RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Right. So we’ve regressed to the school play ground again. Good stuff.

Well how the actual fuck can you not have noticed the England captain? Genuinely? You literally said “What is Farrell’s CV as captain”. That’s your own words. We were in a World Cup final a few hours ago with Farrell as the captain. Not noticing that is worrying.

I’ve clearly noticed it. I cited it in numerous posts you’ve replied to. As a rule, a CV should include your experience prior to your current job - I was clearly asking about previous captaincy experience.

You noticed it and then asked arguably the most stupid question since Noah asked if it looked like rain? Otherwise that’s like questioning Kieran Read’s captaincy because they lost to us.

Either way it’s pretty dumb. And that’s being kind.

We made the final, and fucking lost. I’m totally gutted, but fuck me we did well! Not today, but overall. There’s many reasons for that and I’m not going to shit it away in a knee jerk reaction. Take time. Take it all in. Review and then go again.

And at some point in a CV you might get an opportunity to a role above your previous roles. How you handle that determines where you go next. Getting a ‘promotion’ and succeeding is kind of a good thing.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Well how the actual fuck can you not have noticed the England captain? Genuinely? You literally said “What is Farrell’s CV as captain”. That’s your own words. We were in a World Cup final a few hours ago with Farrell as the captain. Not noticing that is worrying.

I’ve clearly noticed it. I cited it in numerous posts you’ve replied to. As a rule, a CV should include your experience prior to your current job - I was clearly asking about previous captaincy experience.

You noticed it and then asked arguably the most stupid question since Noah asked if it looked like rain? Otherwise that’s like questioning Kieran Read’s captaincy because they lost to us.

Either way it’s pretty dumb. And that’s being kind.

You’ve clearly completely missed the point, probably on purpose. However, I’ll take from your response that he hasn’t previously captained any team of note? Thanks for answering.

Timbo wrote:If Jones and Mitchell are up for it I’d be happy to see them take us through to 2023. By the sounds we’ll need a few new coaches, which is probably no bad thing as it’ll be fresh ideas and pov.

Player-wise, it’s obviously impossible to predict how this squad will come back physically, injuries and where they are emotionally and in terms of motivation. All things being equal I would keep things broadly the same- this is a bloody good set of players, and 90% of them still should be at their peak in 4 years.

I would like to see changes happen a bit more organically than some of the other suggested squads in this thread (Obano, Ford-Robinson, Ibitoye, Malins etc nowhere near good enough imo) Probably need to get a couple of young 9’s involved, but I’d really want to see younger players tearing up trees rather than fast tracked.

I agree with this - I'd keep Eddie on at least for the next two years but set the bar higher than the previous cycle ("judge me on the World Cup" no more). I'd target as a minimum a Grand Slam in either 2020 or 2021 and only a single loss in the 2020 Autumn as we should be aiming to build momentum while other teams are in differing states of regeneration. I understand he may have had to do some work to bring up base fitness, etc but that should be there now to build on so we can't use the same excuse over the next cycle.

A huge positive in Eddie's favour is the lack of viable alternatives. NZ seem to be able to get their potential coaches into gigs at other countries first and I'd love our coaches to begin doing the same before ascending to the England job (why couldn't Rob Baxter or Paul Gustard go and coach in Super Rugby or coach Georgia / Italy?)

Given the quality of the squad (notwithstanding the problem areas below) I agree we can be more selective about who we bring in and I think we should be identifying the players who can be top international class and bringing them into a winning team compared to the more scattergun approach building up to this World Cup. It's hard to say who is on that list but players who have caught my eye are Heyes, Kpoku, Ted Hill, BCurry, Willis, Mercer, Smith, Mallinder, Lawrence, Thorley.

9 / 12 / 15 are the positions where we may need to take more urgent action to move on from the options used in this World Cup.

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I’ve clearly noticed it. I cited it in numerous posts you’ve replied to. As a rule, a CV should include your experience prior to your current job - I was clearly asking about previous captaincy experience.

You noticed it and then asked arguably the most stupid question since Noah asked if it looked like rain? Otherwise that’s like questioning Kieran Read’s captaincy because they lost to us.

Either way it’s pretty dumb. And that’s being kind.

You’ve clearly completely missed the point, probably on purpose. However, I’ll take from your response that he hasn’t previously captained any team of note? Thanks for answering.

Apart from Saracens when Barritt is not playing. Thanks for asking. Which kind of infers that Farrell is the choice over Maro. Kind of consistently. Ignore that if you will.

And I’ve not missed the point I’m just calling out stupidity or bias. Your choice as to which it is. I’m guessing the former as I’m sure you wouldn’t be biased.

