Depends which Farrell. If it's the Farrell we've seen previously for England than probably not as he has tended just to invite his centres to crash the ball up with little deception or innovation. If it's the Farrell who's turned up for Saracens in the league this season then all bets are off, looks like he's finally taken the handbrake off his attacking play.
Has he done it against a decent quality defence? I've only seen him once this season. Reportedly, several clubs' defences have been rather porous. I'd still pick him at 10 for England just to get him out of the 12 shirt.
Admittedly it was a depleted Tigers midfield but Sarries ran rampant in a way that Saints and Chiefs failed to do. I was genuinely very impressed by the variation of his play and I'm normally more of an advocate for playing Farrell at 12 because otherwise the attack slows dramatically when he's at 10 (and Eddie will play him somewhere).
Seconded. The bolded section captures my thoughts too.
McCall has talked about Saracens changing their style this season and I think that could really benefit England.
Depends which Farrell. If it's the Farrell we've seen previously for England than probably not as he has tended just to invite his centres to crash the ball up with little deception or innovation. If it's the Farrell who's turned up for Saracens in the league this season then all bets are off, looks like he's finally taken the handbrake off his attacking play.
Has he done it against a decent quality defence? I've only seen him once this season. Reportedly, several clubs' defences have been rather porous. I'd still pick him at 10 for England just to get him out of the 12 shirt.
Admittedly it was a depleted Tigers midfield but Sarries ran rampant in a way that Saints and Chiefs failed to do. I was genuinely very impressed by the variation of his play and I'm normally more of an advocate for playing Farrell at 12 because otherwise the attack slows dramatically when he's at 10 (and Eddie will play him somewhere).
Saints were pretty rampant with the ball in the backs they were just stuffed up front. Tigers back defence has been poor.
As 5p says, Faz has always looked a good 10 with Sarries and front foot ball. He’s a decent if limited intl 10. Sarries playing with a bit more pace just means he’s not so much of a focus in reality.
The logic of playing him at 12 is an answer to the wrong question.
Has he done it against a decent quality defence? I've only seen him once this season. Reportedly, several clubs' defences have been rather porous. I'd still pick him at 10 for England just to get him out of the 12 shirt.
Admittedly it was a depleted Tigers midfield but Sarries ran rampant in a way that Saints and Chiefs failed to do. I was genuinely very impressed by the variation of his play and I'm normally more of an advocate for playing Farrell at 12 because otherwise the attack slows dramatically when he's at 10 (and Eddie will play him somewhere).
Saints were pretty rampant with the ball in the backs they were just stuffed up front. Tigers back defence has been poor.
As 5p says, Faz has always looked a good 10 with Sarries and front foot ball. He’s a decent if limited intl 10. Sarries playing with a bit more pace just means he’s not so much of a focus in reality.
The logic of playing him at 12 is an answer to the wrong question.
Saints were rampant for 20 minutes and then we're pretty much out on their feet bar five minutes after half time when they had a short spell with their breath back.
Sarries were foot down for the full 80.
I wouldn't have previously said Farrell is a decent international 10, he's to limited or previously looked to be to limited. Functional at that level and little more. This season he looks a different player so far so I'm interested to see if that continues.
Admittedly it was a depleted Tigers midfield but Sarries ran rampant in a way that Saints and Chiefs failed to do. I was genuinely very impressed by the variation of his play and I'm normally more of an advocate for playing Farrell at 12 because otherwise the attack slows dramatically when he's at 10 (and Eddie will play him somewhere).
Saints were pretty rampant with the ball in the backs they were just stuffed up front. Tigers back defence has been poor.
As 5p says, Faz has always looked a good 10 with Sarries and front foot ball. He’s a decent if limited intl 10. Sarries playing with a bit more pace just means he’s not so much of a focus in reality.
The logic of playing him at 12 is an answer to the wrong question.
Saints were rampant for 20 minutes and then we're pretty much out on their feet bar five minutes after half time when they had a short spell with their breath back.
