I was exaggerating to make a point. My basic argument is that the whole process of determining which 17 players to include in your NRL team is naturally one that would involve considering what a players role would be and what position they may play. Do you not agree with this?
I sure do. But that consideration is done at the recruitment/retention stage of team selection, so that there is no hypothetical situation of what to do with your 13 international halfbacks.
In the example that you gave of a centre moving to second row. The fact that the player is likely to be versatile enough to move to the second row is something that would have been considered before the switch would have been made.
I'd say the vast majority of footballers are versatile enough to play more than one position. Dual premiership winner Chris Anderson made reference to this over a decade ago (and you touch on it in your next paragraph) when he said he picks "two props, a halfback, and ten athletes".
You'd think if a coach conducted effective recruitment/retention that the props and the halfback would be included in the top 17. If not why did he sign them (or fail to sign better replacements)?
Also, how can you be certain that the 17 players in your NRL team are the 17 best 'football players' at your club? What metrics do you use to rate someone as a 'football player'?
Outside of the handful of specialist positions, I would go for athleticism and determination. That seems to be what NRL coaches look for.
What about the gun halfback in U20s or Wenty who has scored 400 points for the season? Surely he has an argument to suggest that he is a better 'football player' than some meathead prop that is specifically needed to fulfill a role in the NRL team? Why isn't he in the top 17? Wait, could it be because the only players better than him are the incumbent NRL halves and unfortunately he is not suited to any other position in the team?
If a specialist player (i.e. halves and props) isn't good enough for the top 17 then he's not good enough for the top 17. It's a circular argument because it's a circular argument.
It's worth noting that halves and props are the two positions most likely to be liabilities in defence (for different reasons). That means teams carry them only because they're essential in attack, which is why we have seen, throughout the years, teams attempt to make do with as few of these as possible - whether it's an Origin team with one prop and two locks on the field, or like so many club teams have stuck an extra back rower or centre in the 6 jersey.
"Choose your best 17, worry about the numbers on their back later".
I don't believe that adequately describes how any coach in the NRL is picking their team each week.
Well it worked for big Jack, and if anything the game is even less specialised now (Anderson's "ten athletes"). When the Origin teams are picked have a look at how many blokes are picked 'out of position'. That should show you how few specialists there are in the game.
