Stuart Olding: 10 or 12

[breakdown]

Just thought it would be interesting to see where everyone thinks Oldings long term future lies.

Played 2 games at 10 and 2 games at 12 and he's scored twice in both games playing at 12, so for me he should keep at 12 and stay there, he seems much more of an attacking threat and looks like there is less pressure on him playing there.

However the problem with that is that gametime could be limited with Marshall and Farrell both coming through, likewise at 10 with Jackson and any potential signings that may come at 10

[ruckover]

Good question, although I refuse to vote as I believe he should be both. A player who will push for both positions.

Ideally I'd like to see him challenging PJ for the 10 shirt, but if Marshall got injured then he'd slot into 12. I see him having a future at either position.

[breakdown]

Both positions at the same time?

Only Brady can do that.....

[Hans Indaruck]

Stuart Olding = the new Paddy Wallace (but with more punch!)

[Indiana]

I would like to see a bit more of Olding's kicking game but at the minute he is impressing the hell out if me. We really could do with a top notch 10 to mentor the likes of Stu and PJ for a year or two I think that it is in decision making for the younger guys that we are at our weakest.

[Red]

I think if we're to progress then he should play the position that he wants to play and target displacing the incumbent from the starting squad. Currently that's Paddy Jackson.

It worried me that from a very early point Ulster, and I presume Ireland from Ulster's advice, put all their eggs in one basket with Jackson, much in the same way Fitzgerald was ordained as the next BOD. I really didn't see enough at the time to suggest that he was light years ahead of McKinney when he was coming through and yet there was all the talk that Jackson was the heir apparent to Sexton.
I'm not saying that Jackson isn't starting to look good, he does bring a lot to the table. His tackling is solid, he brings the line in fairly well, he tries to make a break or two himself, his kicking while erratic suggests there's potential for consistency.
But at what point do Ulster say, look he's good but is he good enough? How much time are we going to invest in him before that decision is made?

To run a hypothetical example, what if we invest another 2 years in Jackson and he turns out to be as good as say, Charlie Hodgeson or Duncan Weir, good player, an international, but frankly not world class. Is that good enough? With Ulster aiming for world domination, I don't see that being the required standard?

In the meantime as we're investing gametime in Jackson Olding will be benched when he needs playing now.
I appreciate that that might sound crazy, but at 19 it's clear that Olding is already Rabo standard, and if we wait another 2 years then that's a key phase of development lost. It's all when and good to say oh he'll still only be 21 in 2 years time, but that lost development might keep him from making the next number of key steps on the road to becoming a world class player.

I'm not saying the time has come yet to bin Jackson and start Olding, we're long off that, I just worry if Olding continues to progress and Jackson does not, Ulster won't have the guts to make that decision and instead Olding will be bounced around the backline as cover, much in the same way Paddy Wallace was, much to the detriment of his career.

The same is true if it turns out he wants to be a 12, however I don't believe that's the case, from what we've seen he appears to be a 10 who fills in at 12 rather than vice versa.

[Eggs]

I know it's been pointed out before, but there's a chap from the Southern Hemisphere who whilst a 10, played a fair bit at twelve in his earlier years learning the roles etc, goes by the name of Carter, seems a decent wee player!

There's a big difference between giving a future 10 time at 12, and trying to shoehorn a 12 into 10.

He is the one player who certainly shown that he is too good to be dropped when the injured/internationals are back. Bench cover for 10/12 means there should still be a place for him on the first team. And may not be bench for long!

[Setanta]

On what I've seen so far, wherever he wants!

[Snipe Watson]

The two best 10s of recent times, Wilkinson and Carter, both learned their trade at 12, where they get a bit more time and space.

[breakdown]

If he can score tries like he does at 12 then I would keep him there.

Either way Ulsters long term future looks very good, we have young, quality players all over the pitch, especially in the backs we have fantastic depth

[Snipe Watson]

Either way Ulsters long term future looks very good, we have young, quality players all over the pitch, especially in the backs we have fantastic depth

We don't have many forwards and we have potential rather than depth in the backs.

[Joe Schmo]

I haven't seen enough of him at 10 to decide, but I like the cut of his jib at 12. Runs the sort if lines you just can't teach. Played well last night too, nice to see our back line aren't afraid to get physical and put their bodies on the line. As I'm in a vote thread I'll vote both.

[Snipe Watson]

I thought he was MOTM last night. Created some good openings that were not taken up by others.

[ruckover]

Either way Ulsters long term future looks very good, we have young, quality players all over the pitch, especially in the backs we have fantastic depth

We don't have many forwards and we have potential rather than depth in the backs.

Forwards we have a real lack of decent young players coming through and that's very worrying. In the backs we have far too many.

[Dave]

He can also play fullback. Play him where he is needed. From what I have seen he can kick, he can break, he can step and has a good tackling technique. He has the attributes to play a variety of positions very well. I know people will use Paddy Wallace's career of an example of messing around with positions before evidentially finding his best one. I don't think you can apply that to everyone. Paddy himself wasn't ready to play his now preferred position well until his career when he bulked up a bit and learned to tackle. I think a lot of finding the best position for a player comes where they prefer playing themselves. Bit like Pienaar coming here as he wanted to be 9 whereas in SA he was seen as a 10. Think we all can see he best position he clearly 9, by a mile. Time will tell but he is still very young with a lot to learn about pro rugby.

Now who will start the thread on Brady's best position?