RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Yes please and thank you. All your breakdowns are belong to us. Especially with the likes of Rodd and Itoje too.

and LCD. However, carrying and lineout would have to be cleverly addressed

I don't know - Willis has always been a very powerful carrier and it's something which both TCurry and Underhill have added to their games of late. And all three can jump in the lineout, so a halfway adroit set of lineout moves should see us with enough flexible options to be able to go up uncontested most times. I think it could work for carrying and lineout without too much disarrangement of the team.

If we are going completely unbalanced, imagine this:
Mako
LCD
Cole
Launchbury
Itoje
Underhill
TCurry
Willis

Hugely unbalanced, but it'd be a bit good at the breakdown.

Puja

Scrums would be fun. In a "spot-bet on which stand it will end up in" sense as Cole goes one way, Mako the other and Willis just clings on at the back for dear life.

Danno wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: and LCD. However, carrying and lineout would have to be cleverly addressed

I don't know - Willis has always been a very powerful carrier and it's something which both TCurry and Underhill have added to their games of late. And all three can jump in the lineout, so a halfway adroit set of lineout moves should see us with enough flexible options to be able to go up uncontested most times. I think it could work for carrying and lineout without too much disarrangement of the team.

If we are going completely unbalanced, imagine this:
Mako
LCD
Cole
Launchbury
Itoje
Underhill
TCurry
Willis

Hugely unbalanced, but it'd be a bit good at the breakdown.

Puja

Scrums would be fun. In a "spot-bet on which stand it will end up in" sense as Cole goes one way, Mako the other and Willis just clings on at the back for dear life.

Cole spent years making Mako look a better scrummager than he is. Just couldn't manage it against the might of SA. Australia shouldn't be an issue.

I'd still pick Marler as the starting LH every time.

Willis is an underated carrier. He has a vicious fend and a high knee lift that means he can pump forwards yards. He doesn't have Simmonds' or Earl's pace, but I'd say he's the best all round carrier behind Curry. Potentially better, but Curry is great at those short lines from wider whereas Jack is good closer in.

I think Earl often hangs a bit wide waiting for the ball to come, like Simmonds did for a long time (before he then started getting greedy and only doing pick and goes rather than ruck clearance).

Oakboy wrote:I'd still pick Marler as the starting LH every time.

Only if Genge isn't available. Marler has the edge as a scrummager but not by a massive amount, in any other department I'd back Genge to be better.

Re the point of Earl drifting out wider, I think that's more the Sarries tactics. They want a linkman, they've got a big carrying in Vunipola and their blindsides can carry hard as well. Earl's pace allows him to keep pace with the backs and he's got a good knack of being on the right shoulder. He did play a bit of 8 at Bristol and carried more directly there.

Can add Will Skelton to the very long list of players and coaches who say Owen Farrell is the best they’ve played with or against (“he’s a freak mate”).

I love throwing these things about on this forum, cos it always makes some of you guys squirm

I think a lot of it is just the stuff you can’t easily see as an observer. We all joke about “the intangibles” but it is clearly a huge part of being an effective player the top level.

I feel like the media hype and refusal to ever acknowledge basic errors in skills or poor discipline is where 90% of the criticism on here stems from. He seems to be playing pretty well at the moment, but the hype machine went in to overdrive after more casual fans seemed to turn on him on social media.

Dave Attwood spoke about his run in with Farrell on a recent podcast. He plainly doesnt care for him on a personal level but was generous in his praise fore him as a player.
I think most people who come into contact with him regard him positively as a player. He does inspire a degree of admiration and I think that does come from his commitment and determination.

I’d say the vast majority of players who laud him in public tend to be forwards…..
I don’t think anybody questions his intangibles just his quality of passing, decision making when pass v kick, ability to play off the cuff and his ability to think clearly when things aren’t going to plan when set against how widely he is proclaimed as world class.

