Team for Australia

[Mellsblue]

I've already given my opinion on that in another post. I'm suggesting that in Jones's eyes, Ford, as captain, needed to influence matters in the 1st half but failed to do so. It is the corollary (is that the right word for sort of opposite) of Puja asking what did Farrell do in the 2nd half. What it amounts to is that the team plays far better with Farrell on the pitch and that Ford cannot supplant him.

Bear in mind that I was clamouring for Ford to be captain before the match. I thought his rugby brain and personal skill-set would be enhanced by the captaincy. He has gifted hands and good feet etc. etc. but, IMO, he does not run things and grab the game by the scruff of the neck. I hoped it was just Farrell's presence subduing him but, in one 40 minute chance, he did not stand up.

I know the forwards and Care were not giving him the ball on a plate but that was the test. He may have been chivvying team-mates off-camera, as I suggested previously. I can only comment on what I saw, or, in this case did not see.

Certain people were criticising Farrell for not 'changing tactics' when he was captain vs NZ when the lineout went to shit. England played the worst 40 minutes ever basically on Saturday when Ford was co-captain. He didn't do too much about that did he? We were atrocious.

Fair shout!

If I had to choose between giving Ford captaincy of England between now and the RWC for any games… or never giving it him again, I'd lean towards never again.

Ideally it'd be somewhere in between

But he didn't stand up as a leader, and he can be chastised for that - I imagine part of the reason we didn't is because we like him, and part of the reason is because it isn't against the narrative the media already spout about him (that he's a good player when things are going his way)

Personally, I'd have given Wilson captaincy - as I think he looks a calm head and workhorse

We also had two u20 captains in the team - Itoje and George - who maybe should’ve done a job. Ford doesn’t strike me as captain material.

[Stom]

How exactly? What could he have done differently?

I've already given my opinion on that in another post. I'm suggesting that in Jones's eyes, Ford, as captain, needed to influence matters in the 1st half but failed to do so. It is the corollary (is that the right word for sort of opposite) of Puja asking what did Farrell do in the 2nd half. What it amounts to is that the team plays far better with Farrell on the pitch and that Ford cannot supplant him.

Bear in mind that I was clamouring for Ford to be captain before the match. I thought his rugby brain and personal skill-set would be enhanced by the captaincy. He has gifted hands and good feet etc. etc. but, IMO, he does not run things and grab the game by the scruff of the neck. I hoped it was just Farrell's presence subduing him but, in one 40 minute chance, he did not stand up.

I know the forwards and Care were not giving him the ball on a plate but that was the test. He may have been chivvying team-mates off-camera, as I suggested previously. I can only comment on what I saw, or, in this case did not see.

Certain people were criticising Farrell for not 'changing tactics' when he was captain vs NZ when the lineout went to shit. England played the worst 40 minutes ever basically on Saturday when Ford was co-captain. He didn't do too much about that did he? We were atrocious.

In the h/t dressing room view, Ford was the one talking to the backs, quite actively...So it seems he was trying to do something.

He was also quite vocal.

And our performance did not improve on the 40 minute mark. It started to improve but it only really came good around the 50-55 minute mark. Around when Underhill came on.

He made a huge impact, btw.

[Renniks]

We also had two u20 captains in the team - Itoje and George - who maybe should’ve done a job. Ford doesn’t strike me as captain material.

I'm not sure on whether Itoje would thrive or bomb if he was given captaincy… What type of captain was he at U20? He seems far too excitable

[Mellsblue]

We also had two u20 captains in the team - Itoje and George - who maybe should’ve done a job. Ford doesn’t strike me as captain material.

I'm not sure on whether Itoje would thrive or bomb if he was given captaincy… What type of captain was he at U20? He seems far too excitable

Pretty good I think. Fairly certain we won it that year. The following season he led Sarries ‘A’ team to the Anglo-Welsh cup win. I think he’s no more excitable than Farrell.

[Rich]

....and our performance did not improve on the 40 minute mark. It started to improve but it only really came good around the 50-55 minute mark. Around when Underhill came on.

He made a huge impact, btw.

No, the improvement was from the second half kick-off.

In the whole of the second half Japan only got into the England 22 once.

