England v Japan

[p/d]

I suppose my beef is that we are resigned to it. Players like Lawrence and Manu could do damage at 12 if we set up for it. 6n we opted to play Slade there, resulting in the same old same old.
Hell I would give Freeman a go before signing up to Farrell is the best we have.

[fivepointer]

We dont have a ready made, test class out and out 12 waiting in the wings.
Anyone you play there is a compromise.
Farrell is a compromise as he doesnt play there for his club and its obvious 10 is his best position. Would another compromise give us something more? If we want a running threat then we have to look at Tuilagi, Lawrence or possibly Dingwall. Slade would offer a 2nd playmaker option and at least has played there. Kelly was very quickly discarded after playing a game, Atkinson was selected 2/3 years too late and Ojomoh/Cokanasiga are a bit green.
Problem we have now is that time is running out for the WC. If we had a bit more time we could try and develop a youngster but that moment has probably gone. So we have to use what we've got and bank on some experience to get us through the next year.
I'd go with Slade. I'd also bring in Dingwall as an option, plus restore Marchant and Lawrence. I expect Jones will do none of these things.

[Mellsblue]

Would we have had a 12 better than Farrell I’d we’d given eg Lawrence the last two years there? How about Slade? The foresight to put Tompkins there? It’s a tangential point given we are where we are but it’s all very well saying we don’t have a better option but there’s a decent chance Eddie brought than upon himself. See also no9.

[fivepointer]

Would we have had a 12 better than Farrell I’d we’d given eg Lawrence the last two years there? How about Slade? The foresight to put Tompkins there? It’s a tangential point given we are where we are but it’s all very well saying we don’t have a better option but there’s a decent chance Eddie brought than upon himself. See also no9.

I agree completely. 9 and 12 have been problem positions for years and Jones hasnt done nearly enough to at least try and find a solution.
Its appalling that a year out from the WC we are still discussing what to do with Farrell and what is going to be the make up of the backs.

[Banquo]

Farrell certainly isn't a good 12. He makes no yards. His distribution is clunky. His first up defence is....variable...to be kind and often out of sync with the other midfield defenders. His kicking in attack from 12 is generally poor, often hitting legs, charged down and often just the wrong option- he did do a superb left foot grubber on Saturday to be fair, its a rare event. Workrate is generally good, he hits breakdowns, his aggressive attitude appeals to coaches, scramble defence generally good, and his goal kicking is as good as it has ever been; restarts/drop outs are average; he's a poor captain.

Ford/Farrell worked well sporadically because of Ford, and often because of JJ and/or Manu in full flight, and when our pack was on top. He's ok as a pivot passer if you give him enough time to dismiss kicking as an option and to adjust the ball and take a couple of steps when going l-r.

The problem is that Eddie (and other coaches) are so addicted to his presence that the side's play revolves around his limitations. The other problem is that no 12 has emerged to allow the shedding of the comfort blanket; Lawrence may become one if he gets a lot of game time there, Manu can probably do it if fit for long enough, Slade would need more game time there. As much as I am a fan of Dingwall, his defence this season has been oddly off, though he has the smarts to play 12 sucessfully - good brain, good angles, good skills; not seen enough of Kelly tbh.

I can't see Smith/Farrell really being that effective- Smith is a markedly different player to Ford at this point. I think Faz is a 10 really, and actually don't mind him so much there. But I really don't have an answer to putting together a top midfield/backline. We have potentially a very exciting back three to perm from May, Watson, Coka, Freeman, Arundell, Steward, potentially very good half backs in JVP and Ford (Faz can bench if he wants ), and some centre talent in Manu, Marchant, Lawrence, Kelly, Slade, Dingwall, Will Joseph. Might have a look at Ford, Slade, Lawrence (who could mix and match at different phases), but doesn't feel quite right.

[Spiffy]

For years under Jones, the thought was Ford OR Farrell but he played both. Now, he is making a similar statement with Farrell and Smith. The latter's running game is neutered by hardly ever being up flat. The opposition is rarely surprised.

JVP, Farrell, Lawrence and Slade might just end up being the balanced 9, 10, 12, 13 compromise.

That would probably be my choice at the moment. If we have to use Farrell - and I thought he was good on Saturday - then do it at 10. On the other hand - Quirke, Ford, Manu could be good if they come off a solid back end of the season for Sale together - then either Slade or Lawrence at 13 depending on the opposition

I would agree except that Ford/Farrell has worked before and been very successful - if Ford gets back to form and fitness, it's definitely a viable tactic. I don't think Farrell is a bad 12 or that the two 10s routine is inherently wrong (unlike the three locks one), but it's very clearly not working with Smith.

