Positions

[TrueBlueWarrior]

The players Flash listed were all ‘Top End’ players in their original position, so for them to transition to another position is far easier! The quality they all had made them world class, it’s just easier for them!

The players that some on here are suggesting a change of position for are nowhere near ‘Top End’ in their preferred position that they have been playing for all their careers. So for them to transition to a new position would be far more difficult, however there would be exceptions to the rule but very few!

Comparing players like Hanley to Powell etc. Hanley could play anywhere and make a difference he was that good! Powell is very limited as a stand off originally and then as Hooker! He has already tried a new position and being honest is not good enough in either position! Because he just doesn’t have the ability!

That’s the difference! A change of position is far easier when you have more ability!

I deliberately chose players who had excelled in multiple positions internationally to show it's possible even at the highest level. I then said that superleague is several levels below this. If you want examples of players who have changed positions at SL level and who were good SL level players that list would be equally long:

Kallum Watkins - SL centre and back rower.
Johnny Lomax - SL fullback and Half (also played both at international level)
Beven French - SL wing and Fullback
Jack Welsby - SL fullback and stand off.
Sam Tomkins - SL fullback and stand off (also played internationally in both positions)
KPP - SL back rower and centre and last night's MOM.
George Williams - SL hooker and half
Arthur Morgue - SL stand off, scrum half and Fullback

I could go on as I've barely scratched the surface there. I could also show examples from recent history, such as Ben Westwood - SL centre and back rower or Trent Barrett - SL and NRL stand off and loose etc to illustrate how this has always been the case.

The bottom line is you don't have to be Ellery Hanley to prosper in multiple positions. It merely dictates which level you can do this at. At SL level, all of the above and many more beside, fulfil those multiple roles to a good standard.

Good examples but not the same as randomly plucking suggestions out of thin air in positions that are not transferable.

Well said, ‘the end’.

[nathan_rugby]

The whole intention of this thread was to relay the words that Tomkins said around positional changes to give some food for thought to those who suggest random changes.

Of course we see things like KPP or Smithies going to prop but that isn’t the same as Miski to Centre or French to Loose or King to second row.

[archiekeith]

Kallum Watkins - SL centre and back rower.
Johnny Lomax - SL fullback and Half (also played both at international level)
Beven French - SL wing and Fullback
Jack Welsby - SL fullback and stand off.
Sam Tomkins - SL fullback and stand off (also played internationally in both positions)
KPP - SL back rower and centre and last night's MOM.
George Williams - SL hooker and half
Arthur Morgue - SL stand off, scrum half and Fullback

Same comment applies to this list as that Flash ca e up with, I don’t know enough about the non Wigan players to comment but the rest are equally poor examples. How many games has Williams played at hooker? Is Sam Tomkins now not seen as a full back and no longer as a stand off? The worst one is KPP and suggesting his time at centre is evidence of anything given he was quickly found out by other teams and just wasn’t good at it is a real stretch.

As I said in my other reply, players often transition from one position to another as their career progresses and they get older but don’t often pop up all over the field. Wingers have even ended up as props before now but they don’t go back to playing on the wingmentioned returning to their previous position except you. Your comments are totally meaningless in the context of the.......,..,

can't agree that Dave's comments are meaningless otherwise you wouldn't be able to criticise them Now if you said his comments were invalid within the context of the dialogue I could agree but I agree withDave. Sounds paradoxical but it's not oh just thought Harvey Howard trialed at Wigan on the Wing and later was a successful prop forward in Australia

[Flash]

Every single player you have listed above Flash is an international player! The players suggested originally by our fans aren’t international level! My simple point is the better player you are the easier you find it to play multiple positions! The players some on here are asking to change positions struggle to perform consistently in a position they play in every week!

Actually, Beven French isn't an international player. Miski, on the other hand, is. So is Toby King. You're seeing what you want to see.

It's a truism to say that players with greater ability (and so more likely to gain international honours) would more likely be able to play to a higher standard and would therefore, by extension, be able to play multiple positions to that same higher standard. I'm not sure how that contradicts the statement that "it's not unusual for players to play more than one position to a high standard". Why should the better players be excluded from this statement? How is that even relevant?

