ospreys) have had 2 of the all running all dancing, type of OH, in the shape of First Hook and then Mathew Morgan, and then have the archetypal controlling OH in Dan Biggar, even if it was possible to have both of the former and 16 players on the field I would still have Dan.

Conservative kicking 10, generally they have more control than free running 10s.

Not going to see them on highlights reels but high % kicking penalty kicks more often than not make the difference between a win and defeat.

Farrell's accuracy made a big difference vs Australia compared to Foley's and has helped notched up some notable wins for club and country.

In the 2003 RWC England have a lot to thank for the boot of Jonny.

Forwards need a reward for their hard effort to and an effective marksman at international level gives them that.

Keeps the scoreboard ticking over.

I love the romanticism of a footballing outside half and if I didn't care about the result, I'd choose a playmaker at ten every time; but if my life depended on the outcome of a match, I would choose the goalkicking outside half.

For my reasoning, I've gone for the second Test in the 1997 Lions series. We had a playmaker at ten, and Townsend was a great player, but on the day having a footballer didn't lead to tries; fortunately, we had a dead-eye goalkicker at full back, so it didn't matter. But if didn't have Neil Jenkins...

We all want to see tries, but points win prizes.

ABs seem to have this all wrong, Aaron Cruden can create/score tries, but when it comes to kicking, he couldn't hit the side of a barn if he was inside one.

Depends on the team. As an example, I don't think the Lions play for all that many kickable penalties tbh so a conservative #10 would probably have us down in the gutters again (hey Bossie). At the same time I looked at the first half of the Ireland game wondered how you could marry Jantjies sometime propensity to miss a hat load if points with a team that doesn't look like being a three-four try team. Luckily in the second half we had a 29-point half and all was forgotten. Which is something the conservative kicker doesn't give you by the way. You don't score 30 points in a half by mauling and kicking over against good teams. Then again with a better kicker we'd probably not have needed the 30 points. Mhmm. I'll keep Jantjies though

A conservative ten has as many limitations as a free running ten.

You need a ten that can control the match and territory before he becomes a running ten and distributing ten

I don't believe there has to be that link between a running first five and an inability to kick goals. Are Cruden and Barrett really much worse as kickers than Carter was? Is Sopanga (deemed a better kicker than Cruden and Barrett) really a conservative first five? We got to pick players who can do it all or train them to do their weaker skill a bit better.

nganboy wrote:I don't believe there has to be that link between a running first five and an inability to kick goals. Are Cruden and Barrett really much worse as kickers than Carter was? Is Sopanga (deemed a better kicker than Cruden and Barrett) really a conservative first five? We got to pick players who can do it all or train them to do their weaker skill a bit better.

I think place kicking can only be taught so much, the rest depends on the temperament of the player. Running a backline has less pressure as in in that individual moment in time. If you can't deal with the pressure it doesn't matter how skilled you are.