Puja

I would say that Farrell is quite a poor 12. I really can't remember any one outstanding thing he has done for England playing in the inside centre position. Also not sure that the Ford/Farrell axis has been very successful. England may have won a lot of games with both playing, but not necessarily because of that pairing. Perhaps the skilfull Ford has taken the bad look off it on a few occasions.

[p/d]

No one keen on the 10. Farrell 12. Atkinson 13. Porter axis then?

[Banquo]

No one keen on the 10. Farrell 12. Atkinson 13. Porter axis then?

If only Banahan were available.

[Mellsblue]

No one keen on the 10. Farrell 12. Atkinson 13. Porter axis then?

If only Banahan were available.

May be he’s seen the low bar for selection and decided he’s in with a chance, hence the BaaBaas runout.

[Mikey Brown]

That would probably be my choice at the moment. If we have to use Farrell - and I thought he was good on Saturday - then do it at 10. On the other hand - Quirke, Ford, Manu could be good if they come off a solid back end of the season for Sale together - then either Slade or Lawrence at 13 depending on the opposition

I would agree except that Ford/Farrell has worked before and been very successful - if Ford gets back to form and fitness, it's definitely a viable tactic. I don't think Farrell is a bad 12 or that the two 10s routine is inherently wrong (unlike the three locks one), but it's very clearly not working with Smith.

Puja

I would say that Farrell is quite a poor 12. I really can't remember any one outstanding thing he has done for England playing in the inside centre position. Also not sure that the Ford/Farrell axis has been very successful. England may have won a lot of games with both playing, but not necessarily because of that pairing. Perhaps the skilfull Ford has taken the bad look off it on a few occasions.

He has 3 moments in his highlight reel, to my knowledge. Nice flat r-l pass against Wales, nice flat r-l pass against Ireland, and now a grabber kick for a score against Japan. Pretty sure 2 of those were wearing the 12 shirt.

Who’s laughing now?

[Mellsblue]

New Zealand probably.

[p/d]

New Zealand probably.

he actually looked better than Beauden Barrett did yesterday

[Puja]

I would agree except that Ford/Farrell has worked before and been very successful - if Ford gets back to form and fitness, it's definitely a viable tactic. I don't think Farrell is a bad 12 or that the two 10s routine is inherently wrong (unlike the three locks one), but it's very clearly not working with Smith.

Puja

I would say that Farrell is quite a poor 12. I really can't remember any one outstanding thing he has done for England playing in the inside centre position. Also not sure that the Ford/Farrell axis has been very successful. England may have won a lot of games with both playing, but not necessarily because of that pairing. Perhaps the skilfull Ford has taken the bad look off it on a few occasions.

He has 3 moments in his highlight reel, to my knowledge. Nice flat r-l pass against Wales, nice flat r-l pass against Ireland, and now a grabber kick for a score against Japan. Pretty sure 2 of those were wearing the 12 shirt.

Who’s laughing now?

I can also think of quite a few occasions where he and Ford mixed and matched - him playing 10 for the prosaic bits with Ford floating behind before seizing control and attacking where the weakness is. Plus it allowed Ford to play his best move - take the ball to the line and make the defence guess which of the three options it's going to before playing late to the fourth one they weren't looking at. Farrell out the back worked really well for that, as he could then spin the ball wide (and yes, I know this will get lots of sarky comments, but his wide passing is quite good when not under pressure).

I like it as an axis. Results would appear to back me up and, while I am a massive Ford fan, I'm not willing to buy that those results were solely despite Farrell.

Puja

[Spiffy]

I would agree except that Ford/Farrell has worked before and been very successful - if Ford gets back to form and fitness, it's definitely a viable tactic. I don't think Farrell is a bad 12 or that the two 10s routine is inherently wrong (unlike the three locks one), but it's very clearly not working with Smith.

Puja

I would say that Farrell is quite a poor 12. I really can't remember any one outstanding thing he has done for England playing in the inside centre position. Also not sure that the Ford/Farrell axis has been very successful. England may have won a lot of games with both playing, but not necessarily because of that pairing. Perhaps the skilfull Ford has taken the bad look off it on a few occasions.

He has 3 moments in his highlight reel, to my knowledge. Nice flat r-l pass against Wales, nice flat r-l pass against Ireland, and now a grabber kick for a score against Japan. Pretty sure 2 of those were wearing the 12 shirt.

Who’s laughing now?

Including both the 10 and 12 shirts - Three decent plays in 99 games? That's an average of one every 33 games. Maybe Owen is not quite as bad as I had imagined

[Spiffy]

Farrell named at 12 in Planet Rugby's team of the weekend's internationals!

