RugbyRebels

So we settled on 10. Lampard 11. Ford 12. Farrell for Aus?

TheDasher wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Very true. It is very puzzling. I think the long and short of it is that we only watch the skill set he shows on the pitch and in many regards in that arena he’s a long way short of world class. What he seems to be lauded for is his attitude, his lead from the front mentality, his desire, his sporadic big hits and his goal kicking. The last one aside, that is not what I want from a flyhalf. I want game management (beyond kicking into the corners for territory or to turn the defence), a fluid and instinctive passing game and an ability to make decisions on the gain line. None of these are Farrell’s forte. Turn him into a blindside with a couple of extra inches and few extra kg and I’d have him in my England team no question but he’s not my idea of a world class fly half.
Someone earlier on equated him to Beckham and I think it’s a good analogy. A slightly limited, but definitely international class, player who makes up for his limits with an incredible work ethic and maximising the skills he does have. I’d liken Ford to Scholes, a far more talented player but more of an introvert, far less likely to get on the scoresheet from a set piece kick and destined to be shunted onto the left wing for the far less talented Frank Lampard.

I'd agree until the end. I think the Beckham comparison is Wilkinson. He worked almost obsessively on one part of his game until that part was the best in the world. Farrell hasn't done that. His kicking is mediocre at international level and there's nothing else remotely close.

I'm struggling for a football analogy for Farrell...The problem is that, in football, limited players are often unfairly maligned. If it wasn't for the press hatred shown towards him until the backend of his career, I'd say Farrell was closest to Emile Heskey...


I'd have him back at 12 permanently, btw. It suits his skills and negates his weaknesses.

To say that he's comparable to Emile Heskey as a football analogy is just total rubbish. If you think that you're taking the whole thing too far. Farrell is a key part of this England squad and adds a huge amount of value. As I said on another thread, the thought of not having Farrell playing against Ireland in Dublin next year isn't a good one. He's very evidently a hugely influential part of this England side and is capable of contributing to it's success in a very big way.

Why? He's a player who, on technical ability alone would be nowhere near the England team. But with him on the pitch, we play better.

I think that definition fits both players extremely well.

For all his positives, I don't think there can be any argument that Farrell is not as technically gifted as Ford or Cipriani or Marcus Smith, etc.

We haven't seen an England team without Farrell and with backline balance. Not once since Farrell arrived. So to say we wouldn't do well without him is to say so without knowing how we would get on.

I would take Ford over Farrell at 10 every day of the week. But I would also take Farrell over our 12 options because, to be honest, they're all pretty crap.

And it just so happens that his best performances have all been at 12. So pick him there and stop the nonsense. He's a good player. He's not a great player. His kicking %age is no better than Ford's (and may be worse over the last 24 months? small sample size for Ford, mind), his tackle %age at 10 is worse than Ford's. We score fewer tries when Ford is off the pitch (can someone do an analysis of this, please, it will be good reading for everyone).

I just don't get why you'd want Farrell at 10. I've been converted to him at 12, he was improving game on game and actually looks good there. But his labourious passing and decision making can break down moves at 10.

Mikey Brown wrote:So we settled on 10. Lampard 11. Ford 12. Farrell for Aus?

I thought we'd agreed Ford was the new 9 after his amazing box kick...

TheDasher wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

TheDasher wrote:
Agreed, he's simply not as good a rugby player as Jonny Wilkinson. But he's still a hugely capable vital part of this squad, he's a British Lion and a highly decorated club player for a reason. The slating he gets on here goes WAY too far.

As does the lauding in the media as a whole.

So you agree the slating does go too far?

I think Farrell has stood out this Autumn. I have no reason to laud him more than anyone else but I think the multitude of people who are giving all this praise are correct at this moment. He is whether you like him or not, hugely influential in this current team/squad. As I said on another thread, if we're serious about trying to beat this beast of an Ireland team in Dublin, we will need Farrell involved, I suspect they'd be delighted if he wasn't.

