England side for the Barbarians game

[Oakboy]

Interesting to just consider the various skills of Ford, Farrell and Simmonds. Maybe Simmonds is the best defender and place kicker of the three, for example? I suppose Ford has the best hands. Ford and Farrell have a huge amount more international experience.

If Simmonds were to look good after, say, 6 or 7 games, what does Farrell have then that is better?

I think Jones will be more stubborn even than usual and quite stupid if he does not find out how good some of the fringe candidates are this autumn/spring. Sticking to the 'tried and tested' may have merit where the players are clearly outstanding but in areas like 9,10, 12 they are not.

[Scrumhead]

Simmonds is more of a threat to Ford than he is to Farrell.

With Tuilagi out, I’m working on the assumption that Farrell plays 12 which means Simmonds needs to overhaul Ford. On form, it should be tried, but Eddie’s shown no interest in Simmonds so far ... I’m not sure achievements like captaining your side to a maiden European Cup win and getting the MoM award count to him?

[Stom]

Interesting to just consider the various skills of Ford, Farrell and Simmonds. Maybe Simmonds is the best defender and place kicker of the three, for example? I suppose Ford has the best hands. Ford and Farrell have a huge amount more international experience.

If Simmonds were to look good after, say, 6 or 7 games, what does Farrell have then that is better?

I think Jones will be more stubborn even than usual and quite stupid if he does not find out how good some of the fringe candidates are this autumn/spring. Sticking to the 'tried and tested' may have merit where the players are clearly outstanding but in areas like 9,10, 12 they are not.

He's the antithesis of English posh public school boy rugby and therefore exactly what Eddie wants to build his team around.

And is the one major fault I have with Eddie's tenure. This idea that because England lacked dog under Burt, it's a systematic problem with the core elements of English rugby and we therefore have to have players who do not fit that mould as core components...is not something I agree with.

In fact, I think we should be looking toward players who are cool under pressure and backing them up with pure talent.

It's not the responsibility of our backs to provide the nastiness or shouting, we get that in spades from Itoje, while I believe our pack in general is very good at channelling aggression nowadays.

I honestly see no reason to continue to pick Farrell. He's potentially only the 4th best FH available to England. I understand picking him at 12 every now and again, but I'd much rather move Slade there and pick Marchant.

[Scrumhead]

I think pretty much everyone would have liked to have seen Slade developed as a 12, but the fact is, he doesn’t play there and hasn’t done so with any regularity at any point in his professional career. I don’t really see it being an option now when he’s established as a first choice 13 at club and often at test level.

I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan by any stretch, but until a credible contender comes in to the picture at 12, he’s our best option. He definitely wouldn’t be my first choice at 10, but 4th is harsh.

Sadly it’s very slim pickings at 12.

Devoto seems unable to put a run of games together and is often left out in favour of Whitten. Neither of those strengthen his case.

Johnny Williams has defected, Tompkins wasn’t selected and is now somehow Welsh and called ‘Neil’.

I have higher hopes for Redpath who has looked really promising since the restart. TBH, I’m really surprised he wasn’t selected.

Other than that, we remain short on options ...

[Stom]

I think pretty much everyone would have liked to have seen Slade developed as a 12, but the fact is, he doesn’t play there and hasn’t done so with any regularity at any point in his professional career. I don’t really see it being an option now when he’s established as a first choice 13 at club and often at test level.

I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan by any stretch, but until a credible contender comes in to the picture at 12, he’s our best option. He definitely wouldn’t be my first choice at 10, but 4th is harsh.

Sadly it’s very slim pickings at 12.

Devoto seems unable to put a run of games together and is often left out in favour of Whitten. Neither of those strengthen his case.

Johnny Williams has defected, Tompkins wasn’t selected and is now somehow Welsh and called ‘Neil’.

I have higher hopes for Redpath who has looked really promising since the restart. TBH, I’m really surprised he wasn’t selected.

Other than that, we remain short on options ...

