Have any of the people annointing CLL as a solution to our problems at 10 been watching him for Ulster? He still looks like a 12/15 playing 10, which he always has. His kicking out of hand isn't any better than Foley's for the most part and he has the same distance issues. Although he's still a better defender even after coming back from beating cancer.
I think he's way more of a like-for-like backup for Foley than he is a solution to the shortcomings people have been talking about at 10 for the last few years. He's another run-first player that looks the best with ball in hand and doesn't look nearly as potent when he has to switch to a territory game (and also sometimes doesn't make the read that they need to switch to a territory game quickly enough).
On the bright side he will be a fantastic addition to the squad overall, I think. At least it will alleviate the stress of having nobody else in the squad with significant time at 10. He will be a perfect mentor for Duncan, who is basically a younger CLL.
It's so frustrating watching our 10's struggle with the territory side of the game and how much this gets exaggerated playing in poor conditions in NZ or up north. There's no question in my mind that our recent crop of 10's has been in an entirely different tier of athleticism than their NH counterparts - there's just no comparison to be made between guys like Foley/CLL/(pre-injuries)Cooper and Farrell/Sexton/Biggar in regards to the "eye test" and I'd back them to dominate any sort of NFL Combine style set of measurables too. My working theory is that this is a reflection of what wins you games in a hot climate with an often very dry track to play on, but we really need to work in some "negative" rugby at a younger age so these guys can get their brains wrapped around the concept early. They have the genetic advantage but seem to be let down by their training, experience, and ultimately the execution.
