Don't Fence Him In: Inglis Needs Room To Move So He Can Showcase Full Potential
Newcastle Herald
Friday April 13, 2007
THE Melbourne Storm's Greg Inglis may eventually be a wonderful five-eighth for his club, but his size, athleticism, ball skills and gazelle-like pace stamp him with the potential to be one of the greatest fullbacks Australia has produced.
Darren Lockyer was certainly one of those great fullbacks, but to satisfy other needs he was moved from No.1 to No.6. For a while it seemed he had sacrificed a great fullback career. It took him time to develop into the class five-eighth we now see.Likewise, Inglis is too good a footballer not to succeed at pivot, but to what degree? The position does not offer any wide open spaces for his expansive, striding style, which was showcased in last year's Tri-Nations game in Melbourne when Lockyer unleashed him down the left wing.However, it is easy to understand why Storm coach Craig Bellamy plays Billy Slater at fullback, not Greg Inglis. Slater is not a great defender and would be a juicy target in the front line, so it is Inglis who has to make the accommodation to suit the team's needs.But what Slater lacks in defence, he more than makes up for when the Storm forwards are rolling upfield in attack. The way he finds holes in defences, freelancing from the back, is quite spectacular.Whether it is linking with outside backs to create an edge overlap, patrolling at the back of the ruck for an off-load or taking the last pass in a set move designed to drive a pathway through the ruck, Slater has instincts for daylight and the acceleration to make him lethal.Matt Bowen's brilliant early form this season has also put the acid on the Australian selectors to such a degree that their loyalty to incumbent Karmichael Hunt will be under intense pressure.The little Cowboy's attacking genius behind an unbeaten team, his improved defence, his understanding with Australian No.7 Johnathan Thurston and his freakish ability to be a matchwinner when all looks lost, is crying out for recognition.Previously there was a resistance to pick Bowen by one influential selector because of perceived defensive limitations and vulnerability under bombs.My question, though, is where do the selectors see the future of Inglis in the Australian team? Temporary wing selection was at least recognition of this special player and would have been gratefully received by Inglis. It was a breakthrough at an early age into a green-and-gold jumper. But how long will they leave him out there, tiptoeing up and down the sideline?Selectors play the incumbent card like Mississippi gamblers when they're cornered or asked to get on the front foot. Bronco Hunt, like the team in front of him, hasn't set the world on fire this year.Rooster Anthony Minichiello was the incumbent before Hunt, but his team hasn't won a game at all, and he isn't as good as he was. Well, not yet anyway.You know all the things they say about committees? One is that it's a great place to give a good idea a quiet burial. Will they "committee" their way around this chance to create another Graeme Langlands?My guess is that the committee result will be the incumbent Hunt at fullback, the recognition of a super talent in Inglis, who is good enough to play anywhere, stuck on the wing, and the little Cowboy brilliantly selected as the matchwinning bench utility.Meanwhile, the parents of the following fullbacks owe their sons an apology for bad timing. Billy Slater, Rhys Wesser, Brett Stewart, Luke Patten, Brett Hodgson, Kurt Gidley, Preston Campbell, etc. ? Now a beef about referees not being allowed to exercise some discretion I'll stop short of calling it common sense with regard to a player in front of his kicker and inside 10 metres from a defender fielding a kick. At present, the refs and the guys upstairs make a penalty against the attacking team automatic, even if an offside attacking player inside the 10 metres threatens nobody or takes no part in the play whatsoever.This black-and-white ruling is said to remove the responsibility on the officials to decide whether the defender was distracted or disturbed in any way by an offside opponent inside the 10 metres.Two weeks ago, Billy Slater raced through the Warriors ruck to field his halfback's chip-kick on the full. He scored a slashing try, but it was disallowed upstairs.Why? Storm lock Dallas Johnson was standing within 10 metres of Slater's catch. Johnson was offside but could not have upset anybody because there was no Warriors player there to be upset. Slater caught it unopposed.Consider this. A man playing the ball right at the try line and his dummy-half are both technically offside if the first receiver chips over their heads a couple of metres into the in-goal and outjumps the fullback to score.Black and white says "no try". But common sense says "try". This black-and-white rule needs the colour of some opinion. Let's take the odds on the quality of the opinion.
© 2007 Newcastle Herald