Our 9s kick way more than our 10s do. So much so that I'm starting to wonder if our 10 needs to be able to kick well, or even at all. Andre Esterhuizen may as well have been the Bulls 10 yesterday.
Occasionally you see the cross field kick come into play...at an extremely low success rate. Very occasionally you find the 10 kicking a high bomb. And then that's about it. I mean, what's the point? One may as well have a 10 that is more of a centre and much more athletic, and you can job out the restarts and place kicking to anybody else that is able to do it. I mean, what's the difference between the 9 kicking an up and under the 10 doing it - apparently zero, because the 9s kick 90% of the kicks a team is gonna kick.
Looking at the Bulls game last night, Pollard got hardly any ball. Granted he had a shyte game anyway, but how are 10s supposed to influence games when the 9 is doing most of what the 10 is mean to do?
And that's another issue I have with this box kicking idiocy. The 10 has time and the angle to see what's happening. He also has time to communicate with those round him. Perhaps he doesn't have all the information but he has more than the 9 has because the 9 is constantly busy and barely gets a moment to look up. So you get the robotic box kicking that isn't really taking the situation on the field into account and instead attempts to play rugby via automation.
It's worth adding that a 9's work rate is way higher than a 10s and thus, by default, is likely to produce more errors than a 10, due to being fatigued.
Meanwhile the 10 is there to take restarts and kick at poles.
Just more ramblings