RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:If Farrell gets injured it sounds like we’re truly f**ked.

It would be bloody interesting to see what happens. I'd guess, just from the last few games that Slade comes in 12, purely cause that is what Jones did in the absence of Manu and Ford. If Manu is fit then it is an obvious answer in one regard. But how that works in practice..........

There's definitely a massive argument to say why haven't we looked at contingency for 12, captain and wider 'leadership' stuff. Maybe individually for each and maybe they are for some, like defensive organisation etc.

I agree that we haven’t looked at a contingency and that we should, but that’s not just the case for Farrell. It was/is the same with Billy and Youngs, too. Jones is getting lucky injury wise with all of them. My point was that it sounds like there is literally nobody in the squad to run the d on field if Farrell isn’t there so, how could Jones look at a contingency in that case? Sounds like there is no contingency to look at.

Timbo wrote:Can’t remember who said it a couple of pages back in this thread, but the crux of this is really nothing to do with Farrell- or only tangentially so- and much more how do with how do we balance out the backline without Manu available? Stick Manu in at 12 or 13 and you can stick any number of playmakers, sprinters and kickers around him as you want and they’re good enough players they’ll make it work, Farrell or no Farrell. As Jones said about Tuilagi when he got injured, he’s the focal point of our attack.

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
It would be bloody interesting to see what happens. I'd guess, just from the last few games that Slade comes in 12, purely cause that is what Jones did in the absence of Manu and Ford. If Manu is fit then it is an obvious answer in one regard. But how that works in practice..........

There's definitely a massive argument to say why haven't we looked at contingency for 12, captain and wider 'leadership' stuff. Maybe individually for each and maybe they are for some, like defensive organisation etc.

I agree that we haven’t looked at a contingency and that we should, but that’s not just the case for Farrell. It was/is the same with Billy and Youngs, too. Jones is getting lucky injury wise with all of them. My point was that it sounds like there is literally nobody in the squad to run the d on field if Farrell isn’t there so, how could Jones look at a contingency in that case? Sounds like there is no contingency to look at.

We’ve got a few aces up our sleeve in regards to replacing Billy now, with both Tom Curry and Mark Wilson having played a number of big tests at 8.

Mellsblue wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I agree that we haven’t looked at a contingency and that we should, but that’s not just the case for Farrell. It was/is the same with Billy and Youngs, too. Jones is getting lucky injury wise with all of them. My point was that it sounds like there is literally nobody in the squad to run the d on field if Farrell isn’t there so, how could Jones look at a contingency in that case? Sounds like there is no contingency to look at.

We’ve got a few aces up our sleeve in regards to replacing Billy now, with both Tom Curry and Mark Wilson having played a number of big tests at 8.

Only because Billy forced it on Jones by getting injured. I think Jones would’ve been at a bit of a loss if we’d gone in to the World Cup without Billy.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
It would be bloody interesting to see what happens. I'd guess, just from the last few games that Slade comes in 12, purely cause that is what Jones did in the absence of Manu and Ford. If Manu is fit then it is an obvious answer in one regard. But how that works in practice..........

There's definitely a massive argument to say why haven't we looked at contingency for 12, captain and wider 'leadership' stuff. Maybe individually for each and maybe they are for some, like defensive organisation etc.

I agree that we haven’t looked at a contingency and that we should, but that’s not just the case for Farrell. It was/is the same with Billy and Youngs, too. Jones is getting lucky injury wise with all of them. My point was that it sounds like there is literally nobody in the squad to run the d on field if Farrell isn’t there so, how could Jones look at a contingency in that case? Sounds like there is no contingency to look at.

You have to manufacture it, but ideally under your own control, hence why not looking at alternatives is a tad odd, though I can see how you'd get yourself into a hole in being too reliant on one person. That's speculation, but might explain some of it. I'm not seeing a D contingency in the squad as it stands, but then I'm not seeing too much out in the prem that might be a squad candidate.

That is an interesting one as to whether we see defensive leaders in the backs in our own clubs and are they, or should they be on the radar of the squad. I'm a Tigers fan so obviously there's nothing doing at Welford Road on that front. It isn't the be all and end all of course, but does factor.

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I agree that we haven’t looked at a contingency and that we should, but that’s not just the case for Farrell. It was/is the same with Billy and Youngs, too. Jones is getting lucky injury wise with all of them. My point was that it sounds like there is literally nobody in the squad to run the d on field if Farrell isn’t there so, how could Jones look at a contingency in that case? Sounds like there is no contingency to look at.

