I would trade him for Hunt, Brooks and probably Moses out of that lot. The others are lot less experienced than Chad, or Sezer who is not good.
Over the course of the season I don’t think he’s game management has been good. Compare his game management to Brooks for example. Less try and line break assists (Chad 6 and 3, Brooks 9 and 14) and less forced drop outs 12 to 21 and Chad leads the comp in most 20 metre taps given. I’ll be fair he has missed 9 less tackles. This isn’t to mention how many kicks go down the fullbacks throat b There’d be plenty of factors that contribute to those differences, but statiscally, who would you say is the better game manager?
I just don’t think he’s good enough to be a dominate half in a premiership contending side and that’s my main dissatisfaction. Of course, I’d be more than happy to be proven wrong, I just don’t see it happening.
Well we can still quibble about those 3 and that would still make Townsend in the top half of halves, so probably "decent".
Moylan and Graham (when fit) contribute a lot more to repeat sets this year (Sharks are great this year at getting repeat sets as a team, despite the narrative that we are poor at kicking...) and Brooks is having his best year in first grade, so those stats don't entirely tell who is the better manager of games, though I agree Townsend is more experienced and should be better for that. I know Townsend can stand up to grand final pressure, I don't know that about Brooks, so I wouldn't make that swap, but if it is close, surely both are at least "half decent".
Moses is more dynamic when in form but has plenty of bad games and is also unproven in big games, and Hunt is great most of the time, and a disaster under big moment pressure.
I actually don't think Pearce is any better on the big stage and Taylor (despite a lot of upside) has lots of errors and unproven also, so I wouldn't personally swap Townsend for them either, but I can see their plus points and could see why many would think they are better. Johnson I think is clearly better, but not as a game manager so you'd want Townsend if your 5/8 can't manage a game. Cleary seems great but has only a handful of games experience really, and was pretty quiet on the big stage, so I'd like to see him grow for a few years before really judging (love his potential though, would swap him, but maybe not for this finals series...).
Obviously I rate Reynolds, Thurston, Cronk and DCE as the best half backs in the game (as most would, I guess).
But even if we agreed that each of these players are better than Townsend, that still surely puts Townsend in the decent category. Heighington (who I love, by the way) was surely behind 50 or so other back rowers in the game (and yes, I know there are more of them) but wouldn't we all say he was at least "half decent"?
I think the criteria by which Townsend is judged (many comment on him being "terrible") is so much higher than for other players. Even given that the halfback "owns" the result, we have done alright with him as halfback.
And he was the half back in a premiership winning side, so clearly he can be.
Sure, we had Ennis, Maloney and Barba. That means we need Townsend AND the rest of the spine to reproduce a premiership winning effort, not that Townsend needs to suddenly become Thurston.