I think we have gone a bit far but reasons such as learning on the job 2013(?) to 2017 and a very poor match against NZ, and others, that are glossed over, plus talk of being world class off the tee when he had the worst % in the 6N this year can drive you mad. He played well on dat and was part of the solution; however, he’s widely lauded as being THE reason for the turn around.
As I say, he is highly influential, he does set the tone but he is flawed in most areas I’d want from my 10.

fivepointer wrote:The thing with Farrell is that a lot of people DO think he's world class. A lot of coaches, former players, pundits, fellow players, writers and fans rate him.
These arent just your Stehen Jones types but people who really know the game, have played and coached at a high level and do generally know what they're on about. It's not just Eddie Jones who has picked him. He's been an England and Lions regular, so there is a widespread appreciation of what he can bring to a team.
I bet if you ask every coach in the Premiership if they would like him in their side you would get 100% positive response.
Its this weight of credible opinion in his favour that has led me to conclude that he simply has to have something, and that i'm almost certainly missing it.

I think the pundits and hacks rate him highly as he is seen, rightly, or wrongly as a match winner. His boot kicks the goals that win matches. Much in the same way Beckham used to score some great free kicks. Everything else doesn't seem to matter.

Maybe there's also an element of his so-called temperament and the fact he wears his heart on his sleeve too. Plus, perhaps having a famous father who is respected and revered as a former player the world over may also contribute to the fact that Farrell's mistakes and limitations aren't really discussed or acknowledged? The moment Farrell stepped on the pitch for England at senior level, the hype machine went into overdrive and it hasn't stopped.

Look at this guff from the Guardian:

Eddie Jones recently explained that Owen Farrell is not the kind of player to be wrapped in cotton wool. He may want to think again. If this victory, ultimately comprehensive but anything but comfortable, told us anything it is that England’s reliance on Farrell remains almost total; going into next year’s World Cup without him is unthinkable.

...to say that Farrell swung the match in England’s favour single‑handed but the biggest factor was without doubt his introduction and the bloody-mindedness he brought.

...In the end, the power at England’s disposal proved pivotal, guided by Farrell, but the biggest lesson Jones will have learned from this match is that his side are still struggling to adapt on the pitch. More direction is needed because Farrell cannot do it all alone.

Absolutely no mention of anything that Farrell did in the match other than his mystical presence.

Mark Wilson grew into the game but three penalties against him inside the first 10 minutes were perhaps a reminder that he is still a relative novice at this level and throughout the first half it became acutely apparent England are still unable to adapt on the hoof, to think on their feet.

Ohh look, focus on another player's mistakes though.

Statistics do not always tell the whole story but Japan had 69% territory in the first half and 77% possession and really should have been ahead by more.

The match ended with Japan having 63% and 64% possession and territory, but fails to explain that they didn't have much ball towards the end of the match as they were out on their feet, which could well be another reason why England improved.

The fact is, Japan still had more possession and territory in the second half.

Dylan Hartley could be heard imploring his side to be disciplined when he came on during that period but the 7-1 penalty count at half‑time time suggested his teammates were not listening.

Amazingly, we conceded another 5 penalties in the second half when Farrell was on the pitch, guiding us with his leadership. Japan conceded 8 penalties in the second half though, so perhaps that was thanks to Farrell...or a sign of a tiring team?

It would be interesting to find out how many of the 32 missed tackles occurred in the second half too.

If hacks are adamant about Farrell's mere presence being the reason we won, there should be some evidence to back it up, but the addition of other players seemed to influence the game more.

That isn't to say I don't think Farrell didn't have any impact at all, I just think the impact he had is being over-egged somewhat.

That 32 missed tackle stat is almost all down to Slade, though. God, he was poor.

Which is a crying shame, but I think his course has run this cycle. Drop him until after the WC now, he needs to get out of this environment and work on his flaws.

Stom wrote:That 32 missed tackle stat is almost all down to Slade, though. God, he was poor.

Which is a crying shame, but I think his course has run this cycle. Drop him until after the WC now, he needs to get out of this environment and work on his flaws.

Poor dab only missed 5 according to espn. Either way, it was noticed in write ups and ratings.

Farrell missed 11 last week. Little to no mention.

