Owen Farrell

[Raggs]

I'm beginning to question his decision making though. That 7 on 2 had him as basically in the 12 channel, or the pullback from the forward pod. That's a position where you've got time to look and scan. I can forgive a scrum half not passing to the overlap, a 10 is harder, but a 10 on the pullback move? If Jones told him to pass everything as a pivot, whilst we play at pace, then maybe.

Somebody previously noted how flat the entire backline were, that they were all looking to chase the kick anyway. Maybe you've got May out there on the wing waving his arms but I'm not sure it was ever even "on" for the ball to go through the hands. Would have been interesting to see if anybody actually expected a pass or not.

The issue is far bigger than Farrell, but he's the perfect poster boy for where this team are at. He's probably the most guilty of failing to spot opportunities like that and just playing to the plan/system instead. I just can't watch that anymore at 10.

No, that's not a flat backline looking to chase a kick, that's I think 2 centres arms out wanting the ball, Daly as an exit out the back, with Watson George and May available too:



This image is also showing after the decision has already been made, not even when Farrell received the ball.

[Mikey Brown]

Fair enough. I can’t say I’d looked back at it, I just remembered how flat the 4 widest options looked.

[Raggs]

Fair enough. I can’t say I’d looked back at it, I just remembered how flat the 4 widest options looked.

No need for them to be any deeper really, they'd just have to chase after the next guy anyway (since he'll have run forwards).

[Spiffy]

Interesting though how people take a different view on where he could be best, worst, or least worst

'T'was ever thus! I think Jones is the biggest con-merchant in the history of rugby. Others think his wonderful, worldly knowledge of rugby makes him special.

Farrell IS one of the best at prescription-rugby (robotic, to quote Banquo). He is NOT a natural (i.e, reactive/creative) rugby player.

To be honest, the great Jonny Wilkinson more or less fitted the same mould.

[Digby]

Jones has taken or been largely responsible for taking 3 teams to a WC final, and plenty besides, that's not remotely con-merchant territory. He is a very, very good coach. That said there are things you can disagree with him on, you might find him too prescriptive with England, with Japan in the past (if in a different way to England), you might not like his selection or manner, or plenty besides.

Most 10s aren't natural, Ford isn't natural, Cips isn't natural ffs. The number of times you need to drill to identify and respond to threats and opportunities is huge. If anything Farrell is more human, it's the norm not to be able to make one of the better decisions with significant time pressure. But I know what's meant, and certainly Farrell it doesn't look from the outside like Farrell is comfortable executing under pressure in the number of manners you'd ideally like in a 10. But he's still an exception player

[Digby]

This image is also showing after the decision has already been made, not even when Farrell received the ball.

It is of course possible the decision came from May, does he like to call for it in much the same way as Stuart Broad loves a review? Any which way it's an awful moment for the side

[FKAS]

This image is also showing after the decision has already been made, not even when Farrell received the ball.

It is of course possible the decision came from May, does he like to call for it in much the same way as Stuart Broad loves a review? Any which way it's an awful moment for the side

Whomever it is in behind the two flat runners has to be screaming at Farrell (Daly?). He's the one coming round able to read the big picture. If you've got a secondary playmaker calling the wide move then you have to back them. If he's not screaming at Farrell then he's not a playmaker and is a waste of space in that role and needs switching with someone else. If Farrell isn't listening to his backline then that's a whole other problem.

[Digby]

This image is also showing after the decision has already been made, not even when Farrell received the ball.

It is of course possible the decision came from May, does he like to call for it in much the same way as Stuart Broad loves a review? Any which way it's an awful moment for the side

Whomever it is in behind the two flat runners has to be screaming at Farrell (Daly?). He's the one coming round able to read the big picture. If you've got a secondary playmaker calling the wide move then you have to back them. If he's not screaming at Farrell then he's not a playmaker and is a waste of space in that role and needs switching with someone else. If Farrell isn't listening to his backline then that's a whole other problem.

If you're Farrell and you've got a shout from Daly and May you might well back your star man out wide. Or he might have done it off his own back. It's a horrible moment from the team, as were the grounded pass from Youngs, the breakdown between Slade and Daly, but this does happen, other than oftentimes in big games you wouldn't hear the call from out wide. In any given moment you could make that kick or another wrong call, the problem really is the other 79 minutes trying not to play, not just one play that doesn't work out

The players have to be challenged to play, not challenged to try and develop unassailable positions because you're unlikely to play important games against teams you can establish successful risk free plays against. And this is an issue going back to 2001/2 since Ashton left Clive's team

[Raggs]

Farrell was already the man out the back though. The play started closer to where Itoje is I believe, Youngs passed to someone, who then passed it onto Farrell. It's not even that Farrell got the ball first, or that it was a short ball to forwards and a quick pull back, there was a lot of time.

[Mellsblue]

I don’t care who is shouting what, its a 6 on 2 overlap with a dog leg and a massive hole in the defensive ‘line’. Give it to Slade, Lawrence or Daly and that line is bust, ie do anything other than what he did with a shed load of time and options.
If it’s an isolated incident then you could put it down as an anomaly but it’s not. Sadly, going by tv comms, analysts etc, he’s spent so long being praised for good kicks in behind the defensive line, no ones told him that regardless of whether it’s a good kick it may have been the wrong option.

