RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:There is something very odd about the persistence with Farrell as captain. You have to wonder how comfortably that sits with other members of the squad.

I just don't understand it. Why does anyone put up with him? I mean...coaches, pundits, they jizz all over him. And he's just...meh. And a petulant prick to boot.

God. Hey, let's pick an alternative England

VRR
Taylor
Thomas
Attwood
Slater
Armand
Kvesic
Chisholm
Vellacott
Cipriani
Banahan
Eastmond
Marchant
Roko
Goode

LCD, Boyce, Cole, Witty?, Ewers, Maunder, Smith, Woodward

morepork wrote:There is something very odd about the persistence with Farrell as captain. You have to wonder how comfortably that sits with other members of the squad.

Presumably they like it - I've never heard a whisper that he's unpopular within the group.

Puja

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:There is something very odd about the persistence with Farrell as captain. You have to wonder how comfortably that sits with other members of the squad.

Presumably they like it - I've never heard a whisper that he's unpopular within the group.

Puja

Though one wonders if they're not painfully aware that criticism of the chosen one would be more damaging to their England career than Cipriani telling Wells what he thought about his tactics?

And again Farrell is a bloody good player, so much so it's odd for NZ fans to try an' troll now they're some distance off having Mauger, Umaga or Nonu play so well at centre

morepork wrote:There is something very odd about the persistence with Farrell as captain. You have to wonder how comfortably that sits with other members of the squad.

But, when you think about it all aspects of his game are, arguably, less than the perfection that punditry claims: captaincy, leadership, verbal rapport with refs, passing, tackling, defensive organisation, running, deception, kicking from hand in general play, kicking penalties to touch and even kicking off the tee. Is his only top asset feistiness?

If I could vote for an unfortunate, non-permanent, health affliction for two months, I'd be hard-pushed to choose between him and Jones. No, on second thoughts, I'd definitely choose Jones.

He works extremely hard, and he's very vocal in encouraging the same from others. I don't think you need him interacting with refs to get that from him though, it's just what he does.

He's going to want to improve, right now Carling has him comprehensively beat as a player and captain and he's a very determined sort

That should probably read centre not player

Digby wrote:And again Farrell is a bloody good player, so much so it's odd for NZ fans to try an' troll now they're some distance off having Mauger, Umaga or Nonu play so well at centre

Don't be such a little bitch.

We've all been over this a million times but for what it's worth he's not nearly as good as most of the media say and certainly not as bad as many on here think, but when you can see his flaws as a player it makes his horrible character much harder to ignore.

He's added in his running and I think his general awareness of space, but he doesn't consistently do anything that well except kick goals and make noise.

His continued selection seems to be equal parts based on a) goal-kicking b) the rest of his game c) whatever you call this

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:And again Farrell is a bloody good player, so much so it's odd for NZ fans to try an' troll now they're some distance off having Mauger, Umaga or Nonu play so well at centre

Don't be such a little bitch.

Meh, neither Crotty nor SBW are close to the those who came before them. Some classic Kiwi misogyny there as an aside, the whole wide world of insults and you go with something derogatory to women, for shame

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:And again Farrell is a bloody good player, so much so it's odd for NZ fans to try an' troll now they're some distance off having Mauger, Umaga or Nonu play so well at centre

Don't be such a little bitch.

Meh, neither Crotty nor SBW are close to the those who came before them. Some classic Kiwi misogyny there as an aside, the whole wide world of insults and you go with something derogatory to women, for shame

Crotty is the best 12 in world rugby when he hasn't got a headache. Very good player.

SBW is not really the thinking man's 12, for sure, but Crotty is quality in a Conrad Smith sort of way. The ABs also have the ability to inject a rocket into midfield play using the bench. I'm not sure Eddie Jones really understands the value of this.

Mellsblue wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Rhodes is a good player but he’s yet another import and Wilson, Mercer, Armand, Ewers and Kvesic have a better body of work behind them this season.

Even allowing for a difference in opinion over how good Rhodes is, if you’re looking for a destructive 6 who is excellent around the set piece (and continued selection of Lawes & Itoje at 6 suggests Eng are) then those blokes you’ve listed don’t compare. In basic terms Rhodes is Courtney Lawes with backrow mobility.

I’d disagree, I’d trust all of those mentioned other than Mercer and Digby Jnr to do that (I only included the latter as a subtle reference to Rhodes playing at 7 since he returned from injury). If that is the sort of 6 Eddie wants then it’s a volte face.

Wilson is a ‘destructive 6’. He’s obviously not as strong from a lineout point of view, but is a much better carrier than Rhodes.

I’d imagine that Eddie is prioritising Rhodes on the basis of him being a lineout option - he’s basically the reverse of Lawes and Itoje - a flanker who can play at lock, rather than a lock who can play at flanker. Shields is also decent in the lineout. It’s a shame that counts against Wilson as he’s the better all-rounder IMO.

Scrumhead wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Timbo wrote:
Even allowing for a difference in opinion over how good Rhodes is, if you’re looking for a destructive 6 who is excellent around the set piece (and continued selection of Lawes & Itoje at 6 suggests Eng are) then those blokes you’ve listed don’t compare. In basic terms Rhodes is Courtney Lawes with backrow mobility.