The Welsh backs from 10-15 missed 16 tackles between them in 3 matches and Farrell alone has missed 14 in 3 matches.

On the whole though, the missed tackle stats makes for bad reading for the England team. Farrell looks to be the worse offender with Slade in second place.

WaspInWales wrote:The Welsh backs from 10-15 missed 16 tackles between them in 3 matches and Farrell alone has missed 14 in 3 matches.

Wales - Ireland in the 6N has the makings to be a belter…
Similar to the 16-16 draw in 2016… (that's a lot of 16s)

Renniks wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:The Welsh backs from 10-15 missed 16 tackles between them in 3 matches and Farrell alone has missed 14 in 3 matches.

Wales - Ireland in the 6N has the makings to be a belter…
Similar to the 16-16 draw in 2016… (that's a lot of 16s)

Aye, could well be the deciding match too...which is weird as both teams play away 3 times. England are at home 3 times, but my expectations are hardly brimming over at the moment. Still, we should give Italy a good game

England's change kit… thoughts?

Tempting to buy one --- mainly because it's safer for when you've had 1 too many pints and not ruining a shirt with beer/wine/food

Not sure why it was needed against a kit full of red though

It’s better than the white one, which is hideous.

I miss the purple ensemble.

Can someone tell me what the explanation of this image is from the telegraph?



It seems to be suggesting that Ford should have gone out the back, rather than kicking. That looks to be an awful thought to me? The Japs have numbers, have enough width, and we're already 10m on the backfoot. If Ashton or Daly are caught, then that's a potential turnover, and they've got a lot of sideways running to do, to get to the outside.

There's also 14 Japanese players in that picture, meaning just 1 guy sat back, and with Coka and Loz ready to chase, it seems like a smart choice to me?

Based on that still it looks like the correct call to me. Also need to take into account game situation. We may have tried 4/5 phases of trying to run in out of our half only to make no ground. It may have been very slow ball (which, let face it, is highly likely given the first 50/60 mins) and to try a ball out the back in the circumstances would be suicidal. Also depends on the outcome - if it rolls out on the 5 yard line or traps the ball at the bottom of a ruck in their 22 then it might be the correct call.

I think you could run the ball in that shot, Japan have three backs on the shortside so there's a chance there's a miss match somewhere, especially if they have two backs back (and I confess I can only count 13 Japanese players in the picture) and we have George, Lawes and Mercer to support. But it's not obviously the wrong decision to kick

I'll say this, I wish we did improve our ability to run the ball and show more intent to do so, we kick far too much and we're terrible to watch. This is the sort of example where we could shift our mindset rather than a shocking decision from the 10

Digby wrote:I think you could run the ball in that shot, Japan have three backs on the shortside so there's a chance there's a miss match somewhere, especially if they have two backs back (and I confess I can only count 13 Japanese players in the picture) and we have George, Lawes and Mercer to support. But it's not obviously the wrong decision to kick

I'll say this, I wish we did improve our ability to run the ball and show more intent to do so, we kick far too much and we're terrible to watch. This is the sort of example where we could shift our mindset rather than a shocking decision from the 10

Think there's another Japanese player on the floor, though I could be wrong. The mismatch appears to be Leitch (I think), who managed to step and generally turn our backs inside out, so it may not be that much of a mismatch...

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:I think you could run the ball in that shot, Japan have three backs on the shortside so there's a chance there's a miss match somewhere, especially if they have two backs back (and I confess I can only count 13 Japanese players in the picture) and we have George, Lawes and Mercer to support. But it's not obviously the wrong decision to kick

I'll say this, I wish we did improve our ability to run the ball and show more intent to do so, we kick far too much and we're terrible to watch. This is the sort of example where we could shift our mindset rather than a shocking decision from the 10

Think there's another Japanese player on the floor, though I could be wrong. The mismatch appears to be Leitch (I think), who managed to step and generally turn our backs inside out, so it may not be that much of a mismatch...