[Digby]

If he's got a shout from out wide, and it's only a possibility it might be his own piss poor call, the win is in backing that call as quickly as possible. Not every call would work quite that way but if it's based on space in behind your best case is a no change situation.

It is a bad moment, but it should have been a bad moment to be laughed at given running in 3 tries and winning by 12. Not a bad moment that's far too isolated chance

[Puja]

Interesting though how people take a different view on where he could be best, worst, or least worst

'T'was ever thus! I think Jones is the biggest con-merchant in the history of rugby. Others think his wonderful, worldly knowledge of rugby makes him special.

Farrell IS one of the best at prescription-rugby (robotic, to quote Banquo). He is NOT a natural (i.e, reactive/creative) rugby player.

To be honest, the great Jonny Wilkinson more or less fitted the same mould.

Gross misrepresentation of Wilkinson there - one of the best readers of a game that ever played. He's an example of Flanderisation - people remember the tackles, tight game management, and kicking because that's what got us through the RWC so he's become this caricature that only ever kicked and tackled. People forget his ability to pick apart a defense with his choice of passes, his range of skills and decision-making, and the fact that he actually had a good running game that he just put in a box for RWC 2003 and 2007 because that was best for the team at the time.

Puja

[Digby]

I'd argue it wasn't for the the best of the team, but it's largely what he was told to do. Similar to many other players, they do what gets them selected

[Puja]

I'd argue it wasn't for the the best of the team, but it's largely what he was told to do. Similar to many other players, they do what gets them selected

Okay, fair, it might have been what he was told to do (in 2003 - no-one was told to do anything in 2007), but the fact is that Wilkinson was a natural player and had the capacity to play a wide variety of different styles - he followed direction in the 2003 RWC because he respected it. Let us not forget that, after all the Aussie carping about Wilkinson the boot, the RWC featured an Australian try from a kicking game and an English try from Wilkinson picking a line and then completing a 2-on-1 to put Robinson away.

I am very dubious Fazlet has the capacity to do anything other than what he's told. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - he's done some very good things by following instructions - but it's why Wilkinson is a great of the game and Farrell's just a decent international player.

Puja

[morepork]

Jaysus....just bench him and get it over with.

[Spiffy]

Jaysus....just bench him and get it over with.

He is not an impact player from the bench. If he is ever dropped he probably should not be in the 23. But anyway, you know he will never be dropped.

[Spiffy]

'T'was ever thus! I think Jones is the biggest con-merchant in the history of rugby. Others think his wonderful, worldly knowledge of rugby makes him special.

Farrell IS one of the best at prescription-rugby (robotic, to quote Banquo). He is NOT a natural (i.e, reactive/creative) rugby player.

To be honest, the great Jonny Wilkinson more or less fitted the same mould.

Gross misrepresentation of Wilkinson there - one of the best readers of a game that ever played. He's an example of Flanderisation - people remember the tackles, tight game management, and kicking because that's what got us through the RWC so he's become this caricature that only ever kicked and tackled. People forget his ability to pick apart a defense with his choice of passes, his range of skills and decision-making, and the fact that he actually had a good running game that he just put in a box for RWC 2003 and 2007 because that was best for the team at the time.

Puja

The original discussion was about prescription rugby v. being a natural. I have great admiration for Jonny, who worked ceaselessly on his game, always gave 100%, hardly ever did anything wrong, tackled like a demon, made his kicks, showed great leadership etc. A great man to have in your team but not what I would call a natural compared with players like John, Benett, Mehrtens and Carter. ( I am not saying he was a lesser player, just a different kind of player.)

I think Jonny probably played his best rugby at the end of his career in Toulon where he was obviously more relaxed, inventive, free from the anxieties of his youth, retired from international rugby and seemingly enjoying the game in a way that was not previously evident, with a smile on his face.

[FKAS]

Johnny at Toulon was also helped by being one half of a dream team 10/12 combination with Matt Giteau. Well then and there being a monster pack in front of them. I agree with the above, Wilkinson was a good flyhalf that pushed himself into being a great flyhalf by working tirelessly on each facet of his game. Yes, everyone remembers the ice in his veins kicking because of the world cups in 2003 and 2007 but he did offer a lot more than that even after a horrific injury list.

Farrell should have used Wilko as an example. It feels that other than the first Lions tour where he got mentored by BOD and Sexton that Farrell's game just hasn't developed. There's certainly been no increase in skill levels and attacking ability. His kicking percentage has fallen away a bit as well.

[Mikey Brown]

Jaysus....just bench him and get it over with.

He is not an impact player from the bench. If he is ever dropped he probably should not be in the 23. But anyway, you know he will never be dropped.

I feel like that isn’t always the way to go though. Having someone who can tighten things up and close out a game is a great option to have on the bench. Particularly a very vocal leader and physical presence who can take their instruction from what is actually happening on the pitch now, rather than what the coach thought may have been likely a week earlier.

