RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

32nd Man wrote:

FKAS wrote:
16 games in 12 months.

Logic that could have been applied before the AIs.

He needs a properly managed phased return. He will probably be chucked in as Eddie is desperate for a few results. I

Sanderson is on record saying that the training session in which Tuilagi last broke down for England was above the intensity agreed by their S&C dept…..

Yeah that's just silly. Certain players just can't conform to the training norms for the squad and you have to allow for that. Manu would be one of those, if you push him he'll break and England should have learnt that by now as they've done it enough frigging times.

Dolly, Ludlam and Launchbury ruled out due to injury. Singleton, Isiekwe and Richards (the Bath youngster) brought in.

fivepointer wrote:Dolly, Ludlam and Launchbury ruled out due to injury. Singleton, Isiekwe and Richards (the Bath youngster) brought in.

Just how far down Jones's hooker pecking order is Walker?

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

32nd Man wrote:
Logic that could have been applied before the AIs.

He needs a properly managed phased return. He will probably be chucked in as Eddie is desperate for a few results. I

Sanderson is on record saying that the training session in which Tuilagi last broke down for England was above the intensity agreed by their S&C dept…..

Yeah that's just silly. Certain players just can't conform to the training norms for the squad and you have to allow for that. Manu would be one of those, if you push him he'll break and England should have learnt that by now as they've done it enough frigging times.

"awwww look, mate, you're either here to train or you're not."

There's a headline to make your heart stink

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ralia-tour

So, Smith, Farrell, Tuilagi is the way to go. The cynic in me wonders if Farrell will cramp Smith's style while Tuilagi, once broken yet again, will simply load the blame back on to Slade and/or Marchant because neither of them are him. If this is the best inspirational management idea available there is no hope.

Danno wrote:There's a headline to make your heart stink

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ralia-tour

You knew it was coming.
Smith to be re-invented as George Ford Mk 11 and confirmed as the acolyte.
Oh well - it was good while it lasted.
Now, back to the dark ages.

Spiffy wrote:

Danno wrote:There's a headline to make your heart stink

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ralia-tour

You knew it was coming.
Smith to be re-invented as George Ford Mk 11 and confirmed as the acolyte.
Oh well - it was good while it lasted.
Now, back to the dark ages.

Beggars belief that Faz is such an indispensable fixture.

Banquo wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

Danno wrote:There's a headline to make your heart stink

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ralia-tour

You knew it was coming.
Smith to be re-invented as George Ford Mk 11 and confirmed as the acolyte.
Oh well - it was good while it lasted.
Now, back to the dark ages.

Beggars belief that Faz is such an indispensable fixture.

Well we have been discussing it for years. But the one thing I still can't get my head around is why Eddie Jones, who is not a complete idiot, and knows something about rugby, continues to rate Faz so highly as a player. Farrell is a very good club 10 at the level of the premier league. He plays a conservative game, keeps the scoreboard ticking, rarely has a howler and gets the best out of himself and his teammates. It is a nice niche that he fits well.
But at the international level he shows little invention, is a tad slow, has a dodgy defensive record and is, overall, quite dull. That's at 10, and he is a lot worse at 12 (where Jones now clearly wants to play him.) Jones is now raving about a mixture of power and pace in the England backs but at the same time looking to a player in a pivotal midfield position, who will not get the outside strike runners moving.

Spiffy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Spiffy wrote:
You knew it was coming.
Smith to be re-invented as George Ford Mk 11 and confirmed as the acolyte.
Oh well - it was good while it lasted.
Now, back to the dark ages.

Beggars belief that Faz is such an indispensable fixture.

Well we have been discussing it for years. But the one thing I still can't get my head around is why Eddie Jones, who is not a complete idiot, and knows something about rugby, continues to rate Faz so highly as a player. Farrell is a very good club 10 at the level of the premier league. He plays a conservative game, keeps the scoreboard ticking, rarely has a howler and gets the best out of himself and his teammates. It is a nice niche that he fits well.
But at the international level he shows little invention, is a tad slow, has a dodgy defensive record and is, overall, quite dull. That's at 10, and he is a lot worse at 12 (where Jones now clearly wants to play him.) Jones is now raving about a mixture of power and pace in the England backs but at the same time looking to a player in a pivotal midfield position, who will not get the outside strike runners moving.

I do feel that Fazlet is underrated as a 12 (on here - not in the press!) and is a lot better than you would paint him has. I think the Ford/Farrell/Tuilagi midfield is the best that England can put out and has been highly successful when used properly - Ford running the game and calling the shots, Farrell providing the second option and he and a passing 9 handle mundane stuff while allowing Ford to float in behind and position himself where he likes, and Tuilagi to draw the eye and make defences panic.