[Mellsblue]

I've already given my opinion on that in another post. I'm suggesting that in Jones's eyes, Ford, as captain, needed to influence matters in the 1st half but failed to do so. It is the corollary (is that the right word for sort of opposite) of Puja asking what did Farrell do in the 2nd half. What it amounts to is that the team plays far better with Farrell on the pitch and that Ford cannot supplant him.

Bear in mind that I was clamouring for Ford to be captain before the match. I thought his rugby brain and personal skill-set would be enhanced by the captaincy. He has gifted hands and good feet etc. etc. but, IMO, he does not run things and grab the game by the scruff of the neck. I hoped it was just Farrell's presence subduing him but, in one 40 minute chance, he did not stand up.

I know the forwards and Care were not giving him the ball on a plate but that was the test. He may have been chivvying team-mates off-camera, as I suggested previously. I can only comment on what I saw, or, in this case did not see.

Certain people were criticising Farrell for not 'changing tactics' when he was captain vs NZ when the lineout went to shit. England played the worst 40 minutes ever basically on Saturday when Ford was co-captain. He didn't do too much about that did he? We were atrocious.

In the h/t dressing room view, Ford was the one talking to the backs, quite actively...So it seems he was trying to do something.

He was also quite vocal.

And our performance did not improve on the 40 minute mark. It started to improve but it only really came good around the 50-55 minute mark. Around when Underhill came on.

He made a huge impact, btw.

And Sinckler and Lawes having an outstanding last 15 mins.

[Renniks]

I did feel that Sinckler was looking as good as he did around the Lions time - that shuffle on when Wilson scored his try was sublime!

[Stom]

....and our performance did not improve on the 40 minute mark. It started to improve but it only really came good around the 50-55 minute mark. Around when Underhill came on.

He made a huge impact, btw.

No, the improvement was from the second half kick-off.

In the whole of the second half Japan only got into the England 22 once.

I don't really agree...we still struggled to break them down. It took a while and I still don't think we were great. And I still think the biggest difference makers were Underhill and Sinckler, who were both very abrasive and aggressive.

Look, I'm not saying Farrell was crap or even that he didn't play well. I'm just saying he was not the reason we played a bit better second half. The reasons for playing better were partly our forwards suddenly turning up, those two forward subs mentioned, the Japanese tiring and us therefore getting more ball in the backs.

You know what, I'm going fishing. Let's see if I can find a breakdown of the number of times 9 passed the ball in the first half and the second half. That, imo, is the biggest indicator.

[Stom]

I did feel that Sinckler was looking as good as he did around the Lions time - that shuffle on when Wilson scored his try was sublime!

It's not often we get a prop whose rugby career started at FB!!!

[Rich]

Hoping Shields and Stooke are the ones to miss out from the forwards
And Francis, Te'o, Ashton are to miss out from the backs

Why the hate against Shields ?

Also Te'o - he's the best center England have right now.

[Stom]

Hoping Shields and Stooke are the ones to miss out from the forwards
And Francis, Te'o, Ashton are to miss out from the backs

Why the hate against Shields ?

Also Te'o - he's the best center England have right now.

Even if Shields is actually good, his form this season is terrible. For Wasps and England.

[Rich]

I don't really agree...we still struggled to break them down. It took a while and I still don't think we were great. And I still think the biggest difference makers were Underhill and Sinckler, who were both very abrasive and aggressive.

Look, I'm not saying Farrell was crap or even that he didn't play well. I'm just saying he was not the reason we played a bit better second half. The reasons for playing better were partly our forwards suddenly turning up, those two forward subs mentioned, the Japanese tiring and us therefore getting more ball in the backs.

You know what, I'm going fishing. Let's see if I can find a breakdown of the number of times 9 passed the ball in the first half and the second half. That, imo, is the biggest indicator.

But Japan offered almost nothing in the second half - yes they probably suffered from fatigue later on but not in the 3rd quarter.

England really had a grip of the game from minute 41-minute 80

I agree that bringing on players like Hartley and Underhill improved the pack no end and no, Farrell didn't highhandedly transform England from crap to world class. But as soon as the 2nd half started England had leadership and weren't a rudderless mess.

This is the reason I always liked to have Hartley playing - other people say George is so much better at hooker but the pack and the whole team lose leadership without Hartley - this is particularly evident at the set piece.

Clive Woodward was lucky in that he had leaders all through his team - Jones doesn't have that.