Farrell is England's best FH if Jones is head coach. They suit each other in those combined roles (despite Jones's constant belief that Farrell should be shoe-horned into the 12 shirt).

Timbo wrote:Can add Will Skelton to the very long list of players and coaches who say Owen Farrell is the best they’ve played with or against (“he’s a freak mate”).

I love throwing these things about on this forum, cos it always makes some of you guys squirm

How do you view Farrell?

What makes me squirm is what I see him doing- his lack of class as a skipper, his less than fluid handling skills, his poor tackling from time to time. What I also see and acknowledge is his work rate, commitment, unusual physicality when at 10, good ruck work and his will to win- and coaches and team mates will appreciate all that. He's a good premiership 10, and a decent intl 10 at his best. I don't see 100+ caps, but again, as you are saying a lot of posters here are swimming against the tide of most coaches, players and pundits!

Mellsblue wrote:I’d say the vast majority of players who laud him in public tend to be forwards…..
I don’t think anybody questions his intangibles just his quality of passing, decision making when pass v kick, ability to play off the cuff and his ability to think clearly when things aren’t going to plan when set against how widely he is proclaimed as world class.

Seems like he could have been a good flanker...

Honestly, with his skill set, a loose forward role would have made the most sense.

fivepointer wrote:Dave Attwood spoke about his run in with Farrell on a recent podcast. He plainly doesnt care for him on a personal level but was generous in his praise fore him as a player.
I think most people who come into contact with him regard him positively as a player. He does inspire a degree of admiration and I think that does come from his commitment and determination.

Farrell did come over as rather petulant in Attwoods story (appreciate it's only one side) and as for regarding Attwood as posh....

fivepointer wrote:He does inspire a degree of admiration and I think that does come from his commitment and determination.

Which I don't recall him ever being criticised for, except sometimes being over-done (eg when too commited, and losing the calm head, by tackling high, or rushing out of defense).

I don't doubt that he's a good leader of men - never have.
I don't doubt his commitment to the cause - never have.
I don't doubt his ability to inspire others to new heights - especially off-pitch.

I doubt his ability to keep a calm head when there's a big hit to be put in; though I fully acknowledge that he's got a lot better here over the last 4-5 years.
I doubt his ability to talk to the ref effectively and make his point without being offensive.
I doubt his desire to make the risky call (which is a good thing in itself, but IMO he plays it too safe - and fully acknowledge that's a preference that just about every coach would disagree with)
I doubt his ability to see space/mismatch 3 phases and 50m away.
I doubt his ability to attract 2 defenders onto him when he's got the ball whether through running lines, swivel hips, scary pace or scary power.
I doubt his ability to predictably throw a sharp, accurate, pass with perfect timing for the receiver to runs into without breaking stride.

All of the above takes as read that he's a solid international choice, so is a comparison to his peers, not mere mortals like ourselves.



The question then is which is more valuable. Ability to inspire or ability to play (noting that these are not absolutes)
And, of course, whether the press are willing to admit his imperfections. A lot of the criticism of him is that he doesn't live up to the hype about his play, which is really a criticism of the hype, not the man.

That’s a good summary. He’s often seen as a bit petulant on the field, but as with Sexton, Biggar and many others it just seems to be his manic competitiveness, and actually seems like a pretty nice, humble guy for the most part off-field.

I feel like that question of which is more valuable is the key to him being shoved to 12. He’s got limitations in both positions, but we have other good 10s and no convincing alternatives at 12. Is it going too far to suggest Eddie playing him there perhaps acknowledges some of Farrell’s weaknesses as a creative force? (Though I’ll concede he did do yet another magical Carlos Spencer esque offload on Saturday)

Mikey Brown wrote:That’s a good summary. He’s often seen as a bit petulant on the field, but as with Sexton, Biggar and many others it just seems to be his manic competitiveness, and actually seems like a pretty nice, humble guy for the most part off-field.

