Patch Experiment Destined to Fail
Rhys Patchell
By Andrew Collins
September 26 2014
Trying to swap players’ positions has become a trademark of Welsh rugby in recent years, but how often does it really work?
James Hook has arguably been the biggest casualty of these sorts of ‘experiments’. The quiet, reserved Ospreys stand-off appeared to be the next big thing in Welsh rugby. Having set the Liberty Stadium alight with the sort of intelligent, unpredictable and exciting outside half play we now associate with some of the world’s finest 10s, he was almost polar opposite to the then Wales incumbent, Stephen Jones.
Hook was the young up-and-comer that would pull Wales into the world’s elite. It was decided that while Stephen Jones was the man to keep hold of the 10 shirt, Hooky’s talents were too good to leave out of the squad and thus planned to accommodate him in some other position.
12. 13. 15. Hook was tried in all three positions. When he eventually got his chance to run out at outside half, there were mistakes, poor game management and costly errors. Ultimately, he became a ‘utility back’ – one of my least favourite phrases in rugby. A jack of all trades, expert of none.
Rather than nurture his talent, allowing him time to mature into the complete player he could have been, we rushed and hurried him into a position he was unfamiliar with, unconfident in and ultimately inexperience at. His once exceptionally bright future soured somewhat, and though he has accumulated a very respectable amount of caps, he has never cemented his position in the Welsh squad, with many of his appearances coming from the bench.
Even his club career stuttered. Disillusioned by being played out of position, he moved to France. Mixed reviews came back about Hook’s performances, so it’s impossible to know for sure how Hook’s career would have turned out had he persevered at 10 and played understudy to Jones. Perhaps he would never have made it. Perhaps he would have been Wales’ first choice for the past 7-8 years.
Hook is just one example of player switches that have gone wrong. There are others. True, there are some that have worked out – Jamie Roberts’ move from full back to centre seems to have been an inspired switch – and others which we’ll never know – I’m a huge admirer of Leigh Halfpenny, but he was absolutely lethal on the wing for the Blues before his switch to full back, who knows how his career would’ve developed had he blossomed there.
James Hook was messed around and is now wales 3rd choice fly half. Rhys Priestland was regularly used at 10 and 15 and now finds himself starting neither position for Wales. Gatland’s current first choice is Dan Biggar who was allowed to persevere in one position and bring that momentum to international rugby.
Looking more specifically at Patchell, I find it absolutely infuriating that Hammett has moved our star performer from the first two rounds of the RaboDirect out of position to full back, promoting Gareth Davies in his place.
It’s wrong on so many levels.
Patch missed large parts of last season with injury, and though he always performed superbly he was unable to get a good run of games under his belt. This year he’s managed to get a full pre-season in and has the opportunity to stake his claim for Wales’ Autumn Internationals and before the arrival of Gareth Anscombe.
So why, oh why, are we now messing him around after 2 excellent appearances in the opening two matches? If Anscombe were already here, and we wanted to give him an opportunity to stake his own claim, it would be more understandable. But, with the greatest respect to our Toulon-killing hero last year, Davies is not in Patchell’s league. When Anscombe arrives, he will be our 3rd choice 10. He is a good covering squad player who I’m glad we kept hold of, but we know what he offers us. He spent most of last season starting at 10, and nothing new can really be gained by picking him against Ulster and Leinster away.
I know Hammett has only just arrived and has a long term plan, but you have to question what on earth he’s doing with his squad at the moment.
Personally, I don’t like Patch at full back. He can cover there, undoubtedly, but he lacks the counter attacking prowess of say Ben Blair, a player I rate as one of the very best I’ve ever seen in that position.
But far more importantly, we are losing his exceptional talent at 10. So here is my message to Hammett/Gatland: Stop messing Patch around. He is a young man of real potential and talent who needs time and experience to hone his game. He needs the consistency of regular game time in one positon to learn his own game. If he’s not ready for Wales duty yet, don’t panic. He will be.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
This is a long haul flight that we are on not short term fixes the worst thing thta could have happened is we beat either Glasgow or Ulster. Patch to be a 10 needs to start controlling the game like a 10 (see Dan Bigger). for me he will end up at 12 in the long run.
Something Anscombe does and you see from the tries he scores is takes the ball deep but runs onto a pass at full tilt something Evans and hewitt wont be able to cope with, patch how ever would
In your article you name Steven Jones, who played 12 on more than a few occasions and as you mentioned Pristland can play 15 as well. Jonny Wilkinson won his first England cap at 13. Madigan plays 12 and 10 for Leinster, Barkley 12 and 10, Quade Cooper 12 and 10, Dan Carter 12 and 10, Neil Jenkins 10 and 15.
And these are only people I can think of off the top of my head.
Oh and don't forget Anscombe who is a 10/15.
I, as well as many people on different forums, would like to see Patch get a run at 12. Personally I don't see him at fly half, I see him more as a second receiver/second playmaker.
I think Patchell could well be a 10 or 12 I'd like him to have the challenge from Anscombe instead it looks like Team Wales is dictating our selection policy in respect of Patchell because of Anscombe.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:09:26:14:54:45 by ATTR.
