Contract situation

[Neil F]

Sorry, Ruck. Will try to reign it in.

Ulster r brillll! SiD!!!! Humphreysdoakswimteam!

[ColinM]

it seems like an inefficient use of playing resources to have Payne at 13.

As an economist Neil I think you could argue that it is an inefficient use of resources to have Payne at 13.

Had we wanted a 13 we could have gone out an acquired a 13, not spent three years naturalising a 15 to then convert to 13.

Had Payne stayed at 15 we wouldn't have to allocate one of our quotient of NIQ players to another 15.

Would Payne go back to 15 we wouldn't have to splash big bucks and use our NIQ spot on a new 15.

[Cockatrice]

I'd say that's a probability if Payne stays, aye.

Maybe* I'm being a gurning fool, but in this turn of events I'd rather see us let Payne go and play our best 13 at 13 and one of our many 12s at 12.

* possibly probably.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it; Payne is Ulster's best 13.

His capacity at 13 is ignored because Ulster would have been a stronger outfit with him at 15 and Cave at 13 over the last season or so. I understand the frustration; for Ulster, it seems like an inefficient use of playing resources to have Payne at 13. There are valid arguments about where Payne should play. That he's an inferior 13 to Cave isn't one of them. That he might be a better 15 than 13 is a matter of opinion to most; that the gap between Cave and Payne at 13 is much smaller than the gap between Payne and Ludik at 15 isn't even debatable. None of them reflect, however, what Payne actually offers at 13.


Anyone advocating letting Payne leave is talking in absurdities unless it involves a first-choice IQ backrower coming the other way. In no other situation does the squad or the first XV get stronger for Payne leaving, given his likely station at 13. In reality, the problem with Payne is that UR failed to immediately replace him at 15 with someone of similar quality.

neil… on reflection what does Payne actually offer at 13 ?

[Russ]

it seems like an inefficient use of playing resources to have Payne at 13.

As an economist Neil I think you could argue that it is an inefficient use of resources to have Payne at 13.

Had we wanted a 13 we could have gone out an acquired a 13, not spent three years naturalising a 15 to then convert to 13.

Had Payne stayed at 15 we wouldn't have to allocate one of our quotient of NIQ players to another 15.

Would Payne go back to 15 we wouldn't have to splash big bucks and use our NIQ spot on a new 15.

David Hump is on record stating Payne was signed by the IRFU as a 13 replacement for BOD and we played him at 15 out of need

[Russ]

I'd say that's a probability if Payne stays, aye.

Maybe* I'm being a gurning fool, but in this turn of events I'd rather see us let Payne go and play our best 13 at 13 and one of our many 12s at 12.

* possibly probably.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it; Payne is Ulster's best 13.

His capacity at 13 is ignored because Ulster would have been a stronger outfit with him at 15 and Cave at 13 over the last season or so. I understand the frustration; for Ulster, it seems like an inefficient use of playing resources to have Payne at 13. There are valid arguments about where Payne should play. That he's an inferior 13 to Cave isn't one of them. That he might be a better 15 than 13 is a matter of opinion to most; that the gap between Cave and Payne at 13 is much smaller than the gap between Payne and Ludik at 15 isn't even debatable. None of them reflect, however, what Payne actually offers at 13.


Anyone advocating letting Payne leave is talking in absurdities unless it involves a first-choice IQ backrower coming the other way. In no other situation does the squad or the first XV get stronger for Payne leaving, given his likely station at 13. In reality, the problem with Payne is that UR failed to immediately replace him at 15 with someone of similar quality.

neil… on reflection what does Payne actually offer at 13 ?

He's pro12 standard

[Neil F]

Colin, although perhaps an unintended consequence, your post has the economist in me going into overdrive! I can see where you're coming from but I think there are a number of variables to consider; most importantly, that Payne is on a central contract, not an Ulster one. I don't pretend to know the intricacies of IRFU or UR budget lines but in effect, to me it implies that Ulster have Payne on a freebie. Given that his switch to 13 for Ulster coincided with the central contract kicking in, one could reasonably infer that the position and the contract are linked. So, the economist sees the trade off as one between one free 13 and a semi-expensive 15 in Ludik (and an expensive one from next season) or a semi-expensive to expensive 15 and nothing else. That's a decent trade-off to me.

