fivepointer wrote:It probably comes down to the fact that Farrell doesnt seem that likeable. He seems to have a bit of an attitude and his manner can be a little prickly. He comes across as a bit dour and a fraction too intense for people to warm to him. The way he interacts with people on the pitch is off putting.
Now what makes him a bit unlikeable also makes him the steely competitor he undoubtedly is, so we have to get on with how he is and try and focus on how he plays.
For my part i've come to accept that he is someone that coaches value and who does energise those he plays with. There are too many knowledgeable people in the game that rate him not to concede that he must have something.
We could all do with being a little more objective when talking about him. we should recognise the good things he does, while at the same time pointing out his flaws.
That's interesting, do you think people on here criticise the way he plays because the don't like him? In which case I can't win. I for one am literally only judging him on his play, not whether or not I like him.
TheDasher wrote:
"And no "do my research for me" isn't going to convince anyone". What do you mean by that? I'm not asking you to do any research for me.
Re Farrell being "attacked". You started this thread and you used the word attack in your post, I didn't. That's why people are now using that word on this thread, because you used it.
If you read through the NZ/SA and Japan game threads you'll see endless and pretty negative stuff being written about Farrell. I think it got way over the top, some have agreed and we are where we are.
I think he's become a clever runner of the ball, he has a good rugby brain and sees and executes on opportunity, he's an aggressive and brave defender and he clearly is someone the team follow. He also manages to have a big impact on international games of rugby, with a great amount of that impact/influence being positive.
Perhaps, we should as another poster on this thread just suggested, we should focus on the negatives of Ford when he next plays and the positives of Farrell. Mellsblue mentioned Farrell's error vs Ireland, but not the lovely weighted grubber through for Daly to score, we mention a missed tackle against New Zealand, but not the massive hit on the world's finest number 8, a missed tackle against SA, but not the steal of the ball etc.
Read is not the world's best 8, but even if he were, why wouldn't anyone expect a strong, well-built bloke like Farrell to make such a tackle when he was right in Read's path? Read popped up in front of him and Farrell knocked him down. That is his job and not the stuff of legend, and is more than offset by the high number of tackles he misses, not to mention his fairly average goal kicking stats, lack of gas and a couple of obvious howlers in most games.
That said, he is a competent and competitive player who has worked hard to maximize his skills and is still improving. But those skills are not that great compared to the best midfielders of today and of the past. I do think he should get credit for playing well when he actually does play well, as he sometimes does. I think most knowledgeable rugby fans are just fed up listening to a constant stream of media adulation which is now unrelated to his actual performance. He only has to play to get rave reviews, which might as well be written before the game is played.
Read is not the world's best 8 in your opinion Spiffy... he might be in mine.
I very clearly wasn't suggesting the tackle was the 'stuff of legend', that would be ridiculous obviously. I was simply saying that on RR, over the past few weeks, he has been the focus of much negativity and criticism.
I think he's a better fly-half than Ford at intl level, for everything he brings.
You mention MOST knowledgeable rugby fans being fed up... how do you know this? The ten or so people who are on here most of the time would support that fact but I would say that the vast majority of coaches, players and fans outside of this site seem to rate him more highly than people on here do.
When you have coaches of super rugby teams, other international sides, other fly-halves, captains etc praising him constantly, and I agree with them, it is difficult for me to change my mind on the basis of the few people on here who are so insanely outnumbered.
So you want your 10 to be making tackles and geeing up the team? What about game control, kicking from hand, passing, running, choosing the right option and so on? Are these not more valuable skills at 10? Especially when you cannot expect any of our 9s to run a game at international level.
The point is... All of Farrell’s best skills seem to be skills that are valuable to have... But not in a 10.
I want my 10 to run the game, kick well from hand, be the best passer, choose the right options and not get buried in rucks.
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Also, messageboards thrive on criticism rather than praise. I don't think that Farrell gets more than, say Ford, who gets pilloried for his defence and goal kicking regularly.
Messageboards thrive on both criticism and praise I'd suggest, rather than just one or the other.
Spiffy wrote:
Read is not the world's best 8, but even if he were, why wouldn't anyone expect a strong, well-built bloke like Farrell to make such a tackle when he was right in Read's path? Read popped up in front of him and Farrell knocked him down. That is his job and not the stuff of legend, and is more than offset by the high number of tackles he misses, not to mention his fairly average goal kicking stats, lack of gas and a couple of obvious howlers in most games.