Sarries were foot down for the full 80.
I wouldn't have previously said Farrell is a decent international 10, he's to limited or previously looked to be to limited. Functional at that level and little more. This season he looks a different player so far so I'm interested to see if that continues.
That's cos Sarries had better than parity up front; when Saints had the ball, they shredded Tigers in the backs. You alluded to midfield, not me.
He was a decent intl 10 in a limited way- a poor man's Rob Andrew I guess; a rotten intl 12 though. To be clear I wouldn't have been starting him any time Ford (and others) was fit. He looks no different to me, save Sarries are box kicking less and he is passing more. He's still slow, still a mechanical long passer to the right, and still often a static pivot. What's remarkable is that so many coaches have thought him better than decent enough to award 100ish intl caps.
Last edited by Banquo on Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I accepted that Farrell at 12 might be the only way that Smith would get the required game time. Now, though, I'm no longer convinced that Smith offers enough IF Farrell is at 12. All that happens is that neither runs the game to the full backline's advantage. We are back to the Farrell or Ford debate. That question just sidelined Ford. Now, assuming that Jones will always pick Farrell somewhere, I'd advocate playing him at 10 with one of Smith/Ford on the bench.
Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 2:42 pm
I accepted that Farrell at 12 might be the only way that Smith would get the required game time. Now, though, I'm no longer convinced that Smith offers enough IF Farrell is at 12. All that happens is that neither runs the game to the full backline's advantage. We are back to the Farrell or Ford debate. That question just sidelined Ford. Now, assuming that Jones will always pick Farrell somewhere, I'd advocate playing him at 10 with one of Smith/Ford on the bench.
I’m at the same sort of point of defeat I think. If Tuilagi
/Slade/Marchant can form a functioning centre partnership and Farrell can make something of that from 10 then great, as we don’t seem to know what we want from Smith there. It does bring us back yet again to praying Tuilagi can stay fit or finding some other way to balance the centres.
I’ve got a feeling whichever position Farrell is playing currently for England will generally be my less favoured one. I thought some of his shortcomings are easier to hide at 12, but the argument for at least having him in his regular position is valid.
Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 2:42 pm
I accepted that Farrell at 12 might be the only way that Smith would get the required game time. Now, though, I'm no longer convinced that Smith offers enough IF Farrell is at 12. All that happens is that neither runs the game to the full backline's advantage. We are back to the Farrell or Ford debate. That question just sidelined Ford. Now, assuming that Jones will always pick Farrell somewhere, I'd advocate playing him at 10 with one of Smith/Ford on the bench.
The only difference between the new and old Farrell is that now he is passing the ball more and kicking less. This is down to a new club playing style for Sarries. Still, he is not an outstanding passer (but to be fair does throw the odd good one), not a particularly dangerous runner, lacks the gas and footwork to make much happen with ball in hand. He is certainly looking good at club level, as would any decent FH playing behind the dominant Sarries pack and getting a bit of an armchair ride in most games. Will this translate into a new, all-singing, all-dancing Faz at international level (at either 10 or 12) ? I would say ...... no.
Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 2:42 pm
I accepted that Farrell at 12 might be the only way that Smith would get the required game time. Now, though, I'm no longer convinced that Smith offers enough IF Farrell is at 12. All that happens is that neither runs the game to the full backline's advantage. We are back to the Farrell or Ford debate. That question just sidelined Ford. Now, assuming that Jones will always pick Farrell somewhere, I'd advocate playing him at 10 with one of Smith/Ford on the bench.
The only difference between the new and old Farrell is that now he is passing the ball more and kicking less. This is down to a new club playing style for Sarries. Still, he is not an outstanding passer (but to be fair does throw the odd good one), not a particularly dangerous runner, lacks the gas and footwork to make much happen with ball in hand. He is certainly looking good at club level, as would any decent FH playing behind the dominant Sarries pack and getting a bit of an armchair ride in most games. Will this translate into a new, all-singing, all-dancing Faz at international level (at either 10 or 12) ? I would say ...... no.
well yes. He's not suddenly got quicker or a better stepper nor has his passing become more fluid. But he has always been very effective for Sarries- armchair, time and all that.