Is it?

Ford - better in pretty much every department at 10, except getting lost in rucks, making dangerous tackles, and shouting at the ref.
Simmonds - has shown himself to be very good both in attack and defence now, can direct play better than Farrell, has a better running game, and captaincy experience.
Smith - A much better running game than Farrell, better passing game, better game management... not quite up there off the tee, strangely, considering his start from the tee, but he's young yet.

Farrell literally does nothing you want in a 10. He does plenty you want in a 12, sure, but with the mahooosive caveat that he has pretty much no running game, and is therefore easy to defend against.

[Oakboy]

I wonder if Simmonds has ever played at IC. It is beyond belief that Farrell (a world-claas player according to many) gets in ths side only because we have nobody else worth trying at 12. It will be interesting, should Simmonds get time at 10 with Farrell at 12, to see who Jones appoints as place-kicker.

[francoisfou]

I apologise for banging on about Sam Simmonds, but surely Eddie can find room for the European player of the year in one or two of this autumn's tests?

[Puja]

I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan by any stretch, but until a credible contender comes in to the picture at 12, he’s our best option. He definitely wouldn’t be my first choice at 10, but 4th is harsh.

Is it?

Ford - better in pretty much every department at 10, except getting lost in rucks, making dangerous tackles, and shouting at the ref.
Simmonds - has shown himself to be very good both in attack and defence now, can direct play better than Farrell, has a better running game, and captaincy experience.
Smith - A much better running game than Farrell, better passing game, better game management... not quite up there off the tee, strangely, considering his start from the tee, but he's young yet.

Farrell literally does nothing you want in a 10. He does plenty you want in a 12, sure, but with the mahooosive caveat that he has pretty much no running game, and is therefore easy to defend against.

It is. Farrell has had some excellent games for England at 10 (Ireland 2019, NZ 2018 springing immediately to mind) and, while he wouldn't be my first choice, to claim he "does nothing you want in a 10" and that he is clearly worth less than two young players who have never played any international rugby (one of them who has only recently overtaken James Lang for his club) is a massive overexaggeration.

I wonder if Simmonds has ever played at IC. It is beyond belief that Farrell (a world-claas player according to many) gets in ths side only because we have nobody else worth trying at 12. It will be interesting, should Simmonds get time at 10 with Farrell at 12, to see who Jones appoints as place-kicker.

That thought has occurred to me as well. He's certainly got a few of the skills we'd be looking for there, although the question would be whether we'd have too lightweight a pairing with both Ford and Simmonds weighing in at 13st 10. And, while he's very good at one-on-one tackles, has he any experience leading a defensive line?

If Simmonds plays alongside Farrell, then Farrell will be kicking. Ford has had a better strike rate than Farrell at both international and club for years now and Farrell still gets the tee.

Puja

[Stom]

I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan by any stretch, but until a credible contender comes in to the picture at 12, he’s our best option. He definitely wouldn’t be my first choice at 10, but 4th is harsh.

Is it?

Ford - better in pretty much every department at 10, except getting lost in rucks, making dangerous tackles, and shouting at the ref.
Simmonds - has shown himself to be very good both in attack and defence now, can direct play better than Farrell, has a better running game, and captaincy experience.
Smith - A much better running game than Farrell, better passing game, better game management... not quite up there off the tee, strangely, considering his start from the tee, but he's young yet.

Farrell literally does nothing you want in a 10. He does plenty you want in a 12, sure, but with the mahooosive caveat that he has pretty much no running game, and is therefore easy to defend against.

It is. Farrell has had some excellent games for England at 10 (Ireland 2019, NZ 2018 springing immediately to mind) and, while he wouldn't be my first choice, to claim he "does nothing you want in a 10" and that he is clearly worth less than two young players who have never played any international rugby (one of them who has only recently overtaken James Lang for his club) is a massive overexaggeration.

