RugbyRebels

Be prepared for Eddie's warm spray.

morepork wrote:Be prepared for Eddie's warm spray.

I reckon Faz will take it

If things carry on the way they are, Eddie will soon be receiving the money shot, or redundancy pay as the accuntants like to call it.

How come Andy Farrell is thriving with the Irish coaching set up but looked like a lost angry man when he was with England?

Because his line manager isn't learning as he goes.

morepork wrote:How come Andy Farrell is thriving with the Irish coaching set up but looked like a lost angry man when he was with England?

A cynic would suggest that it's because neither Fazlet nor [redacted] are eligible for Ireland.

More sensibly, Burt wasn't a strong leader and Farrell snr got out of his box and involved in stuff that he's not so good at. For Ireland and the Lions, Schmidt and Gatland were very definitely in charge and Farrell was kept to being defence coach, where it turns out he's quite good.

Puja

That critique could be transposed to an assessment Fazlet's shortcomings as a player.

morepork wrote:That critique could be transposed to an assessment Fazlet's shortcomings as a player.

I’m still at a loss as to why either all of us on here are collectively deluded about Farrell or it’s everyone out in the real world that doesn’t see it.

I do think he has some very impressive qualities, but it’s so strange that these lead people to ignore all the flaws. Equally it leads to people on here (as with Henson, Wilkinson, Sheridan and countless others) suggesting he is totally useless, which isn’t quite fair either but he certainly can be on his day.

You are stuck with him. Whoever is behind the stubborn insistence that he is the messiah is the problem more than Farrell.

Mikey Brown wrote:

morepork wrote:That critique could be transposed to an assessment Fazlet's shortcomings as a player.

I’m still at a loss as to why either all of us on here are collectively deluded about Farrell or it’s everyone out in the real world that doesn’t see it.

I do think he has some very impressive qualities, but it’s so strange that these lead people to ignore all the flaws. Equally it leads to people on here (as with Henson, Wilkinson, Sheridan and countless others) suggesting he is totally useless, which isn’t quite fair either but he certainly can be on his day.

It's the same way countless corporate CEOs or politicians get positions of power despite being useless at some parts of their job. Somehow they have this "charisma" that makes people ignore those flaws. And perhaps the reason we have a downer is because we've never met him. And when people meet him, they lose some objectivity...

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

morepork wrote:That critique could be transposed to an assessment Fazlet's shortcomings as a player.

I’m still at a loss as to why either all of us on here are collectively deluded about Farrell or it’s everyone out in the real world that doesn’t see it.

I do think he has some very impressive qualities, but it’s so strange that these lead people to ignore all the flaws. Equally it leads to people on here (as with Henson, Wilkinson, Sheridan and countless others) suggesting he is totally useless, which isn’t quite fair either but he certainly can be on his day.

It's the same way countless corporate CEOs or politicians get positions of power despite being useless at some parts of their job. Somehow they have this "charisma" that makes people ignore those flaws. And perhaps the reason we have a downer is because we've never met him. And when people meet him, they lose some objectivity...

Fazlet is the Demon Headmaster and I claim my £5.

#nichejoke

Puja

I accept that Farrell might be a good dressing room man. He is a competent FH in many respects. Are we all guilty of concentrating on his weaknesses rather than emphasising his strengths?

I don't think that is the case. IMO, having him run the team from IC is the fundamental problem. It's about the overall performance of the team with him at 12, together with Youngs and Ford.

I think the issue is that he’s so overly hyped by the media that we are overly negative on here. I wouldn’t mind him at 10 for England - but he’d be behind Ford and Cipriani- if paired with some flair and hands in the centres, but he’s just not my preferred type of 10 and the incessant love in really annoys me.

Mellsblue wrote:I think the issue is that he’s so overly hyped by the media that we are overly negative on here. I wouldn’t mind him at 10 for England - but he’d be behind Ford and Cipriani- if paired with some flair and hands in the centres, but he’s just not my preferred type of 10 and the incessant love in really annoys me.

But are we wrong to believe its overhype and not correct homage?

