RugbyRebels

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:
That or they feel obliged to keep hyping him up in order to keep access to their sources.

I had it down as group think but you could be right.
A couple of the times’ hacks were less complimentary than usual after the second and before the third test. Afterwards he was back to saving the world.

Could be a mix of all of it.

I think Oakboy is right to say there's a large streak of English rugby opinion that think FHs should be conservative and judged mainly on their kicking game - and also the feistiness. He's a living embodiment of the whole British Bulldog spirit where ability is less important than pluck.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are observing a game where you win by being better, rather than being braver. And every time we try to mention it to the others, we're told "Oh so you prefer X to Y" when the answer is "No, you need X and Y, because that's what the other lot has".

I suppose we should take the media being willing to criticise Farrell for even a nano-second as a positive.

You should probably read the Guardian. Their rugby journalists aren't like the Times or Telegraph. They don't actually seem to have any contacts, so they can say anything they want.

Only problem is that they generally don't have the wit.

Stom wrote:

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I had it down as group think but you could be right.
A couple of the times’ hacks were less complimentary than usual after the second and before the third test. Afterwards he was back to saving the world.

Could be a mix of all of it.

I think Oakboy is right to say there's a large streak of English rugby opinion that think FHs should be conservative and judged mainly on their kicking game - and also the feistiness. He's a living embodiment of the whole British Bulldog spirit where ability is less important than pluck.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are observing a game where you win by being better, rather than being braver. And every time we try to mention it to the others, we're told "Oh so you prefer X to Y" when the answer is "No, you need X and Y, because that's what the other lot has".

I suppose we should take the media being willing to criticise Farrell for even a nano-second as a positive.

You should probably read the Guardian. Their rugby journalists aren't like the Times or Telegraph. They don't actually seem to have any contacts, so they can say anything they want.

Only problem is that they generally don't have the wit.

I read the Guardian if I read anything tbh - I cba to get around paywalls in order to read rugby analysis with half the insight of here. Mostly I just read here when I'm bothered though.

I suppose I could argue that this is all Tuilagi's fault!

Basically, had Tuilagi stayed fit and available, Jones would have played him at 12, Farrell would have been at 10 and JJ, at 13, would not have lost his attacking effectiveness. There would have been no reason to pick Ford except as a squad back-up 10. Cipriani's recall would never have been under consideration.

Of course, it's a stupid way to look at it but is it any more stupid than Jones not trying other players at 12 or 9? Or, is it any more stupid than Jones, punditry and most journalists constantly watching Farrell at 12 and not seeing his limitations.

Oakboy wrote:I suppose I could argue that this is all Tuilagi's fault!

Basically, had Tuilagi stayed fit and available, Jones would have played him at 12, Farrell would have been at 10 and JJ, at 13, would not have lost his attacking effectiveness. There would have been no reason to pick Ford except as a squad back-up 10. Cipriani's recall would never have been under consideration.

Of course, it's a stupid way to look at it but is it any more stupid than Jones not trying other players at 12 or 9? Or, is it any more stupid than Jones, punditry and most journalists constantly watching Farrell at 12 and not seeing his limitations.

Tuilagi and Te'o. And Burrell for not being that good/a scapegoat of that first Australia test.

I blame [REDACTED].

So Farrell drives and shouts a lot! If he were constantly shouting at we whilst missing tackles and throwing passes at peoples heads it would start to piss me off. I’m all for having an on field motivator but I would prefer that ‘skill’ we’re not one of his primary skills. I’m also with Dors that it’s more a skill attributed to a second in command than the captain himself. We’re he able to realise that whilst berating his troops might be effective (allegedly), berating the ref certainly is not then captaincy material he may be.

I think Ford is a better 10 than Farrell, but at point does Farrell make them a better team, it's not an easy judgement imo?

I would even be pretty okay with 50 minutes of one and 30 minutes of the other (or thereabouts) to compare if it meant getting a proper 12. But we know Farrell has to do the full 80 every game so that might as well be Fords career over.