I wonder if Simmonds has ever played at IC. It is beyond belief that Farrell (a world-claas player according to many) gets in ths side only because we have nobody else worth trying at 12. It will be interesting, should Simmonds get time at 10 with Farrell at 12, to see who Jones appoints as place-kicker.

That thought has occurred to me as well. He's certainly got a few of the skills we'd be looking for there, although the question would be whether we'd have too lightweight a pairing with both Ford and Simmonds weighing in at 13st 10. And, while he's very good at one-on-one tackles, has he any experience leading a defensive line?

If Simmonds plays alongside Farrell, then Farrell will be kicking. Ford has had a better strike rate than Farrell at both international and club for years now and Farrell still gets the tee.

Puja

Smith would never have been behind Lang with anyone else as HC. There's night and day between them at 10.

And yes, I think it's perfectly fair to say that Farrell provides pretty much nothing a top tier 10 needs. He has little vision, he has no pace, no eye for a gap nor pass, and if he does, his passing isn't good enough to make it happen. His handling isn't good enough for high speed wrap arounds, removing one potential source of moving the defence around...

Farrell does one thing at 10: pivots and gives it to a playmaking prop, ffs. If we've talked about limited 10s previously, Farrell is the king of limited 10s.

[fivepointer]

Smith would never have been behind Lang with anyone else as HC. There's night and day between them at 10.

And yes, I think it's perfectly fair to say that Farrell provides pretty much nothing a top tier 10 needs. He has little vision, he has no pace, no eye for a gap nor pass, and if he does, his passing isn't good enough to make it happen. His handling isn't good enough for high speed wrap arounds, removing one potential source of moving the defence around...

Farrell does one thing at 10: pivots and gives it to a playmaking prop, ffs. If we've talked about limited 10s previously, Farrell is the king of limited 10s.

But, but...test match animal....4 players in one.....plus he is very good at shouting at refs.

[Puja]

And yes, I think it's perfectly fair to say that Farrell provides pretty much nothing a top tier 10 needs. He has little vision, he has no pace, no eye for a gap nor pass, and if he does, his passing isn't good enough to make it happen. His handling isn't good enough for high speed wrap arounds, removing one potential source of moving the defence around...

Farrell does one thing at 10: pivots and gives it to a playmaking prop, ffs. If we've talked about limited 10s previously, Farrell is the king of limited 10s.

This is frankly absurd.







Farrell has many, many flaws, enough that I feel awkward defending him. However he is by no means entirely incompetent as you are trying to paint him - he is a very decent international fly-half

Puja

[Scrumhead]

I apologise for banging on about Sam Simmonds, but surely Eddie can find room for the European player of the year in one or two of this autumn's tests?

Instead of who though? Who do you drop to bring him in?

Simmonds’ strengths are perfectly aligned to Exeter’s gameplan. England are not going to play two 6s alongside him in the back row to accommodate it.

I am a Simmonds fan, but I get why he doesn’t get picked. His leg drive is phenomenal and he’s great in space, but for all the jobs you’d typically want a test 8 or flanker to perform, I’d have him at second best to most of his competitors.

He’s a good defender and will hit rucks, but he’s not a dominant tackler in the same way as Underhill or Curry and isn’t notably strong over the ball. When it comes to comparing him to Billy, I’d argue he makes metres in a different way, but then we need another tight carrier to compensate.

[Mr Mwenda]

If JSimmonds and Ford play together, who will we blame when they're not at their best? I think we should be ready.

[Mikey Brown]

Haha. I knew that Farrell pass vs Ireland would be mentioned soon. Which other world class playmakers have a "remember that time they did a good pass?" moment like that? Gassing Grant Gilchrist or having Jonny May magic his way out of a hospital pass are quite amusing inclusions in that highlight reel too.

