RugbyRebels

I’m really amazed how some people think Farrell had a good game.

If Ashton’s try had been converted and Farrell hadn’t effectively gifted NZ 3pts with that restart, we probably would have won. 5 massive points.

Likewise. He seems to be scoring ridiculously high in the stats I've seen

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Peej wrote:
Wow that really is shockingly high

If that stat was next to Ford’s name.....
The miss on Bin Smuth was criminal. All we’ll hear about, though, is the tackle on Read (which was bloody good).
The thing that annoys me is that all the things you here about him in commentary, match reports or ratings, of you didn’t know any better, you’d think he was a back row player. Not what I’d want from my 10.

Blimey you’re brave with that last sentence. The Johnny Wilkinson appreciation society may well lynch you for that sort of sentiment.

Wilkinson could pass off both hands, kick off both feet, was able to take the ball to the line and pick the right pass, as well as offering a threat himself. His heir is Ford, not Farrell.

Puja

There's a lack of objectivity around Farrell that has long been there and doggedly persists. Given some of his dreadful errors and inadequate defence, its very hard to see how he could be given anything above a 5.
A word on the starting props. Moon was absolutely rock solid in the scrum, made his tackles and hit his rucks. Sinckler, I reckon, had his best game for England. He scrummaged well and put in a tremendous shift in the loose. Big pat on the back for both players.

Peej wrote:Likewise. He seems to be scoring ridiculously high in the stats I've seen

He's seen as the arch-gladiator. Why - flick knows. My own theory, slightly tongue-in-cheek, is that it's all about the extent to which Saracens influence rules. Christ, even Wigglesworth in his bath chair gets in the squad. Borthwick and Ashton still ride the reputation bandwagon, as do Kruis and George. The only true outstanding international (with the Vs injured) is Itoje!

Scrumhead wrote:If Ashton’s try had been converted and Farrell hadn’t effectively gifted NZ 3pts with that restart, we probably would have won. 5 massive points.

He didn't have a great game but let's try to keep it balanced. The conversion was hardly in front of the posts, and the restart gave them a scrum on half way,

Puja wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: If that stat was next to Ford’s name.....
The miss on Bin Smuth was criminal. All we’ll hear about, though, is the tackle on Read (which was bloody good).
The thing that annoys me is that all the things you here about him in commentary, match reports or ratings, of you didn’t know any better, you’d think he was a back row player. Not what I’d want from my 10.

Blimey you’re brave with that last sentence. The Johnny Wilkinson appreciation society may well lynch you for that sort of sentiment.

Wilkinson could pass off both hands, kick off both feet, was able to take the ball to the line and pick the right pass, as well as offering a threat himself. His heir is Ford, not Farrell.

Puja

I think you are slightly missing the point. Wilkinson, like Farrell put too much stock in his defence and was out of position too often as a result. Having your 1st 5 buried in a ruck when you win a turnover is almost as little use as not winning the turnover at all.

Surely Ford will play next week and Farrell can have a week off and reflect on what might have been.

fivepointer wrote:There's a lack of objectivity around Farrell that has long been there and doggedly persists. Given some of his dreadful errors and inadequate defence, its very hard to see how he could be given anything above a 5.
A word on the starting props. Moon was absolutely rock solid in the scrum, made his tackles and hit his rucks. Sinckler, I reckon, had his best game for England. He scrummaged well and put in a tremendous shift in the loose. Big pat on the back for both players.

Yes, agreed. The front row, as a unit, was performing well, making Hartley's withdrawal even more mystifying, unless he was injured.

I don't like T'eo but you have to ask what sort of an ordeal it was playing outside of Youngs and Farrell. We are at the stage where, say, Underhill and one of the Currys might as well start as centres.

I wonder if you had a secret ballot who T'eo and Slade would vote for at FH out of Farrell, Ford and Cipriani.

I think I remember Te'o carrying a couple of times!

canta_brian wrote:

Puja wrote:

canta_brian wrote:
Blimey you’re brave with that last sentence. The Johnny Wilkinson appreciation society may well lynch you for that sort of sentiment.

Wilkinson could pass off both hands, kick off both feet, was able to take the ball to the line and pick the right pass, as well as offering a threat himself. His heir is Ford, not Farrell.