[Digby]

England were a mess in the second half, the rugby they played was sufficient to beat a tiring Japanese team, but it was a long way off being any good

[Renniks]

Hoping Shields and Stooke are the ones to miss out from the forwards
And Francis, Te'o, Ashton are to miss out from the backs

Why the hate against Shields ?

Also Te'o - he's the best center England have right now.

Even if Shields is actually good, his form this season is terrible. For Wasps and England.

No hate from me - in the same way that I've no hate for Stooke.

I just think that England are better off:
- having a pack with 3 second rows, not 4 (so no Stooke)
- having Wilson, Underhill, and Hughes start
- And seeing whether Hill is the real deal or not…

Regarding Te'o, I'm conceding to having Farrell at 12… and wanting / hoping for Tuilagi at 13…
Te'o on the bench might be passable, but Slade covers more positions, even if I don't think he's up to the challenge currently

[Oakboy]

I think the difference that Farrell made was demonstrating with his body language that he was there to change things. Whether he did or not is debatable, and, to an extent irrelevant. From the moment he walked on to the pitch the other fourteen believed in themselves too. I don't like him as a player any more today than I did last week but in the current squad, with Jones's methods, he has made himself vital to our ability to win, IMO.

I'd not build the team around him from choice but at this stage with all other factors taken into account there is little or no alternative and we might as well get used to it.

The remaining debate is whether he plays at 10 or 12. I'd play him at 10. Banquo spent years trying to make me understand that a 12 has to be a carrying threat, though not necessarily of the bludgeoning sort. I think that is the next step. T'eo, Tuilagi, Slade, Francis? Who knows? Not Farrell, though.

[Oakboy]

England were a mess in the second half, the rugby they played was sufficient to beat a tiring Japanese team, but it was a long way off being any good

Diggers, do you realise that you are agreeing with Guscott?

[Digby]

England were a mess in the second half, the rugby they played was sufficient to beat a tiring Japanese team, but it was a long way off being any good

Diggers, do you realise that you are agreeing with Guscott?

I haven't seen any coverage on the beeb so I was blissfully ignorant of my predicament, bastard

[TheDasher]

I always wonder if we were more positive / in line with the media's fervour on this forum whether some of the lurkers would join in…

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with the media. I'm not defending Farrell because of SCW or Barnes or Dallaglio, I'm defending him because he's doing well. I suspect that some lurkers have been reading page after page of criticism of Farrell from a very small group of people (the only contributors to the board) when he's actually been playing rather well and have thought, oh for fuck's sake change the record, this is dull, but perhaps haven't wanted to get involved as the small group on here all had the same point of view and jump on any opinion to the contrary.

It was getting a tad dull and I'd guess that if we want this place to thrive or get back to something like what it used to be, perhaps this doesn't help.

You thought he played well against NZ and single-handedly saved us against Japan? Because that is what the majority of the media are saying.

George Ford set up a try with a moment of high quality, kicked well for touch and kicked all his goals bar one on the touch line yet gets 5/10 in The Times and is widely considered to have had a bad game. I do wonder what Farrell would’ve got? By way of comparison Farrell was given a 7/10 in the S Times for the loss to Ireland. He was given a 5/10 in the Guardian but is considered a ‘qualified success’ and is let off a 0% kicking performance because of the weather - Ireland managed 67%. That’s before you get to the fact he was directly responsible for giving away our position in their 22 in the first 5 mins which ultimately led to Stockdale’s try. Still better than Ford yesterday, it seems.

Re the numerous missed tackles... I'm not one to re-watch games and write out minute by minute commentary afterwards, but in this instance I wish I had the time. I try to be fair and call the games as I see them. Again, our performance against NZ was hugely encouraging, we were far closer than any of us thought we would be and should've won. Farrell was heavily involved throughout, in the first 30, our backline looked cohesive and dangerous, much like is started to in the 2nd half vs South Africa. In both games Farrell put in big, effective tackles that upped the tempo. I simply did not see numerous missed tackles and I do question these ESPN statistics. If you are constantly involved in the game and often near the ball/carrier because you're working hard, do you get a missed tackle if you're the closest man? I don't know, but he doesn't miss too many people running down his channel in my view. On top of that this autumn, he's made multiple big, effective hits and stolen ball. I do not see him as a poor or ineffective tackler/defender at 10.

