RugbyRebels

They just want him to start at 10 vs. France.

Whereas Farrell is by no means my favourite player and by no means a 10 I would suggest that the English pack have looked undercooked the past 2 games, they should be able to get up to speed over the next two weeks you'd think but the lack of gametime for the Saracens contingent has not helped the international side. I'd be dropping Billy V on form currently, he seems pedestrian, tho I suppose the counter argument would be that he needs to play himself into match fitness.

Numbers wrote:Whereas Farrell is by no means my favourite player and by no means a 10 I would suggest that the English pack have looked undercooked the past 2 games, they should be able to get up to speed over the next two weeks you'd think but the lack of gametime for the Saracens contingent has not helped the international side. I'd be dropping Billy V on form currently, he seems pedestrian, tho I suppose the counter argument would be that he needs to play himself into match fitness.

I just don't think Billy V can affect a game like he used to. Part of it is his decline, part the need for pure pace off the back of the pack and part the absolute essential requirement for the No 8 to be comfortable around the park (including joining the backs in handling AND in stacking up tries from more than a yard or two). Simmonds is the example of what is required. Why Jones continues to ignore him is a mystery. Rugby matches are won by scoring points!!!!

I think a Nobel Peace Prize nomination is in order.

Its all the rage.

Oakboy wrote:

Numbers wrote:Whereas Farrell is by no means my favourite player and by no means a 10 I would suggest that the English pack have looked undercooked the past 2 games, they should be able to get up to speed over the next two weeks you'd think but the lack of gametime for the Saracens contingent has not helped the international side. I'd be dropping Billy V on form currently, he seems pedestrian, tho I suppose the counter argument would be that he needs to play himself into match fitness.

I just don't think Billy V can affect a game like he used to. Part of it is his decline, part the need for pure pace off the back of the pack and part the absolute essential requirement for the No 8 to be comfortable around the park (including joining the backs in handling AND in stacking up tries from more than a yard or two). Simmonds is the example of what is required. Why Jones continues to ignore him is a mystery. Rugby matches are won by scoring points!!!!

You think there's an issue with Billy's handling?

I think he looks fat, but that's on us as we didn't have to include any of the Sarries boys in the EPS. And perhaps his plyometric power is down a little with the extra padding and that's not seeing him drive into contact as he can, there is though unless he carries for 85m breaking 3-4 tackles every game we seem to get the comments Billy is in decline, and that's a bit odd. I'm not averse to picking Simmonds at 8, I just haven't lost any faith in Billy

Billy is immensely powerful but certainly looks fat, slow and plodding in recent games.

Simmonds is 6', a tad over 16st, has a tremendous engine, good hands and great pace. I would guess that he has about the best power to weight ratio in English rugby. He is practically unstoppable at close quarters but can run in tries from deep too, with his gas. He is primarily an 8 but could play across the back row. He is now into double figures for tries scored this season (though much of that is down to how the Exeter pack plays.) He was Europe's player of the season last year.

I still can't see what Ben Earl brings to the squad that Simmonds doesn't do better.

He doesn't even have to start - he's the perfect impact back rower.

It will be interesting to see if any non-current internationals make it on to Gatland's Lions selection. Simmonds could be a possible bolter, though back row is the most competitive area in the squad.

Who is this Gatland who'd be taking the Lions to SA who might think you know what I want? A light barely 6ft number 8!

Simmonds would be in every other 6 nations 23

TheNomad wrote:Simmonds would be in every other 6 nations 23

2 things: I'm not sure he would and it's not like he doesn't have a lot of competition for England...

There's a definite case to be made for Smith being the in form 10. Would be great to have him on the bench with Ford starting.

Stom wrote:

TheNomad wrote:Simmonds would be in every other 6 nations 23

2 things: I'm not sure he would and it's not like he doesn't have a lot of competition for England...

There's a definite case to be made for Smith being the in form 10. Would be great to have him on the bench with Ford starting.

I think Jones needs to man-up on the FH/IC situation. Chopping and changing game-on-game is a mistake. Neither Farrell at 10 nor Ford/Farrell at 10/12 is the way to go, IMO, but Jones needs to decide if one or other combo can get us back to top form or not. What's his next tinker - Ford/Lawrence?

I would love to see a completely new 9/10/12/8 set given a run of games to bed in followed by a challenge to those left out to prove they are good enough to demand the shirts back. I think we have seen the best of Youngs, Ford, Farrell and Billy V and it was better than current form in all cases. Within the team unit performance standards, will leaving any of them in get us up a level? Perhaps. Or, might a fresh group get us there more quickly?