Puja

I think you are slightly missing the point. Wilkinson, like Farrell put too much stock in his defence and was out of position too often as a result. Having your 1st 5 buried in a ruck when you win a turnover is almost as little use as not winning the turnover at all.

I was in the cavalry demanding Hodgson be picked over Wilko when Sir Jonny was having his injury problems. It was like the charge of the light brigade and I have many a scar from going into battle. Until JW is forgotten most England fans will demand an auxiliary flanker in the 10 shirt, sadly. That said, Wilko would get my kidney if he needed it and he was a far better player than Farrell will ever be.

Renniks wrote:I think I remember Te'o carrying a couple of times!

I’m no fan but he carried well when everyone who has watched more than 5 mins of rugby knew he was going to get the ball running back against the grain. That includes the four NZ defenders waiting for him.

Which takes me nicely on to how one dimensional we were. As I said pre-match, our current game plan might win us one if marches against the big boys but it won’t win us the RWC.

16th man wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:If Ashton’s try had been converted and Farrell hadn’t effectively gifted NZ 3pts with that restart, we probably would have won. 5 massive points.

He didn't have a great game but let's try to keep it balanced. The conversion was hardly in front of the posts, and the restart gave them a scrum on half way,

To beat the All Blacks, small margins count and let’s not forget Farrell is lauded as an incredible kicker.

The conversion wasn’t easy but it was definitely one a top class kicker should have nailed.

Gifting the opposition possession and momentum from a terrible kick off is unforgivable IMO. Even if it didn’t immediately lead to them scoring 3 points, it was absolutely the catalyst.

Scrumhead wrote:

16th man wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:If Ashton’s try had been converted and Farrell hadn’t effectively gifted NZ 3pts with that restart, we probably would have won. 5 massive points.

He didn't have a great game but let's try to keep it balanced. The conversion was hardly in front of the posts, and the restart gave them a scrum on half way,

To beat the All Blacks, small margins count and let’s not forget Farrell is lauded as an incredible kicker.

The conversion wasn’t easy but it was definitely one a top class kicker should have nailed.

Gifting the opposition possession and momentum from a terrible kick off is unforgivable IMO. Even if it didn’t immediately lead to them scoring 3 points, it was absolutely the catalyst.

He made too many major errors. I tried to point them out in this thread but got bored of doing it early in the second half.
The ice man kicker line really pisses me off. His kicking % is low for a international kicker. This might be acceptable if he was as creative as Sexton or Barrett but he’s just not.
I’d like to know how many tries we score with him at 10. He’s not been involved in one so far this AIs.
I hope Ford gets picked next week. I know he’ll be dropped for Oz but at least I’ll get to watch a quality passer dictate play rather than watching the mechanical swing of the arms. That pass to Slade on our 22 in the first half, it was like watching a 12 year old throwing his first miss pass.

canta_brian wrote:

Puja wrote:

canta_brian wrote:
Blimey you’re brave with that last sentence. The Johnny Wilkinson appreciation society may well lynch you for that sort of sentiment.

Wilkinson could pass off both hands, kick off both feet, was able to take the ball to the line and pick the right pass, as well as offering a threat himself. His heir is Ford, not Farrell.

Puja

I think you are slightly missing the point. Wilkinson, like Farrell put too much stock in his defence and was out of position too often as a result. Having your 1st 5 buried in a ruck when you win a turnover is almost as little use as not winning the turnover at all.

Wilkinson being out of position because of defence was a rarity, rather than something regular - he tended to stay in his channel and let runners come to him, rather than go looking for them.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Renniks wrote:I think I remember Te'o carrying a couple of times!

I’m no fan but he carried well when everyone who has watched more than 5 mins of rugby knew he was going to get the ball running back against the grain. That includes the four NZ defenders waiting for him.

Which takes me nicely on to how one dimensional we were. As I said pre-match, our current game plan might win us one if marches against the big boys but it won’t win us the RWC.

We were helped by the appalling weather bringing the level down and allowing us to drag them into a dog fight.

Notable that Ford came on and within minutes, we had worked an overlap twice and Jonny May was free up the middle. If we must have Farrell, we need him at 12 where he isn't the first decision-maker and he can be the option that Ford pulls out the back. That will mean no Slade, but he's hardly laid down a marker.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Renniks wrote:I think I remember Te'o carrying a couple of times!