To answer Nathan's point; I'm not suggesting Miski or King would transition into another position. I don't know. However, equally, you can't say they wouldn't. You don't know. Your reaction to ANY suggested positional change is to rule it out. Yet evidence clearly shows that it is often very successful. At the end of the day it is merely opinion on whether a given player would or wouldn't succeed until they are actually tried there and it is proven one way or the other.

I remember much opposition to Tomkins being moved from stand off as he had never played full back and was obviously a potential star at 6. Worked out ok though, didn't it?

[Flash]

Same comment applies to this list as that Flash ca e up with, I don’t know enough about the non Wigan players to comment but the rest are equally poor examples. How many games has Williams played at hooker? Is Sam Tomkins now not seen as a full back and no longer as a stand off? The worst one is KPP and suggesting his time at centre is evidence of anything given he was quickly found out by other teams and just wasn’t good at it is a real stretch.

As I said in my other reply, players often transition from one position to another as their career progresses and they get older but don’t often pop up all over the field. Wingers have even ended up as props before now but they don’t go back to playing on the wingmentioned returning to their previous position except you. Your comments are totally meaningless in the context of the.......,..,

can't agree that Dave's comments are meaningless otherwise you wouldn't be able to criticise them Now if you said his comments were invalid within the context of the dialogue I could agree but I agree withDave. Sounds paradoxical but it's not oh just thought Harvey Howard trialed at Wigan on the Wing and later was a successful prop forward in Australia

I actually said "they are meaningless in the context of this discussion “

Please stop trying to be pedantic. "Invalid" and "meaningless in the context of a discussion" are the same thing. The definition of invalid is below. Take note of definition b.

: not valid:
a
: being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law
an invalid assumption
declared the will invalid
b
: logically inconsequent

[archiekeith]

No They are not the same thing (synonymous) Meaningless refers to the unintelligible That's educational not pedantry mate

[Flash]

No They are not the same thing (synonymous) Meaningless refers to the unintelligible That's educational not pedantry mate

For God's sake mate, give it a rest. You're making a fool of yourself.

meaningless
/ˈmiːnɪŋlɪs/
adjective
having no meaning or significance.

With all due respect, English was my major at university. I don't need schooling by someone who can't even use punctuation or capital letters properly and clearly thinks he's more intelligent than he is.

[archiekeith]

No They are not the same thing (synonymous) Meaningless refers to the unintelligible That's educational not pedantry mate

For God's sake mate, give it a rest. You're making a fool of yourself.

meaningless
/ˈmiːnɪŋlɪs/
adjective
having no meaning or significance.

With all due respect, English was my major at university. I don't need schooling by someone who can't even use punctuation or capital letters properly and clearly thinks he's more intelligent than he is.

Well I failed my 11+. But it seems to me if somthing ihas no meaning or significance how can it be intelligable to anyone logically or illogically
It's empty of content. In my opinion. Perhaps I'm not all that intelligent But maybe you not either,who cares

[Flash]

No They are not the same thing (synonymous) Meaningless refers to the unintelligible That's educational not pedantry mate

For God's sake mate, give it a rest. You're making a fool of yourself.

meaningless
/ˈmiːnɪŋlɪs/
adjective
having no meaning or significance.

With all due respect, English was my major at university. I don't need schooling by someone who can't even use punctuation or capital letters properly and clearly thinks he's more intelligent than he is.

Well I failed my 11+. But it seems to me if somthing ihas no meaning or significance how can it be intelligable to anyone logically or illogically
It's empty of content. In my opinion. Perhaps I'm not all that intelligent But maybe you not either,who cares

I could answer that question by saying "clouds are made up mostly of water vapour". It's perfectly intelligible but it has no significance.

Now do you understand?

[archiekeith]

Yes it 's it's an example of predicate logic. The clouds(subject) the water vapour (predicate) The predicate tells one something about the subject. It's also a propersition,an assertion having a truth value true or false dare I ask is do you now understand I've said enough Don't want to make a fool of myself any further