RugbyRebels

Spiffy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
In the Ford v Farrell debate, there is no doubt that Ford is the better passer of the two but, assuming that it was one or the other at FH and captain, what other aspects of play, game control and leadership is Ford better at?

He's a better decision maker when running the ball, better vision, challenges the gainline much more (by playing close to it), a better punter out of hand, a better runner with the ball in hand. "game control; is a bit nebulous, and your start point seems always to be based on a 10 being able to call all the shots, even if the pack is being hammered and producing rank bad ball. That's before we examine the 9's that are being selected.

Faz is more physical, more vocal, and handier at rucks. They work off the ball in different ways when both are on the pitch.

You did not mention defence/tackling. I'd say Farrell is over-rated and Ford underrated.

Ford is a good defender. Rarely out of position and with the pace to cover. His size means he can be run over but he’s rarely bumped off.

Farrell can be caught out of position a lot. He tackles well when available to make the tackle but goes for the Hollywood too often and misses

Thing is I’d really love having Farrell as an option from the bench with his energy and physicality. But we’ll never realistically see Ford start at 10 with Tuilagi/Slade outside of injury.

We may see in that instance that the team really lacks something without him, but it’s hard to see from the outside which particular element he’d improve in that midfield.

Mikey Brown wrote:Thing is I’d really love having Farrell as an option from the bench with his energy and physicality. But we’ll never realistically see Ford start at 10 with Tuilagi/Slade outside of injury.

We may see in that instance that the team really lacks something without him, but it’s hard to see from the outside which particular element he’d improve in that midfield.

Well, indeed.

Last time we had a Farrell less midfield was the tour of Argentina. And while we scored an absolute boat load, we also conceded a tonne through a pretty average midfield of Francis and Lozowski.

Ford deserves a chance to run the show with an actual centre outside him.

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Thing is I’d really love having Farrell as an option from the bench with his energy and physicality. But we’ll never realistically see Ford start at 10 with Tuilagi/Slade outside of injury.

We may see in that instance that the team really lacks something without him, but it’s hard to see from the outside which particular element he’d improve in that midfield.

Well, indeed.

Last time we had a Farrell less midfield was the tour of Argentina. And while we scored an absolute boat load, we also conceded a tonne through a pretty average midfield of Francis and Lozowski.

Ford deserves a chance to run the show with an actual centre outside him.

We started against Japan without Farrell, with that common centre pairing of Lozowski and Nowell outside Ford

Spiffy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
In the Ford v Farrell debate, there is no doubt that Ford is the better passer of the two but, assuming that it was one or the other at FH and captain, what other aspects of play, game control and leadership is Ford better at?

He's a better decision maker when running the ball, better vision, challenges the gainline much more (by playing close to it), a better punter out of hand, a better runner with the ball in hand. "game control; is a bit nebulous, and your start point seems always to be based on a 10 being able to call all the shots, even if the pack is being hammered and producing rank bad ball. That's before we examine the 9's that are being selected.

Faz is more physical, more vocal, and handier at rucks. They work off the ball in different ways when both are on the pitch.

You did not mention defence/tackling. I'd say Farrell is over-rated and Ford underrated.

I didnt mention it because he asked where Ford was better. I agree with your view on defence- Fords is more consistent, Faz is more physical and scrambles well but makes a lot of errors.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
In the Ford v Farrell debate, there is no doubt that Ford is the better passer of the two but, assuming that it was one or the other at FH and captain, what other aspects of play, game control and leadership is Ford better at?

He's a better decision maker when running the ball, better vision, challenges the gainline much more (by playing close to it), a better punter out of hand, a better runner with the ball in hand. "game control; is a bit nebulous, and your start point seems always to be based on a 10 being able to call all the shots, even if the pack is being hammered and producing rank bad ball. That's before we examine the 9's that are being selected.

Faz is more physical, more vocal, and handier at rucks. They work off the ball in different ways when both are on the pitch.

So, is Ford better for the team with the standard of ball from the 9s that are being selected? I'm not trying to score any points here, just attempting to understand why Jones disagrees with you (on the assumption that he continues to drop Ford if he plays Tuilagi at 12). IF Ford's actual ball-handling skills are superior, to choose Farrell in preference at 10, Jones MUST be selecting on other factors. Their kicking from hand and tee is more or less equal. That only leaves leadership/game management (you choose the description if you don't like mine) or defence doesn't it?