Re kicking the ball out on the restart. Come on, he really doesn't do that often. I'm always surprised by how often other other top fly halves don't make touch on penalties for instance, Farrell is generally pretty good in both respects.

I will watch the SA and NZ games again if I can secretly without getting a divorce and I'm fairly sure I'll feel the same way. I'm running low on energy on the Farrell debate so may slide into reading you lot bash him again until the Aus game

[Mellsblue]

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with the media. I'm not defending Farrell because of SCW or Barnes or Dallaglio, I'm defending him because he's doing well. I suspect that some lurkers have been reading page after page of criticism of Farrell from a very small group of people (the only contributors to the board) when he's actually been playing rather well and have thought, oh for fuck's sake change the record, this is dull, but perhaps haven't wanted to get involved as the small group on here all had the same point of view and jump on any opinion to the contrary.

It was getting a tad dull and I'd guess that if we want this place to thrive or get back to something like what it used to be, perhaps this doesn't help.

You thought he played well against NZ and single-handedly saved us against Japan? Because that is what the majority of the media are saying.

George Ford set up a try with a moment of high quality, kicked well for touch and kicked all his goals bar one on the touch line yet gets 5/10 in The Times and is widely considered to have had a bad game. I do wonder what Farrell would’ve got? By way of comparison Farrell was given a 7/10 in the S Times for the loss to Ireland. He was given a 5/10 in the Guardian but is considered a ‘qualified success’ and is let off a 0% kicking performance because of the weather - Ireland managed 67%. That’s before you get to the fact he was directly responsible for giving away our position in their 22 in the first 5 mins which ultimately led to Stockdale’s try. Still better than Ford yesterday, it seems.

Re the numerous missed tackles... I'm not one to re-watch games and write out minute by minute commentary afterwards, but in this instance I wish I had the time. I try to be fair and call the games as I see them. Again, our performance against NZ was hugely encouraging, we were far closer than any of us thought we would be and should've won. Farrell was heavily involved throughout, in the first 30, our backline looked cohesive and dangerous, much like is started to in the 2nd half vs South Africa. In both games Farrell put in big, effective tackles that upped the tempo. I simply did not see numerous missed tackles and I do question these ESPN statistics. If you are constantly involved in the game and often near the ball/carrier because you're working hard, do you get a missed tackle if you're the closest man? I don't know, but he doesn't miss too many people running down his channel in my view. On top of that this autumn, he's made multiple big, effective hits and stolen ball. I do not see him as a poor or ineffective tackler/defender at 10.

Re kicking the ball out on the restart. Come on, he really doesn't do that often. I'm always surprised by how often other other top fly halves don't make touch on penalties for instance, Farrell is generally pretty good in both respects.

I will watch the SA and NZ games again if I can secretly without getting a divorce and I'm fairly sure I'll feel the same way. I'm running low on energy on the Farrell debate so may slide into reading you lot bash him again until the Aus game

Watch the NZ game again, particularly the first half. I didn’t say he did kick lots of restarts out on the full. I said he kicked this one out on the full which indirectly led to 3 points to NZ on the stroke of halftime. It was an error and I shall pick him up on it. It was also a crucial error given its timing and consequence.
To be honest, I only look forward to england matches three days so I can slag of Farrell

[TheDasher]

You thought he played well against NZ and single-handedly saved us against Japan? Because that is what the majority of the media are saying.

George Ford set up a try with a moment of high quality, kicked well for touch and kicked all his goals bar one on the touch line yet gets 5/10 in The Times and is widely considered to have had a bad game. I do wonder what Farrell would’ve got? By way of comparison Farrell was given a 7/10 in the S Times for the loss to Ireland. He was given a 5/10 in the Guardian but is considered a ‘qualified success’ and is let off a 0% kicking performance because of the weather - Ireland managed 67%. That’s before you get to the fact he was directly responsible for giving away our position in their 22 in the first 5 mins which ultimately led to Stockdale’s try. Still better than Ford yesterday, it seems.

