I don't think anyone is arguing for a dominant first receiver but someone needs to be coordinating the attack. I also don't think anyone who understands the game is calling for either of them to be restricted to left and right attack either. What Galvin and Latu demonstrated on the weekend was that they didn't have the enabling stucture to play ad lib footy. The teams that do play effective ad lib footy (Penrith and Melbourne for Example) play ad lib within a structure. The runners know what lines they have to run and where to be when the Luai's and Munsters (and Galvins) of the game do their thing.
Galvin did some great stuff on Sunday but also got in the way and overplayed Latu on several occasions. The key, for Galvin, Latu, Luai and whover else is next man up is to have a system for when and how to support each other and play that eyes up footy. They have to know that they will hit Sam F or the Baby Giraffe running X line at Y position or where the cente will be. The easiest way to do this is by them sliding so that the relationship between them and their edge is maintained. The alternate is for them to sweep - Galvin is probably fit enough to do this - but is more of what a fullback does when chiming in to creat the extra man (as opposed to exploit a gap).
Latu and Galvin working together would have been much more effective than Galvin overcalling him and becoming first receiver too often. If we are thinking that Luai has to be first receiver to be the game manager we have rocks in our heads. The play will be a combination of what Api/TDS see, and what is called by Galvin and Luai from what they see in the middle third of the field. Once we get into the scoring zone - where we need to be more precise with how we are playing and Luai will step in and direct - Galvin still fits in around that and plays heads up footy but we have an orchestrated attack that is seeking to convert field position to points or at worst play for a repeat set or a handover 1m off the line and 1m in from touch.