Think its clear, Eddie likes Faz's physicality and simplicity of play- it fits Eddies model of the `English way.`

Squad's out

England starting XV
15 Elliot Daly (Saracens, 42 caps)
14 Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 42 caps)
13 Manu Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers, 42 caps)
12 Owen Farrell (Saracens, 82 caps) C
11 Jonny May (Leicester Tigers, 55 caps)
10 George Ford (Leicester Tigers, 68 caps)
9 Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 98 caps)
1 Joe Marler (Harlequins, 70 caps)
2 Jamie George (Saracens, 48 caps)
3 Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins, 34 caps)
4 Maro Itoje (Saracens, 37 caps)
5 George Kruis (Saracens, 44 caps)
6 Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 84 caps)
7 Mark Wilson (Sale Sharks, 18 caps)
8 Tom Curry (Sale Sharks, 22 caps)

Finishers
16 Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs, 23 caps)
17 Ellis Genge (Leicester Tigers, 17 caps)
18 Will Stuart (Bath Rugby, 2 caps)
19 Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 64 caps)
20 Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby, 14 caps)
21 Ben Earl (Saracens, 2 caps)
22 Willi Heinz (Gloucester Rugby, 12 caps)
23 Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 28 caps)

Is Underhill injured or has the plot been lost, buried, mummified and cast into Mount Doom?

That backrow......

Mellsblue wrote:That backrow......

Don’t say we weren’t warned. True Andy Robinson stuff - at least Mikey Brown might like it

Mellsblue wrote:That backrow......

Still 5 locks too.

lol. Turns out mine wasn't so far off Do you know how close I came to having a 6:2 split as well?!?!

Jeez. I mean, jeez. Lawes at 6. Wilson at 7. Curry at 8. Watson at 14. Daly at 15. 5 locks in the 23.

Yeah, seems like Eddie has lost his marbles completely now.

Haha, Jesus fucking Christ Eddie.

Odds on Earle going to 6 and Lawes to 8 if Curry picks up an injury?

jngf wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:That backrow......

Don’t say we weren’t warned. True Andy Robinson stuff - at least Mikey Brown might like it

You seem very, very confused about my stance on the backrow and I really can't work out why.

Funny old game this rugby - it’s not inconceivable that the Welsh emulate the Irish by playing piss poorly on Saturday, winning little or no first phase ball, England claim a major victory and Eddie is hailed a selectorial genius by a those more fawning elements of the broadsheet rugby press...

Mikey Brown wrote:

jngf wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:That backrow......

Don’t say we weren’t warned. True Andy Robinson stuff - at least Mikey Brown might like it

You seem very, very confused about my stance on the backrow and I really can't work out why.

That may be down to the Johari window!

Where's Underhill?

There is a logic to that backrow:
A 5 at 6, a 6 at 7 and a 7 and 8.
Granted, it’s nothing to do with rugby but there’s some logic to it.

Oakboy wrote:Where's Underhill?

I'm guessing injured.

jngf wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

jngf wrote:
Don’t say we weren’t warned. True Andy Robinson stuff - at least Mikey Brown might like it

You seem very, very confused about my stance on the backrow and I really can't work out why.

That may be down to the Johari window!

Err. That I'm unclear on it myself? Not really.

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Where's Underhill?

I'm guessing injured.

On the BBC website it just says that Underhill and Joseph are left out of the 23.

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Where's Underhill?

I'm guessing injured.

On the BBC website it just says that Underhill and Joseph are left out of the 23.

Puja spoke against them and the've been buried as a result!

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Where's Underhill?

I'm guessing injured.

On the BBC website it just says that Underhill and Joseph are left out of the 23.

A google says Underhill is injured. Which makes the selection very slightly less perplexing, if still nowhere near making sense.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:
I'm guessing injured.

On the BBC website it just says that Underhill and Joseph are left out of the 23.

A google says Underhill is injured. Which makes the selection very slightly less perplexing, if still nowhere near making sense.

Puja

Another Jones breakage in the training camp?

Mellsblue wrote:There is a logic to that backrow:
A 5 at 6, a 6 at 7 and a 7 and 8.
Granted, it’s nothing to do with rugby but there’s some logic to it.

The sequence would suggest an 8 at 9. Although that begs the question as to whether it's an actual 8, or somebody that Eddie thinks is an 8, or maybe somebody who is related to somebody Eddie thinks is an 8.

On the final basis, Ben Curry will be our next scrum half.