I’d disagree, I’d trust all of those mentioned other than Mercer and Digby Jnr to do that (I only included the latter as a subtle reference to Rhodes playing at 7 since he returned from injury). If that is the sort of 6 Eddie wants then it’s a volte face.

Wilson is a ‘destructive 6’. He’s obviously not as strong from a lineout point of view, but is a much better carrier than Rhodes.

I’d imagine that Eddie is prioritising Rhodes on the basis of him being a lineout option - he’s basically the reverse of Lawes and Itoje - a flanker who can play at lock, rather than a lock who can play at flanker. Shields is also decent in the lineout. It’s a shame that counts against Wilson as he’s the better all-rounder IMO.

Backs up why Ted Hill's in the squad - destructive, lineout option, looks like he'll turn into a flanker that can play lock rather than vice versa. Shame he's not 2 years further down the line really.

Puja

Scrumhead wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Timbo wrote:
Even allowing for a difference in opinion over how good Rhodes is, if you’re looking for a destructive 6 who is excellent around the set piece (and continued selection of Lawes & Itoje at 6 suggests Eng are) then those blokes you’ve listed don’t compare. In basic terms Rhodes is Courtney Lawes with backrow mobility.

I’d disagree, I’d trust all of those mentioned other than Mercer and Digby Jnr to do that (I only included the latter as a subtle reference to Rhodes playing at 7 since he returned from injury). If that is the sort of 6 Eddie wants then it’s a volte face.

Wilson is a ‘destructive 6’. He’s obviously not as strong from a lineout point of view, but is a much better carrier than Rhodes.

I’d imagine that Eddie is prioritising Rhodes on the basis of him being a lineout option - he’s basically the reverse of Lawes and Itoje - a flanker who can play at lock, rather than a lock who can play at flanker. Shields is also decent in the lineout. It’s a shame that counts against Wilson as he’s the better all-rounder IMO.

I think this is entirely too generous. Eddie has gone with the SH factor again, having failed to learn from Hartley, Francis, Te'o. If Shields and Rhodes are not on that list of SH players threatening to underwhelm in 14 months I shall be surprised

Mikey Brown wrote:We've all been over this a million times but for what it's worth he's not nearly as good as most of the media say and certainly not as bad as many on here think, but when you can see his flaws as a player it makes his horrible character much harder to ignore.

He's added in his running and I think his general awareness of space, but he doesn't consistently do anything that well except kick goals and make noise.

His continued selection seems to be equal parts based on a) goal-kicking b) the rest of his game c) whatever you call this

The smug look on Farrell's face in that clip sums the feeling up towards him nicely I think

Hmmm...the bashful, slightly embarrassed look on Farrell’s face being described as smug shows that he will never win over a niche section of England’s fan base.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... tumn-tests

"The other sizeable flaw in Jones’s argument is that, currently, his England set-up is one huge question mark. The public remain confused as to why he still refuses to select certain individuals – Danny Cipriani, Don Armand, Alex Goode – who continually rate among the Premiership’s most in-form and influential players. They badly want reassurance that key combinations in crucial areas of the team – front row, back row, half-back, midfield – will be settled before the World Cup in Japan next year. And above all they want to know if England will be reborn next month or are destined to under-perform, relative to their resources, for a third World Cup in a row".

Eddie starting to feel the heat it seems.
Apparently he also said yesterday that wining games this autumn was not that critical. A far cry from the coach who insisted that we set out to win every game, irrespective of the opposition.

Jones is right to say that only the RWC matches matter in terms of results but all preceding matches have significanxe in terms of developing a winning style and perfecting combinations. I would argue that since midway through the initial winning streak he has shown no initiative in selection or playing shape. Our effectiveness has diminished in direct relation to his lack of competence.

How many players have improved significantly at international level over the last 12 - 24 months? Curry, Daly and May, possibly, but who else? At this point in the run-up to the RWC we should be able to reel off a dozen at least.

Hmm ... I’m not sure ‘the public’ in general give a damn about rugby, but rugby fans in England have definitely reached a point of frustration, bordering on hostility towards Eddie.

When he’s winning, he’s tolerable. When he’s not, his decisions look increasingly bizarre and it’s very easy to see why he’s disliked by every other nation’s fans.

Oakboy wrote:Jones is right to say that only the RWC matches matter in terms of results .

You really think he is right? To me that is just a throw away comment to justify a poor run of results and the debacle that awaits us this November.

Jones is Mourinho. Over rated and full of guff.

sack him and lets move on

p/d wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Jones is right to say that only the RWC matches matter in terms of results .

You really think he is right? To me that is just a throw away comment to justify a poor run of results and the debacle that awaits us this November.

Jones is Mourinho. Over rated and full of guff.

sack him and lets move on

Yes, please.

Timbo wrote:Hmmm...the bashful, slightly embarrassed look on Farrell’s face being described as smug shows that he will never win over a niche section of England’s fan base.

If he plays well nobody will care about his face, nobody cared about Guscott when he played well and he has little of the modesty Farrell has. The issue is far more resulting from role, style and performance

Seems to me there is a lowering of expectations for this series of matches, which contrasts with Eddie's usually upbeat comments.
As ever, its results that matter. And they do matter this autumn.
He can point to a worryingly long injury list in mitigation, but he has still selected his squad - leaving out a number of form players - and he has to produce winning teams.
4 out of 4 might be a stretch but i dont think its unreasonable to expect at least 3 wins.