RugbyRebels

Timbo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Ireland are an effective team unit. The team rarely fails to give its best. England's team, since about two thirds of the way through the winning streak, have hardly ever given its best, if at all. That has to be down to coaching/preparation.

If we were to pick a combined 15 there would be at least six Englishmen, I'd guess. Crucially, though, none of the undroppables (the game controllers), Youngs, Ford and Farrell, would be in. It's debatable whether any of them would even make the bench.

You may remember a British and Irish composite team that played a test series last summer, and Farrell was just about the first name on the team sheet. He’d 100% be picked at 12 in that Irish team imo. One of their biggest weaknesses is that they only have one playmaker and they can be very one dimensional outside Sexton.

I know the consensus on this message board is that Farrell is terrible, but the rest of the rugby world doesn’t think so.

I think Farrell at 12 would spoil the shape of the Irish team and would render it less effective in attack and defence. His attitude may not be welcome either, IMO.

Debatable ... but quite a few I reckon. I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan but if you’re looking for a majority of negatives, I think you’re wrong.

NZ - no
Australia - no
SA - probably
Ireland - possibly
Wales - probably
Scotland - probably
France - no
Fiji - no
Argentina - probably

I’d rate Farrell as better than De Allende, Parkes, Horne and De la Fuente.

I’d argue that Laumape, Toomua, Fofana/Lamerat and Aki are better specialist 12s. Beale is also a better player albeit not an out and out 12.

I can’t imagine Fiji would pick Farrell at 12 but they’d almost certainly take him at 10 over Volavola.

I wouldn't have Farrell over De Allende.

To a certain extent it depends what you want from 12. If you want them to challenge the gainline, Farrell automatically loses. If you want a playmaker, maybe he wins.

I'm not entirely certain that I take a Lions squad where his dad was one of the coaches as proof positive of his status. I'd love to hear Schmidt hold forth completely unvarnished on whether he'd pick Farrell - my guess is he'd have Farrell on the bench but no more.

Every Northern Hemisphere team plays Farrell at 12 if he’s not needed at 10. In the modern game teams need as many footballers and decision makers as possible, and there are so few produced up north positions 12-15.

I think Farrell starts at 10 for SAfrica because they have Le Roux who can facilitate a wide game from 15. For Oz he’d be competing with Foley for 10, as Beale is a better 12 imo. New Zealand, they have quality playmakers all over, he’d be 2-4th choice as a 10 and nowhere as a 12. Imo.

That is a very round about way of saying good 12s are pretty thin on the ground in the northern hemisphere. Farrell is rank average.

morepork wrote:That is a very round about way of saying good 12s are pretty thin on the ground in the northern hemisphere. Farrell is rank average.

Well indeed...

It's pretty much Fofana and then daylight.

I'd love to see the new Tigers backline given a go for England, though. Ford, Eastmond, Tuilagi. Would be exciting.

I'm thrilled you guys are sticking with Farell. That combination of ill discipline, wooden delivery, lack of pace and vision is fantastic for your opposition.

morepork wrote:I'm thrilled you guys are sticking with Farell. That combination of ill discipline, wooden delivery, lack of pace and vision is fantastic for your opposition.

He's a playmaker though.

Apparently.

Timbo wrote:Every Northern Hemisphere team plays Farrell at 12 if he’s not needed at 10. In the modern game teams need as many footballers and decision makers as possible, and there are so few produced up north positions 12-15.

I think Farrell starts at 10 for SAfrica because they have Le Roux who can facilitate a wide game from 15. For Oz he’d be competing with Foley for 10, as Beale is a better 12 imo. New Zealand, they have quality playmakers all over, he’d be 2-4th choice as a 10 and nowhere as a 12. Imo.

Which is why the best team in the NH lines up with one of Aki or Henshaw at 12 all the time.

Timbo wrote:Every Northern Hemisphere team plays Farrell at 12 if he’s not needed at 10. In the modern game teams need as many footballers and decision makers as possible, and there are so few produced up north positions 12-15.

I think Farrell starts at 10 for SAfrica because they have Le Roux who can facilitate a wide game from 15. For Oz he’d be competing with Foley for 10, as Beale is a better 12 imo. New Zealand, they have quality playmakers all over, he’d be 2-4th choice as a 10 and nowhere as a 12. Imo.

No way in hell hed get picked for a Super Rugby Franchise, he cant play the game with enough pace on it. Only my opinion mind and I admit im not his biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination.

Timbo wrote:Every Northern Hemisphere team plays Farrell at 12 if he’s not needed at 10. In the modern game teams need as many footballers and decision makers as possible, and there are so few produced up north positions 12-15.

I think Farrell starts at 10 for SAfrica because they have Le Roux who can facilitate a wide game from 15. For Oz he’d be competing with Foley for 10, as Beale is a better 12 imo. New Zealand, they have quality playmakers all over,he’d be 2-4th choice as a 10 and nowhere as a 12. Imo.

