2013 State of Origin

Nah Boyd was definitely a creative fullback in that structure, and it's no surprise they've really struggled for points since he left. They had a pretty simply game-plan that meant Boyd didn't really have to make many decisions there but he was still throwing long balls regularly and his game required the skill of a play-maker; he probably had more try assists off the hand than anyone else in the team while he was there. I mean, it's not like you're going to tell me that they didn't need creative edge players because Soward and Hornby were creative geniuses in the halves...

I'll also add that if you got in a time machine and brought the Dragons of 2010 into today's game then their attack would be average at best. Modern defensive structures handle that play really well now, especially when it's a team's staple.

 

If you look at all the teams all the moment:

Souths - 3
Melbourne - 2
Easts - 4
Manly - 4 on the right, 3 on the left
Gold Coast - 4 on the right, 3 on the left
Cronulla - 4
Canterbury - 2
Canberra - 4 on the right, admittedly their left side is very Campese-reliant but Jazman will tell you they run 3

Newcastle - 3
Penrith - 3
Brisbane - 3
Warriors - 3
North Queensland - 3
St George - they don't do it but that's IMO why they suck donkey dick in attack
Wests - 4
Parra - 4 but they could easily move to 3 and do for periods at times

Given you didn't consider Boyd a creative fullback in 2010 then you probably have a different definition of it to me, however. I'd probably rephrase it and say "ball-playing fullback". With good structure and halves then the fullback doesn't have to actually "create" as much as he just needs to execute his long and short passing games. There's some decision-making required there, but it's not to the same level of the halves. For example I wouldn't really call Inglis a creator in the purest sense but when he gets the ball at second receiver he makes the right decisions and can execute his long and short passing games in both directions; that makes him a ball-player. The real old school fullbacks like Dugan, Hoffman, Minichiello, Fish etc don't really do that - or when they try they do it to a terrible standard - so you need the second rower to stand at second receiver for them instead so they can run off them. And when that happens, well you need the second rower to be the ball-player.

 

Be this as it may, I don't think it would work anymore. After St George won, we had the copy-St-George era of coaching for a year or two and modern defensive structures would really make that side struggle in attack, IMO. That's how the game evolves. Furthermore, if we're going to use this example, does it not debunk your theory of needing a ball-playing fullback when the halves aren't creative as well? Hornby was an organiser and Soward was a opportunist with a good kicking game; neither of them were creators.

St George won the comp primarily with their defence, as you said. They ran a very structured game-plan in attack and within that structure Darius Boyd was very much used as a ball-player. It's a role that I don't think Dugan could play. If we disagree fundamentally on that, then fair enough. We're no longer disagreeing on structure on just disagreeing on the skill set of one player.

 

Yeah. I suppose I'd probably come around to say that you need a ball-playing fullback unless your second rowers are ball-players, but that you don't need a creative fullback if both your halves are good creativity.

So isn't this fun. We've now created three different categories of fullbacks instead of the two we've been bickering about for two years. Hoorah

 

Way off topic now but I thought this was an interesting one; keen on KK's thoughts.

Now that I've thought about it, I'd probably say "2 on the left, 3 on the right". Smith and Hinchcliffe really do push Widdop wider on the left, but Cronk still plays first receiver on the right and links up with Slater. It's an interesting case study for our conversation really because I wouldn't even call Slater a ball-player but it still works because of the Cronk/Slater combination. Hell, there are even elements of #1 in that side, I reckon - Cronk pops up on the left all the time. Hmm.

 

Origin's a bit different anyway, but I actually agree that our left side in particular is going to be absolutely turd.

First receiver - Maloney
Second receiver - Dugan/Hoffman

Cool beans.

We're really going to need to take Queensland on through the middle. Creativity from Farah, centre-third ball-playing from Bird, offloads from Woods and Merrin. Our right side definitely looks potentially more creative on paper but Pearce and Lewis have both played a lot of Origins now for pretty much zero creativity so I'm not expecting a lot there either.

 

Both preferably

 

Haha dropping Maloney would be a massive selection process error but it would give us the best chance of winning, IMO. You could very easily justify moving Bird to the left edge though and I'm disappointed we haven't done that, especially with Hayne out.

The Dugan thing is interesting. It's the only sensible pick but it's obviously not one I'm rapped in. I would've considered non-sensible picks itbt. I don't expect to win in Queensland, it's a bonus shot at a series win, which would've affected my selection process somewhat (and probably shouldn't, really) but I would've entertained thoughts of playing Maloney or Carney at fullback, or bringing in Moylan. I'm only half joking when I keep suggesting Moylan.