You should probably read the Guardian. Their rugby journalists aren't like the Times or Telegraph. They don't actually seem to have any contacts, so they can say anything they want.Peat wrote:Could be a mix of all of it.Mellsblue wrote:I had it down as group think but you could be right.Peat wrote:
That or they feel obliged to keep hyping him up in order to keep access to their sources.
A couple of the times’ hacks were less complimentary than usual after the second and before the third test. Afterwards he was back to saving the world.
I think Oakboy is right to say there's a large streak of English rugby opinion that think FHs should be conservative and judged mainly on their kicking game - and also the feistiness. He's a living embodiment of the whole British Bulldog spirit where ability is less important than pluck.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are observing a game where you win by being better, rather than being braver. And every time we try to mention it to the others, we're told "Oh so you prefer X to Y" when the answer is "No, you need X and Y, because that's what the other lot has".
I suppose we should take the media being willing to criticise Farrell for even a nano-second as a positive.
Only problem is that they generally don't have the wit.