Hook was shunted before he had established him self as a 10. Exactly the same as they are doing to Patchell. Hook, partly due to his 7s upbringing and partly due to his being shunted around, now almost certainly never will.
As to him playing full back in the last few games, I think the question the selectors are asking are; is Gareth Davies a better option than Fish or Aled Thomas at full back.
Quote:Beard from Tad Cymru
You're probably right, but only if you believe that he's future is at 10. If you have doubts (like myself) this is the best time to move him around to see where his best position is, or where the Blues see his long term future.
I've seen nothing to suggest Patchell is not a 10. He seems to have all the required skills. What suggest to you that his future, other than Political expediency, lies elsewhere?
Quote:Beard from Tad Cymru
As to him playing full back in the last few games, I think the question the selectors are asking are; is Gareth Davies a better option than Fish or Aled Thomas at full back.
Sorry I don't understand this bit. How does playing Patch at 15 and Gareth Davies at 10 ask the question: "Is Gareth Davies a better option than Fish or Aled Thomas at full back?"
Surely playing GD, DF and AT at 15 would answer that one.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:09:26:15:48:41 by ATTR.
So if you think that GD is a better player than DF or AST then it'll be better for the team to move Patch.
And at Patch at 10 I have a very strong perception that after first phase ball (If he hasn't kicked it away or has run the ball himself) he hardly ever stands at first receiver at subsequent phases. Also when looking where he makes his best plays he seems to do this from second receiver.
I thought he looked much more of an attacking threat last week when running onto the ball from deep.
But as with these sorts of things it's very subjective.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:09:29:15:22:21 by Rayerker.
I can see Patchell being back at 10 for Connacht, Hammett has had a look at him at full back (and Davies at 10) but with two away games which we can win and before we start our European adventure we need our best 10 playing 10.
As for our S/halves we have 2 wales internationals who have completely lost it and another s/h who is not up to this level but is currently our best option, we desperately need to sign someone!!
The back three are pretty interchangeable these days.
Admin of theArmsPark.co.uk,
Make Noise and You Will Be Heard!
Quote:ATTR
I think most of those were already established as 10s The moves were expedient at a time and place in their careers. Jenkins in South Africa for example.
Hook was shunted before he had established him self as a 10. Exactly the same as they are doing to Patchell. Hook, partly due to his 7s upbringing and partly due to his being shunted around, now almost certainly never will.
Having watched both players you mention on a semi regular basis as youngsters (U16s, U18s) right up to the present day, Hook when played at 10 always struggled to 'control the game', even at U16 level in a team he was clearly two or three classes above, it would still be evident that he struggled with certain aspects of playing 10, Patch has never had this issue. The big issue for me is Team Wales once again dictating where players are being played at the regions. Its Jamie Roberts all over again...
I find it frustrating that Hooks struggles at 10 are constantly blamed on the shunting round of positions, i just don't buy this argument. As i said he has always struggled to add this control element to the undoubted flair he brings to the game. Some players, with persistence learn it (eg Steven Jones coming back from France a vastly improved player), but frankly Hook never has and despite the shunting of positions he HAS had a fair go at 10 at every club he has been at. The Ospreys eventually replaced him with Biggar, Perpingan eventually replaced him and moved him to fullback and already the English have spotted the large flaws in his game at 10 and Gloucester are having to defend the decision to sign him and play him as a 10.
Quote:ATTR
So why mess him around?
The cynic in me says it is as simple as Anscombe has been signed to play 10, if Patch has a fantastic run at 10 its going to be difficult to justify Anscombes Duel Contract and automatic starting berth at 10 when he arrives..
What should have happened with hook, instead of going off on 7s jollies, is that he should have been taken aside to work on the bread and butter aspect of his game. IF that failed he should have been told that there was no future for him as a 10 and he had to choose to move to another position leave the game. Sadly Hook still thinks he's a 10 and I doubt he ever will be a top level 10.
I remain to be convinced as to Patchell's long-term suitabity to 10 So the jury's still out for me there. Maybe 12 will end up being a better bet. He's hardly set the backline alight at 10, but on the other hand look what he's been working with. That said, I've always been a fan of having a 'second five' to assist in distribution, as an additional kicker, etc. a la Henson 2005 & 2008, and I think Patch could do this well, though he lacks the physicality of a Henson or (obviously) Roberts.
It would be great to see him involved with Wales in November, and in at least one of the big games at 10. Playing with Jonathan Davies and co should bring more out of him. That said, Wales of late have been rather stilted so maybe he wouldn't be able to prove much anyway.
I'm still healthily sceptical about Anscombe, having been here more than once before. I can see why Gatland wants him: a year out from the RWC we're hardly blessed with qulity 10s. Biggar looks like the best bet at the moment but he never gets a run as he's not big or fast enough for Gatland and has no X factor. As for the others, well years ago Hook was being mucked around by the Ospreys and long before Gatland shifted him from 10. I think he should have been given more time before being labelled 'utility'. Either way he's damaged goods, and Priestland has suffered, not for playing 15 but being mentally too weak to play 10 at top level, and frankly I'm amazed they've persisted with him for so long. So having Anscomble involved (even if it ends up only making the others move up a notch) could be no bad thing.