Did we play up to our potential today? NO. Is it anything to do with coaching and captaincy? How can it not be?

So, by definition, today, coach and captain failed. We lost. Fact.

In the inquest, what is the main question? Are we wonderful for getting to the final? Or, did we underperform in losing?

I suggest that the fact that we lost, in itself, is not the be all and end all. Had we lost narrowly to a better side and played well we might be able to praise the management/leadership hierarchy and move on. Jolly good show etc.

But, we did not turn up. We lost badly. The same regime will not necessarily do better next time so we need to change it.

Did you expect a World Cup win from the start then? Did you expect to beat NZ? Even before the tournament let alone when it came to the game?

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
You noticed it and then asked arguably the most stupid question since Noah asked if it looked like rain? Otherwise that’s like questioning Kieran Read’s captaincy because they lost to us.

Either way it’s pretty dumb. And that’s being kind.

You’ve clearly completely missed the point, probably on purpose. However, I’ll take from your response that he hasn’t previously captained any team of note? Thanks for answering.

Apart from Saracens when Barritt is not playing. Thanks for asking. Which kind of infers that Farrell is the choice over Maro. Kind of consistently. Ignore that if you will.

And I’ve not missed the point I’m just calling out stupidity or bias. Your choice as to which it is. I’m guessing the former as I’m sure you wouldn’t be biased.

I disagree with you so I’m biased or stupid. Nice one. Thanks for finally answering the question. I won’t ignore it and it will inform my opinion.
Why the insults? It’s strange you get so riled by someone thinking Itoje would make a better captain than Farrell. In fact, you seem to get overly riled about any criticism of Farrell.

Getting beaten up by the Owen and Bennie fam club

Couldn’t have predicted that. Always one drink away from an insult.

Oakboy wrote:Did we play up to our potential today? NO. Is it anything to do with coaching and captaincy? How can it not be?

So, by definition, today, coach and captain failed. We lost. Fact.

In the inquest, what is the main question? Are we wonderful for getting to the final? Or, did we underperform in losing?

I suggest that the fact that we lost, in itself, is not the be all and end all. Had we lost narrowly to a better side and played well we might be able to praise the management/leadership hierarchy and move on. Jolly good show etc.

But, we did not turn up. We lost badly. The same regime will not necessarily do better next time so we need to change it.

What are you talking about? It’s obvious - it was ALL George Ford’s fault! He and he alone is responsible.

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: You’ve clearly completely missed the point, probably on purpose. However, I’ll take from your response that he hasn’t previously captained any team of note? Thanks for answering.

Apart from Saracens when Barritt is not playing. Thanks for asking. Which kind of infers that Farrell is the choice over Maro. Kind of consistently. Ignore that if you will.

And I’ve not missed the point I’m just calling out stupidity or bias. Your choice as to which it is. I’m guessing the former as I’m sure you wouldn’t be biased.

I disagree with you so I’m biased or stupid. Nice one. Thanks for finally answering the question. I won’t ignore it and it will inform my opinion.
Why the insults? It’s strange you get so riled by someone thinking Itoje would make a better captain than Farrell. In fact, you seem to get overly riled about any criticism of Farrell.

Not at all, just pulling apart an argument built upon clear bias or idiocy. To wholly negate a captaincy for the sake of either dislike of an individual or simply being a moron is not a hard argument to counter. It’s blatantly obvious that the team has grown and embraced his captaincy. They’ve bought in to it. Collectively we’ve failed today. That doesn’t necessitate change. Especially due to dislike of an individual, or dislike of how others perceive said individual, which is half the basis of this message board.

In an ideal world we’d have more options at 10 and 12, but as it is we don’t.

p/d wrote:Getting beaten up by the Owen and Bennie fam club

Couldn’t have predicted that. Always one drink away from an insult.

Or just having a vague idea rather than blind prejudice.

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Did we play up to our potential today? NO. Is it anything to do with coaching and captaincy? How can it not be?

So, by definition, today, coach and captain failed. We lost. Fact.

In the inquest, what is the main question? Are we wonderful for getting to the final? Or, did we underperform in losing?

I suggest that the fact that we lost, in itself, is not the be all and end all. Had we lost narrowly to a better side and played well we might be able to praise the management/leadership hierarchy and move on. Jolly good show etc.

But, we did not turn up. We lost badly. The same regime will not necessarily do better next time so we need to change it.

What are you talking about? It’s obvious - it was ALL George Ford’s fault! He and he alone is responsible.

He was shite today, though to be fair had always struggled behind a pack going backward and failing SH. Likewise it’s hard to find a SH who is in any way successful against a pack that is spoiling successfully.