I get your point though, I think the idea that he doesn't offer anything in attack is overplayed and obviously there's ample evidence there of him making telling contributions. My issue is his consistency with executing basics and his general sense of timing on the ball when play starts to break out from the blueprint. It's amazing how often a chance will arise for him because he's been entirely static for the previous 10 phases, just shovelling the ball on without committing any defenders. If that's a sustainable part of the game-plan, then fair enough.

His work rate is always phenomenal, and he seems to be better at spotting a gap but is limited in his pace, acceleration, evasion etc. I know I'm repeating myself now but it's the perception Farrell can do these things frequently/consistently enough that bothers me.

I don't see Simmonds as a 12 option though.

[francoisfou]

I apologise for banging on about Sam Simmonds, but surely Eddie can find room for the European player of the year in one or two of this autumn's tests?

Instead of who though? Who do you drop to bring him in?

Simmonds’ strengths are perfectly aligned to Exeter’s gameplan. England are not going to play two 6s alongside him in the back row to accommodate it.

I am a Simmonds fan, but I get why he doesn’t get picked. His leg drive is phenomenal and he’s great in space, but for all the jobs you’d typically want a test 8 or flanker to perform, I’d have him at second best to most of his competitors.

He’s a good defender and will hit rucks, but he’s not a dominant tackler in the same way as Underhill or Curry and isn’t notably strong over the ball. When it comes to comparing him to Billy, I’d argue he makes metres in a different way, but then we need another tight carrier to compensate.

Fair points, but with 6 matches, is it, this Autumn?, he fully deserves the opportunity at test level.

[jimKRFC]

Interesting article from Ben Darwin about familiarity and stablity of teams on performance: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... ds-success

Eddie Jones needs to pay attention to the bit about a drop in performance when asked to play a slightly different position.

[Puja]

Haha. I knew that Farrell pass vs Ireland would be mentioned soon. Which other world class playmakers have a "remember that time they did a good pass?" moment like that? Gassing Grant Gilchrist or having Jonny May magic his way out of a hospital pass are quite amusing inclusions in that highlight reel too.

I get your point though, I think the idea that he doesn't offer anything in attack is overplayed and obviously there's ample evidence there of him making telling contributions. My issue is his consistency with executing basics and his general sense of timing on the ball when play starts to break out from the blueprint. It's amazing how often a chance will arise for him because he's been entirely static for the previous 10 phases, just shovelling the ball on without committing any defenders. If that's a sustainable part of the game-plan, then fair enough.

His work rate is always phenomenal, and he seems to be better at spotting a gap but is limited in his pace, acceleration, evasion etc. I know I'm repeating myself now but it's the perception Farrell can do these things frequently/consistently enough that bothers me.

I don't see Simmonds as a 12 option though.

See, *that* I agree with. He has issues (notice how none of the good passes you can think of for him go left to right?), but to claim he's a complete waste of space is definitely over-egging the pudding. Possibly a reasonable reaction to the fawning of the punditry, but it's not right.

On a different subject, I wonder if we'll get an updated squad given the news about Wasps having positive Covid tests. Seems to be no point in bringing in Bristol players if they won't leave Briz camp in case they make it into the final.

Puja

[Epaminondas Pules]

Haha. I knew that Farrell pass vs Ireland would be mentioned soon. Which other world class playmakers have a "remember that time they did a good pass?" moment like that? Gassing Grant Gilchrist or having Jonny May magic his way out of a hospital pass are quite amusing inclusions in that highlight reel too.

I get your point though, I think the idea that he doesn't offer anything in attack is overplayed and obviously there's ample evidence there of him making telling contributions. My issue is his consistency with executing basics and his general sense of timing on the ball when play starts to break out from the blueprint. It's amazing how often a chance will arise for him because he's been entirely static for the previous 10 phases, just shovelling the ball on without committing any defenders. If that's a sustainable part of the game-plan, then fair enough.

His work rate is always phenomenal, and he seems to be better at spotting a gap but is limited in his pace, acceleration, evasion etc. I know I'm repeating myself now but it's the perception Farrell can do these things frequently/consistently enough that bothers me.