I feel like that question of which is more valuable is the key to him being shoved to 12. He’s got limitations in both positions, but we have other good 10s and no convincing alternatives at 12. Is it going too far to suggest Eddie playing him there perhaps acknowledges some of Farrell’s weaknesses as a creative force? (Though I’ll concede he did do yet another magical Carlos Spencer esque offload on Saturday)

I don't actually think he lacks the technical ability - except for long passes - but I think he overthinks it, and I don't think he has the awareness and mind to scan the field and run the game like Ford does. He probably got squeezed into fly half as a kid, but I guess it's tough when you've got the qualities that make you a great rugby player, but not a great 10 or great 12 or great flank or great [insert specific position].

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:That’s a good summary. He’s often seen as a bit petulant on the field, but as with Sexton, Biggar and many others it just seems to be his manic competitiveness, and actually seems like a pretty nice, humble guy for the most part off-field.

I feel like that question of which is more valuable is the key to him being shoved to 12. He’s got limitations in both positions, but we have other good 10s and no convincing alternatives at 12. Is it going too far to suggest Eddie playing him there perhaps acknowledges some of Farrell’s weaknesses as a creative force? (Though I’ll concede he did do yet another magical Carlos Spencer esque offload on Saturday)

I don't actually think he lacks the technical ability - except for long passes - but I think he overthinks it, and I don't think he has the awareness and mind to scan the field and run the game like Ford does. He probably got squeezed into fly half as a kid, but I guess it's tough when you've got the qualities that make you a great rugby player, but not a great 10 or great 12 or great flank or great [insert specific position].

iirc he played a lot of his schoolboy rugby at 12- I saw him play there for Sarries academy team in a schools tournament (and his behaviour was appalling- abusing the oppos and dissent), and he certainly played a lot outside Ford in rep rugby.
I think he has grafted a lot of skills into his game which don't come naturally- my old chestnut of left to right passing- and it shows when under pressure often; to give him his due, he has enhanced his game continually throughout his career (eg he hits better lines now, and has added some left footed grubbers) - that's the work ethic. But its quite hard to graft quality decision making AND execution under pressure on when the instinct and natural skill isn't there in the 1st place. Controlling a game from deep at 10 seems to suit him best, and hitting harder than usual from a 10, plus some good scramble defence, decent kicking, breakdown work and goal kicking that is good at intl level; unfortunately, you can only really do the first of these when your pack is dominent. As before, good to very good prem 10.

Stom wrote:He probably got squeezed into fly half as a kid,

That's a good point. You do wonder if he just got put there because of who his Dad is. Then stayed there because, even if he wasn't a natural 10 (BS term I know, as there are, quite rightly, many different types of good ways to play 10) for the same reason.

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:

Stom wrote:He probably got squeezed into fly half as a kid,

That's a good point. You do wonder if he just got put there because of who his Dad is. Then stayed there because, even if he wasn't a natural 10 (BS term I know, as there are, quite rightly, many different types of good ways to play 10) for the same reason.

From memory, he broke into Saracens team as an OC, alongside Hodgson and Barritt; and only really played FH initially as last-man-standing from injuries.
Then Hodgson retired, and Barritt was immovable, whilst Goode had settled at FB, so that's where Saracens had a space to fit him into.
Played his England age-grade rugby at 12, outside Ford.

So not "because his dad wanted him at FH" but "because Sarries had a gap at FH, and he filled it well enough for the limited gameplan they were playing at the time"

Which Tyler wrote:

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:

Stom wrote:He probably got squeezed into fly half as a kid,

That's a good point. You do wonder if he just got put there because of who his Dad is. Then stayed there because, even if he wasn't a natural 10 (BS term I know, as there are, quite rightly, many different types of good ways to play 10) for the same reason.

From memory, he broke into Saracens team as an OC, outside Hodgson and Barritt; and only really played FH initially as last-man-standing from injuries.
Then Hodgson retired, and Barritt was immovable, whilst Goode had settled at FB, so that's where Saracens had a space to fit him into.
Played his England age-grade rugby at 12, outside Ford.