That said, he is a competent and competitive player who has worked hard to maximize his skills and is still improving. But those skills are not that great compared to the best midfielders of today and of the past. I do think he should get credit for playing well when he actually does play well, as he sometimes does. I think most knowledgeable rugby fans are just fed up listening to a constant stream of media adulation which is now unrelated to his actual performance. He only has to play to get rave reviews, which might as well be written before the game is played.
Read is not the world's best 8 in your opinion Spiffy... he might be in mine.
I very clearly wasn't suggesting the tackle was the 'stuff of legend', that would be ridiculous obviously. I was simply saying that on RR, over the past few weeks, he has been the focus of much negativity and criticism.
I think he's a better fly-half than Ford at intl level, for everything he brings.
You mention MOST knowledgeable rugby fans being fed up... how do you know this? The ten or so people who are on here most of the time would support that fact but I would say that the vast majority of coaches, players and fans outside of this site seem to rate him more highly than people on here do.
When you have coaches of super rugby teams, other international sides, other fly-halves, captains etc praising him constantly, and I agree with them, it is difficult for me to change my mind on the basis of the few people on here who are so insanely outnumbered.
So you want your 10 to be making tackles and geeing up the team? What about game control, kicking from hand, passing, running, choosing the right option and so on? Are these not more valuable skills at 10? Especially when you cannot expect any of our 9s to run a game at international level.
The point is... All of Farrell’s best skills seem to be skills that are valuable to have... But not in a 10.
I want my 10 to run the game, kick well from hand, be the best passer, choose the right options and not get buried in rucks.
I want the same from my 10 Stom. Difference is I don't see Farrell being buried in rucks to be honest. I see him as the most influential England player, with a good rugby brain, strong resolve and great determination. I think making him the main man at 10 is incredibly logical.
fivepointer wrote:It probably comes down to the fact that Farrell doesnt seem that likeable. He seems to have a bit of an attitude and his manner can be a little prickly. He comes across as a bit dour and a fraction too intense for people to warm to him. The way he interacts with people on the pitch is off putting.
Now what makes him a bit unlikeable also makes him the steely competitor he undoubtedly is, so we have to get on with how he is and try and focus on how he plays.
For my part i've come to accept that he is someone that coaches value and who does energise those he plays with. There are too many knowledgeable people in the game that rate him not to concede that he must have something.
We could all do with being a little more objective when talking about him. we should recognise the good things he does, while at the same time pointing out his flaws.
That's interesting, do you think people on here criticise the way he plays because the don't like him? In which case I can't win. I for one am literally only judging him on his play, not whether or not I like him.
Re your other points, I completely agree.
I'd say none of us are completely objective when it comes to assessing a player. We all have players we like for one reason or another, while there are others that rub us up the wrong way. we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper when we watch a game. We will have a preformed view of a players quality which may be positive or negative. We are all guilty of looking at a favourite player and picking out the good bits, while often disregarding their less than stellar interventions. On the other side, we can all easily find evidence of poor play from a player we dont much rate.
Dont really see how it could be any different.
You just have to try and look at things as objectively as possible, but frankly that is difficult at times.
TheDasher wrote:
Read is not the world's best 8 in your opinion Spiffy... he might be in mine.
I very clearly wasn't suggesting the tackle was the 'stuff of legend', that would be ridiculous obviously. I was simply saying that on RR, over the past few weeks, he has been the focus of much negativity and criticism.
I think he's a better fly-half than Ford at intl level, for everything he brings.
You mention MOST knowledgeable rugby fans being fed up... how do you know this? The ten or so people who are on here most of the time would support that fact but I would say that the vast majority of coaches, players and fans outside of this site seem to rate him more highly than people on here do.
When you have coaches of super rugby teams, other international sides, other fly-halves, captains etc praising him constantly, and I agree with them, it is difficult for me to change my mind on the basis of the few people on here who are so insanely outnumbered.
So you want your 10 to be making tackles and geeing up the team? What about game control, kicking from hand, passing, running, choosing the right option and so on? Are these not more valuable skills at 10? Especially when you cannot expect any of our 9s to run a game at international level.
