JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 4:56 pmI don't know what I'm expected to learn beyond he tore it up amongst literal children but sure, I'll take a look. Surely we've both seen enough evidence of players who succeed in the backs at that age due to overwhelmingly superior physicality who are found out in senior rugby?Kawazaki wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 4:30 pmJM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 3:53 pm
So none?
It literally does not matter what he was like at that age. Kids good enough to go on to be professional sportsmen are likely to dominate in any position, and often get put in the backs as a result with great success. It doesn't mean it was a bad idea for him to switch. He might well have ended up a dogshit 12 - we have no way to tell. I very much doubt Sinckler would be starting for England as a 10 or 15 if he hadn't moved...
There are loads of very very good backs playing rugby who are eligible for England. There are not many who can carry the ball up like Barbeary. To be honest, I thought you were more enlightened than the typical morons you get in junior rugby who think, 'he's a big lump, lets chuck him in the front-row'.
p.s educate yourself and watch those videos.
Like, I don't know the reasons for his move, just like I don't know the reasons for Sinckler's move. Maybe it was just "stick the big kid in the pack". Maybe it was more "your passing and general handling are shit, you have very little vision, but you've enormous potential on the carry and a big engine - you should consider being a forward". Tom Youngs was an England U20s centre and ended up a front row - and frankly having seen him in the U20s it was pretty obviously the right call, despite his 'success' at age grade level.
Those 'literal' children were called his peers.