No way in hell hed get picked for a Super Rugby Franchise, he cant play the game with enough pace on it. Only my opinion mind and I admit im not his biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination.

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Timbo wrote:Every Northern Hemisphere team plays Farrell at 12 if he’s not needed at 10. In the modern game teams need as many footballers and decision makers as possible, and there are so few produced up north positions 12-15.

I think Farrell starts at 10 for SAfrica because they have Le Roux who can facilitate a wide game from 15. For Oz he’d be competing with Foley for 10, as Beale is a better 12 imo. New Zealand, they have quality playmakers all over,he’d be 2-4th choice as a 10 and nowhere as a 12. Imo.

No way in hell hed get picked for a Super Rugby Franchise, he cant play the game with enough pace on it. Only my opinion mind and I admit im not his biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination.

The Blues would probably take him as player coach at the moment.

morepork wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Timbo wrote:Every Northern Hemisphere team plays Farrell at 12 if he’s not needed at 10. In the modern game teams need as many footballers and decision makers as possible, and there are so few produced up north positions 12-15.

I think Farrell starts at 10 for SAfrica because they have Le Roux who can facilitate a wide game from 15. For Oz he’d be competing with Foley for 10, as Beale is a better 12 imo. New Zealand, they have quality playmakers all over,he’d be 2-4th choice as a 10 and nowhere as a 12. Imo.

No way in hell hed get picked for a Super Rugby Franchise, he cant play the game with enough pace on it. Only my opinion mind and I admit im not his biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination.

The Blues would probably take him as player coach at the moment.

They wouldn't and you know deep down they wouldn't. On the subject of the Blues whats the betting Akira gets sent to the Crusaders next season for some fine tuning?

Oakboy wrote:13 tests to go. We should be at the point of fine tuning and improving game on game from an established base. I think the RFU must be getting worried. They have only two choices really having left Jones in the job this summer: pray or write off the RWC. I'd have sacked him. I just can't see the point in sacking him after the AIs with only 9 games left.

More like 16, really. England has very soft pool schedule, so you don’t need to be firing on all cylinders right from the start. You can begin by giving everyone a run v Tonga (22 Sept) or USA (26 Sept) before a good 9 day break ahead of Argentina, who you’ve beaten 9 times in a row including 4 from 4 over the last 3 years. Argentina were so shit in June they fired their coach and have beaten no-one of note since South Africa in 2016. So you should be three games in, cobwebs blown out and safe for the quarters, with a whole week off before playing France to decide who meets Australia and who meets Wales.

Tonga and USA are far from easy games. Yes, we should expect to beat them but both will be very physical and highly competitive games.

It’s a bit of a cliche but Argentina always raise their game in the World Cup so I wouldn’t altogether dismiss their ability to cause an upset.

Simply put, we’re not good enough to be complacent.

Plus Argentina are due to recall all their overseas-based stars for the RWC. They're a different when they're picking from a full squad.

Puja

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Timbo wrote:Every Northern Hemisphere team plays Farrell at 12 if he’s not needed at 10. In the modern game teams need as many footballers and decision makers as possible, and there are so few produced up north positions 12-15.

I think Farrell starts at 10 for SAfrica because they have Le Roux who can facilitate a wide game from 15. For Oz he’d be competing with Foley for 10, as Beale is a better 12 imo. New Zealand, they have quality playmakers all over, he’d be 2-4th choice as a 10 and nowhere as a 12. Imo.

No way in hell hed get picked for a Super Rugby Franchise, he cant play the game with enough pace on it. Only my opinion mind and I admit im not his biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination.

Well yeah, obviously I disagree. Piers Francis was the Blues 10/12 for 2 seasons. Stephen Donald was still starting games at 10 for Chiefs as recently as last year. I’m Sure Farrell would get a gig.

Timbo wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Timbo wrote:Every Northern Hemisphere team plays Farrell at 12 if he’s not needed at 10. In the modern game teams need as many footballers and decision makers as possible, and there are so few produced up north positions 12-15.

I think Farrell starts at 10 for SAfrica because they have Le Roux who can facilitate a wide game from 15. For Oz he’d be competing with Foley for 10, as Beale is a better 12 imo. New Zealand, they have quality playmakers all over, he’d be 2-4th choice as a 10 and nowhere as a 12. Imo.

No way in hell hed get picked for a Super Rugby Franchise, he cant play the game with enough pace on it. Only my opinion mind and I admit im not his biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination.

Well yeah, obviously I disagree. Piers Francis was the Blues 10/12 for 2 seasons. Stephen Donald was still starting games at 10 for Chiefs as recently as last year. I’m Sure Farrell would get a gig.

You've convinced me. Can you arrange it, please.