That said players across the piece made very basic errors of which Ford was one, though he was far, far from alone. And even in error much was not the error of an individual in isolation, the kick straight out aside.

I was joking - Oakboy loves to blame Ford.

Sometimes I just can’t resist.

Oakboy wrote:Did we play up to our potential today? NO. Is it anything to do with coaching and captaincy? How can it not be?

So, by definition, today, coach and captain failed. We lost. Fact.

In the inquest, what is the main question? Are we wonderful for getting to the final? Or, did we underperform in losing?

I suggest that the fact that we lost, in itself, is not the be all and end all. Had we lost narrowly to a better side and played well we might be able to praise the management/leadership hierarchy and move on. Jolly good show etc.

But, we did not turn up. We lost badly. The same regime will not necessarily do better next time so we need to change it.

You sort of follow a train of logic for the first few paragraphs- a logic that I don’t particularly agree with, but at least it follows on in a reasonable fashion.

Your last sentence makes no sense though, unless you know of a coaching team that’s guaranteed to win a World Cup final?

Scrumhead wrote:I was joking - Oakboy loves to blame Ford.

Sometimes I just can’t resist.

My bad. Sorry didn’t recognise the joke Scrum.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Apart from Saracens when Barritt is not playing. Thanks for asking. Which kind of infers that Farrell is the choice over Maro. Kind of consistently. Ignore that if you will.

And I’ve not missed the point I’m just calling out stupidity or bias. Your choice as to which it is. I’m guessing the former as I’m sure you wouldn’t be biased.

I disagree with you so I’m biased or stupid. Nice one. Thanks for finally answering the question. I won’t ignore it and it will inform my opinion.
Why the insults? It’s strange you get so riled by someone thinking Itoje would make a better captain than Farrell. In fact, you seem to get overly riled about any criticism of Farrell.

Not at all, just pulling apart an argument built upon clear bias or idiocy. To wholly negate a captaincy for the sake of either dislike of an individual or simply being a moron is not a hard argument to counter. It’s blatantly obvious that the team has grown and embraced his captaincy. They’ve bought in to it. Collectively we’ve failed today. That doesn’t necessitate change. Especially due to dislike of an individual, or dislike of how others perceive said individual, which is half the basis of this message board.

In an ideal world we’d have more options at 10 and 12, but as it is we don’t.

So, I’ve said he’s a test class player, that he’s a great leader off the pitch and that his only failing is I doubt his on pitch leadership in difficult situations, and that one negative is due to a dislike of him??? I dislike him because I don’t think he’s perfect? Given your overreaction I’d say you’re the one with bias.
I’m sick of being called an idiot and/or a moron by some bloke who has never met me just because I disagree with him. A bloke who has Farrell as the wallpaper on his phone. So, I’ll call it a night.

Oh bless you. You’ve already asked about his CV and been found desperately wanting due to what one can only assume is bias on the vague hope it is not a clear lack of knowledge. A complete lack of any evidence. Without any evidence then any argument is up for debate. To be unable to back it up shows clearly.

The simple piece on a Farrell wallpaper is down to a single picture not a persona, but nice try whilst also failing completely to piece a coherent argument for your point.

Even the vaguest of evidence to support same would be good, but in terms of Itoje post age grade or recognition of Farrell as both Saracens deputy and England captain would have helped. Even a simple google search would’ve found occasions where Farrell captained Saracens to losses. It’s literally two minutes of effort and would’ve supported an argument with a smidge of evidence. But without anything of such you’ll just fail to acknowledge failure and thus give up. Such is message board knowledge. Well done! Sleep well.

So I guess that means we need a new captain as some message board hero thinks so without any real evidence to support such a claim. If only international coaches were so clued up.

I asked about his CV because I don’t pretend to know everything. It was a simple question that I hoped you would know the answer to. Not everyone comes on here to be a keyboard warrior. I gave you evidence of Itoje captaining post age grade. I don’t need a coherent argument to make the point with regards your phone wallpaper. It’s implicit. Your over the top reaction is weird. I hope you sleep well, too.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Did we play up to our potential today? NO. Is it anything to do with coaching and captaincy? How can it not be?

So, by definition, today, coach and captain failed. We lost. Fact.

In the inquest, what is the main question? Are we wonderful for getting to the final? Or, did we underperform in losing?

I suggest that the fact that we lost, in itself, is not the be all and end all. Had we lost narrowly to a better side and played well we might be able to praise the management/leadership hierarchy and move on. Jolly good show etc.

But, we did not turn up. We lost badly. The same regime will not necessarily do better next time so we need to change it.

What are you talking about? It’s obvious - it was ALL George Ford’s fault! He and he alone is responsible.