The point is... All of Farrell’s best skills seem to be skills that are valuable to have... But not in a 10.
I want my 10 to run the game, kick well from hand, be the best passer, choose the right options and not get buried in rucks.
I want the same from my 10 Stom. Difference is I don't see Farrell being buried in rucks to be honest. I see him as the most influential England player, with a good rugby brain, strong resolve and great determination. I think making him the main man at 10 is incredibly logical.
Not sure we'll ever agree
So you're basically saying McCaw should have been at 10, Parisse at 10, Carling at 10... Lobbe at 10, Hooper at 10...
Theyre all the most influential players in their teams, with good rugby brains, great determination and strong resolve. And none of them were 10s.
In fact, Carling is a bloody good example.
You need different skills at 10. You need skills Carter had, Johnny had, Sexton has, Ford has...
fivepointer wrote:It probably comes down to the fact that Farrell doesnt seem that likeable. He seems to have a bit of an attitude and his manner can be a little prickly. He comes across as a bit dour and a fraction too intense for people to warm to him. The way he interacts with people on the pitch is off putting.
Now what makes him a bit unlikeable also makes him the steely competitor he undoubtedly is, so we have to get on with how he is and try and focus on how he plays.
For my part i've come to accept that he is someone that coaches value and who does energise those he plays with. There are too many knowledgeable people in the game that rate him not to concede that he must have something.
We could all do with being a little more objective when talking about him. we should recognise the good things he does, while at the same time pointing out his flaws.
That's interesting, do you think people on here criticise the way he plays because the don't like him? In which case I can't win. I for one am literally only judging him on his play, not whether or not I like him.
Re your other points, I completely agree.
I don't find Farrell's attitude and body language annoying generally but his place kick preparations are lengthily cringeworthy. It is a factor in making me hope that Daly kicks. He does it with no weird mannerisms in less than half the time.
fivepointer wrote:It probably comes down to the fact that Farrell doesnt seem that likeable. He seems to have a bit of an attitude and his manner can be a little prickly. He comes across as a bit dour and a fraction too intense for people to warm to him. The way he interacts with people on the pitch is off putting.
Now what makes him a bit unlikeable also makes him the steely competitor he undoubtedly is, so we have to get on with how he is and try and focus on how he plays.
For my part i've come to accept that he is someone that coaches value and who does energise those he plays with. There are too many knowledgeable people in the game that rate him not to concede that he must have something.
We could all do with being a little more objective when talking about him. we should recognise the good things he does, while at the same time pointing out his flaws.
That's interesting, do you think people on here criticise the way he plays because the don't like him? In which case I can't win. I for one am literally only judging him on his play, not whether or not I like him.
Re your other points, I completely agree.
I'd say none of us are completely objective when it comes to assessing a player. We all have players we like for one reason or another, while there are others that rub us up the wrong way. we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper when we watch a game. We will have a preformed view of a players quality which may be positive or negative. We are all guilty of looking at a favourite player and picking out the good bits, while often disregarding their less than stellar interventions. On the other side, we can all easily find evidence of poor play from a player we dont much rate.
Dont really see how it could be any different.
You just have to try and look at things as objectively as possible, but frankly that is difficult at times.
Agreed.
In some cases though, and Shields is the obvious example, even preconceived low expectations are not reached. Now, Jones is not a complete idiot (arguably), so that is an example of a player offering something that is not apparent to us spectators. It is not prejudice to criticise him, or is it? Can we have faith in his ability to transform himself and become twice as good as he has been so far, in which case he'd be nearly as good as Robshaw?
Stom wrote:
So you want your 10 to be making tackles and geeing up the team? What about game control, kicking from hand, passing, running, choosing the right option and so on? Are these not more valuable skills at 10? Especially when you cannot expect any of our 9s to run a game at international level.
The point is... All of Farrell’s best skills seem to be skills that are valuable to have... But not in a 10.
I want my 10 to run the game, kick well from hand, be the best passer, choose the right options and not get buried in rucks.
I want the same from my 10 Stom. Difference is I don't see Farrell being buried in rucks to be honest. I see him as the most influential England player, with a good rugby brain, strong resolve and great determination. I think making him the main man at 10 is incredibly logical.