I think you also assume that Ulster could have got as good, if not better, a project 15 than Payne for the (effectively) two years he played there (although whether Ulster would have got Terblanche or an equivalent for that first season without Payne already in harness is another matter). I'm not sure that is the case - Payne was superb at 15 for Ulster. I don't think the naturalisation of Payne was at all costly to Ulster. And I'm not sure we'd have had someone better for that period, even if the alternative would have stayed at 15.

Where I agree is with regard to the implications of Payne moving back to 15. I agree with you - but I think that is an inefficient use of playing resources, not of resources, especially under the assumption that Ulster would have to pay for Payne (or a Payne equivalent) at 15 as Payne or the equivalent wouldn't be a centrally contracted 15. Perhaps Ulster would do better with another NIQ in the forwards than one at 15, given the stock at centre, but I don't think such a move is as revenue neutral as you imply.

[Neil F]

neil… on reflection what does Payne actually offer at 13 ?

CT; in a direct call between Cave and Payne, it's fairly obvious that both have their limitations. That said, I'd say the easiest answer to that is that what he offers is revealed by his absence. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of Earls' selection at 13 against Argentina, what Payne offers shone brightly in his absence. Cave's international performances, by contrast, are a mixed bag as I've discussed elsewhere on this forum. How noticeable these margins are at province / club level is perhaps a more relevant debate but I don't think it implies that Cave is a better 13 at that level because the limitations in his game don't show up as much as they do on the international stage.

[ColinM]

Colin, although perhaps an unintended consequence, your post has the economist in me going into overdrive! I can see where you're coming from but I think there are a number of variables to consider; most importantly, that Payne is on a central contract, not an Ulster one. I don't pretend to know the intricacies of IRFU or UR budget lines but in effect, to me it implies that Ulster have Payne on a freebie. Given that his switch to 13 for Ulster coincided with the central contract kicking in, one could reasonably infer that the position and the contract are linked. So, the economist sees the trade off as one between one free 13 and a semi-expensive 15 in Ludik (and an expensive one from next season) or a semi-expensive to expensive 15 and nothing else. That's a decent trade-off to me.

I think you also assume that Ulster could have got as good, if not better, a project 15 than Payne for the (effectively) two years he played there (although whether Ulster would have got Terblanche or an equivalent for that first season without Payne already in harness is another matter). I'm not sure that is the case - Payne was superb at 15 for Ulster. I don't think the naturalisation of Payne was at all costly to Ulster. And I'm not sure we'd have had someone better for that period, even if the alternative would have stayed at 15.

Where I agree is with regard to the implications of Payne moving back to 15. I agree with you - but I think that is an inefficient use of playing resources, not of resources, especially under the assumption that Ulster would have to pay for Payne (or a Payne equivalent) at 15 as Payne or the equivalent wouldn't be a centrally contracted 15. Perhaps Ulster would do better with another NIQ in the forwards than one at 15, given the stock at centre, but I don't think such a move is as revenue neutral as you imply.

IIRC players on CC's aren't freebies, they are subsidised to reflect their unavailability due to Ireland training and matches, and enforced resting periods.

[ColinM]

it seems like an inefficient use of playing resources to have Payne at 13.

As an economist Neil I think you could argue that it is an inefficient use of resources to have Payne at 13.

Had we wanted a 13 we could have gone out an acquired a 13, not spent three years naturalising a 15 to then convert to 13.

Had Payne stayed at 15 we wouldn't have to allocate one of our quotient of NIQ players to another 15.

Would Payne go back to 15 we wouldn't have to splash big bucks and use our NIQ spot on a new 15.

David Hump is on record stating Payne was signed by the IRFU as a 13 replacement for BOD and we played him at 15 out of need

Well only a feckin numpty would sign a 13 when he needs a 15

[Russ]

it seems like an inefficient use of playing resources to have Payne at 13.

As an economist Neil I think you could argue that it is an inefficient use of resources to have Payne at 13.

