One of the big problems with the holding the man/holding the ball rule is getting the balance right. I'll actually agree with TBR because the last thing we want is for 2 players to be going for the ball but you don't want to be first at the ball, you want to be second at the ball so you can be the tackler. I would err more on the side of the player who is going for the ball rather than going for the tackle.
Spook is talking some sense with his analysis but forgetting that they no longer seem to pay holding the man any more. Look at when 2 players are going for the ball, the player less likely to get the ball, the player who is behind or second to the ball, is grabbing at the other player, is impeding the other player's approach to the ball. This is either holding the man or shepherding the ball - both should be a free kick. Watch old games where there was no prior opportunity, the second player to the ball is very careful not to impede the player who is trying to get the ball, because if he isn't they will pay holding the man very quickly. The only legal way to impede a player going for the ball is to bump them, and if you bump them in the back it is also a free.
Is prior opportunity a response to not paying holding the man? I don't know, but the way they allow players to hold and impede when neither player is in possession has caused a hell of a lot of problems.
I was stunned when Cotchin got that free at the centre bounce for holding the man. That happens at every centre bounce in every game. It is holding the man every day of the week, they just don't pay it and it is a blight on the game. If they started paying holding the man to all the mids who get held at the bounce it would stop, immediately. The rules don't need changing on this, they have always been the same: just pay the bloody free.
DS