Not sure we'll ever agree
So you're basically saying McCaw should have been at 10, Parisse at 10, Carling at 10... Lobbe at 10, Hooper at 10...
Theyre all the most influential players in their teams, with good rugby brains, great determination and strong resolve. And none of them were 10s.
In fact, Carling is a bloody good example.
You need different skills at 10. You need skills Carter had, Johnny had, Sexton has, Ford has...
Yep, that's it, I think McCaw and Parisse should be at 10, that's exactly it. Give me strength.
I'm saying I want Farrell at 10, just like Mark McCall does, just like numerous other people are.
I'm saying he's an excellent 10, he controls the game extremely well and he has the skills to excel there. He's a key, influential player that I think should control things from fly-half.
You might disagree but suggesting the Saracens fly half should play for England at fly-half is not the same as thinking a flanker should play there.
fivepointer wrote:It probably comes down to the fact that Farrell doesnt seem that likeable. He seems to have a bit of an attitude and his manner can be a little prickly. He comes across as a bit dour and a fraction too intense for people to warm to him. The way he interacts with people on the pitch is off putting.
Now what makes him a bit unlikeable also makes him the steely competitor he undoubtedly is, so we have to get on with how he is and try and focus on how he plays.
For my part i've come to accept that he is someone that coaches value and who does energise those he plays with. There are too many knowledgeable people in the game that rate him not to concede that he must have something.
We could all do with being a little more objective when talking about him. we should recognise the good things he does, while at the same time pointing out his flaws.
That's interesting, do you think people on here criticise the way he plays because the don't like him? In which case I can't win. I for one am literally only judging him on his play, not whether or not I like him.
Re your other points, I completely agree.
I don't find Farrell's attitude and body language annoying generally but his place kick preparations are lengthily cringeworthy. It is a factor in making me hope that Daly kicks. He does it with no weird mannerisms in less than half the time.
Don't we just want the ball going over the sticks rather than caring about the faces he pulls and his run up?
Stom wrote:
So you want your 10 to be making tackles and geeing up the team? What about game control, kicking from hand, passing, running, choosing the right option and so on? Are these not more valuable skills at 10? Especially when you cannot expect any of our 9s to run a game at international level.
The point is... All of Farrell’s best skills seem to be skills that are valuable to have... But not in a 10.
I want my 10 to run the game, kick well from hand, be the best passer, choose the right options and not get buried in rucks.
I want the same from my 10 Stom. Difference is I don't see Farrell being buried in rucks to be honest. I see him as the most influential England player, with a good rugby brain, strong resolve and great determination. I think making him the main man at 10 is incredibly logical.
Not sure we'll ever agree
So you're basically saying McCaw should have been at 10, Parisse at 10, Carling at 10... Lobbe at 10, Hooper at 10...
Theyre all the most influential players in their teams, with good rugby brains, great determination and strong resolve. And none of them were 10s.
In fact, Carling is a bloody good example.
You need different skills at 10. You need skills Carter had, Johnny had, Sexton has, Ford has...
Carling is not a good example, Deano was the main man of that era, followed by Winterbottom, Moore, Andrew and Teague, Carling would come in behind Leonard and Dooley, mind in an illustration that we're England so would Guscott and Underwood, go figure
TheDasher wrote:
Don't we just want the ball going over the sticks rather than caring about the faces he pulls and his run up?
Of course but now I don't look at the screen till he starts his run-up. I'm suggesting it's a part of the prejudice. Also, If he takes, say, 8 kicks, and spends 30 seconds too long on each, we lose 4 minutes of play.
Dash, it's bollocks, but it IS symptomatic, developing 5p's point about prejudice, that's all.
TheDasher wrote:
I want the same from my 10 Stom. Difference is I don't see Farrell being buried in rucks to be honest. I see him as the most influential England player, with a good rugby brain, strong resolve and great determination. I think making him the main man at 10 is incredibly logical.
Not sure we'll ever agree
So you're basically saying McCaw should have been at 10, Parisse at 10, Carling at 10... Lobbe at 10, Hooper at 10...
Theyre all the most influential players in their teams, with good rugby brains, great determination and strong resolve. And none of them were 10s.
In fact, Carling is a bloody good example.