Right, sod this, he should not be nailed into the starting XV, we have a ton of backline talent that will be wasted if he is playing. Even if I can't invent a plausible centre partnership
Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 2:42 pm
I accepted that Farrell at 12 might be the only way that Smith would get the required game time. Now, though, I'm no longer convinced that Smith offers enough IF Farrell is at 12. All that happens is that neither runs the game to the full backline's advantage. We are back to the Farrell or Ford debate. That question just sidelined Ford. Now, assuming that Jones will always pick Farrell somewhere, I'd advocate playing him at 10 with one of Smith/Ford on the bench.
The only difference between the new and old Farrell is that now he is passing the ball more and kicking less. This is down to a new club playing style for Sarries. Still, he is not an outstanding passer (but to be fair does throw the odd good one), not a particularly dangerous runner, lacks the gas and footwork to make much happen with ball in hand. He is certainly looking good at club level, as would any decent FH playing behind the dominant Sarries pack and getting a bit of an armchair ride in most games. Will this translate into a new, all-singing, all-dancing Faz at international level (at either 10 or 12) ? I would say ...... no.
well yes. He's not suddenly got quicker or a better stepper nor has his passing become more fluid. But he has always been very effective for Sarries- armchair, time and all that.
Right, sod this, he should not be nailed into the starting XV, we have a ton of backline talent that will be wasted if he is playing. Even if I can't invent a plausible centre partnership
Manu/Slade, Manu/Marchant, Manu/Porter...
There's several that don't involve Farrell but are somewhat reliant on Manu being fit to play 12 (which is incredibly optimistic) as we are somewhat stuck for inside centres. Ojomoh is in and out of the Bath team, Kelly is injured, Dingwall doesn't look physical enough, Lawrence has played very little and only at 13 and Devoto is injured. We're a bit short on options. We need either some good fitness news or someone to really come good and play really well between now at the AIs.
Smith's flat summer tour probably isn't going to help Eddie get over the fact he thinks he needs someone in alongside Smith or to start Farrell instead though.
That’s a few very badly timed injuries for Dombrandt that have really let Vunipola cement the 8 shirt again, just as he was getting his foot in the door. I wonder if Dombrandt (and Smith to an extent) could be successfully used as attacking weapons off the bench, in ways that play more to their natural talents a bit more? Is that even a thing EJ wants to do?
How ready does anybody think Kelly is? Trying to fast track him in the space of a season, on the back of an injury (no idea how serious or long term it was), might not be the smartest move. It’s a shame because he looks on paper to have a lot of the things we’ve missed in midfield, particularly at 12.
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 8:58 pm
How ready does anybody think Kelly is? Trying to fast track him in the space of a season, on the back of an injury (no idea how serious or long term it was), might not be the smartest move. It’s a shame because he looks on paper to have a lot of the things we’ve missed in midfield, particularly at 12.
Before the injury he was awesome for Tigers, lynchpin of the defence and adding more strings to his attacking bow each month. Tigers attack suffered significantly without him towards the back end of last season and the midfield defence has been an issue this season.
Before his injury I'd have considered him well in the mix for a potential summer call up. I rate him comfortably ahead of Dingwall and Porter. After his injury, who knows frankly. There's no chance he'll be there for the AIs and even the 6Ns selection might be a push unless he's back playing in the next few weeks. He'd need to show at least a couple of months of good form to be back in the general selection conversation.
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 8:58 pm
That’s a few very badly timed injuries for Dombrandt that have really let Vunipola cement the 8 shirt again, just as he was getting his foot in the door. I wonder if Dombrandt (and Smith to an extent) could be successfully used as attacking weapons off the bench, in ways that play more to their natural talents a bit more? Is that even a thing EJ wants to do?