What I'm not convinced about is whether Smith is capable of being 10 in that setup. He's a great 10, but I'm not sure about him being able to pick and choose his moments to step in as playmaker like Ford does, or to work within what is quite a structured system. It seems to me that we should either pick Ford and let him be excellent in the system that we have (playmakers at 10 and 12, runner at 13), or pick Smith and change our system to suit him (which would be playmakers at 9 and 10, runners at 12 and 13). I'm not sure of the value of picking Smith and asking him to do what Ford is, frankly, the best in the world at.

That's not to mention that Harry Randall is no Danny Care.

Puja

I think he's quite a decent 12 to be honest, especially since he still seems to be improving his game, and has added a bit of carrying.

He's a much better player, and 12 than he was 6 years ago... When he stood between Ford and Joseph for England's longest winning run.
Now he'll be stood between Smith and Marchant - which is a very similar set-up. Certainly similar enough that comparisons can be drawn.

Carrying?!

Oh well, I just don't get that Farrell is of any value at 12. His collection of attributes include presence and team-affecting influence (apparently). He should be at 10 or not in the XV.

Slade, despite hardly playing there until recently, is a better 12 in terms of what he can do with a rugby ball.

I'm not a Ford fan to the extent of the pedestal-occupying status that some advocate. However, he IS a better 10 than Farrell (again, in terms of what he can do with a rugby ball).

Jones chose to elevate Smith above Ford for the 10 shirt. That was reasonable, IMO, BUT not if Farrell was to run the game from 12 - even to nurse the younger player through early games. NOW, with Smith comfortable in the international scene, what the hell is the point of Farrell at 12?

If I was going to pick a XV now, within a Jones style, I'd pick Farrell at 10. I'd also have Youngs at 9 and Billy V at 8. None would be in my XV if we had a better coaching crew.

Tuilagi is still the enigma. I'd simply not have him in the squad. His in/out fitness shuffle is too disruptive.

Farrell is there due to what he brings to the team outside of his actual play. Whether he's at 10 or 12 we know what we're getting and its nothing to get excited about. Nor is it anything that our opponents are going to fret about either.
His leadership, hunger for success and the way he drives himself and others are what gets him selected. And these things are not inconsequential. They matter in building a team and Farrell has shown himself to be a doughty competitor over the years.

fivepointer wrote:Farrell is there due to what he brings to the team outside of his actual play. Whether he's at 10 or 12 we know what we're getting and its nothing to get excited about. Nor is it anything that our opponents are going to fret about either.
His leadership, hunger for success and the way he drives himself and others are what gets him selected. And these things are not inconsequential. They matter in building a team and Farrell has shown himself to be a doughty competitor over the years.

Yep. Can’t bring myself to debate his merits at 10 v 12 anymore, but just have to accept he adds something to those around him. Though I would say to Oakboy a midfield with him at 10 and no Tuilagi leaves Marchant as the only threatening player we have

I’m sure it helped his cause that we looked absolutely rudderless in the 6 nations, though it felt like we were caught between different styles of play and having so many new combos. I don’t think his skill set was particularly missed but maybe he’s been getting more out of the other players than we often give him credit for.

I can understand Eddie’s argument that his physicality is a big plus for us, because he doesn’t get penalised. Feels like luck more than anything but until that changes he’s not going anywhere. Saying all this, he’s actually playing really well now for Saracens so it would be the perfect moment for Jones to drop him based on the form of 2 years ago.

Faz has created Stockholm syndrome on RR.

fivepointer wrote:Farrell is there due to what he brings to the team outside of his actual play. Whether he's at 10 or 12 we know what we're getting and its nothing to get excited about. Nor is it anything that our opponents are going to fret about either.
His leadership, hunger for success and the way he drives himself and others are what gets him selected. And these things are not inconsequential. They matter in building a team and Farrell has shown himself to be a doughty competitor over the years.

yep, its just a shame that his limitations as a player- and captain- hinder us, unless we are completely dominant. He's a good prem 10, mostly when in an armchair; he's a decent bench option at intl level, though again only when we have a dominent pack (see winning run comment above- our pack was excellent then). The whole 10/12 thing baffles me- I think he's miles better/less hampering at 10 tbh....but I'm swimming against the tide on here. My biggest problem with him -aside from his often poor passing and iffy tackling/defence- is the reverse ice-man act under pressure; he leads by bad example when we are under the cosh, rather than the kind of cool head you'd see from say Johnson- who'd look to arrest and reverse negative momentum. But we are stuck with him, for good or bad, for the reasons you state.

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Farrell is there due to what he brings to the team outside of his actual play. Whether he's at 10 or 12 we know what we're getting and its nothing to get excited about. Nor is it anything that our opponents are going to fret about either.
His leadership, hunger for success and the way he drives himself and others are what gets him selected. And these things are not inconsequential. They matter in building a team and Farrell has shown himself to be a doughty competitor over the years.

yep, its just a shame that his limitations as a player- and captain- hinder us, unless we are completely dominant. He's a good prem 10, mostly when in an armchair; he's a decent bench option at intl level, though again only when we have a dominent pack (see winning run comment above- our pack was excellent then). The whole 10/12 thing baffles me- I think he's miles better/less hampering at 10 tbh....but I'm swimming against the tide on here. My biggest problem with him -aside from his often poor passing and iffy tackling/defence- is the reverse ice-man act under pressure; he leads by bad example when we are under the cosh, rather than the kind of cool head you'd see from say Johnson- who'd look to arrest and reverse negative momentum. But we are stuck with him, for good or bad, for the reasons you state.