You need different skills at 10. You need skills Carter had, Johnny had, Sexton has, Ford has...
Yep, that's it, I think McCaw and Parisse should be at 10, that's exactly it. Give me strength.
I'm saying I want Farrell at 10, just like Mark McCall does, just like numerous other people are.
I'm saying he's an excellent 10, he controls the game extremely well and he has the skills to excel there. He's a key, influential player that I think should control things from fly-half.
You might disagree but suggesting the Saracens fly half should play for England at fly-half is not the same as thinking a flanker should play there.
But he doesn't control the game for Sarries, they play off 9...
Stom wrote:
So you're basically saying McCaw should have been at 10, Parisse at 10, Carling at 10... Lobbe at 10, Hooper at 10...
Theyre all the most influential players in their teams, with good rugby brains, great determination and strong resolve. And none of them were 10s.
In fact, Carling is a bloody good example.
You need different skills at 10. You need skills Carter had, Johnny had, Sexton has, Ford has...
Yep, that's it, I think McCaw and Parisse should be at 10, that's exactly it. Give me strength.
I'm saying I want Farrell at 10, just like Mark McCall does, just like numerous other people are.
I'm saying he's an excellent 10, he controls the game extremely well and he has the skills to excel there. He's a key, influential player that I think should control things from fly-half.
You might disagree but suggesting the Saracens fly half should play for England at fly-half is not the same as thinking a flanker should play there.
But he doesn't control the game for Sarries, they play off 9...
So are you saying that Owen Farrell cannot control a game of rugby from 10? And you're saying that when I say he can, I may as well be suggesting a flanker at 10, is that right?
TheDasher wrote:
Don't we just want the ball going over the sticks rather than caring about the faces he pulls and his run up?
Of course but now I don't look at the screen till he starts his run-up. I'm suggesting it's a part of the prejudice. Also, If he takes, say, 8 kicks, and spends 30 seconds too long on each, we lose 4 minutes of play.
Dash, it's bollocks, but it IS symptomatic, developing 5p's point about prejudice, that's all.
Of course, I get it it, and I for one thinks his face is mightily 'slappable' when he's going about his kicking duties. I'm not sure I like him, but I think we need what he brings.
The most irritating kicking routine surely has to be Biggar's though right? Horrendous. Wilkinson's patting his feet like a seagull searching for worms also got me a bit.
TheDasher wrote:
Yep, that's it, I think McCaw and Parisse should be at 10, that's exactly it. Give me strength.
I'm saying I want Farrell at 10, just like Mark McCall does, just like numerous other people are.
I'm saying he's an excellent 10, he controls the game extremely well and he has the skills to excel there. He's a key, influential player that I think should control things from fly-half.
You might disagree but suggesting the Saracens fly half should play for England at fly-half is not the same as thinking a flanker should play there.
But he doesn't control the game for Sarries, they play off 9...
So are you saying that Owen Farrell cannot control a game of rugby from 10? And you're saying that when I say he can, I may as well be suggesting a flanker at 10, is that right?
I'm suggesting he's not very good at it. Not good enough to be an international 10. Which is why I've never really been keen on Cips, either, for very different reasons that boil down to the same thing.
Stom wrote:
But he doesn't control the game for Sarries, they play off 9...
So are you saying that Owen Farrell cannot control a game of rugby from 10? And you're saying that when I say he can, I may as well be suggesting a flanker at 10, is that right?
I'm suggesting he's not very good at it. Not good enough to be an international 10. Which is why I've never really been keen on Cips, either, for very different reasons that boil down to the same thing.
You don't think he's good enough to be an international 10 full-stop; I'd suggest you really are in a minority group there. Some people clearly prefer Ford and some are annoyed that he's talked about as world-class but even fewer are suggesting Farrell isn't good enough to be an international 10.
As I said further up the page, for the moment, we're not going to agree on this one!
I suppose I might be odd for rating all three of our 10s (Farrell/Ford/Cips)... I think all of them are capable of doing a decent job.
Slade doesn't get charged down as much, kick the ball out on the full as much and doesn't throw the ball along the ground as much. That said, I've always liked 12trees for the good moments he has
Slade doesn't get charged down as much, kick the ball out on the full as much and doesn't throw the ball along the ground as much. That said, I've always liked 12trees for the good moments he has