Obviously I believe we aren't. And most hardcore rugby fans I've met seem to believe its overhype. But is there something about the impact his personality has on the team, the way his occasional big hits lift the team, about his reliability we're missing?

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I think the issue is that he’s so overly hyped by the media that we are overly negative on here. I wouldn’t mind him at 10 for England - but he’d be behind Ford and Cipriani- if paired with some flair and hands in the centres, but he’s just not my preferred type of 10 and the incessant love in really annoys me.

But are we wrong to believe its overhype and not correct homage?

Obviously I believe we aren't. And most hardcore rugby fans I've met seem to believe its overhype. But is there something about the impact his personality has on the team, the way his occasional big hits lift the team, about his reliability we're missing?

I don't think so...

Look, he's a perfectly competent player. But when you compare him to Ford in FH terms he falls short on all the main qualities. And if you compare him to a competent 12, he falls short on all the main qualities...

If he was a 90%+ kicker, you could forgive some of it and build a team to play to his strengths, but he's not. In fact, he's a worse kicker %age wise than Ford and his kicking from hand is poor.

Stom wrote: . . . and his kicking from hand is poor.

His penalty touch kicking is a caricature of his presence, IMO. He seems to lack the balls to go for the corner flag. Others can and do - Cipriani, Ford, Daly, Slade, (even Brown in the past) - so, why is he the one that keeps taking them? And, why does Jones persist with him taking them? Why don't the other players ever step in? Somehow, he is the right man to do a bad job? Or, is he the ultimate 'Mr Safe-option'?

Oakboy wrote:Is Mitchell capable of changing much?

Let's face it, judging by the training squad selection and Jones's emphasis on cap numbers, we will see a starting XV of: Marler/Mako, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Itoje, Robshaw, Haskell, Billy, Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, JJ, Daly, Watson/Brown. I can't see him tightening that lot up a great deal.

I really hope Curry has done enough to push Robshaw to the bench

BenHK wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Is Mitchell capable of changing much?

Let's face it, judging by the training squad selection and Jones's emphasis on cap numbers, we will see a starting XV of: Marler/Mako, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Itoje, Robshaw, Haskell, Billy, Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, JJ, Daly, Watson/Brown. I can't see him tightening that lot up a great deal.

I really hope Curry has done enough to push Robshaw to the bench

You see Robshaw as more of a liability than Haskell?

BenHK wrote: I really hope Curry has done enough to push Robshaw to the bench

Personally I hope Robshaw is moved to 6 as I still think he has much to contribute to the team, but he isn't a 7!

Robshaw has looked woeful for too long now with any pace coming into the game, that simply has to be addressed, whether Haskell is a better option is open to significant question however

Digby wrote:Robshaw has looked woeful for too long now with any pace coming into the game, that simply has to be addressed, whether Haskell is a better option is open to significant question however

Just to make it clear, I'd play neither. My fear is that Jones might play both.

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:Robshaw has looked woeful for too long now with any pace coming into the game, that simply has to be addressed, whether Haskell is a better option is open to significant question however

Just to make it clear, I'd play neither. My fear is that Jones might play both.

I think either might play but absent of big improvements in performance, which they may well achieve, we'll be challenging for top 3 in the 6N rather than a slam

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:Robshaw has looked woeful for too long now with any pace coming into the game, that simply has to be addressed, whether Haskell is a better option is open to significant question however

Just to make it clear, I'd play neither. My fear is that Jones might play both.

I think either might play but absent of big improvements in performance, which they may well achieve, we'll be challenging for top 3 in the 6N rather than a slam

What about the AIs, Diggers? Can Jones get adequate results?

In truth I'd take performances over results, and they might arrive as not much needs to change, whilst at the same time there's little that's happened so far to suggest we're getting selection and tactics right

Digby wrote:In truth I'd take performances over results, and they might arrive as not much needs to change, whilst at the same time there's little that's happened so far to suggest we're getting selection and tactics right

You might well be right but I don't see the RFU accepting defeats but 'better performances'. IMO, Jones has only results to offer.