O'Connor no Wallabies 10 yet: Mortlock

Agreed, hasn't come on, hesitant and gets nailed caught in two mind too often.

Melon, I don't disagree with you, but to horan it was natural, O'Connor has to "learn" it. I beleive he is an extremely talented player, but after intially thinking he should be the Wallaby 10, I have since realised he isn't a natural 10.

Not saying he's better than Horan just that he has similar attributes.

Not "probably" - he IS the best Jiggles. :) Biltong I think JOC doesn't have too bad a vision actually - it's just that he often lacks the tools necessary to deliver from the 10 spot. Cooper will see an opportunity out wide and exploit this with a long cut-out pass - he has that long pass in his arsenal. Or he has seen his winger on the opposite side of the field unmarked and been able to put a perfectly weighted kick across field to him. I don't think JOC can do either of those things - he might SEE the opportunity but he can't exploit it. On the other hand I've seen JOC execute some beautiful SHORT passes to put guys through gaps. And to fake and step and put himself through a gap. And to offload nicely. He has the vision to see those opportunities and those tools to exploit them. I remember Tim Horan doing very similar things. Beale I think is quite similar too. I think his little kicks and short passing game are much better suited to a 12.

in my vocab, Horan, Giteau, Barnes, Fofana, mermoz, Carter, Mehrtens, Guscott, and yes JOC, would be 'old school' inside centres (elusive, quick, good pass, creative blabla). well 2nd 5/8. Nonu, SBW, Umaga, Davies etc are the newish trend for me; straight runners, 100kgs, more one dimensional in a way, although a guy like sbw adds something to the role in my book.

But then Horan's vision wnet further than his nose, his awareness of his support runners and the lines they were running was second to none. Not something you can say about O'Connor. O'Connor is an individualist, the things that makes him great has little to do with support runners and awareness to put them into space on a regular basis, he might be able to complete rehearsed moves, but instinctively he isn't anywhere near Horan.

I'm confused WNM. I didn't say that being a crash-baller meant not being smart or skillful. If I did then I chose my words incorrectly. It's the product of several arguments with several people who maintain that a 12 needs to be more or a 10 than a 13. I've always thought, since my own playing days (and I didn't play much to be truthful) that a 12 needs to be more like a 13. I didn't watch a lot of rugby in the 1990s and early 2000s because it disappeared from FTA television so I always assumed my opinion had been stagnant and ill-informed for the lack of currency hence my use of the word "old-school". The idea that a 12 needs to be playmaker, to me remains foreign. I believe that the primary role of a 12 should be advancing the ball with powerful carrying. If they can play a distributive role beyond that, its a bonus. You raise a good point. If he's good enough for Mortlock, then he should be good enough for me as a 12 but I just remain unconvinced. For the record, yes, Tim Horan fits my definition of what I believe a 12 should be. If I'm wrong its because I didn't get to see him play much after the ABC lost the rights to rugby and Channel 7 put it on delay after repeats of 'The Sound of Music"

Completely agree WNM. These poweful, straight running 12 are fairly new in world rugby and many countries or teams still prefer running, creative 12. The Nonu, Steyn (franz), de Villiers, Umaga or now welshman J. Davies are a new trend, would say 12-15 years max. The' old schoold' approach as Sam calls it, is precisely NOT this one. Maybe just got confused in his explanation.

Horan is probably the best 12 ever to play the game and he is remarkably similar to O'Connor in size and the attributes they display. JoC just needs a season or two where he isn't shifted every game, because I wouldn't pick him at 12 until he has played a lot of SR there.

How you describe your view that a 12 should be a crash baller as "old school" is beyond me. In a 2011 rugbyheaven poll of the best inside centre since 1987, these names were thown up: - Tim Horan - Rod Kafer - Pat Howard - Matt Giteau - Brett Papworth Which of those are your "crash ballers"? Don't say that's what Horan was. They are all smart, smallish, quick(ish), skillful players. Go back even further and you will find less and less crash-ballers and more and more of the smart, 2nd playmaker style player. And that's not just in Australia. Don't let the recent Nonu and maybe Umaga cloud your memory of the All Blacks inside center position. There's no co-incidence they usually call that spot the '2nd five eighths'. Mark Ella, Tom Horan and Stirling Mortlock have all gone on record saying 12 is JOCs best spot. Don't worry about my opinion but if you don't trust the opinion of those three guys then who can you trust?