Re the numerous missed tackles... I'm not one to re-watch games and write out minute by minute commentary afterwards, but in this instance I wish I had the time. I try to be fair and call the games as I see them. Again, our performance against NZ was hugely encouraging, we were far closer than any of us thought we would be and should've won. Farrell was heavily involved throughout, in the first 30, our backline looked cohesive and dangerous, much like is started to in the 2nd half vs South Africa. In both games Farrell put in big, effective tackles that upped the tempo. I simply did not see numerous missed tackles and I do question these ESPN statistics. If you are constantly involved in the game and often near the ball/carrier because you're working hard, do you get a missed tackle if you're the closest man? I don't know, but he doesn't miss too many people running down his channel in my view. On top of that this autumn, he's made multiple big, effective hits and stolen ball. I do not see him as a poor or ineffective tackler/defender at 10.

Re kicking the ball out on the restart. Come on, he really doesn't do that often. I'm always surprised by how often other other top fly halves don't make touch on penalties for instance, Farrell is generally pretty good in both respects.

I will watch the SA and NZ games again if I can secretly without getting a divorce and I'm fairly sure I'll feel the same way. I'm running low on energy on the Farrell debate so may slide into reading you lot bash him again until the Aus game

Watch the NZ game again, particularly the first half. I didn’t say he did kick lots of restarts out on the full. I said he kicked this one out on the full which indirectly led to 3 points to NZ on the stroke of halftime. It was an error and I shall pick him up on it. It was also a crucial error given its timing and consequence.
To be honest, I only look forward to england matches three days so I can slag of Farrell

I will do that and come back to you

What has he done this autumn that you do like/rate?

[p/d]

sat on the bench for 40 mins.

[Renniks]

Re kicking the ball out on the restart. Come on, he really doesn't do that often. I'm always surprised by how often other other top fly halves don't make touch on penalties for instance, Farrell is generally pretty good in both respects.

I'm largely impressed with our tactics at our own restarts… Both Farrell and Ford often put in a place for May (and others) to compete

Farrell's low kick the other week was something that I really hope was planned and not a mistake - it definitely looked great

[Raggs]

Joe Coka and May as a pair of wings, would be very handy if we can start putting in competitive restarts often.

[Renniks]

How is Big Joe under the high ball?
Is he like North and Cuthbert or more capable than them?

(Equally the restarts)

[Mellsblue]

Re the numerous missed tackles... I'm not one to re-watch games and write out minute by minute commentary afterwards, but in this instance I wish I had the time. I try to be fair and call the games as I see them. Again, our performance against NZ was hugely encouraging, we were far closer than any of us thought we would be and should've won. Farrell was heavily involved throughout, in the first 30, our backline looked cohesive and dangerous, much like is started to in the 2nd half vs South Africa. In both games Farrell put in big, effective tackles that upped the tempo. I simply did not see numerous missed tackles and I do question these ESPN statistics. If you are constantly involved in the game and often near the ball/carrier because you're working hard, do you get a missed tackle if you're the closest man? I don't know, but he doesn't miss too many people running down his channel in my view. On top of that this autumn, he's made multiple big, effective hits and stolen ball. I do not see him as a poor or ineffective tackler/defender at 10.

Re kicking the ball out on the restart. Come on, he really doesn't do that often. I'm always surprised by how often other other top fly halves don't make touch on penalties for instance, Farrell is generally pretty good in both respects.

I will watch the SA and NZ games again if I can secretly without getting a divorce and I'm fairly sure I'll feel the same way. I'm running low on energy on the Farrell debate so may slide into reading you lot bash him again until the Aus game

Watch the NZ game again, particularly the first half. I didn’t say he did kick lots of restarts out on the full. I said he kicked this one out on the full which indirectly led to 3 points to NZ on the stroke of halftime. It was an error and I shall pick him up on it. It was also a crucial error given its timing and consequence.
To be honest, I only look forward to england matches three days so I can slag of Farrell

I will do that and come back to you

What has he done this autumn that you do like/rate?

What he always does. Big work rate, talismanic and he being a sound all round flyhalf. He’s a decent international test match player and he’s dependable 7 out of 10, 9 matches out of 10. Sadly, NZ was the 1 out of 10. If we’re playing 10 man, kick for territory, send big men up the middle rugby then I’d pick him, but I don’t think we should and he’s not my type of flyhalf. Unless he magically gains an instinct for picking the correct option on the gain line and becomes a sharper passer of the ball, I just won’t want him at 10. If I were Welsh I’d want Patchell over Biggar, it’s not that I don’t like Farrell I just don’t like paint by numbers flyhalfs.