Mikey Brown wrote:I would even be pretty okay with 50 minutes of one and 30 minutes of the other (or thereabouts) to compare if it meant getting a proper 12. But we know Farrell has to do the full 80 every game so that might as well be Fords career over.

If I could be granted a rugby wish it would be for short-term injuries spanning the AIs to Farrell, Ford, Youngs and Care with all other players fit. We would then, finally, learn something.

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I would even be pretty okay with 50 minutes of one and 30 minutes of the other (or thereabouts) to compare if it meant getting a proper 12. But we know Farrell has to do the full 80 every game so that might as well be Fords career over.

If I could be granted a rugby wish it would be for short-term injuries spanning the AIs to Farrell, Ford, Youngs and Care with all other players fit. We would then, finally, learn something.

You know as well as I do we'd have wiggy at 9 and Francis at 12...

Better to pray for Maunder and Smith to take massive steps forward next season and emerge as "must pick" international players.

Although they'll still probably get hamstrung by the other issues.

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I would even be pretty okay with 50 minutes of one and 30 minutes of the other (or thereabouts) to compare if it meant getting a proper 12. But we know Farrell has to do the full 80 every game so that might as well be Fords career over.

If I could be granted a rugby wish it would be for short-term injuries spanning the AIs to Farrell, Ford, Youngs and Care with all other players fit. We would then, finally, learn something.

You know as well as I do we'd have wiggy at 9 and Francis at 12...

Wiggy, Goode, Brown, Francis, Barritt, Solomona, Mallinder.

There we go.

You are all pessimists. We might just get Robson, Cipriani, Tuilagi, JJ with Slade, Smith and Maunder on the bench.

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I would even be pretty okay with 50 minutes of one and 30 minutes of the other (or thereabouts) to compare if it meant getting a proper 12. But we know Farrell has to do the full 80 every game so that might as well be Fords career over.

If I could be granted a rugby wish it would be for short-term injuries spanning the AIs to Farrell, Ford, Youngs and Care with all other players fit. We would then, finally, learn something.

You don’t fancy letting Ford have a go without his handcuffs?

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I would even be pretty okay with 50 minutes of one and 30 minutes of the other (or thereabouts) to compare if it meant getting a proper 12. But we know Farrell has to do the full 80 every game so that might as well be Fords career over.

If I could be granted a rugby wish it would be for short-term injuries spanning the AIs to Farrell, Ford, Youngs and Care with all other players fit. We would then, finally, learn something.

You don’t fancy letting Ford have a go without his handcuffs?

I honestly don't think he's as good a player as Cipriani. However, if Cipriani has to be rejected for some reason, then, yes.

Ford ought to be an obvious pick, especially playing his club rugby with England's first choice SH. Neither player, though, IMO, has the imagination, character or speed of movement with hands or feet if they get less than perfect, quick ball from the forwards.

That's the difference with Cipriani. For example, that kick through for May's try was in difficult circumstances yet he did it. That took the nerve to try it despite Farrell. It took the skill to execute it. In the same situation I don't think Ford would have tried it. He would have passed to Farrell and the move would have petered out. Maybe, just maybe, with Farrell not there he might have tried it and he might have had the skill to execute it. I doubt it, though.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

If I could be granted a rugby wish it would be for short-term injuries spanning the AIs to Farrell, Ford, Youngs and Care with all other players fit. We would then, finally, learn something.

You don’t fancy letting Ford have a go without his handcuffs?

I honestly don't think he's as good a player as Cipriani. However, if Cipriani has to be rejected for some reason, then, yes.

Ford ought to be an obvious pick, especially playing his club rugby with England's first choice SH. Neither player, though, IMO, has the imagination, character or speed of movement with hands or feet if they get less than perfect, quick ball from the forwards.