I know, I know. Grab Ulugia back, Saliva Saliva too. I think there are a few more local lads running around. The VICs have constantly produced for S15 sides...

J2 Throw in Digby, that's nearly half the Aus backline being Victorian, if they are all on at the same time :). If only the other states could grow their own ;)

Dont get me wrong I am not a fan of the 2nd 5 option either. I think AUS rugby has been best with a running 12 who can distribute when required but first and foremost take a gap and hit the ad line hard. Mitchell is gutsy but lacks in plenty of areas IMO so we will agree to disagree :) Agree about Hilgendorf too. We could use him right now. Id have JOC at 12. What has HIll got to lose? Lets see once and for all if JOC can cut the mustard in the midfield. He needs to get the ball more often but if not at 10 or 12 then yes he is a better wing than 15. Woodward is going to be a good player for sure. Has some size pace and skill (not to mention attitude at a guess)

It depends on perspective. I prefer an old school style of rugby, where the 12 is an impact player, who either breaks the line with the ball-carry, produce a crash-ball effect with a good off-load or carries the ball for the next phase play.That way, you have a full bank of loosies for the clear-out and pick and drive, and the halves don't get tangled up in the mass of bodies at the break-down. Lachlan Mitchell is as tough as old boots, with plenty of starch about him. Mitch Inman's even bigger. The capitulation to the Sharks three weeks ago I put down to Inman playing out of position in 12 and Mitchell on a wing. As soon as Hill undid that combination the whole damn thing fell apart . If the Rebels want to play JOC as a playmaker, stick him on a wing outside Mitch Inman to start with, and let him driift forward as the game progresses. I think the Rebels back line would do fine if it looked like this: 11. Vuna 12. Mitchell 13. Inman 14. O'Connor 15. Woodward. I personally think it was a mistake letting Hilgendorf go, he was the most reliable 10 the Rebels had.

Shipperley is not ready. He stands still with ball in hand to think before moving. Just not ready.

Sidey was 1st man and then he passed to JOC to Kingi... Lachie Mitchell? Not for me... :( 12 is a spot we are in trouble with big time at the rebels...

That fact clearly escaped me! Either way, if he wants to be a playmaker in a playmaker's role he needs to do that far more often. As a side note, a 12 should be a wrecking ball not a playmaker. I watched the game v the Kings and saw the Rebels split their centres for the first time ever. Haven't heard or seen of it happening in 20 years. If they're not going to do that, its pointless having a playmaker (2nd 5/8th as the NZers call them). Lachie Mitchell as a 12 works just fine for me.

Very good Sam but one point. JOC actually played at 2nd receiver for the Kingi try ;)

It takes more than a side-step and a cut-out pass to be a flyhalf. It takes more than running to the advantage line and throwing the ball. A quality number 10 knows how to pick and option and put a player through a gap. A quality 10 knows how to create a gap. JOC has done that only twice that I can remember. He put Richard Kingi through a gap against the Force two weeks ago, and did the same thing for Lachie Mitchell in the Round 1 opener. He needs to be able to do that week in, week out. It's not about beating your opponent cold, which is what he tries to do. As a 10 he needs to make TIME and SPACE for those players outside him. JOC a finisher, not a playmaker.

Stirling Mortlock may be correct, but we have only seen a couple of games with James O'Connor playing at 10; it is too early to write O'Connor off yet. One can only hope Damien Hill continues to play O'Connor at 10. I think we all agree James O'Connor is a very exciting player with plenty of X factor. The more he touches the ball the more something is going to happen. If O'Connor was receiving the same quality of ball as the other contenders for 10, then I would think it a fair competition, but he isn't. If O'Connor can make his back line look good over the next six weeks, with all the disadvantages he has to deal with, then he should become the Wallaby No.10. If he doesn't make any progress in the next six weeks, then he should move to 12. It is too early to call and hopefully the ARU has been in Damien Hill's ear so he understands the importance to Australian rugby of this experiment.