6 Nations Squad 2022

[Banquo]

Well I think it’s easier to circumvent his weaknesses at 12 than 10, given he’s obviously needed somewhere to provide those intangible things that he provides.

But maybe that view is more about being frustrated not to see Ford (or Smith) on the field if he is at 10. It’s certainly not easy to pick a suitable 13 alongside him in the centre with Tuilagi unavailable.

Overall I’d say I’ve seen him have more good games at 12 than 10 by a long way.

We will have to disagree then, and definitely so at club level where he is a good 10 for Sarries tbh. I couldn't say I've seen him have what I'd call a 'good game' at 12 tbh, but a good game for him is a low bar at 12- I guess you may be saying he's less 'harmful' at 12...plus Intangibles

I guess I 'prefer' him at 12 (strictly when compared to him being at 10 only) because I don't see as many top 12s missing out on a place at his inclusion. If he's at 10 it would be at the expense of both ford and Smith, so a greater 'harm'!

A ringing endorsement!

I just don’t think he’s a terrible 10 in a specific mode, but he’s a poor 12 internationally. Do least harm seems to be the best to say at 12…whereas I get his limitations at 10, and at 10 his physicality when controlled is a bit of a bonus.

[Magic_sponge]

We will have to disagree then, and definitely so at club level where he is a good 10 for Sarries tbh. I couldn't say I've seen him have what I'd call a 'good game' at 12 tbh, but a good game for him is a low bar at 12- I guess you may be saying he's less 'harmful' at 12...plus Intangibles

I guess I 'prefer' him at 12 (strictly when compared to him being at 10 only) because I don't see as many top 12s missing out on a place at his inclusion. If he's at 10 it would be at the expense of both ford and Smith, so a greater 'harm'!

A ringing endorsement!

I just don’t think he’s a terrible 10 in a specific mode, but he’s a poor 12 internationally. Do least harm seems to be the best to say at 12…whereas I get his limitations at 10, and at 10 his physicality when controlled is a bit of a bonus.

I get that. To be honest I don't know enough to know how good a 10 or 12 he is, I've just never really liked him in the team regardless.

So if he is better at 10, is the amount he's better greater than the drop you get between not having Smith/ford and having another 12? I don't know. Doesn't seem like it to me but certainly not a hill I'm going to die on

[Spiffy]

Well I think it’s easier to circumvent his weaknesses at 12 than 10, given he’s obviously needed somewhere to provide those intangible things that he provides.

But maybe that view is more about being frustrated not to see Ford (or Smith) on the field if he is at 10. It’s certainly not easy to pick a suitable 13 alongside him in the centre with Tuilagi unavailable.

Overall I’d say I’ve seen him have more good games at 12 than 10 by a long way.

We will have to disagree then, and definitely so at club level where he is a good 10 for Sarries tbh. I couldn't say I've seen him have what I'd call a 'good game' at 12 tbh, but a good game for him is a low bar at 12- I guess you may be saying he's less 'harmful' at 12...plus Intangibles

Well you can probably tell I'm caught in two minds about it, but on the whole I think he does less harm at 12. He compromises one fewer player outside of him I guess.

He has to be somewhere, rightly or wrongly, and that's just the way it is until he retires I imagine. It's odd watching the media turn on him as though this has been a sudden downturn for him.I think he's actually improved in a lot of ways but suddenly people started noticing some of his moreobvious flaws. We might actually be headed towards some sort of weird, parallel universe where he is actually underrated? I'm mostly taking the piss when I talk about "intangibles" but I do think there's something to it.

Who would you pick as a centre pairing? No Dingwall I'm afraid, though Scotland haven't named him in their squad you'll be glad to know.

Biggest question for me in a way is whether Slade's performance vs SA was an aberration or the big leap forward for him that it looked like. He's captained Exeter a few times recently, and it's made me curious about what kind of communicator he is on the pitch, as I've always had this feeling he's relatively quiet? Farrell's voice does seem to hold a lot of sway with players that play alongside him, regardless of how good he is at passing left to right. Can Slade do that? I'd wondered if that was a natural part of the move away from fly-half, and the subsequent resistance to becoming the top class 12 we were all hoping for. It feels like he's often a few seconds ahead of himself in the play, thinking about the miracle break/pass he's going to throw and then drops the easy pass that comes his way.

I don't think he's improved. He had a crap 6N in which England finished fifth, then was anonymous for the Lions (he never should have toured.) He is 30 now and it's hard to see his game develop at this stage of his career. It is not difficult to look good at league level when you are playing on the front foot behind a pack so dominant as Sarries.

[badback]

If I remember rightly, when Eddie first came in he put Ford and Farrell together and it made a real difference. Having Farrell at 12 so that we have “two playmakers” did work. My issue with Farrell at 12 now is that he seems to have hindered the progress of Ford and could hinder the progress of Smith.
The centre combination for England has been a problem for so long.
It’s tough to say but we always look a much bette back line with Tuilagi. He seems to be one of our few indisputable world class players.
I also think Slade and Marchand looked good
Not sure if any of that makes any sense.