I'm pretty sure dropping a group of players at 8, 9, 10 and 12, pretty talented players too, and binning hundreds of caps in the process is not a quick route to improving a side, quite the opposite. Still, it's early enough to be drinking in my book

I actually think Farrell does a good job at 12

Stom wrote:I actually think Farrell does a good job at 12

I have accepted Farrell at 12 as being less of a hindrance than at 10, often even doing some great things, but Jones seems incredibly muddled on his idea of balance in midfield. When he picks Tuilagi/Lawrence/Te’o he’ll bang on about having a direct midfield running threat adding so much (totally correct to do so), but then he’ll go and pick FFS again with no strike runners out wide.

I’m a big Slade fan, but feel he might as well have had a proper look at Lawrence at 13 if we’re going back to 10. Ford 12. Farrell.

Digby wrote:I'm pretty sure dropping a group of players at 8, 9, 10 and 12, pretty talented players too, and binning hundreds of caps in the process is not a quick route to improving a side, quite the opposite. Still, it's early enough to be drinking in my book

True. I think we need to look at options in those positions as soon as possible, but yeah doing it all in one game is probably a bit much. I've got a feeling that there won't be a lot of changing in those positions, but that may be my own prejudice about Eddie's picking tendencies. Ford at 10 is a good start. Farrell at 12 is OK but it does stifle our rather good outside backs. Someone else having run out at 8 would be most welcome, Billy as impact player might suit him at present.

I remember watching a video a few years back about different teams and how often their 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice players in certain positions had played. I'm thinking our number 8, 9 and 10 positions would so heavily weighted in favour of the 1st and maybe 2nd choice. This is fine of course, until someone gets injured just before a big game or tournament and then the replacement has that extra pressure.. carrying tackle bags in training camps is probably not the best prep for that.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Stom wrote:I actually think Farrell does a good job at 12

I have accepted Farrell at 12 as being less of a hindrance than at 10

I still rather think he's more of a hindrance at 12, in attack and defence. But he's only going to be a basic functioning pivot at 10 so you'd have to play at pace either side of him, with 12 and 13 making lots of calls. Mostly this stems from a notion it's just not okay to have almost no running game at 12, but it's not just that

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Stom wrote:I actually think Farrell does a good job at 12

I have accepted Farrell at 12 as being less of a hindrance than at 10

I still rather think he's more of a hindrance at 12, in attack and defence. But he's only going to be a basic functioning pivot at 10 so you'd have to play at pace either side of him, with 12 and 13 making lots of calls. Mostly this stems from a notion it's just not okay to have almost no running game at 12, but it's not just that

I think he's more easily skipped at 12. It may have been my bias, but it felt like he was a dummy runner quite often against Italy...

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
I have accepted Farrell at 12 as being less of a hindrance than at 10

I still rather think he's more of a hindrance at 12, in attack and defence. But he's only going to be a basic functioning pivot at 10 so you'd have to play at pace either side of him, with 12 and 13 making lots of calls. Mostly this stems from a notion it's just not okay to have almost no running game at 12, but it's not just that

I think he's more easily skipped at 12. It may have been my bias, but it felt like he was a dummy runner quite often against Italy...

I'm not a Ford fan but i accept the quality of his skill-set. If he plays at 10 he must presumably be tasked with supervising the team's creativity. I think his ability to do that with Farrell at 12 is severely limited for all sorts of reasons including their long-term friendship, Farrell being captain and Farrell offering a very limited attacking threat. When was the last occasion that the four outside backs had a really good game?

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Stom wrote:I actually think Farrell does a good job at 12

I have accepted Farrell at 12 as being less of a hindrance than at 10

I still rather think he's more of a hindrance at 12, in attack and defence. But he's only going to be a basic functioning pivot at 10 so you'd have to play at pace either side of him, with 12 and 13 making lots of calls. Mostly this stems from a notion it's just not okay to have almost no running game at 12, but it's not just that

I don’t disagree that the running threat is a limitation, but he seems to slot in quite neatly when Ford needs someone to stand at first receiver and give the pullback pass or just plop balls off to forward runners.

If we had someone the quality of Ford making those decisions in midfield it might make Farrell at 10 a better option I suppose, but it doesn’t seem like Slade is being asked to fill a playmaker role. They would all benefit from having a real direct running threat on their shoulder.

His defence is immaculate though, dunno what you’re talking about there.

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
I have accepted Farrell at 12 as being less of a hindrance than at 10

I still rather think he's more of a hindrance at 12, in attack and defence. But he's only going to be a basic functioning pivot at 10 so you'd have to play at pace either side of him, with 12 and 13 making lots of calls. Mostly this stems from a notion it's just not okay to have almost no running game at 12, but it's not just that

I think he's more easily skipped at 12. It may have been my bias, but it felt like he was a dummy runner quite often against Italy...

Skipping a non threat remains a structural problem for me. Granted it's a position heavily biased by how I think about attack, and I'm not right just 'cause it's how I think about it, but for me if he's at 12 he's got to add some running threat. Not sure how he adds to his running threat now when it's not happened in almost 10 years.

