100% Agreed.

Why? He is a prop!

I know. Whatever next? Houghton at hooker?

I'm not convinced. He looks more of a stand off to me.

I got called fifteen sorts of ballbag in an old thread for having the cheek to say I preferred a safe fullback in preference to a liabilit..., sorry, maverick like Tansey. So much for respecting other people's opinions.

I fully understand the pro Tansey viewpoints however. The trade off for having a mercurial player like him at fullback will be the inevitable head spins and seemingly silly errors (easy for us to cast aspertions with not having to do the biz on the pitch). When the balance slips towards the negative aspects of his play, then we'll have a problem. His orthodox FB play will improve the longer he plays there and whatever coaching he's getting. His other stuff is pure instinct.

I think he'd be a bloody handful for the opposition at stand off !

Why? He plays as a prop anyway, if we want to challenge the top sides next year, we need a more expansive loose man, and still need a place in the side for Fitz, and the second rowers are pretty settled.

No you don't.

The way we play isn't going to break us into the top 2 IMO. We haven't scored more than 50 all season, with an extra ball handler in the side adding creativity should allow us to do this.

Having a settled half back partnership would be a better idea.

Not having 4 ball handlers on the pitch.

It would, but with Horne and Long's injury records that is unlikely. With the size of our likely pack, another pair of hands will allow us to get better service to the wings, and allow us to change the focus of the attack.

I fully agree.

Mainly as i wouldnt class Horne as a ball handler anyway at 6. He's very much a running attacking option with a decent short kicking game.