RugbyRebels

You won’t be happy until Joseph is dancing on Slade’s grave will you.

Mikey Brown wrote:You won’t be happy until Joseph is dancing on Slade’s grave will you.

I'm a big fan of Slade - I just think he's been misused; which makes me frustrated to see such a talent being wasted.

I do have a man-crush on JJ though. But even then, I'd take a fit&firing Manu ahead of him for England.

Where should Tuilagi play - 12 or 13? Do you want your lump at IC or OC? Do you want slick hands at IC?

Exeter set up with a lump at 12 which suits them. Slade has to fit round it.

For England he has to play where opportunities arise. That takes into account the system and absences. I happen to think that if a 2nd playmaker is the way to go (and I like it in principle), long-term, Slade would create more than Farrell.

For me, a bulldozer of a centre should be equally effective in either position (given time), a distributor is a (much) better fit at IC to get the ball wide, whilst a speedster is best at OC with a bit more space.

My ideal backline set-up is a bulldozer at IC, and speedster at OC and a distributor at FB; but you select from what you've got. For England, and assuming they all get enough game-time; I'd love to see 12. Slade; 13. Tuilagi with JJ on the bench (May & Cokanasiga on the wings, Daly/Watson at FB)

I'd meant to look out for it but forgot, has Care been cited for bringing the game into disrepute? He rather turned into a soccer player at the end of the game

Charlie Morgan has done an article on how Farrel’s 11 missed tackles was actually good and we got it wrong. So, yeah, sorry about that Faz. To be honest I barely noticed his tackling in the game. There was plenty of other stuff I had an issue with.

You just wonder if he ever actually gets any criticism at all, and maybe could be turned into something resembling the hype if he did? That’s a whole lot of guessing on my part, but you really get a sense everyone goes out of their way to praise him constantly.

Mikey Brown wrote:Charlie Morgan has done an article on how Farrel’s 11 missed tackles was actually good and we got it wrong. So, yeah, sorry about that Faz. To be honest I barely noticed his tackling in the game. There was plenty of other stuff I had an issue with.

You just wonder if he ever actually gets any criticism at all, and maybe could be turned into something resembling the hype if he did? That’s a whole lot of guessing on my part, but you really get a sense everyone goes out of their way to praise him constantly.

The miss (and it won't count in the stats) on McKenzie in the lead up to the try Savea should have scored was particularly bad. If he hadn't ran into McKenzie's face, there would have been no gap and he probably would have passed along the line, where we had plenty of defenders. In that circumstance, rushing up can have no positive impact. Sure, if the ball goes to a forward or an England centre, you can rush up confident they won't beat you with their footwork and that the pressure may force their pass, giving an opening. But against someone as fleet of foot as McKenzie...it's madness.

How many options was Farrell presented with when missing those tackles? NZ and tbf Australia can make you look really stupid even when you're doing a reasonable job closing down 75% or more of the possible threats

Digby wrote:How many options was Farrell presented with when missing those tackles? NZ and tbf Australia can make you look really stupid even when you're doing a reasonable job closing down 75% or more of the possible threats

Well, yeah. Generally that's what happens when you step up a level...

I just get the impression players will constantly step back inside him and when our players coming around are Shields, Wilson and Underhill, none renowned for their pace...

There is something similar in the times. Supposedly, it’s the fault of the other players for not keeping up. One photo was used showing a gloriously straight defensive line with only Farrell creating a dog leg. The other seven players were at fault it seems. Still, it’s not all bad. I used the missed tackle on Bin Smuth to show my eldest why his coach always demands a straight defensive line.

I suppose there is the fact that if Farrell is 10m ahead of everyone else, it gives them time to try and make the tackle after he misses. It'd be harder if he missed them whilst stood in the line with everyone else...

But it would make everybodys life so much simpler if he actually made the tackles. The notion going around that missing tackles might be a good thing I find utterly ridiculous.

That's not the notion being put around, but yes

fivepointer wrote:But it would make everybodys life so much simpler if he actually made the tackles. The notion going around that missing tackles might be a good thing I find utterly ridiculous.

But if it was ever accepted that making tackles was a better thing than failing to make tackles... Why wouldn't be press continue to champion Farrell over Ford? Cognitive Dissonance is literally all they have, it'd be hell to let that go too!