I feel like Sexton should have been playing this role while you develop a new side too. Laidlaw stayed in the starting shirt for Scotland far, far too long but was great as a big voice and decision maker to switch things up later on from the bench.

Clearly this is all fantasy, he’s starting every game until he retires, but I definitely think he could make an impact without being a ‘flair’ player. Particularly as we have a bunch of young, energetic running 9s that haven’t really developed that control yet.

[TheNomad]

Jaysus....just bench him and get it over with.

He is not an impact player from the bench. If he is ever dropped he probably should not be in the 23. But anyway, you know he will never be dropped.

I feel like that isn’t always the way to go though. Having someone who can tighten things up and close out a game is a great option to have on the bench. Particularly a very vocal leader and physical presence who can take their instruction from what is actually happening on the pitch now, rather than what the coach thought may have been likely a week earlier.

I feel like Sexton should have been playing this role while you develop a new side too. Laidlaw stayed in the starting shirt for Scotland far, far too long but was great as a big voice and decision maker to switch things up later on from the bench.

Clearly this is all fantasy, he’s starting every game until he retires, but I definitely think he could make an impact without being a ‘flair’ player. Particularly as we have a bunch of young, energetic running 9s that haven’t really developed that control yet.

Yup. He can cover 10 and centre too. Would be quite a good bench option IMO

[Spiffy]

He is not an impact player from the bench. If he is ever dropped he probably should not be in the 23. But anyway, you know he will never be dropped.

I feel like that isn’t always the way to go though. Having someone who can tighten things up and close out a game is a great option to have on the bench. Particularly a very vocal leader and physical presence who can take their instruction from what is actually happening on the pitch now, rather than what the coach thought may have been likely a week earlier.

I feel like Sexton should have been playing this role while you develop a new side too. Laidlaw stayed in the starting shirt for Scotland far, far too long but was great as a big voice and decision maker to switch things up later on from the bench.

Clearly this is all fantasy, he’s starting every game until he retires, but I definitely think he could make an impact without being a ‘flair’ player. Particularly as we have a bunch of young, energetic running 9s that haven’t really developed that control yet.

Yup. He can cover 10 and centre too. Would be quite a good bench option IMO

He might be a good bench option to come on and close down the game if his team is in the lead. But if England are chasing the game it's difficult to see him doing much in the inventive/attacking department to pull something out of the hat and get them ahead.

[Mikey Brown]

I feel like that isn’t always the way to go though. Having someone who can tighten things up and close out a game is a great option to have on the bench. Particularly a very vocal leader and physical presence who can take their instruction from what is actually happening on the pitch now, rather than what the coach thought may have been likely a week earlier.

I feel like Sexton should have been playing this role while you develop a new side too. Laidlaw stayed in the starting shirt for Scotland far, far too long but was great as a big voice and decision maker to switch things up later on from the bench.

Clearly this is all fantasy, he’s starting every game until he retires, but I definitely think he could make an impact without being a ‘flair’ player. Particularly as we have a bunch of young, energetic running 9s that haven’t really developed that control yet.

Yup. He can cover 10 and centre too. Would be quite a good bench option IMO

He might be a good bench option to come on and close down the game if his team is in the lead. But if England are chasing the game it's difficult to see him doing much in the inventive/attacking department to pull something out of the hat and get them ahead.

It’s not just about one player doing something fantastic though, it’s also having someone who can change the shape/direction of an attack to allow that to happen.

England aren’t lacking in game-breaking running threats elsewhere, you don’t need every player on the bench to be one of those given you’ve generally replaced half the side by 55-60 minutes.

[Puja]

I feel like that isn’t always the way to go though. Having someone who can tighten things up and close out a game is a great option to have on the bench. Particularly a very vocal leader and physical presence who can take their instruction from what is actually happening on the pitch now, rather than what the coach thought may have been likely a week earlier.

I feel like Sexton should have been playing this role while you develop a new side too. Laidlaw stayed in the starting shirt for Scotland far, far too long but was great as a big voice and decision maker to switch things up later on from the bench.

Clearly this is all fantasy, he’s starting every game until he retires, but I definitely think he could make an impact without being a ‘flair’ player. Particularly as we have a bunch of young, energetic running 9s that haven’t really developed that control yet.

Yup. He can cover 10 and centre too. Would be quite a good bench option IMO

He might be a good bench option to come on and close down the game if his team is in the lead. But if England are chasing the game it's difficult to see him doing much in the inventive/attacking department to pull something out of the hat and get them ahead.

If we're chasing, but a Ford plus two centres attack is looking good, we wouldn't want to bring any of them off anyway. If we're chasing and Ford plus two centres isn't working, then he offers something different by having the Ford/Farrell axis.

Puja

[Oakboy]

It's all very well talking about Farrell changing a game but (serious question) is Jones capable, currently, of identifying a major game-losing issue and changing to a winning one? I ask because he failed to do that in the Scotland game and, worse, looked (according to facial expression and body language) to be flummoxed.

[fivepointer]

Tbf there was so much going wrong in the Scotland game that any coach would struggle to find a way to turn it around.

I think we sometimes overplay the extent to which a substitution can alter the course of a game dramatically. Some come off and work a treat but most don't.