[Banquo]

I would say that Farrell is quite a poor 12. I really can't remember any one outstanding thing he has done for England playing in the inside centre position. Also not sure that the Ford/Farrell axis has been very successful. England may have won a lot of games with both playing, but not necessarily because of that pairing. Perhaps the skilfull Ford has taken the bad look off it on a few occasions.

He has 3 moments in his highlight reel, to my knowledge. Nice flat r-l pass against Wales, nice flat r-l pass against Ireland, and now a grabber kick for a score against Japan. Pretty sure 2 of those were wearing the 12 shirt.

Who’s laughing now?

I can also think of quite a few occasions where he and Ford mixed and matched - him playing 10 for the prosaic bits with Ford floating behind before seizing control and attacking where the weakness is. Plus it allowed Ford to play his best move - take the ball to the line and make the defence guess which of the three options it's going to before playing late to the fourth one they weren't looking at. Farrell out the back worked really well for that, as he could then spin the ball wide (and yes, I know this will get lots of sarky comments, but his wide passing is quite good when not under pressure).

I like it as an axis. Results would appear to back me up and, while I am a massive Ford fan, I'm not willing to buy that those results were solely despite Farrell.

Puja

Two bits made me laugh - 'wide passing quite good when not under pressure' ..jeez, this is a 100 cap intl midfield back
(well except to the right, where it isn't)
...and the little strawman at the end. I refuse to bite.


Oh go on then, I don't think anyone is saying he hasn't contributed to many wins, his goalkicking alone has done that, even if he's not the great kicker suggested by meedja.

I do think that your memory of their partnership is a tad golden tinged, and good results or otherwise don't really talk to that; for the most part, like many teams, wins come from the forwards doing the business.

[Banquo]

Farrell named at 12 in Planet Rugby's team of the weekend's internationals!

I know- I'm currently rebuking the author

[Mellsblue]

Results would appear to back me up
Puja

Not a big fan of this line of defence. We’ve had a poor run of results ever since Smith replaced Ford. Does that mean if we drop Ford back in the team inside Farrell when he’s fit we will be back to the 80% winning record. One playmaking unit does not a resulteth make, as Socrates didn’t once say. Unless, of course, this is a subtle way of leading me by the nose to pronounce Ford the greatest flyhalf of all time who singlehandedly led England to the near summit of the world, in which case you’re spot on.
Given how the attack has looked without Ford, I’m happy that this dispels the idea that everything would fall apart without Farrell, which is what his acolytes, many more informed than we are, have told us for years. You could also argue the Smith-Slade looked better, particularly in attack, than Smith-Farrell ever has.
My point? Farrell is the worst player in the world.

[Mellsblue]

Farrell named at 12 in Planet Rugby's team of the weekend's internationals!

I know- I'm currently rebuking the author

Tell him I think he’s a plonker and that I used to play flyhalf at school so I know what I’m talking about.

[p/d]

Seconded. I played flyhalf at school, whilst in my spare time dressing like Simon Le Bon ..... I fashionably know what I'm talking about

[Banquo]

Seconded. I played flyhalf at school, whilst in my spare time dressing like Simon Le Bon ..... I fashionably know what I'm talking about

Rio?

[Scrumhead]

We dont have a ready made, test class out and out 12 waiting in the wings.
Anyone you play there is a compromise.
Farrell is a compromise as he doesnt play there for his club and its obvious 10 is his best position. Would another compromise give us something more? If we want a running threat then we have to look at Tuilagi, Lawrence or possibly Dingwall. Slade would offer a 2nd playmaker option and at least has played there. Kelly was very quickly discarded after playing a game, Atkinson was selected 2/3 years too late and Ojomoh/Cokanasiga are a bit green.
Problem we have now is that time is running out for the WC. If we had a bit more time we could try and develop a youngster but that moment has probably gone. So we have to use what we've got and bank on some experience to get us through the next year.
I'd go with Slade. I'd also bring in Dingwall as an option, plus restore Marchant and Lawrence. I expect Jones will do none of these things.

I agree on Ojomoh and Phil Cokanasiga but I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to say Kelly was ‘quickly discarded’. He’s pretty much been injured at any point England could have picked him. Atkinson was better 2/3 years ago, but was probably never an international anyway.