[fivepointer]

[

I don't think he's improved. He had a crap 6N in which England finished fifth, then was anonymous for the Lions (he never should have toured.) He is 30 now and it's hard to see his game develop at this stage of his career. It is not difficult to look good at league level when you are playing on the front foot behind a pack so dominant as Sarries.

This.
We know what we're going to get with Farrell. He isnt going to pull any rabbits out of the hat. But Jones wants him in the side, so will shoehorn him in even if that makes the side function less well than it could do.
Jones feels that Farrell's contributions, on and off the field, make him an important player.
We just have to live it until his form really does tail off, he gets injured or slides into retirement.
What would put pressure on Jones is if a real high end, top class 12 was available, fit and in form.

[Oakboy]

[

I don't think he's improved. He had a crap 6N in which England finished fifth, then was anonymous for the Lions (he never should have toured.) He is 30 now and it's hard to see his game develop at this stage of his career. It is not difficult to look good at league level when you are playing on the front foot behind a pack so dominant as Sarries.

This.
We know what we're going to get with Farrell. He isnt going to pull any rabbits out of the hat. But Jones wants him in the side, so will shoehorn him in even if that makes the side function less well than it could do.
Jones feels that Farrell's contributions, on and off the field, make him an important player.
We just have to live it until his form really does tail off, he gets injured or slides into retirement.
What would put pressure on Jones is if a real high end, top class 12 was available, fit and in form.

Spot on. The snag with Farrell (and Youngs, come to that) is that Jones has constantly ignored chances to try alternatives in a meaningful way. 20 minutes off the bench simply does not constitute a fair crack. 4/5 successive starts are needed. It also needs to happen in the 1st or 2nd year of the RWC cycle.

Where we are at, now, is just around the corner from the RWC when we should have 20 or more of the 23 inked in and be building continuity etc. Instead, we are trying to recover from a disastrous 6N and relying on a core of players more used to failure than success (in terms of winning GS or RWC).

[Banquo]

I guess I 'prefer' him at 12 (strictly when compared to him being at 10 only) because I don't see as many top 12s missing out on a place at his inclusion. If he's at 10 it would be at the expense of both ford and Smith, so a greater 'harm'!

A ringing endorsement!

I just don’t think he’s a terrible 10 in a specific mode, but he’s a poor 12 internationally. Do least harm seems to be the best to say at 12…whereas I get his limitations at 10, and at 10 his physicality when controlled is a bit of a bonus.

I've just never really liked him in the team regardless.

on that we can agree. Thing is, Faz is a hill worth dying on, because he is emblematic of what is wrong with the England backline/team- he symbolises good in terms of workrate and will to win....but the play by numbers, ironic lack of discipline, equally lacking good decisions under pressure, and sacrificing skill for effort that he represents is holding the team back. Eddie thinks we lack the skill to win through using it, so wants effort, physicality and territory...ta-da, Faz!

[Banquo]

Well I think it’s easier to circumvent his weaknesses at 12 than 10, given he’s obviously needed somewhere to provide those intangible things that he provides.

But maybe that view is more about being frustrated not to see Ford (or Smith) on the field if he is at 10. It’s certainly not easy to pick a suitable 13 alongside him in the centre with Tuilagi unavailable.

Overall I’d say I’ve seen him have more good games at 12 than 10 by a long way.

We will have to disagree then, and definitely so at club level where he is a good 10 for Sarries tbh. I couldn't say I've seen him have what I'd call a 'good game' at 12 tbh, but a good game for him is a low bar at 12- I guess you may be saying he's less 'harmful' at 12...plus Intangibles

Well you can probably tell I'm caught in two minds about it, but on the whole I think he does less harm at 12. He compromises one fewer player outside of him I guess.

He has to be somewhere, rightly or wrongly, and that's just the way it is until he retires I imagine. It's odd watching the media turn on him as though this has been a sudden downturn for him. I think he's actually improved in a lot of ways but suddenly people started noticing some of his more obvious flaws. We might actually be headed towards some sort of weird, parallel universe where he is actually underrated? I'm mostly taking the piss when I talk about "intangibles" but I do think there's something to it.

Who would you pick as a centre pairing? No Dingwall I'm afraid, though Scotland haven't named him in their squad you'll be glad to know.

Biggest question for me in a way is whether Slade's performance vs SA was an aberration or the big leap forward for him that it looked like. He's captained Exeter a few times recently, and it's made me curious about what kind of communicator he is on the pitch, as I've always had this feeling he's relatively quiet? Farrell's voice does seem to hold a lot of sway with players that play alongside him, regardless of how good he is at passing left to right. Can Slade do that? I'd wondered if that was a natural part of the move away from fly-half, and the subsequent resistance to becoming the top class 12 we were all hoping for. It feels like he's often a few seconds ahead of himself in the play, thinking about the miracle break/pass he's going to throw and then drops the easy pass that comes his way.

Slade and Marchant, but they'd have to up their defence, Slade especially - harsh, because he hasn't defended at 12 much.