That's the difference with Cipriani. For example, that kick through for May's try was in difficult circumstances yet he did it. That took the nerve to try it despite Farrell. It took the skill to execute it. In the same situation I don't think Ford would have tried it. He would have passed to Farrell and the move would have petered out. Maybe, just maybe, with Farrell not there he might have tried it and he might have had the skill to execute it. I doubt it, though.

So, nothing about Ford’s passing cutting apart the SA defence in the previous two tests? I don’t see how Cipriani’s performance in the third test demands he now plays ahead of Ford. Who is your second choice flyhalf if Cipriani gets injured the day before the match?

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: You don’t fancy letting Ford have a go without his handcuffs?

I honestly don't think he's as good a player as Cipriani. However, if Cipriani has to be rejected for some reason, then, yes.

Ford ought to be an obvious pick, especially playing his club rugby with England's first choice SH. Neither player, though, IMO, has the imagination, character or speed of movement with hands or feet if they get less than perfect, quick ball from the forwards.

That's the difference with Cipriani. For example, that kick through for May's try was in difficult circumstances yet he did it. That took the nerve to try it despite Farrell. It took the skill to execute it. In the same situation I don't think Ford would have tried it. He would have passed to Farrell and the move would have petered out. Maybe, just maybe, with Farrell not there he might have tried it and he might have had the skill to execute it. I doubt it, though.

So, nothing about Ford’s passing cutting apart the SA defence in the previous two tests? I don’t see how Cipriani’s performance in the third test demands he now plays ahead of Ford. Who is your second choice flyhalf if Cipriani gets injured the day before the match?

Well surely the answer to that question is the same as the answer to every other question in the universe. Who is at 12 and are they any good?

Mellsblue wrote: So, nothing about Ford’s passing cutting apart the SA defence in the previous two tests? I don’t see how Cipriani’s performance in the third test demands he now plays ahead of Ford. Who is your second choice flyhalf if Cipriani gets injured the day before the match?

Oh, I agree that Ford has a superb pass of either hand and I don't suggest he's lacking in ability. Mind you, if we are talking about pure passing ability, I think Slade is just as good.

I gave Cipriani's kick-through as an example of brain and body performing under pressure in a way that I don't think Ford can match but I've had him ahead of Ford for years not just because of the 3rd test. Had he had as many games as Ford he'd be 1st choice without argument, IMO.

Having said all that, I was dreaming about Cipriani getting a clear run in the AIs without the four I mentioned (and I'd cheerfully have Smith as back-up, by the way). I don't think for a moment that Jones will make Cipriani 1st choice FH but that's Jones's failure. Let's face it, if Tuilagi was fit (and I don't think he ever will be), he'd get the 12 shirt and there's a small chance that T'eo will in any case. If it then comes down to only one of the three FHs playing, I'm certain that Jones will rank them 1. Farrell, 2. Ford, 3. Cipriani.

It's interesting that in that rugby magazine link that 5P posted, over half the responders voted for Cipriani as 1st choice FH but, almost as interesting too, was the significantly larger number choosing Farrell than Ford. (Can't remember the exact figures but it was something like 55, 35, 10 for the three). I can't explain that but maybe the perception relates to character with Cipriani seen as the maverick skill-merchant, Farrell seen as the feisty, in-your-face competitor and Ford seen as a bit lacking in character.

The overall conclusion I would reach, is that Jones has somehow contrived to get the best out of none of them. Add in the failure to find/try an alternative at SH and you have a fairly dire management failing, IMO.

Mikey Brown wrote: Well surely the answer to that question is the same as the answer to every other question in the universe. Who is at 12 and are they any good?

Yep.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: So, nothing about Ford’s passing cutting apart the SA defence in the previous two tests? I don’t see how Cipriani’s performance in the third test demands he now plays ahead of Ford. Who is your second choice flyhalf if Cipriani gets injured the day before the match?

Oh, I agree that Ford has a superb pass of either hand and I don't suggest he's lacking in ability. Mind you, if we are talking about pure passing ability, I think Slade is just as good.