[FKAS]

We dont have a ready made, test class out and out 12 waiting in the wings.
Anyone you play there is a compromise.
Farrell is a compromise as he doesnt play there for his club and its obvious 10 is his best position. Would another compromise give us something more? If we want a running threat then we have to look at Tuilagi, Lawrence or possibly Dingwall. Slade would offer a 2nd playmaker option and at least has played there. Kelly was very quickly discarded after playing a game, Atkinson was selected 2/3 years too late and Ojomoh/Cokanasiga are a bit green.
Problem we have now is that time is running out for the WC. If we had a bit more time we could try and develop a youngster but that moment has probably gone. So we have to use what we've got and bank on some experience to get us through the next year.
I'd go with Slade. I'd also bring in Dingwall as an option, plus restore Marchant and Lawrence. I expect Jones will do none of these things.

I agree on Ojomoh and Phil Cokanasiga but I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to say Kelly was ‘quickly discarded’. He’s pretty much been injured at any point England could have picked him. Atkinson was better 2/3 years ago, but was probably never an international anyway.

Not really the case for Kelly. He was the form EQ 12 for last season didn't injure his hamstring until April. Eddie wanted to get Smith settled into the side though and so opted for Slade so that there wasn't a rookie 10/12 combination at the same time. Developing Smith and a legitimate third flyhalf has been the focus for Eddie over the last year and it makes sense in terms of squad depth.

If he wanted to bring on Kelly he could have easily parachuted the Tigers 9/10/12 combination straight into the side for the AIs or 6M last season and had form and continuity in selection. He was confident that between Farrell/Slade/Manu he had his 12 options covered though. Now most of us don't agree with that but I doubt Eddie cares.

[Banquo]

We dont have a ready made, test class out and out 12 waiting in the wings.
Anyone you play there is a compromise.
Farrell is a compromise as he doesnt play there for his club and its obvious 10 is his best position. Would another compromise give us something more? If we want a running threat then we have to look at Tuilagi, Lawrence or possibly Dingwall. Slade would offer a 2nd playmaker option and at least has played there. Kelly was very quickly discarded after playing a game, Atkinson was selected 2/3 years too late and Ojomoh/Cokanasiga are a bit green.
Problem we have now is that time is running out for the WC. If we had a bit more time we could try and develop a youngster but that moment has probably gone. So we have to use what we've got and bank on some experience to get us through the next year.
I'd go with Slade. I'd also bring in Dingwall as an option, plus restore Marchant and Lawrence. I expect Jones will do none of these things.

I agree on Ojomoh and Phil Cokanasiga but I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to say Kelly was ‘quickly discarded’. He’s pretty much been injured at any point England could have picked him. Atkinson was better 2/3 years ago, but was probably never an international anyway.

Not really the case for Kelly. He was the form EQ 12 for last season didn't injure his hamstring until April. Eddie wanted to get Smith settled into the side though and so opted for Slade so that there wasn't a rookie 10/12 combination at the same time. Developing Smith and a legitimate third flyhalf has been the focus for Eddie over the last year and it makes sense in terms of squad depth.

If he wanted to bring on Kelly he could have easily parachuted the Tigers 9/10/12 combination straight into the side for the AIs or 6M last season and had form and continuity in selection. He was confident that between Farrell/Slade/Manu he had his 12 options covered though. Now most of us don't agree with that but I doubt Eddie cares.

Must confess it surprised me to hear that Kelly was the top EQ 12 and Eddie didn't pick him- I'd assumed he must have been hurt for than not to happen.

[Puja]

I agree on Ojomoh and Phil Cokanasiga but I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to say Kelly was ‘quickly discarded’. He’s pretty much been injured at any point England could have picked him. Atkinson was better 2/3 years ago, but was probably never an international anyway.

Not really the case for Kelly. He was the form EQ 12 for last season didn't injure his hamstring until April. Eddie wanted to get Smith settled into the side though and so opted for Slade so that there wasn't a rookie 10/12 combination at the same time. Developing Smith and a legitimate third flyhalf has been the focus for Eddie over the last year and it makes sense in terms of squad depth.

If he wanted to bring on Kelly he could have easily parachuted the Tigers 9/10/12 combination straight into the side for the AIs or 6M last season and had form and continuity in selection. He was confident that between Farrell/Slade/Manu he had his 12 options covered though. Now most of us don't agree with that but I doubt Eddie cares.

Must confess it surprised me to hear that Kelly was the top EQ 12 and Eddie didn't pick him- I'd assumed he must have been hurt for than not to happen.

I will note that Kelly's form only really kicked on from late January/early February time, so I had no issues with him not being picked for the 6N - it would've been on a very short bank of evidence.

I also think that people are hoping very hard with Kelly because they don't like the alternatives. He's had only one spell of four months where he looked international quality - granted, it was his last rugby, so it could be the start of a permanent maturation into a top-level player, but it could also have been just a burst of form. We won't know until he's fit and playing again, and either does or doesn't replicate it.

Puja