Faz's game management at 10 has improved, and he seems to pick the odd better line at 12 and contests over the ball; he still is not a natural distributor of the ball, as you with irony point out (as I've banged on about it) can barely pass l-r, he is a defence liability at 12 as a first line (scramble defence excellent tho)...and his temper seems to have got worse, as has his goal kicking I'd say. So improved maybe in some areas, mainly as a 10 imo, deteriorated in others. He hardly ever plays 12 apart from internationally, so its a miracle that he's even marginally improved his running lines tbh.
I reckon we are done now, not going to agree.

[Mikey Brown]

Yep. Fair enough.

I don’t think we actually disagree on that many of his qualities, but just have a different outlook having accepted he has to be crowbarred in somewhere.

It’s almost hard to picture a post-Farrell backline for England. Can we dare to dream?

[Puja]

Yep. Fair enough.

I don’t think we actually disagree on that many of his qualities, but just have a different outlook having accepted he has to be crowbarred in somewhere.

It’s almost hard to picture a post-Farrell backline for England. Can we dare to dream?

He's only got one game before the 6N - maybe he'll aggravate his injury? Or clothesline someone and get banned?

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

But that will only make him more determined.

Stop your unpatriotic hate campaign.

[Puja]

But that will only make him more determined.

Stop your unpatriotic hate campaign.

Operation Big Dog is in effect.

Puja

[SixAndAHalf]

I don't think Farrell is a bad player in isolation and is probably an international quality 10 / 12, especially taking the apparent "intangibles" into account.

The issue is to get the best out of him (in particular at 12) the whole backline has to be structured around him which is unjustified - e.g. throughout the Jones era, we could have had Ford at 10 with a combination of Manu / Slade / Joseph outside but often shoe horn Farrell in to the detriment of all those other, more talented players. It seems we will make the same mistakes again this Six Nations where we could have Smith (or Ford) with Marchant / Slade / Manu outside but will shoehorn an average international 12 in probably leaving us with the unsatisfactory pairing of Farrell / Slade...

This is only exacerbated by Manu's regular absences with injury as he is the one player who can elevate the level regardless of whether he has Farrell alongside him.

[Banquo]

I don't think Farrell is a bad player in isolation and is probably an international quality 10 / 12, especially taking the apparent "intangibles" into account.

The issue is to get the best out of him (in particular at 12) the whole backline has to be structured around him which is unjustified - e.g. throughout the Jones era, we could have had Ford at 10 with a combination of Manu / Slade / Joseph outside but often shoe horn Farrell in to the detriment of all those other, more talented players. It seems we will make the same mistakes again this Six Nations where we could have Smith (or Ford) with Marchant / Slade / Manu outside but will shoehorn an average international 12 in probably leaving us with the unsatisfactory pairing of Farrell / Slade...

This is only exacerbated by Manu's regular absences with injury as he is the one player who can elevate the level regardless of whether he has Farrell alongside him.

I can just about accept him as injury bench cover. He's a mediocre intl player when playing well if I was to be kind; but I also see why successive coaches at club, country and Lions always pick him......attitude, work rate and will to win (two of which become a negative when he loses his rag).

[Spiffy]

Would any player showing Farrell's poor form over the past year, plus zero game time after injury, make it into any other 6N squad? Scotland will be licking their chops for the first game. They should be targeting him remorselessly.

[p/d]

Sexton?

[Spiffy]

Sexton?

Didn't you see him play for Ireland v. NZ in the autumn? At 36, Sexton is still twice the footballer that Faz is.

[p/d]

Sexton?

Didn't you see him play for Ireland v. NZ in the autumn? At 36, Sexton is still twice the footballer that Faz is.

Oh, my mistake. I thought you were asking if any player would make their 6 nations squad if their form had been poor and game time limited.

[Spiffy]

Sexton?

Didn't you see him play for Ireland v. NZ in the autumn? At 36, Sexton is still twice the footballer that Faz is.

Oh, my mistake. I thought you were asking if any player would make their 6 nations squad if their form had been poor and game time limited.

Oops - yes.

[p/d]

Didn't you see him play for Ireland v. NZ in the autumn? At 36, Sexton is still twice the footballer that Faz is.

Oh, my mistake. I thought you were asking if any player would make their 6 nations squad if their form had been poor and game time limited.

Oops - yes.

From an England perspective I suppose Itoje would also fall into that category

[Peej]

Slade is in the Exe squad for Montpellier away this weekend, so we can probably assume he's 'done is own research' and is vaxxed.

[Mikey Brown]

Yeah there was a bizarre statement from Baxter that I think said as much.

[Peej]

Farrell injured in training this week so won't play for Sarries

[p/d]

Yeah there was a bizarre statement from Baxter that I think said as much.

“Rusty got vaxxed whilst being waxed. He is smooth and safe for trip to Occitania.”

[Puja]

Yeah there was a bizarre statement from Baxter that I think said as much.

“Rusty got vaxxed whilst being waxed. He is smooth and safe for trip to Occitania.”

You're not serious?

Puja