RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote: I must have posted his passing from left to right is terrible about 20 times a season since 2012. And that his positional play in first phase defence is awful, the latter reason plus lack of running ability being why I intensely dislike him playing 12, much more than playing 10. He has a decent case for being on the bench though

It's not Farrell's fault that Jones is so stubborn and conservative in selection. Farrell is selected to be an inspirational character (reportedly) and nobody can accuse him of not giving 100% or of shirking the physical match-ups.

Oddly enough, I think he'd be a horrible bench option for the first choice 10/12/13. Jones would NEVER go 80 minutes without bringing him on. The poor sods would be on edge from about the 30th minute wondering who goes off, who has to move position etc. IMO, he should be at 10 or at home (preferably the latter).

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: I must have posted his passing from left to right is terrible about 20 times a season since 2012. And that his positional play in first phase defence is awful, the latter reason plus lack of running ability being why I intensely dislike him playing 12, much more than playing 10. He has a decent case for being on the bench though

It's not Farrell's fault that Jones is so stubborn and conservative in selection. Farrell is selected to be an inspirational character (reportedly) and nobody can accuse him of not giving 100% or of shirking the physical match-ups.

Oddly enough, I think he'd be a horrible bench option for the first choice 10/12/13. Jones would NEVER go 80 minutes without bringing him on. The poor sods would be on edge from about the 30th minute wondering who goes off, who has to move position etc. IMO, he should be at 10 or at home (preferably the latter).

I not entirely convinced an international rugby player would have such a mentality.

I prefer Simmonds to Underhill and Earl and would choose Willis, Curry, Simmonds with Wilson on the bench but I understand why many would disagree. Nobody can know how good Willis and/or Simmonds (currently) may be at international level. All I'd suggest is that by the summer we ought to know - if Jones is doing his job properly. As ever, it's about opinion. It's also about the team ceiling. The team can and should be better in the near future than it ever has been under Jones. The players are queuing up.

Scrumhead wrote:

francoisfou wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
Instead of who though? Who do you drop to bring him in?

Simmonds’ strengths are perfectly aligned to Exeter’s gameplan. England are not going to play two 6s alongside him in the back row to accommodate it.

I am a Simmonds fan, but I get why he doesn’t get picked. His leg drive is phenomenal and he’s great in space, but for all the jobs you’d typically want a test 8 or flanker to perform, I’d have him at second best to most of his competitors.

He’s a good defender and will hit rucks, but he’s not a dominant tackler in the same way as Underhill or Curry and isn’t notably strong over the ball. When it comes to comparing him to Billy, I’d argue he makes metres in a different way, but then we need another tight carrier to compensate.

Fair points, but with 6 matches, is it, this Autumn?, he fully deserves the opportunity at test level.

So do several others who don’t require shifts elsewhere to accommodate them though ...

I’m going to ask again, who do you drop to include him?

With different players putting up their hands to be considered, it’s not a case of dropping any player but more of squad rotation for the forthcoming tests.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:And yes, I think it's perfectly fair to say that Farrell provides pretty much nothing a top tier 10 needs. He has little vision, he has no pace, no eye for a gap nor pass, and if he does, his passing isn't good enough to make it happen. His handling isn't good enough for high speed wrap arounds, removing one potential source of moving the defence around...

Farrell does one thing at 10: pivots and gives it to a playmaking prop, ffs. If we've talked about limited 10s previously, Farrell is the king of limited 10s.

This is frankly absurd.

Farrell has many, many flaws, enough that I feel awkward defending him. However he is by no means entirely incompetent as you are trying to paint him - he is a very decent international fly-half

Puja

That's kind of my point...he's not top class. He doesn't hold a candle to Ford as a 10. And what the others have displayed at club level far outweigh his abilities as a 10. He's a perfectly good rugby player but his skill set isn't laser focused into being a playmaker. Which was one of the reasons I found it so odd England paired him with Youngs, who played in a system that gave playmaking duties to the 10, and paired Ford with Care, who played in a system where the 9 had playmaking responsibility. Surely the other way round would have made sense?

"Very decent international fly-half" is not an insult though - that's a high accolade. He's not top class in terms of the very best fly-halves in the world, but he is a top-level club and European level fly-half. He might not have as good a highlights reel as Smith and might not have the same level of attacking flair in a one-off attacking move or a counter-attack, but he also doesn't have Smith's habit of sometimes picking the wrong runner or Smith's habit of occasionally going completely missing and just shovelling ball down the line or Smith's weakness to being pressured.

I'm not saying Smith isn't a very good player, but he's not 100% reliable at club level yet (unsurprising considering he's just 21) and moving him to the faster-pace and higher defensive pressure of internationals would not likely lead to him being described as a "decent international fly-half".

Simmonds is a different kettle of fish - I am reassessing my previously sceptical opinion of him based on his recent performances and am willing to admit that I may have been wrong, but he is still an unknown quantity at international level and this level of performance which he's currently showing is still very new and could just as easily be a burst of form as it could be a genuine blossoming. I would like to see him given a chance for England, but if it was the RWC final tomorrow and Ford was injured, at present I would pick Farrell rather than Simmonds. I'd be cursing the lack of Ford (as you say, Farrell doesn't hold a candle to him), but I'd be comfortable with Farrell as a very decent international fly-half that a fair few other nations would be glad to have in a XXIII.