Had we wanted a 13 we could have gone out an acquired a 13, not spent three years naturalising a 15 to then convert to 13.

Had Payne stayed at 15 we wouldn't have to allocate one of our quotient of NIQ players to another 15.

Would Payne go back to 15 we wouldn't have to splash big bucks and use our NIQ spot on a new 15.

David Hump is on record stating Payne was signed by the IRFU as a 13 replacement for BOD and we played him at 15 out of need

Well only a feckin numpty would sign a 13 when he needs a 15

I think we're all in agreement that the IRFU are numpties

[rocky]

Our best combination would be Payne at 15, Pietau and Gilroy on the wings, and Cave at 13. If they can get back to full fitness again, Bowe and Trimble also come into the mix and would compete for wing places. A three quarters of Payne, Pietau, Cave, Mccluskey, Trimble would be sensational.

[222toHounslow]

Spellcheck optional.

[rumncoke]

When signed by Ulster had a number of Pro 12 standard backs but no top class internationals and lacked a full back .

It is also worth remembering that most were inexperienced Marshall IH Spence and Cave with Gilroy on the wing


Payne was seen by D4 as a replacement for BoD but he required 3 years residency to qualify .

Playing fullback Payne could direct the back three and break into the line

Russ that Payne kicks more often than any other 13 is A myth but since when has that stopped anybody repeating rubbish .

For my money I consider Payne is possibly a yard faster than Cave over 15 to 20 yards over the length of the pitch less .

Although I have seen Cave exert himself on occasion but he usually avoids have to use his pace by positioning himself properly in defence something Earls will never master
.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

[ruckover]

- Ian Humphreys - Adiós
- Sam Windsor - Adiós

I've just noticed this. I know neither are overly great, but without them don't you think we're going to be a tiny bit short of fly-half cover?

[Nightsoil]

- Ian Humphreys - Adiós
- Sam Windsor - Adiós

I've just noticed this. I know neither are overly great, but without them don't you think we're going to be a tiny bit short of fly-half cover?

If Nelson could goal-kick, I think I'd take him before either as FH cover - and development issues aside, the same goes for Olding. Should probably wait to see Windsor on the big stage before announcing judgement but based on what people have said to date, I don't think I'm missing much.

Neil F - Might be you're right.

I haven't seen it though. It's a fair point that Payne at 15 offers more to the OC in attack than Ludik, and Ireland's defensive system looked exposed without Payne at 13. I'd agree that Cave at international level has looked a little exposed in a way Payne hasn't. It would be pretty weird if Cave was genuinely Ulster's best 13 but Payne genuinely Ireland's best 13, I agree - but that is what I'm seeing. I think our defence has looked better with Cave at 13 (for all Ireland's has looked better with Payne) and I think he's offered more in attack than Payne too, who may be stronger and a better passer but just doesn't seem to be finding the gaps and chances to put people away that Cave has - even without Payne at 15. Maybe my memory and eyes are deceiving me - wouldn't be the first time - but that is what I've seen.

The only rational explanation I have for this is comfort and familiarity. Cave knows the Ulster set-up in and out, has nothing to prove and knows what to expect from those around him. When he goes up to international level, that changes and he makes mistakes as a result - I think this summer has showed that with increasing comfort at international level, he offers more and more there. Payne has walked straight into the international set-up and felt happy with the demands of the level of rugby - but I don't think he's comfortable with playing outside-centre in attack with the paucity of time he gets up north, not yet. We've seen that in both an Ireland and Ulster jersey, but I think it's more exaggerated for Ulster due to the conservative nature of Schmidt's Ireland and the comparison with Cave. I might be talking utter shat here, but that's what makes sense to me given what I'm seeing.

Maybe Payne will return and show us the full range of what he can do and all will be well - but I think I'd put more money on Cave finally completing the step up to international rugby. I don't think Payne's ever going to adapt to having that little time and space, not after a career mostly spent in Super Rugby and at full-back and when he'll be near 31 before he probably steps on a rugby pitch again.

If we could somehow broker the first player exchange in Ireland and get something for him - even better. But I wouldn't expect that and I'd let him go anyway. Doubt Les Kiss will agree with me mind.