How ready does anybody think Kelly is? Trying to fast track him in the space of a season, on the back of an injury (no idea how serious or long term it was), might not be the smartest move. It’s a shame because he looks on paper to have a lot of the things we’ve missed in midfield, particularly at 12.
If Jones is looking for an attacking back rower off the bench, perhaps he should reconsider Sam Simmonds, but let him play his natural game. If he has not used Simmonds like that so far, then there is no reason to expect he would make an exception for any other, including Dombrandt. You know that Jones will just move Tom Curry back to 8 if he can't think of anyone else. Might be a good time to look at Ted Willis. Barbeary seems to have fallen off the radar somewhat.
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 8:58 pm
That’s a few very badly timed injuries for Dombrandt that have really let Vunipola cement the 8 shirt again, just as he was getting his foot in the door. I wonder if Dombrandt (and Smith to an extent) could be successfully used as attacking weapons off the bench, in ways that play more to their natural talents a bit more? Is that even a thing EJ wants to do?
How ready does anybody think Kelly is? Trying to fast track him in the space of a season, on the back of an injury (no idea how serious or long term it was), might not be the smartest move. It’s a shame because he looks on paper to have a lot of the things we’ve missed in midfield, particularly at 12.
If Jones is looking for an attacking back rower off the bench, perhaps he should reconsider Sam Simmonds, but let him play his natural game. If he has not used Simmonds like that so far, then there is no reason to expect he would make an exception for any other, including Dombrandt. You know that Jones will just move Tom Curry back to 8 if he can't think of anyone else. Might be a good time to look at Ted Willis. Barbeary seems to have fallen off the radar somewhat.
Barbeary is injured.
Is that Tom Willis or Ted Hill there as Ted Willis?
It's strange looking back now that Jones got pilloried for moving aside the like of George, the Vunipolas and Ford. Arguing now that Billy V has pushed himself back to selection prominence does not alter the motive for Jones's original action - presumably, that certain players had taken the team as far forward as possible. That's not to say that individually they were/are not the best in a shirt. It is to say (if that WAS his original thinking) that the team ceiling could only raise with new players. If you add Youngs and Farrell to the group and, arguably, May, Daly and Watson did Jones go too far with elbowing out individuals or not far enough?
The Randall/Smith pairing with Dombrandt on the edge of things and Lawes at 6 was some sort of experiment now doomed apart from Lawes working well in some eyes.
Too little change or not enough? Will the 2023 team, as a unit, be better than the 2019 one? The second question is fundamental of course (whatever one's general opinion of the management).
Not sure I see any of that going down the way you do.
Some guys needed a rest or weren't performing for a good while, but it was the timing of it that seemed bizarre to most wasn't it? I don't think you can assume it was a matter of those players being done, or having taken the team as far as they can. George's omission was a bit odd. Ford didn't seem to be clicking with whatever our gameplan was, and the Vunipolas had been cruising for quite a while. I like that Jones is often true to his word in terms of players being able to go away and work on something to win their place back, but I wish he didn't have to make such a song and dance of everything.
Is 'too little change' not the same as 'not enough'? I assume you mean too little or too much? Either way I just wish it could be more gradual than grinding away with the same tired combos before suddenly introducing a new 8, 9, 10, 12 and game-plan all at once. He could be more open to responding when players have sustained dips in performance, but it doesn't mean they have to go for ever or even drop out of the squad.
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 8:40 am
Not sure I see any of that going down the way you do.
Some guys needed a rest or weren't performing for a good while, but it was the timing of it that seemed bizarre to most wasn't it? I don't think you can assume it was a matter of those players being done, or having taken the team as far as they can. George's omission was a bit odd. Ford didn't seem to be clicking with whatever our gameplan was, and the Vunipolas had been cruising for quite a while. I like that Jones is often true to his word in terms of players being able to go away and work on something to win their place back, but I wish he didn't have to make such a song and dance of everything.