Puja

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:


Farrell literally does nothing you want in a 10. He does plenty you want in a 12

I’m no Farrell fan, but come off it. If anything this is arse about face.

Really? He can do all the basics (except pass left to right) but he doesn't have the vision to play as a regular top tier 10 for me. He really doesn't have much vision at all. Having him as a second playmaker who doesn't have to call any shots makes much more sense, imo.

Well I started from the nonsensical comment that he ‘literally does nothing you want in a 10’ which is just daft when you think of the success of say Sarries, where for all his faults his game management has clearly been pretty effective alongside the more prosaic elements that you expect from a 10. I then examine what he actually offers at 12, which is a lot less useful than the same skills at 10. A 12 has to offer a running threat even if ‘playmaking’, and playmaking at 12 requires more peripheral awareness and last minute decision making than 10; on the other side of the ball, a 12 has to be spot on defensively positionally (you can afford to be slightly more headless chicken at 10, as even now a hard hitting hard working 10 is the exception in general) and technically. All in all, given the choice he seems to be a much better bet at 10 than 12. He wouldn’t be my choice at either for England, but I’m not totally blind to his attributes.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: I must have posted his passing from left to right is terrible about 20 times a season since 2012. And that his positional play in first phase defence is awful, the latter reason plus lack of running ability being why I intensely dislike him playing 12, much more than playing 10. He has a decent case for being on the bench though

It's not Farrell's fault that Jones is so stubborn and conservative in selection. Farrell is selected to be an inspirational character (reportedly) and nobody can accuse him of not giving 100% or of shirking the physical match-ups.

Oddly enough, I think he'd be a horrible bench option for the first choice 10/12/13. Jones would NEVER go 80 minutes without bringing him on. The poor sods would be on edge from about the 30th minute wondering who goes off, who has to move position etc. IMO, he should be at 10 or at home (preferably the latter).

I not entirely convinced an international rugby player would have such a mentality.

Well yes!

Oakboy wrote:I prefer Simmonds to Underhill and Earl and would choose Willis, Curry, Simmonds with Wilson on the bench but I understand why many would disagree. Nobody can know how good Willis and/or Simmonds (currently) may be at international level. All I'd suggest is that by the summer we ought to know - if Jones is doing his job properly. As ever, it's about opinion. It's also about the team ceiling. The team can and should be better in the near future than it ever has been under Jones. The players are queuing up.

But what is it that you feel he is doing better to explain why that is?

Clearly you don’t become European Player of The Year without some substance behind it, but I feel like at least some of Simmonds’ success is facilitated by a system designed to play to his strengths. I don’t think he’s individually good enough to get that with England when several other excellent players can slot straight in.

Simmonds is a carrier. And a very good one. I'd argue the rest of his game isn't quite up to scratch at international level.

As for Farrell, his game management (and ability to stick to the coaches commands) is consistent and solid, and he's a reliable defender. His defensive organisation seems to be good. His kicking is good. He's a proven international player with lots of experience.

He doesn't justify the press hyperbole though, or at least not in my opinion.

With the options we now have at 10, 12 and 13, I slightly feel we should be able to land on a solution which provides a more effective combination of the skills required from those players. We might lose a bit of his defensive nous at 12, but I'm sure we could more than replicate the other aspects he would bring.

TheNomad wrote:Simmonds is a carrier. And a very good one. I'd argue the rest of his game isn't quite up to scratch at international level.

As for Farrell, his game management (and ability to stick to the coaches commands) is consistent and solid, and he's a reliable defender. His defensive organisation seems to be good. His kicking is good. He's a proven international player with lots of experience.

He doesn't justify the press hyperbole though, or at least not in my opinion.

With the options we now have at 10, 12 and 13, I slightly feel we should be able to land on a solution which provides a more effective combination of the skills required from those players. We might lose a bit of his defensive nous at 12, but I'm sure we could more than replicate the other aspects he would bring.

He’s an iffy tackler and a rash decision maker in defence imo. Physical for a 10 it’s true, but less so for a 12 and lacks composure too often there too.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:
I’m no Farrell fan, but come off it. If anything this is arse about face.

Really? He can do all the basics (except pass left to right) but he doesn't have the vision to play as a regular top tier 10 for me. He really doesn't have much vision at all. Having him as a second playmaker who doesn't have to call any shots makes much more sense, imo.

Well I started from the nonsensical comment that he ‘literally does nothing you want in a 10’ which is just daft when you think of the success of say Sarries, where for all his faults his game management has clearly been pretty effective alongside the more prosaic elements that you expect from a 10. I then examine what he actually offers at 12, which is a lot less useful than the same skills at 10. A 12 has to offer a running threat even if ‘playmaking’, and playmaking at 12 requires more peripheral awareness and last minute decision making than 10; on the other side of the ball, a 12 has to be spot on defensively positionally (you can afford to be slightly more headless chicken at 10, as even now a hard hitting hard working 10 is the exception in general) and technically. All in all, given the choice he seems to be a much better bet at 10 than 12. He wouldn’t be my choice at either for England, but I’m not totally blind to his attributes.