There were 3 Japanese players in that tackle I think and 2 had regained their feet. I don't recall if it was shown how many they had back but I'd guess two rather than one

After some clumsy hands from Ford and Cockanasiga we'd just had Cockanasiga put in a positive run and then Itoje and then my memory says Mercer but from the still I've just noted he was available to support so either there was another carry I've forgotten or more than one player had a blue scrum cap or my memory is shit. In any event England were going forwards having run the ball for a number of positive phases, there's surely more than one forward in that openside defence and we can always kick if we get into trouble

It's not though like we hadn't just been running the ball, we specifically had and we were going forwards and still we just kicked the sodding thing away. It's not an awful decision to kick, nor was it an awful kick, but feck me we've little ambition

Digby wrote:I think you could run the ball in that shot, Japan have three backs on the shortside so there's a chance there's a miss match somewhere, especially if they have two backs back (and I confess I can only count 13 Japanese players in the picture) and we have George, Lawes and Mercer to support. But it's not obviously the wrong decision to kick

I'll say this, I wish we did improve our ability to run the ball and show more intent to do so, we kick far too much and we're terrible to watch. This is the sort of example where we could shift our mindset rather than a shocking decision from the 10

this.

(not the 13 bit though)

I can only count 2 backs on the shortside, the 12 and 13, the 8 and hooker are then behind the ruck, with the 9 already sweeping around.

If we'd have run it with Loz, we'd have had Lawes and George to support, but had it gone out the back? There's a fair chance they'd have had to run back to get over the ball if Ashton/Daly had got snagged.

p/d wrote:

Digby wrote:I think you could run the ball in that shot, Japan have three backs on the shortside so there's a chance there's a miss match somewhere, especially if they have two backs back (and I confess I can only count 13 Japanese players in the picture) and we have George, Lawes and Mercer to support. But it's not obviously the wrong decision to kick

I'll say this, I wish we did improve our ability to run the ball and show more intent to do so, we kick far too much and we're terrible to watch. This is the sort of example where we could shift our mindset rather than a shocking decision from the 10

this.

(not the 13 bit though)

Where's the 14th then? I remember two lads getting back out of that tackle, or I'm going senile, and the chap on the floor isn't wearing white shorts in a rare example of it making sense to wear the away kit

If it had to be kicked Japan are very narrow and a low cross field kick to Cockanasiga is perhaps on.Though in the first instance Lozowski should be screaming for that ball and chance to show and go or use Daly or Ashton, I'd like to see the down field shot to see if Ashton is looping or giving Lozowski an option on the inside

If I was defending that what I wouldn't want is to have a player with pace like Lozowski to run at me with the option of Daly one side and Ashton the other, still less if I was a forward , even a forward with pace

Raggs wrote:I can only count 2 backs on the shortside, the 12 and 13, the 8 and hooker are then behind the ruck, with the 9 already sweeping around.

If we'd have run it with Loz, we'd have had Lawes and George to support, but had it gone out the back? There's a fair chance they'd have had to run back to get over the ball if Ashton/Daly had got snagged.

We're in the age of the blitz defence. So one can either dominate contact like SBW, and there aren't many freaks like that who can offload and even that doesn't always work, or you can pass down the line and hope your passing is like Huw Jones for that Horne try this weekend, but realistically you're going to have to play deep to allow some space or just have to kick the ball away

I'd prefer not to just kick the ball away, though granted this would make it more difficult to pick a lock at 6

And I thought I'd seen red 11 on the shortside but now I enlarge the image I can only see the two backs. Nonetheless there's a lot of space on that pitch that we're not able to utilise and that’s a concern to me (and I'm not saying go early into space such they can drift, but they are narrow so go up the middle and keep the threat of exposing the edge)

you could be right. Was Ewels sporting white strapping around his head?

That could be it, I thought the white was another Japanese player on the floor.

p/d wrote:you could be right. Was Ewels sporting white strapping around his head?

Yes he was dressed up like Dooley

Raggs wrote:That could be it, I thought the white was another Japanese player on the floor.

so, in Ford's defense, we have 3 guys on the ground and he might have received slow ball from the breakdown............... though it does look as if Ashton & Daly are geared up for a move