I think the reason people think he‘s a better 12 is because that meant Ford was on the pitch… and Ford is very good.

Without Ford, our results drop off. That’s not because Farrell is at 10 rather than 12, it’s because there’s no Ford.

To extend that, it’s no surprise that Leicester have got back to the top with Ford at 10 for the whole season, while since Ford left bath, they’ve been in decline.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Farrell is there due to what he brings to the team outside of his actual play. Whether he's at 10 or 12 we know what we're getting and its nothing to get excited about. Nor is it anything that our opponents are going to fret about either.
His leadership, hunger for success and the way he drives himself and others are what gets him selected. And these things are not inconsequential. They matter in building a team and Farrell has shown himself to be a doughty competitor over the years.

yep, its just a shame that his limitations as a player- and captain- hinder us, unless we are completely dominant. He's a good prem 10, mostly when in an armchair; he's a decent bench option at intl level, though again only when we have a dominent pack (see winning run comment above- our pack was excellent then). The whole 10/12 thing baffles me- I think he's miles better/less hampering at 10 tbh....but I'm swimming against the tide on here. My biggest problem with him -aside from his often poor passing and iffy tackling/defence- is the reverse ice-man act under pressure; he leads by bad example when we are under the cosh, rather than the kind of cool head you'd see from say Johnson- who'd look to arrest and reverse negative momentum. But we are stuck with him, for good or bad, for the reasons you state.

I think the reason people think he‘s a better 12 is because that meant Ford was on the pitch… and Ford is very good.

Without Ford, our results drop off. That’s not because Farrell is at 10 rather than 12, it’s because there’s no Ford.

Yeah, in a lot of ways it's just about moving the bottle-neck slightly further out. If we had a Nonu or Jauzion available at 12 I'd probably feel differently.

Agreed. Ford is very underrated and Farrell has always been significantly overrated (irrespective of position).

I’m a massive fan of Marcus Smith, but at this point in time, I still think Ford is actually the better player. Certainly the better test 10.

However, I think the right thing to do is to keep developing Smith as I think he can potentially surpass Ford’s level in time.

My biggest issue with Farrell is having him as captain. He’s truly awful at dealing with referees and that worries me more than some of his limitations from a pure playing POV.

Scrumhead wrote:Agreed. Ford is very underrated and Farrell has always been significantly overrated (irrespective of position).

I’m a massive fan of Marcus Smith, but at this point in time, I still think Ford is actually the better player. Certainly the better test 10.

However, I think the right thing to do is to keep developing Smith as I think he can potentially surpass Ford’s level in time.

My biggest issue with Farrell is having him as captain. He’s truly awful at dealing with referees and that worries me more than some of his limitations from a pure playing POV.

Yep, your last point is a subset of mine.

With Smith, he definitely benefits from a having a big bosher outside him....and imo he's a 10 you'd need to play with a lot to deal with his style from a timing pov; he tries to fix defenders with a hitch kick or a delay, and that takes some getting used to. Its worth it probably. But at this point in time Ford is the more straightforward option to unlock defences - he just does it a different way (and imo also has always needed a bosher next to him for maximum effect, notwithstanding the times our backline has looked ok with Faz at 12 outside him).

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Farrell is there due to what he brings to the team outside of his actual play. Whether he's at 10 or 12 we know what we're getting and its nothing to get excited about. Nor is it anything that our opponents are going to fret about either.
His leadership, hunger for success and the way he drives himself and others are what gets him selected. And these things are not inconsequential. They matter in building a team and Farrell has shown himself to be a doughty competitor over the years.

yep, its just a shame that his limitations as a player- and captain- hinder us, unless we are completely dominant. He's a good prem 10, mostly when in an armchair; he's a decent bench option at intl level, though again only when we have a dominent pack (see winning run comment above- our pack was excellent then). The whole 10/12 thing baffles me- I think he's miles better/less hampering at 10 tbh....but I'm swimming against the tide on here. My biggest problem with him -aside from his often poor passing and iffy tackling/defence- is the reverse ice-man act under pressure; he leads by bad example when we are under the cosh, rather than the kind of cool head you'd see from say Johnson- who'd look to arrest and reverse negative momentum. But we are stuck with him, for good or bad, for the reasons you state.

I think the reason people think he‘s a better 12 is because that meant Ford was on the pitch… and Ford is very good.

Without Ford, our results drop off. That’s not because Farrell is at 10 rather than 12, it’s because there’s no Ford.

Yus.

Roll on 2024.