Italy is also a low standard to judge on, and Italy's 12 defends like a light 10 for obvious reasons making them worse again. Whereas if he's up in the line and makes Fickou bite over and over I'd think that rather more pertinent (and impressive)

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:
I still rather think he's more of a hindrance at 12, in attack and defence. But he's only going to be a basic functioning pivot at 10 so you'd have to play at pace either side of him, with 12 and 13 making lots of calls. Mostly this stems from a notion it's just not okay to have almost no running game at 12, but it's not just that

I think he's more easily skipped at 12. It may have been my bias, but it felt like he was a dummy runner quite often against Italy...

Skipping a non threat remains a structural problem for me. Granted it's a position heavily biased by how I think about attack, and I'm not right just 'cause it's how I think about it, but for me if he's at 12 he's got to add some running threat. Not sure how he adds to his running threat now when it's not happened in almost 10 years.

Italy is also a low standard to judge on, and Italy's 12 defends like a light 10 for obvious reasons making them worse again. Whereas if he's up in the line and makes Fickou bite over and over I'd think that rather more pertinent (and impressive)

Oh I'm not arguing that he's no longer an issue at 12. My complaints about Farrell not being a running threat at 12 have been around for quite some time. Happily pointing out that those times he scores tries in the 70th+ minute with a run, is more about the fact that the defence are ignoring him so entirely that they run past him even with the ball.

It's just that at 10, he's still not a threat, and currently not even acting as a particularly good pivot, kicking away (poorly) superb attacking ball, that's not even in danger zone positions for us. I'd rather us be playing 6 man attack in the backline (including scrum half) with Ford, than 0 man attack in the backline because Farrell kills that attack so thoroughly.

Can't believe this debate has any legs. Farrell is distinctly average (often worse) at both 10 and 12. Jones just keeps selecting him even when he plays like a drain. What a waste of top quality strike power in the three quarters.

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:
I think he's more easily skipped at 12. It may have been my bias, but it felt like he was a dummy runner quite often against Italy...

Skipping a non threat remains a structural problem for me. Granted it's a position heavily biased by how I think about attack, and I'm not right just 'cause it's how I think about it, but for me if he's at 12 he's got to add some running threat. Not sure how he adds to his running threat now when it's not happened in almost 10 years.

Italy is also a low standard to judge on, and Italy's 12 defends like a light 10 for obvious reasons making them worse again. Whereas if he's up in the line and makes Fickou bite over and over I'd think that rather more pertinent (and impressive)

Oh I'm not arguing that he's no longer an issue at 12. My complaints about Farrell not being a running threat at 12 have been around for quite some time. Happily pointing out that those times he scores tries in the 70th+ minute with a run, is more about the fact that the defence are ignoring him so entirely that they run past him even with the ball.

It's just that at 10, he's still not a threat, and currently not even acting as a particularly good pivot, kicking away (poorly) superb attacking ball, that's not even in danger zone positions for us. I'd rather us be playing 6 man attack in the backline (including scrum half) with Ford, than 0 man attack in the backline because Farrell kills that attack so thoroughly.

I will agree he hasn't been a good 10, I just think if a side were to play at pace he could be less of an issue there. I'd start picking someone else and probably (for now) have him on the bench. Interesting though how people take a different view on where he could be best, worst, or least worst

I'm beginning to question his decision making though. That 7 on 2 had him as basically in the 12 channel, or the pullback from the forward pod. That's a position where you've got time to look and scan. I can forgive a scrum half not passing to the overlap, a 10 is harder, but a 10 on the pullback move? If Jones told him to pass everything as a pivot, whilst we play at pace, then maybe.

Raggs wrote:I'm beginning to question his decision making though. That 7 on 2 had him as basically in the 12 channel, or the pullback from the forward pod. That's a position where you've got time to look and scan. I can forgive a scrum half not passing to the overlap, a 10 is harder, but a 10 on the pullback move? If Jones told him to pass everything as a pivot, whilst we play at pace, then maybe.

Somebody previously noted how flat the entire backline were, that they were all looking to chase the kick anyway. Maybe you've got May out there on the wing waving his arms but I'm not sure it was ever even "on" for the ball to go through the hands. Would have been interesting to see if anybody actually expected a pass or not.

The issue is far bigger than Farrell, but he's the perfect poster boy for where this team are at. He's probably the most guilty of failing to spot opportunities like that and just playing to the plan/system instead. I just can't watch that anymore at 10.

Digby wrote: Interesting though how people take a different view on where he could be best, worst, or least worst

'T'was ever thus! I think Jones is the biggest con-merchant in the history of rugby. Others think his wonderful, worldly knowledge of rugby makes him special.

Farrell IS one of the best at prescription-rugby (robotic, to quote Banquo). He is NOT a natural (i.e, reactive/creative) rugby player.