So not "because his dad wanted him at FH" but "because Sarries had a gap at FH, and he filled it well enough for the limited gameplan they were playing at the time"

He came through the youth ranks at FH, though, didn't he? I thought he did, at least.

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:
That's a good point. You do wonder if he just got put there because of who his Dad is. Then stayed there because, even if he wasn't a natural 10 (BS term I know, as there are, quite rightly, many different types of good ways to play 10) for the same reason.

From memory, he broke into Saracens team as an OC, outside Hodgson and Barritt; and only really played FH initially as last-man-standing from injuries.
Then Hodgson retired, and Barritt was immovable, whilst Goode had settled at FB, so that's where Saracens had a space to fit him into.
Played his England age-grade rugby at 12, outside Ford.

So not "because his dad wanted him at FH" but "because Sarries had a gap at FH, and he filled it well enough for the limited gameplan they were playing at the time"

He came through the youth ranks at FH, though, didn't he? I thought he did, at least.

A quick Google says he played FH for Bedford when he was on loan there.

Stom wrote:

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: From memory, he broke into Saracens team as an OC, outside Hodgson and Barritt; and only really played FH initially as last-man-standing from injuries.
Then Hodgson retired, and Barritt was immovable, whilst Goode had settled at FB, so that's where Saracens had a space to fit him into.
Played his England age-grade rugby at 12, outside Ford.

So not "because his dad wanted him at FH" but "because Sarries had a gap at FH, and he filled it well enough for the limited gameplan they were playing at the time"

He came through the youth ranks at FH, though, didn't he? I thought he did, at least.

A quick Google says he played FH for Bedford when he was on loan there.

Ffs. I was hoping that wouldn’t become common knowledge. In defence of the #goldingtonroadfinishingschool he was only there for a handful of matches.

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:
That's a good point. You do wonder if he just got put there because of who his Dad is. Then stayed there because, even if he wasn't a natural 10 (BS term I know, as there are, quite rightly, many different types of good ways to play 10) for the same reason.

From memory, he broke into Saracens team as an OC, outside Hodgson and Barritt; and only really played FH initially as last-man-standing from injuries.
Then Hodgson retired, and Barritt was immovable, whilst Goode had settled at FB, so that's where Saracens had a space to fit him into.
Played his England age-grade rugby at 12, outside Ford.

So not "because his dad wanted him at FH" but "because Sarries had a gap at FH, and he filled it well enough for the limited gameplan they were playing at the time"

He came through the youth ranks at FH, though, didn't he? I thought he did, at least.

He did, albeit whenever he played with Ford, he shifted to 12. His breakthrough for Sarries at 13 was because he was last-man-standing from injuries, not because that was his position.

Puja

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:
That's a good point. You do wonder if he just got put there because of who his Dad is. Then stayed there because, even if he wasn't a natural 10 (BS term I know, as there are, quite rightly, many different types of good ways to play 10) for the same reason.

From memory, he broke into Saracens team as an OC, outside Hodgson and Barritt; and only really played FH initially as last-man-standing from injuries.
Then Hodgson retired, and Barritt was immovable, whilst Goode had settled at FB, so that's where Saracens had a space to fit him into.
Played his England age-grade rugby at 12, outside Ford.

So not "because his dad wanted him at FH" but "because Sarries had a gap at FH, and he filled it well enough for the limited gameplan they were playing at the time"

He came through the youth ranks at FH, though, didn't he? I thought he did, at least.

He did. He made his debut as a replacement coming on at FH in 2008. When Eddie Jones was Sarries coach.

I think Farrell ended up playing a lot more 10 than planned because Derek Hougaard the expected go to Sarries 10 smashed his knee up and missed virtually the whole season. Goode the other young 10 was needed at fullback and it all just worked. I think Hodgson joined the summer after Sarries won their first title with Farrell at 10 having lost the one the year before with Jackson at 10 who then retired.