I love these debates and the critiquing of #10's and future talent in general. There are pages and pages of how QC (Quade Cooper) was a god then fell from the clouds to be a dud, wash up and is our current #10, Foley was a dud despite a Super Rugby title and success with the Wallabies, Mack Mason was the next anointed based on his Jnr Wallabies career, Deegan was a bolter, all money should be on JOC (James O'Connor) as our current Wallabies #10.......
One thing is do know that Noah has already had success at #10 for the Wallabies with less time, experience background than nearly everyone he is being compared to. It also interesting that with all all this alleged prospective talent Rennie had not made a move towards it, nor the even tested it. Only time will tell what happens with Noah but he is obviously showing enough and those that are aware of Rory Arnolds rugby career know how quickly talent can be moulded.
As for the comparison, there are really few variations between #10's and that's usually more about the game plan and player around them than anything else. QC (Quade Cooper)'s provides a good example. With a good game controlling #9 like a Genia he thrives. A chaotic and creative #9 like Frisbee and it just doesn't gel. But taking that to a singular level; QC (Quade Cooper) can be everything you want and need, and everything you don't and don't need.
IMHO is not about "xxxxx" is a god like #10. It about a #10 that works and gets a team going. Do the have to be the best standalone #10? No. Even the best #10 with a dud team won't succeed. Again as another example: QC (Quade Cooper) and Genia at the Rebels - even they couldn't get that team to succeed.
But, stopping Aussie rugby supporters from negatively critiquing players; it is the norm so carry on.