I don't see Simmonds as a 12 option though.

See, *that* I agree with. He has issues (notice how none of the good passes you can think of for him go left to right?), but to claim he's a complete waste of space is definitely over-egging the pudding. Possibly a reasonable reaction to the fawning of the punditry, but it's not right.

On a different subject, I wonder if we'll get an updated squad given the news about Wasps having positive Covid tests. Seems to be no point in bringing in Bristol players if they won't leave Briz camp in case they make it into the final.

Puja

Dunno. If you're getting angry cause Mick Cleary or Stuart Barnes gave him an 8 out of 10, or called him the ice man then you should probably have a wee bit of a look at yourself.

[Banquo]

I think pretty much everyone would have liked to have seen Slade developed as a 12, but the fact is, he doesn’t play there and hasn’t done so with any regularity at any point in his professional career. I don’t really see it being an option now when he’s established as a first choice 13 at club and often at test level.

I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan by any stretch, but until a credible contender comes in to the picture at 12, he’s our best option. He definitely wouldn’t be my first choice at 10, but 4th is harsh.

Sadly it’s very slim pickings at 12.

Devoto seems unable to put a run of games together and is often left out in favour of Whitten. Neither of those strengthen his case.

Johnny Williams has defected, Tompkins wasn’t selected and is now somehow Welsh and called ‘Neil’.

I have higher hopes for Redpath who has looked really promising since the restart. TBH, I’m really surprised he wasn’t selected.

Other than that, we remain short on options ...

Farrell literally does nothing you want in a 10. He does plenty you want in a 12

I’m no Farrell fan, but come off it. If anything this is arse about face.

[Banquo]

Haha. I knew that Farrell pass vs Ireland would be mentioned soon. Which other world class playmakers have a "remember that time they did a good pass?" moment like that? Gassing Grant Gilchrist or having Jonny May magic his way out of a hospital pass are quite amusing inclusions in that highlight reel too.

I get your point though, I think the idea that he doesn't offer anything in attack is overplayed and obviously there's ample evidence there of him making telling contributions. My issue is his consistency with executing basics and his general sense of timing on the ball when play starts to break out from the blueprint. It's amazing how often a chance will arise for him because he's been entirely static for the previous 10 phases, just shovelling the ball on without committing any defenders. If that's a sustainable part of the game-plan, then fair enough.

His work rate is always phenomenal, and he seems to be better at spotting a gap but is limited in his pace, acceleration, evasion etc. I know I'm repeating myself now but it's the perception Farrell can do these things frequently/consistently enough that bothers me.

I don't see Simmonds as a 12 option though.

See, *that* I agree with. He has issues (notice how none of the good passes you can think of for him go left to right?), but to claim he's a complete waste of space is definitely over-egging the pudding. Possibly a reasonable reaction to the fawning of the punditry, but it's not right.

On a different subject, I wonder if we'll get an updated squad given the news about Wasps having positive Covid tests. Seems to be no point in bringing in Bristol players if they won't leave Briz camp in case they make it into the final.

Puja

I must have posted his passing from left to right is terrible about 20 times a season since 2012. And that his positional play in first phase defence is awful, the latter reason plus lack of running ability being why I intensely dislike him playing 12, much more than playing 10. He has a decent case for being on the bench though

[Epaminondas Pules]

I think pretty much everyone would have liked to have seen Slade developed as a 12, but the fact is, he doesn’t play there and hasn’t done so with any regularity at any point in his professional career. I don’t really see it being an option now when he’s established as a first choice 13 at club and often at test level.

I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan by any stretch, but until a credible contender comes in to the picture at 12, he’s our best option. He definitely wouldn’t be my first choice at 10, but 4th is harsh.

Sadly it’s very slim pickings at 12.

Devoto seems unable to put a run of games together and is often left out in favour of Whitten. Neither of those strengthen his case.

Johnny Williams has defected, Tompkins wasn’t selected and is now somehow Welsh and called ‘Neil’.