You have to manufacture it, but ideally under your own control, hence why not looking at alternatives is a tad odd, though I can see how you'd get yourself into a hole in being too reliant on one person. That's speculation, but might explain some of it. I'm not seeing a D contingency in the squad as it stands, but then I'm not seeing too much out in the prem that might be a squad candidate.

That is an interesting one as to whether we see defensive leaders in the backs in our own clubs and are they, or should they be on the radar of the squad. I'm a Tigers fan so obviously there's nothing doing at Welford Road on that front. It isn't the be all and end all of course, but does factor.

It’s a serious failing when players as experienced and successful as Ford and Slade can’t be trusted to manage the defence. They’re also the senior mainstays of their respective clubs’ midfields so you’d have thought they must have a big role to play there.

As a Bedford fan I struggle to see a player running the d in person. Tbh, I have to use my imagination to see d in any form. There’s never a boring match at GR.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
You have to manufacture it, but ideally under your own control, hence why not looking at alternatives is a tad odd, though I can see how you'd get yourself into a hole in being too reliant on one person. That's speculation, but might explain some of it. I'm not seeing a D contingency in the squad as it stands, but then I'm not seeing too much out in the prem that might be a squad candidate.

That is an interesting one as to whether we see defensive leaders in the backs in our own clubs and are they, or should they be on the radar of the squad. I'm a Tigers fan so obviously there's nothing doing at Welford Road on that front. It isn't the be all and end all of course, but does factor.

It’s a serious failing when players as experienced and successful as Ford and Slade can’t be trusted to manage the defence. They’re also the senior mainstays of their respective clubs’ midfields so you’d have thought they must have a big role to play there.

As a Bedford fan I struggle to see a player running the d in person. Tbh, I have to use my imagination to see d in any form. There’s never a boring match at GR.

You score 5 we'll score.....erm...well hopefully well score some, which may or may not be more than you.

Neither really plays a big part in D, other than individual components. I'd be interested to see who leads at Chiefs. I think, and this is purely from watching tele that Simmonds is a big part of D organisation, but I think Hogg leads. Though its much easier to tell live at ground than tele visually.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Timbo wrote:Can’t remember who said it a couple of pages back in this thread, but the crux of this is really nothing to do with Farrell- or only tangentially so- and much more how do with how do we balance out the backline without Manu available? Stick Manu in at 12 or 13 and you can stick any number of playmakers, sprinters and kickers around him as you want and they’re good enough players they’ll make it work, Farrell or no Farrell. As Jones said about Tuilagi when he got injured, he’s the focal point of our attack.

Very true. One thing about Manu is he does require a fair bit of management in defence. Anthony Allen was a brilliant foil for him a Tigers and especially in organising him to stay in contact defensively. Fordy and Toomua tended to do it more after Ant retired.

Scrumhead wrote:Short answer ... no there is not.

As much as I know you’d like it to be, but not everything is Eddie Jones’ fault.

Having watched Farrell play for Saracens and a England for years, I think it’s abundantly clear that he is not (and never has been) a flashy 10. IMO, he lacks an instinctive reading of the game so plays by numbers. Fortunately for him, that’s suited the gameplan of the teams he’s played in.

Is it Eddie Jones’ fault that he’s always played that way? Perhaps Eddie was subliminally influencing him from afar before he’d ever worked with Farrell or England.

Oh ... we won again. Sack him now!

Banquo wrote:Eddie does pick Ford at 10 more often than not iirc

Oakboy wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Short answer ... no there is not.

As much as I know you’d like it to be, but not everything is Eddie Jones’ fault.

Having watched Farrell play for Saracens and a England for years, I think it’s abundantly clear that he is not (and never has been) a flashy 10. IMO, he lacks an instinctive reading of the game so plays by numbers. Fortunately for him, that’s suited the gameplan of the teams he’s played in.

Is it Eddie Jones’ fault that he’s always played that way? Perhaps Eddie was subliminally influencing him from afar before he’d ever worked with Farrell or England.

Oh ... we won again. Sack him now!

I was trying to understand what so many, including Jones, see that we don't. It's a cause and effect thing. Jones WANTS what he gets from Farrell. I suspect that he simply does not trust any English players to make decisions to change a game plan during play and he sees Farrell as the best for sticking to pre-match instructions, come what may.

What would be interesting is whether Jones's successor, should there ever be one, takes the same view. You may disagree but I still think we need to dump both to improve. The two are the same problem.

fivepointer wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Short answer ... no there is not.

