TheDasher wrote:God it's negative on here... we defended well in 1st half, penalty count WAY lower than usual and we were the better team 2nd half. Farrell played extremely well imo.
He consistently missed tackles, didn't engage the line, continually chose the wrong option and passed to men standing still, memorably passed to the floor to give up the position after May's break from his 22, kicked too long when he kicked high, and the backline that he organised scored no tries and made only one clean break in ordinary play. Granted, he made that break, but there was nothing else whatsoever.
What did he do that made you think he played extremely well?
I thought in general play Farrell had some good moments and plenty of poor ones. But you have to give him kudos for nailing the kicks that brought home the win.
I also thought Youngs was ridiculously slow in moving the ball from the breakdown.
Got lucky today - won't be able to rely on that on the WC.
Some stout defence though.Like scrappers like Wilson & Nowell on the pitch when the quality isn't there yet.
fivepointer wrote:I thought in general play Farrell had some good moments and plenty of poor ones. But you have to give him kudos for nailing the kicks that brought home the win.
I also thought Youngs was ridiculously slow in moving the ball from the breakdown.
Yes and no. Farrell missed the long range one badly which could have cost us the game. That was poor judgement. He should have given the tee to Daly.
I was thinking today watching the first 15 minutes of the Wales/Scotland match that if I could make one of the pkayers English it would be Gareth Davies. We badly need a SH.
fivepointer wrote:I thought in general play Farrell had some good moments and plenty of poor ones. But you have to give him kudos for nailing the kicks that brought home the win.
I also thought Youngs was ridiculously slow in moving the ball from the breakdown.
He got 3 from 4, with only one being outside the 15m lines. It's good that he got those 3, but he doesn't get marks for goalkicking with a 75% record.
I've not been watching them in the rugby championship, but with that much midfield success, and offload or two would have absolutely opened us up - is this normal or abnormal for them to do so few?
twitchy wrote:It will probably be rhodes for shields people are speculating. Also how much longer is loz suspended for?
While I don't like Rhodes as a player or as an "Englishman", he's certainly a better selection than Shields at the moment. Of course Armand is better than both and a significant case could be made for a Mercer, Wilson, Morgan back row from the squad we have.
Erasmus must be boiling with rage as his side threw the game away. I won’t take anything away from the England victory. Moon must start next week and Shields must go back to his club. Wilson and Mercer are also big pluses. Can they beat the ABs next week? Unlikely, but they have a chance. Let’s wait and see what changes - if any, are made by Eddie!
Last edited by francoisfou on Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The second half was exciting enough, but those looked like two very average teams, lacking in basic skills, rugby smarts, organisation and leadership. England will never be able to play a high tempo attacking game with Youngs and Farrell as halfbacks. Teo offers only bulk, which is clearly not enough at this level.
fivepointer wrote:How Shields gets a game ahead of Don Armand is utterly inexplicable. What is also hard to fathom is why he was left on the field until past the 70th minute.
How Shields gets a game ahead of me is fucking inexplicable!!!
fivepointer wrote:I thought in general play Farrell had some good moments and plenty of poor ones. But you have to give him kudos for nailing the kicks that brought home the win.
I also thought Youngs was ridiculously slow in moving the ball from the breakdown.
He got 3 from 4, with only one being outside the 15m lines. It's good that he got those 3, but he doesn't get marks for goalkicking with a 75% record.
Puja
He was very fortunate with that tackle decision. On another day that could have been a card (which speaks volumes about the consistency of refereeing at the moment).
fivepointer wrote:I thought in general play Farrell had some good moments and plenty of poor ones. But you have to give him kudos for nailing the kicks that brought home the win.
I also thought Youngs was ridiculously slow in moving the ball from the breakdown.
He got 3 from 4, with only one being outside the 15m lines. It's good that he got those 3, but he doesn't get marks for goalkicking with a 75% record.
Puja
He was very fortunate with that tackle decision. On another day that could have been a card (which speaks volumes about the consistency of refereeing at the moment).
I have a lot to say about Farrell generally, but I thought it wasn't a penalty. He has got his arm up to wrap and, while he's not in control and lucky it's not high, I would've said it was legal.
Puja wrote:
He got 3 from 4, with only one being outside the 15m lines. It's good that he got those 3, but he doesn't get marks for goalkicking with a 75% record.
Puja
He was very fortunate with that tackle decision. On another day that could have been a card (which speaks volumes about the consistency of refereeing at the moment).
I have a lot to say about Farrell generally, but I thought it wasn't a penalty. He has got his arm up to wrap and, while he's not in control and lucky it's not high, I would've said it was legal.
Puja
If Ciprianis was red how is that not a penalty at the very least? It's leads with the shoulder into the very top of the chest/lower neck area with no attempt to use the arms. If that is legal then the distinction between a legal hit and a red card would appear to be more miniscule.
Puja wrote:
He got 3 from 4, with only one being outside the 15m lines. It's good that he got those 3, but he doesn't get marks for goalkicking with a 75% record.
Puja
He was very fortunate with that tackle decision. On another day that could have been a card (which speaks volumes about the consistency of refereeing at the moment).
I have a lot to say about Farrell generally, but I thought it wasn't a penalty. He has got his arm up to wrap and, while he's not in control and lucky it's not high, I would've said it was legal.
Puja
It was legal but only just. Kudos for a great hit but it was very risky given the circumstances.
Sandydragon wrote:
He was very fortunate with that tackle decision. On another day that could have been a card (which speaks volumes about the consistency of refereeing at the moment).
I have a lot to say about Farrell generally, but I thought it wasn't a penalty. He has got his arm up to wrap and, while he's not in control and lucky it's not high, I would've said it was legal.
Puja
If Ciprianis was red how is that not a penalty at the very least? It's leads with the shoulder into the very top of the chest/lower neck area with no attempt to use the arms. If that is legal then the distinction between a legal hit and a red card would appear to be more miniscule.
Cipriani’s was a hit to the head. They are not comparable. Farrell was definitely trying to wrap, even if it was a secondary concern, and he didn’t make contact with the head. Great tackle. An inch higher with the shoulder or a few inches further back for the left arm and it’s a card and probable lost match.
If you watch his reaction afterwards I think he thought it was the second scenario. It was a close call by the officials but I think it was the correct one.