I gave Cipriani's kick-through as an example of brain and body performing under pressure in a way that I don't think Ford can match but I've had him ahead of Ford for years not just because of the 3rd test. Had he had as many games as Ford he'd be 1st choice without argument, IMO.

Having said all that, I was dreaming about Cipriani getting a clear run in the AIs without the four I mentioned (and I'd cheerfully have Smith as back-up, by the way). I don't think for a moment that Jones will make Cipriani 1st choice FH but that's Jones's failure. Let's face it, if Tuilagi was fit (and I don't think he ever will be), he'd get the 12 shirt and there's a small chance that T'eo will in any case. If it then comes down to only one of the three FHs playing, I'm certain that Jones will rank them 1. Farrell, 2. Ford, 3. Cipriani.

It's interesting that in that rugby magazine link that 5P posted, over half the responders voted for Cipriani as 1st choice FH but, almost as interesting too, was the significantly larger number choosing Farrell than Ford. (Can't remember the exact figures but it was something like 55, 35, 10 for the three). I can't explain that but maybe the perception relates to character with Cipriani seen as the maverick skill-merchant, Farrell seen as the feisty, in-your-face competitor and Ford seen as a bit lacking in character.

The overall conclusion I would reach, is that Jones has somehow contrived to get the best out of none of them. Add in the failure to find/try an alternative at SH and you have a fairly dire management failing, IMO.

How is Slade’s passing from 10? Loving that we are picking Cipriani on one moment, despite an otherwise average performance containing a few errors, and a poll of the general public. It’s hardly a weighty body of evidence.

If you think Smith is ready for test rugby you can’t have seen the u20 semi and final. He went missing somewhat. It was the sort of performance you’ve repeatedly held up as showing Ford lacks mental fortitude.

I’m all for Cipriani getting a shot with a new 9 and 12, but getting rid of Ford without affording him the same opportunity is chucking the baby out with the bath water.

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote: Well surely the answer to that question is the same as the answer to every other question in the universe. Who is at 12 and are they any good?

Yep.

Go on, then. You do you have at 12 outside Robson and Cipriani?

Oakboy wrote:You are all pessimists. We might just get Robson, Cipriani, Tuilagi, JJ with Slade, Smith and Maunder on the bench.

I don't see a huge lot to be optimistic about there barring a Tuilagi return to fitness, not as the players currently are.

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote: Well surely the answer to that question is the same as the answer to every other question in the universe. Who is at 12 and are they any good?

Yep.

Go on, then. You do you have at 12 outside Robson and Cipriani?

That's the rub, of course. I would have played Slade at 12 and Lozowski at 13 in SA. As ever, the expression, 'I wouldn't be starting from here', comes to mind. We are now 9 or so games from the RWC, so all the questions that could have been asked over the last 20 games remain unanswered.

I'd play Cipriani at 10 with Slade or Teo at 12 in the AIs but it won't happen. Jones will go with Ford at 10 and Farrell at 12. I am quite certain that we won't get far in the RWC with Youngs, Ford and Farrell so there's nothing to lose, even at this late stage, by trying something different. I happen to also think that we won't get far with Jones as head coach so we might just as well sack him now. That won't happen either.

Mellsblue wrote: How is Slade’s passing from 10? Loving that we are picking Cipriani on one moment, despite an otherwise average performance containing a few errors, and a poll of the general public. It’s hardly a weighty body of evidence.

If you think Smith is ready for test rugby you can’t have seen the u20 semi and final. He went missing somewhat. It was the sort of performance you’ve repeatedly held up as showing Ford lacks mental fortitude.

I’m all for Cipriani getting a shot with a new 9 and 12, but getting rid of Ford without affording him the same opportunity is chucking the baby out with the bath water.

Fair enough, you'd try it with Ford. I'd try it with Cipriani. Neither of us will get our way. Oh, and I say again, I've advocated Cipriani for years.

Ha Ha, you are, like, totally stuck with Farrell. That there is the biggest problem with England.