He is quality for half the game, always has been
I would rather a "lessor" player who can function in attack and defence than trying to hide someone for half the game
I see those continual compromises in player selection half the problem with aus rugby, more footballers, less athletes for me thanks
The way the game is against the ABs, who do not cherish possession, it's a lot more than half. I'll grant you that since Quade was a regular international 10, there is far less tolerance for a non-defending 10 today. But it still could be accommodated, if that 10 was good enough in attack and we had the pill enough.
Is that where we are with Quade? The only people who know are the guys in training with him. Which BTW is no different to your attitude that his D can't have been improved. You just don't know.
Personally I'd be sticking with Lolo at 10, in the absence of actually knowing what is going on. But if Quade is nailing it in training, I give it a 50/50 he'll make the bench.
The alternative, as I said earlier, is that the selectors think that Lolo has nailed his 10 basics. And I don't mind that either.