I’m no fan but he carried well when everyone who has watched more than 5 mins of rugby knew he was going to get the ball running back against the grain. That includes the four NZ defenders waiting for him.

Which takes me nicely on to how one dimensional we were. As I said pre-match, our current game plan might win us one if marches against the big boys but it won’t win us the RWC.

We were helped by the appalling weather bringing the level down and allowing us to drag them into a dog fight.

Notable that Ford came on and within minutes, we had worked an overlap twice and Jonny May was free up the middle. If we must have Farrell, we need him at 12 where he isn't the first decision-maker and he can be the option that Ford pulls out the back. That will mean no Slade, but he's hardly laid down a marker.

Puja

Yeh, I’m resigned to Farrell being undroppable and therefore hoping for a Ford - Farrell - Tuilagi/Teo midfield. We might as well face that, barring injury, Farrell is nailed on at 10 throughly to 2020.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Renniks wrote:I think I remember Te'o carrying a couple of times!

I’m no fan but he carried well when everyone who has watched more than 5 mins of rugby knew he was going to get the ball running back against the grain. That includes the four NZ defenders waiting for him.

Which takes me nicely on to how one dimensional we were. As I said pre-match, our current game plan might win us one if marches against the big boys but it won’t win us the RWC.

We were helped by the appalling weather bringing the level down and allowing us to drag them into a dog fight.

Notable that Ford came on and within minutes, we had worked an overlap twice and Jonny May was free up the middle. If we must have Farrell, we need him at 12 where he isn't the first decision-maker and he can be the option that Ford pulls out the back. That will mean no Slade, but he's hardly laid down a marker.

Puja

There was that painful moment before Ford came on where England did two wrap around, only for it to be so laboured that May got the ball behind the gainline with two defenders already on top if him

Peej wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I’m no fan but he carried well when everyone who has watched more than 5 mins of rugby knew he was going to get the ball running back against the grain. That includes the four NZ defenders waiting for him.

Which takes me nicely on to how one dimensional we were. As I said pre-match, our current game plan might win us one if marches against the big boys but it won’t win us the RWC.

We were helped by the appalling weather bringing the level down and allowing us to drag them into a dog fight.

Notable that Ford came on and within minutes, we had worked an overlap twice and Jonny May was free up the middle. If we must have Farrell, we need him at 12 where he isn't the first decision-maker and he can be the option that Ford pulls out the back. That will mean no Slade, but he's hardly laid down a marker.

Puja

There was that painful moment before Ford came on where England did two wrap around, only for it to be so laboured that May got the ball behind the gainline with two defenders already on top if him

Things like that won’t always work. However, as a 10, you should always be able to throw a miss pass without grassing it 33% of the time.

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Puja wrote:
Wilkinson could pass off both hands, kick off both feet, was able to take the ball to the line and pick the right pass, as well as offering a threat himself. His heir is Ford, not Farrell.

Puja

I think you are slightly missing the point. Wilkinson, like Farrell put too much stock in his defence and was out of position too often as a result. Having your 1st 5 buried in a ruck when you win a turnover is almost as little use as not winning the turnover at all.

I was in the cavalry demanding Hodgson be picked over Wilko when Sir Jonny was having his injury problems. It was like the charge of the light brigade and I have many a scar from going into battle. Until JW is forgotten most England fans will demand an auxiliary flanker in the 10 shirt, sadly. That said, Wilko would get my kidney if he needed it and he was a far better player than Farrell will ever be.

Fair enough. Can’t argue with that. He was a great player who suited the England game plan of the time very well. He might even have suited a looser game. Shame we never found out. In hindsite I think it might have been really interesting to see him have a year in super rugby and see how he could use the space offered.

I liked the bit when Teo ran straight through a massive hole in the defence but Farrell didn’t even notice it and threw the ball behind, because that’s the plan I guess. Our attack was so laboured it is unreal.

As much as I take the piss.....Diggers are you going to do a minute by minute breakdown?

Watching the highlights. Do we ever try anything other than Itoje at 2? So naive.

England made the tactical error of going 15 points up too early in the game. It goes to show that the All Blacks still don’t really have a replacement for Crotty - things just work better when he is there without him doing anything noticeable.

Also, you can’t really blame 1 ref’s call when you shit away a third of your lineout ball and miss a quarter of your tackles.