The way I see it is this...Anderson is not going to throw an untested back into the fire, Burt is in better form than most of our team, and Hayne has failed at 6 and been in worse form than Burt, Grothe and Reddy who are first three backs picked at the moment IMO. Which leaves us (without dropping Inu, which is a seperate issue) with these combinations. Which is better?
A) 1-Burt 2-Reddy 3-B Smith 4-Inu 5-Grothe
B) 1-Burt 2-Reddy 3-Hayne 4-Inu 5-Grothe
C) 1-Hayne 2-Burt 3-Reddy 4-Inu 5-Grothe
D) 1-Hayne 2-Reddy 3-Burt 4-Inu 5-Grothe
Surely it's B? The simple fact is that when the team goes well, Burt is an excellent fullback...and that at the moment who our fullback is makes absolutely no difference to our chances of winning. We need to look up front and in the halves for the areas that we can improve to help our chances of winning. Put Hayne there with our halves and forwards, and half the bandwagon calling for Burt's head will be calling for Jarryd's in 6 weeks. No fullback will do well behind what we have in front of them at the moment.
Ultimately, Hayne has yet to prove himself as anything more than a prodigiously talented winger, the same argument you use against Inu as centre. Hayne as never proven himself in any position other than the wing. Sure, he had one 10/10 game (as voted by judges that often make some baffling judgements, mind you) at the end of 2007...but it was against the worst Brisbane side in recent memory, behind a pack that was winning the battle with ease and a half and five-eighth who were absolutely outstanding that day. He also had a hell of a lot of problems running the ball back, one of the major criticisms of Burt. I believe that Hayne is a worse kick returner based on what he's shown thus far, he runs it back like a dancer not a fullback. At least Burt knows that it's not his strength and gives the ball to guys who are good at it, like Grothe and Reddy.
Burt has, at the end of the day, proven more in first grade for this club than Hayne has. I don't think there's anyone who denies that Hayne is an amazingly talented player (except maybe old Mr Saab, but we all know he's a dribbling idiot) and he is a great chance of being our long term fullback, but at the moment he hasn't earnt the right to oust Burt. Burt was outstanding at the back at the start of 2003 before suffering a long term injury that kept him out for the best part of that season and the next. He was good enough to keep McKinnon out at the back end of 2006 on form, and had a blinder of a year in 2007 before injury. Hayne, on the other hand, had a great half season ON THE WING in 2006, had a very good most of a year in the same position in 2007, and several good games following several poor games at fullback in the same year. They were both very average in 2008 in a very poor side, and Burt has started better than Hayne this year. So the question that needs to be asked is why should Hayne oust Burt at this stage? The team as a whole is going poorly and will for most of the year...Burt has proved more, and we need Hayne in the three quarter line at the moment, so Burt deserves to stay at 1. Hayne needs to earn the right to oust Burt, it's as simple as that, and for mine he'll get his chance to do just that next year when we have a side that looks more like a contender and we can see what they each have to offer in a good side. At the moment, we gain nothing from putting him there because the engine room and the halves are very problematic...