He was shite today, though to be fair had always struggled behind a pack going backward and failing SH. Likewise it’s hard to find a SH who is in any way successful against a pack that is spoiling successfully.

That said players across the piece made very basic errors of which Ford was one, though he was far, far from alone. And even in error much was not the error of an individual in isolation, the kick straight out aside.

Are there any 10s who don't struggle in those circumstances?

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I disagree with you so I’m biased or stupid. Nice one. Thanks for finally answering the question. I won’t ignore it and it will inform my opinion.
Why the insults? It’s strange you get so riled by someone thinking Itoje would make a better captain than Farrell. In fact, you seem to get overly riled about any criticism of Farrell.

Not at all, just pulling apart an argument built upon clear bias or idiocy. To wholly negate a captaincy for the sake of either dislike of an individual or simply being a moron is not a hard argument to counter. It’s blatantly obvious that the team has grown and embraced his captaincy. They’ve bought in to it. Collectively we’ve failed today. That doesn’t necessitate change. Especially due to dislike of an individual, or dislike of how others perceive said individual, which is half the basis of this message board.

In an ideal world we’d have more options at 10 and 12, but as it is we don’t.

So, I’ve said he’s a test class player, that he’s a great leader off the pitch and that his only failing is I doubt his on pitch leadership in difficult situations, and that one negative is due to a dislike of him??? I dislike him because I don’t think he’s perfect? Given your overreaction I’d say you’re the one with bias.
I’m sick of being called an idiot and/or a moron by some bloke who has never met me just because I disagree with him. A bloke who has Farrell as the wallpaper on his phone. So, I’ll call it a night.

I have never quite got this business of a captain being a great leader off the pitch. What does that actually mean? And what evidence is there of his off-pitch leadership, since nobody ever gets to see it (whatever it is)? The true test of a great captain is how he performs in leading his team on the field of play in the heat of battle, playing what's in front of him. I do not think that Farrell is particularly good at this, or even that he is an outstanding rugby player, especially at 12, who should be an automatic choice for his country.

Questioning Farrell's captaincy is fair enough, though its not the reason we lost. Although he isnt one of our better players, i do feel he has a positive effect on those around him. He does lead by example in that he is a true competitor and wont back down from a challenge. Thats not to be dismissed lightly.
My view is that outstanding captains are extremely rare and are usually players who inspire team mates by their actions. Does Farrell do that? I think he may do, but its not altogether obvious and we wouldnt really know what goes on in camp. I sense that he is respected by fellow players and is obviously favoured by coaches.
He isnt going to retire or get dropped, so having him as captain isnt really a live issue.
For me we have other more pressing issues to deal with involving who plays at 9,12,15 and settling on an ideal balance in the back row.

fivepointer wrote:Questioning Farrell's captaincy is fair enough, though its not the reason we lost. Although he isnt one of our better players, i do feel he has a positive effect on those around him. He does lead by example in that he is a true competitor and wont back down from a challenge. Thats not to be dismissed lightly.
My view is that outstanding captains are extremely rare and are usually players who inspire team mates by their actions. Does Farrell do that? I think he may do, but its not altogether obvious and we wouldnt really know what goes on in camp. I sense that he is respected by fellow players and is obviously favoured by coaches.
He isnt going to retire or get dropped, so having him as captain isnt really a live issue.
For me we have other more pressing issues to deal with involving who plays at 9,12,15 and settling on an ideal balance in the back row.

I don't know.

So many commentators and coaches like to compare it to military leadership. And that gets it all wrong for me.

In my opinion, a captain should have the ability (both given by the coach and his own ability) to alter the gameplan during play. Either because the opposition have nullified you or because something isn't working.

Farrell (just like Hartley before) seem unable to do this.

Mainly this is because Jones doesn't create leaders because he cannot have his leadership challenged.

Farrell has previously shown the ability to be a beacon and to lead. BUT he has disappeared in big games several times now, when the pressure comes on.

Someone like Mark Wilson is always there, constantly leading from the front, whether we're 100 points up or 100 down.

Robshaw led from the front but lacked that pure focused aggression.

I want my captain to both be someone who leads by example AND makes good decisions under pressure.

And, more importantly, I want my team to have the ability to adapt. To screw the coach and change on the fly.

If I had to pick a captain who lacked the 1st or lacked the 2nd, I'd pick a cool head over bombast every time. He can lean on VCs for that.

Which is why I would be very tempted by Ford as captain.

He sees the whole pitch in front of him, he has the ability to recognise threats and attempt to change the gameplan. And he can speak to the ref. Then lean on others as VCs - George, Itoje and Farrell all have experience here.