Is 'too little change' not the same as 'not enough'? I assume you mean too little or too much? Either way I just wish it could be more gradual than grinding away with the same tired combos before suddenly introducing a new 8, 9, 10, 12 and game-plan all at once. He could be more open to responding when players have sustained dips in performance, but it doesn't mean they have to go for ever or even drop out of the squad.
I suppose I am talking about tinker or rebuild. Originally, I backed Jones to do the latter. Now, with doors not closed to the discarded, by the time we get to the first RWC match how different will the starting XXIII be after 4 years? If it is largely the same men, all four years older, will the team unit perform at a higher level? If those shelved are now performing to their own higher level (thanks to their rest), maybe that's possible.
Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 8:40 am
Not sure I see any of that going down the way you do.
Some guys needed a rest or weren't performing for a good while, but it was the timing of it that seemed bizarre to most wasn't it? I don't think you can assume it was a matter of those players being done, or having taken the team as far as they can. George's omission was a bit odd. Ford didn't seem to be clicking with whatever our gameplan was, and the Vunipolas had been cruising for quite a while. I like that Jones is often true to his word in terms of players being able to go away and work on something to win their place back, but I wish he didn't have to make such a song and dance of everything.
Is 'too little change' not the same as 'not enough'? I assume you mean too little or too much? Either way I just wish it could be more gradual than grinding away with the same tired combos before suddenly introducing a new 8, 9, 10, 12 and game-plan all at once. He could be more open to responding when players have sustained dips in performance, but it doesn't mean they have to go for ever or even drop out of the squad.
I suppose I am talking about tinker or rebuild. Originally, I backed Jones to do the latter. Now, with doors not closed to the discarded, by the time we get to the first RWC match how different will the starting XXIII be after 4 years? If it is largely the same men, all four years older, will the team unit perform at a higher level? If those shelved are now performing to their own higher level (thanks to their rest), maybe that's possible.
They performed to a very high level in the semi final. But the final totally blew Eddie off course imo.
The squad wasn’t old in 2019 so it shouldn’t be a major surprise that a lot of the players are still available and in contention for selection.
Obviously we don’t know what the starting lineup will look like for our opening game in 2023, but I think it’s safe to say it will be a fair bit different to the one that started the final in 2019.
I think 10 of that starting XV are in with a good shout: George, Itoje, Lawes, Curry, Billy, Youngs, Farrell, Tuilagi, Watson and May. However, I’d argue that at least the last 3 of those are sketchy on the basis of their injury proneness which would take it down to just over half the team. With the exception of Youngs, I think the other 7 are still there on merit and should be unless someone genuinely better stakes a claim.
15 Elliot Daly
14 Anthony Watson
13 Manu Tuilagi
12 Owen Farrell (c)
11 Jonny May
10 George Ford
9 Ben Youngs
8 Billy Vunipola
7 Sam Underhill
6 Tom Curry
5 Courtney Lawes
4 Maro Itoje
3 Kyle Sinckler
2 Jamie George
1 Mako Vunipola
Replacements:
16 Luke Cowan-Dickie
17 Joe Marler
18 Dan Cole
19 George Kruis
20 Mark Wilson
21 Ben Spencer
22 Henry Slade
23 Jonathan Joseph
As things stand, you’d say no Daly, Watson, May, Ford, Youngs, Underhill, Mako, Cole, Kruis, Wilson, Spencer or Joseph. That’s over half of the XXIII and just under half of the starting XV, plus a change of position for Lawes.
Rightly or wrongly, the answer to the burning question has always been ‘yes’ and I don’t see that changing.
Re. May and Watson IF they are fully fit, they’re very possibly still our best wingers. Given how little they’ve played in the last couple of seasons, it’s easy to forget how good they can be. They might not get back to that level but I wouldn’t be too keen to rule them out yet.
Youngs seems to be pretty bulletproof though.
Last edited by Scrumhead on Fri Oct 07, 2022 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