I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan by any stretch but making out he wouldn’t get a game for any of the SR franchises is pure bullshit.

Perhaps not the Hurricanes, Crusaders or Chiefs but I’m certain the others would be more than happy to pick him.

Scrumhead wrote:I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan by any stretch but making out he wouldn’t get a game for any of the SR franchises is pure bullshit.

Perhaps not the Hurricanes, Crusaders or Chiefs but I’m certain the others would be more than happy to pick him.

Why? It's a different style of rugby. Haskell's had a bigger impact in NH rugby than Cipriani, but Cipriani was more successful down there. A number of SH success stories have come here and bombed while there's also a few guys who were going nowhere much down there who've done really well up here.

You've got to look at Farrell's success and ask what parts of it translate. I don't think its all that outrageous to suggest he makes decisions too slowly to prosper at the pace they play. Its not like we haven't received ample proof that a number of our players struggle with high paced games...

Puja wrote:Plus Argentina are due to recall all their overseas-based stars for the RWC. They're a different when they're picking from a full squad.

Puja

There aren’t that many Pumas “stars” who aren’t in the Jaguares these days. I can think of only Cordero, Herrera, and Bosch. Maybe Figallo.

Lizard wrote:

Puja wrote:Plus Argentina are due to recall all their overseas-based stars for the RWC. They're a different when they're picking from a full squad.

Puja

There aren’t that many Pumas “stars” who aren’t in the Jaguares these days. I can think of only Cordero, Herrera, and Bosch. Maybe Figallo.

Isa, Paz, Fernandez, Galarza, Imhoff, Sanchez, Urdapilleta just off the top of my head.

Puja

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

morepork wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:
No way in hell hed get picked for a Super Rugby Franchise, he cant play the game with enough pace on it. Only my opinion mind and I admit im not his biggest fan by any stretch of the imagination.

The Blues would probably take him as player coach at the moment.

They wouldn't and you know deep down they wouldn't. On the subject of the Blues whats the betting Akira gets sent to the Crusaders next season for some fine tuning?

Him and the fat young dynamo hooker from Wellingtron.

Peat wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan by any stretch but making out he wouldn’t get a game for any of the SR franchises is pure bullshit.

Perhaps not the Hurricanes, Crusaders or Chiefs but I’m certain the others would be more than happy to pick him.

Why? It's a different style of rugby. Haskell's had a bigger impact in NH rugby than Cipriani, but Cipriani was more successful down there. A number of SH success stories have come here and bombed while there's also a few guys who were going nowhere much down there who've done really well up here.

You've got to look at Farrell's success and ask what parts of it translate. I don't think its all that outrageous to suggest he makes decisions too slowly to prosper at the pace they play. Its not like we haven't received ample proof that a number of our players struggle with high paced games...

As I keep saying, I’m not even a Farrell fan-boy, but Timbo nailed it when he said Donald and Francis were starting pretty recently for NZ franchises.

Add in the fact that the original post said he wouldn’t start for SR franchises which includes all of the Australian and South African sides as well as the Jaguares and Sunwolves. Do me a favour ...

I don’t like him much as a player but this forum is way too harsh on him. He’s a very dedicated guy and while I suspect he would struggle at first, I think he has the ability and work ethic to make it work.

It’s a moot point as it will never happen.

Scrumhead wrote:

Peat wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan by any stretch but making out he wouldn’t get a game for any of the SR franchises is pure bullshit.

Perhaps not the Hurricanes, Crusaders or Chiefs but I’m certain the others would be more than happy to pick him.

Why? It's a different style of rugby. Haskell's had a bigger impact in NH rugby than Cipriani, but Cipriani was more successful down there. A number of SH success stories have come here and bombed while there's also a few guys who were going nowhere much down there who've done really well up here.

You've got to look at Farrell's success and ask what parts of it translate. I don't think its all that outrageous to suggest he makes decisions too slowly to prosper at the pace they play. Its not like we haven't received ample proof that a number of our players struggle with high paced games...

As I keep saying, I’m not even a Farrell fan-boy, but Timbo nailed it when he said Donald and Francis were starting pretty recently for NZ franchises.

Add in the fact that the original post said he wouldn’t start for SR franchises which includes all of the Australian and South African sides as well as the Jaguares and Sunwolves. Do me a favour ...

I don’t like him much as a player but this forum is way too harsh on him. He’s a very dedicated guy and while I suspect he would struggle at first, I think he has the ability and work ethic to make it work.

It’s a moot point as it will never happen.

I don't think you've really addressed the point of whether he's got the skillset for Super Rugby. Where he compares as a NH player to players who've flourished there is neither here nor there. Not every player plays as well in both leagues. What about his ability set suggests he'd flourish in that style?

I'll give you that he'd probably start for one of the worst teams but that's not really a sign of quality.