As much as I know you’d like it to be, but not everything is Eddie Jones’ fault.

Having watched Farrell play for Saracens and a England for years, I think it’s abundantly clear that he is not (and never has been) a flashy 10. IMO, he lacks an instinctive reading of the game so plays by numbers. Fortunately for him, that’s suited the gameplan of the teams he’s played in.

Is it Eddie Jones’ fault that he’s always played that way? Perhaps Eddie was subliminally influencing him from afar before he’d ever worked with Farrell or England.

Oh ... we won again. Sack him now!

I was trying to understand what so many, including Jones, see that we don't. It's a cause and effect thing. Jones WANTS what he gets from Farrell. I suspect that he simply does not trust any English players to make decisions to change a game plan during play and he sees Farrell as the best for sticking to pre-match instructions, come what may.

What would be interesting is whether Jones's successor, should there ever be one, takes the same view. You may disagree but I still think we need to dump both to improve. The two are the same problem.

Courage Dors. Nothing lasts for ever. Jones will be gone in a matter of months/years/decades (dependent on results)

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:Eddie does pick Ford at 10 more often than not iirc

But, does his thought process begin with Farrell at 12? Or, does Ford only get to play if Tuilagi is unavailable?

Oakboy wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Short answer ... no there is not.

As much as I know you’d like it to be, but not everything is Eddie Jones’ fault.

Having watched Farrell play for Saracens and a England for years, I think it’s abundantly clear that he is not (and never has been) a flashy 10. IMO, he lacks an instinctive reading of the game so plays by numbers. Fortunately for him, that’s suited the gameplan of the teams he’s played in.

Is it Eddie Jones’ fault that he’s always played that way? Perhaps Eddie was subliminally influencing him from afar before he’d ever worked with Farrell or England.

Oh ... we won again. Sack him now!

I was trying to understand what so many, including Jones, see that we don't. It's a cause and effect thing. Jones WANTS what he gets from Farrell. I suspect that he simply does not trust any English players to make decisions to change a game plan during play and he sees Farrell as the best for sticking to pre-match instructions, come what may.

What would be interesting is whether Jones's successor, should there ever be one, takes the same view. You may disagree but I still think we need to dump both to improve. The two are the same problem.

Oakboy wrote:Is there any evidence that Farrell is a good on-the-hoof tactician capable of changing things during a game as situations demand? Or, more likely, is he a guaranteed obedience-merchant who won't try anything without receiving a message from the coach's perch? Jones's ideal is presumably the latter. Does 'self-fulfilling prophecy' encompass the negative?

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Short answer ... no there is not.

As much as I know you’d like it to be, but not everything is Eddie Jones’ fault.

Having watched Farrell play for Saracens and a England for years, I think it’s abundantly clear that he is not (and never has been) a flashy 10. IMO, he lacks an instinctive reading of the game so plays by numbers. Fortunately for him, that’s suited the gameplan of the teams he’s played in.

Is it Eddie Jones’ fault that he’s always played that way? Perhaps Eddie was subliminally influencing him from afar before he’d ever worked with Farrell or England.

Oh ... we won again. Sack him now!

I was trying to understand what so many, including Jones, see that we don't. It's a cause and effect thing. Jones WANTS what he gets from Farrell. I suspect that he simply does not trust any English players to make decisions to change a game plan during play and he sees Farrell as the best for sticking to pre-match instructions, come what may.

What would be interesting is whether Jones's successor, should there ever be one, takes the same view. You may disagree but I still think we need to dump both to improve. The two are the same problem.

Well, I've been explaining it for like two pages, but feel free to ignore it and ask the same question again.

Scrumhead wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I was trying to understand what so many, including Jones, see that we don't. It's a cause and effect thing. Jones WANTS what he gets from Farrell. I suspect that he simply does not trust any English players to make decisions to change a game plan during play and he sees Farrell as the best for sticking to pre-match instructions, come what may.

What would be interesting is whether Jones's successor, should there ever be one, takes the same view. You may disagree but I still think we need to dump both to improve. The two are the same problem.

Well, I've been explaining it for like two pages, but feel free to ignore it and ask the same question again.

Broken record does not do it justice ...

The thing is, I’m not a particular fan of Eddie or Farrell, but I can’t help but defend them when the criticism is so wildly unrealistic.

Banquo wrote:Eddie does pick Ford at 10 more often than not iirc