I have higher hopes for Redpath who has looked really promising since the restart. TBH, I’m really surprised he wasn’t selected.

Other than that, we remain short on options ...

Farrell literally does nothing you want in a 10. He does plenty you want in a 12

I’m no Farrell fan, but come off it. If anything this is arse about face.

Couldn't agree more, much less of an offering at 12 than 10.

[Stom]

And yes, I think it's perfectly fair to say that Farrell provides pretty much nothing a top tier 10 needs. He has little vision, he has no pace, no eye for a gap nor pass, and if he does, his passing isn't good enough to make it happen. His handling isn't good enough for high speed wrap arounds, removing one potential source of moving the defence around...

Farrell does one thing at 10: pivots and gives it to a playmaking prop, ffs. If we've talked about limited 10s previously, Farrell is the king of limited 10s.

This is frankly absurd.

Farrell has many, many flaws, enough that I feel awkward defending him. However he is by no means entirely incompetent as you are trying to paint him - he is a very decent international fly-half

Puja

That's kind of my point...he's not top class. He doesn't hold a candle to Ford as a 10. And what the others have displayed at club level far outweigh his abilities as a 10. He's a perfectly good rugby player but his skill set isn't laser focused into being a playmaker. Which was one of the reasons I found it so odd England paired him with Youngs, who played in a system that gave playmaking duties to the 10, and paired Ford with Care, who played in a system where the 9 had playmaking responsibility. Surely the other way round would have made sense?

[Stom]

I think pretty much everyone would have liked to have seen Slade developed as a 12, but the fact is, he doesn’t play there and hasn’t done so with any regularity at any point in his professional career. I don’t really see it being an option now when he’s established as a first choice 13 at club and often at test level.

I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan by any stretch, but until a credible contender comes in to the picture at 12, he’s our best option. He definitely wouldn’t be my first choice at 10, but 4th is harsh.

Sadly it’s very slim pickings at 12.

Devoto seems unable to put a run of games together and is often left out in favour of Whitten. Neither of those strengthen his case.

Johnny Williams has defected, Tompkins wasn’t selected and is now somehow Welsh and called ‘Neil’.

I have higher hopes for Redpath who has looked really promising since the restart. TBH, I’m really surprised he wasn’t selected.

Other than that, we remain short on options ...

Farrell literally does nothing you want in a 10. He does plenty you want in a 12

I’m no Farrell fan, but come off it. If anything this is arse about face.

Really? He can do all the basics (except pass left to right) but he doesn't have the vision to play as a regular top tier 10 for me. He really doesn't have much vision at all. Having him as a second playmaker who doesn't have to call any shots makes much more sense, imo.

[Mellsblue]

Having him as a second playmaker who doesn't have to call any shots makes much more sense, imo.

Have you played 10 or 12? Even if you haven’t, there are plenty of 10s who will tell you that this is patently untrue.

[Scrumhead]

I apologise for banging on about Sam Simmonds, but surely Eddie can find room for the European player of the year in one or two of this autumn's tests?

Instead of who though? Who do you drop to bring him in?

Simmonds’ strengths are perfectly aligned to Exeter’s gameplan. England are not going to play two 6s alongside him in the back row to accommodate it.

I am a Simmonds fan, but I get why he doesn’t get picked. His leg drive is phenomenal and he’s great in space, but for all the jobs you’d typically want a test 8 or flanker to perform, I’d have him at second best to most of his competitors.

He’s a good defender and will hit rucks, but he’s not a dominant tackler in the same way as Underhill or Curry and isn’t notably strong over the ball. When it comes to comparing him to Billy, I’d argue he makes metres in a different way, but then we need another tight carrier to compensate.

Fair points, but with 6 matches, is it, this Autumn?, he fully deserves the opportunity at test level.

So do several others who don’t require shifts elsewhere to accommodate them though ...

I’m going to ask again, who do you drop to include him?