The pressure he applies is great, his workrate is enormous, but it's also brainless. His default, and seemingly only, response to defence, is to run flat out. Whether it's chasing breaks, kicks or tackles. If he'd calm it down, take into account the men outside him, the likely play etc, he'd be so much more effective, if only because he'd have more energy!

This isn’t a new thing. Farrell has been doing it for a while and somehow it’s either that it’s not recognised by the coaches or that he’s not listening/thinks he knows better.

Neither is good. The most worrying possibility is if the coaches actually feel that what he is doing is beneficial?

What’s even stranger is that his dad has a good track record of putting together some pretty mean and well organised defensive units. Surely he must see it/want to have a word?

Given how stats driven rugby has become, I can’t believe he can still be regarded as a great defender. I’ve never known of a player so Teflon-coated. It’s like he’s immune to criticism even when the stats are there to be seen.

There’s an analysis show here called The 1014 (I don’t know why they call it that). They spent a bit of time on this week’s show demonstrating how Farrell was pulled out of line allowing the ball carrier to step inside him. They put a fair bit of content on YouTube so I’ll post it if I can find it. It doesn’t seem to be up yet.

Lizard wrote:There’s an analysis show here called The 1014 (I don’t know why they call it that). They spent a bit of time on this week’s show demonstrating how Farrell was pulled out of line allowing the ball carrier to step inside him. They put a fair bit of content on YouTube so I’ll post it if I can find it. It doesn’t seem to be up yet.

Then they're wrong. Farrell wasn't pulled out of line, he never stays in the line. He's as much pulled it of line, as I have been deceived i to sitting on the sofa with the telly on.

Sarries have made it into a virtue, by never playing him at IC, and sending him flat-out at the opposition FH's outside shoulder, to either disrupt the pass, or turn him back into the heavy traffic. They then set up the rest of their defensive line, led by Barrett, to assume this is happening, and be ready for it.
This has never worked at international level, and has never worked with him wearing 12 - but he makes the same play all the f***ing time. However often it fails.

Lizard wrote:There’s an analysis show here called The 1014 (I don’t know why they call it that).

Richie is All Black #1014... I haven't seen this weeks TV show yet (I assume that's the version you're referring to?), but they touch on Farrell's defence on the YouTube version here:

Yeah, it was basically that but with video replay instead of a blackboard. Presumably there’s a copyright issue putting the footage on the YouTube version.

Mellsblue wrote:There is something similar in the times. Supposedly, it’s the fault of the other players for not keeping up. One photo was used showing a gloriously straight defensive line with only Farrell creating a dog leg. The other seven players were at fault it seems. Still, it’s not all bad. I used the missed tackle on Bin Smuth to show my eldest why his coach always demands a straight defensive line.

There's the rub.

Rather than keeping a well-oiled, disciplined backline, the hacks want all our players to run around like headless chickens chasing the ball.

If we only had 15 Farrells (of different size and shape), we'd be the best team in the world (according to some).

He’s kind of turned into a late 2000s Lewis Moody.

Mikey Brown wrote:He’s kind of turned into a late 2000s Lewis Moody.

Going to bed with Dylan?

Just bringing a conversation over to this forum. Did historical international stats for kicking.

Farrell, all time for England, is 147/207 for penalties and conversions. That makes him a 71% kicker internationally (which incidentally, is pretty accurate for his England games this season I believe). For Sarries he's 83%. That suggests the extra pressure gets to him, or for Sarries he can afford to only take easier ones.

Sexton for Ireland at 255/322 and 78%, for Leinster is at 471/505, and 93%.

Halfpenny for Wales 234/275 85%.

Biggar 103/119 for Wales is 87%.

Laidlaw for Scotland, 229/276, 83%.

Parra for France, 132/166, 80%.

So really, it's more for every 7-12 kicks, which is very much within the range of a single game, definitely across 2 games.

George Ford, who really has had some nightmares earlier on in his career, is only 3-4% below Farrell in England terms, and is at 82% for Tigers (that'll include both stints).

Ice man indeed...

Those stats surprise me. I thought Farrell kicked at a higher percentage than that.71% is really not a great level.