Ok, you’ve convinced me, I was wrong.




There truly is no point to Farrell

Stom wrote:Ok, you’ve convinced me, I was wrong.




There truly is no point to Farrell

I may disagree with you, but this got a laugh.

Puja

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Really? He can do all the basics (except pass left to right) but he doesn't have the vision to play as a regular top tier 10 for me. He really doesn't have much vision at all. Having him as a second playmaker who doesn't have to call any shots makes much more sense, imo.

Well I started from the nonsensical comment that he ‘literally does nothing you want in a 10’ which is just daft when you think of the success of say Sarries, where for all his faults his game management has clearly been pretty effective alongside the more prosaic elements that you expect from a 10. I then examine what he actually offers at 12, which is a lot less useful than the same skills at 10. A 12 has to offer a running threat even if ‘playmaking’, and playmaking at 12 requires more peripheral awareness and last minute decision making than 10; on the other side of the ball, a 12 has to be spot on defensively positionally (you can afford to be slightly more headless chicken at 10, as even now a hard hitting hard working 10 is the exception in general) and technically. All in all, given the choice he seems to be a much better bet at 10 than 12. He wouldn’t be my choice at either for England, but I’m not totally blind to his attributes.

Ok, you’ve convinced me, I was wrong.




There truly is no point to Farrell

Lol. I’m actually nearer that position than your start point

jimKRFC wrote:Interesting article from Ben Darwin about familiarity and stablity of teams on performance: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... ds-success

Eddie Jones needs to pay attention to the bit about a drop in performance when asked to play a slightly different position.

Interesting stuff, tah. If Jones follows the logic one would expect it to be tough for the Simmondses to break in. It also makes we wish English rugby was organised differently.

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I prefer Simmonds to Underhill and Earl and would choose Willis, Curry, Simmonds with Wilson on the bench but I understand why many would disagree. Nobody can know how good Willis and/or Simmonds (currently) may be at international level. All I'd suggest is that by the summer we ought to know - if Jones is doing his job properly. As ever, it's about opinion. It's also about the team ceiling. The team can and should be better in the near future than it ever has been under Jones. The players are queuing up.

But what is it that you feel he is doing better to explain why that is?

Clearly you don’t become European Player of The Year without some substance behind it, but I feel like at least some of Simmonds’ success is facilitated by a system designed to play to his strengths. I don’t think he’s individually good enough to get that with England when several other excellent players can slot straight in.

I think the crunch is that he can be explosive. A No 8 that can match most for acceleration over 20 yards and maintain a winger's pace for 40 yards is just too good an option to ignore. I think he has the brain to do it at the right time and the rugby nous to find a good line. All the normal back row functions are there but he has that bit extra in open play. I think, properly employed and in the right trio-balance he can do what nobody else can. My main doubt is whether Jones would use him properly though I accept that he would still need to prove himself on the higher stage. He may not be good enough but the chance that he might be should not ge let slip. We won't win a RWC without doing something different in the back row, IMO.

I currently think Simmonds is a better player, but Earl offers a similar kind of pace in a loose forward. I don't think he's quite as good a runner as Simmonds or in the tight spaces, but he can play 7 as well as 8 and has been involved in EJ squads.

Mr Mwenda wrote:

jimKRFC wrote:Interesting article from Ben Darwin about familiarity and stablity of teams on performance: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... ds-success

Eddie Jones needs to pay attention to the bit about a drop in performance when asked to play a slightly different position.

Interesting stuff, tah. If Jones follows the logic one would expect it to be tough for the Simmondses to break in. It also makes we wish English rugby was organised differently.

In what way?

Mikey Brown wrote:I currently think Simmonds is a better player, but Earl offers a similar kind of pace in a loose forward. I don't think he's quite as good a runner as Simmonds or in the tight spaces, but he can play 7 as well as 8 and has been involved in EJ squads.

Simmonds is better with the ball, but Earl is similarly explosive with a great turn of pace and I’d argue he is a more physical defender and better over the ball. Basically, he’s bringing something similar to Simmonds with more of the qualities Eddie likes.

Swings and roundabouts. Easy to make a strong case for either player. They are both high quality, consistent performers. Both had very effective games in demanding European finals at the weekend.
Such is the depth of back row players now available, its inevitable that some very good ones are going to be left out.

Yeah. We could have the backrow debate ad nauseum, come up with three completely different combos with nine different players and still agree that Itoje should play no8....wait, sorry....each back row would arguably be of test quality.

RWC final backrow: Curry, Underhill, Billy
2020 finals backrow: Willis, Earl, Simmonds
Watched the RWC final backrow: Ludlum, Curry Snr, Wilson

That’s without the likes of Dombrandt and Mercer who have numerous supporters that they could/should be test players.

Is it worth asking S Simmonds to convert back to centre now Tuilagi is injured? (Insert tongue in cheek emoji here)
If nothing else, it would simplify the how many brothers can you get in one Eng team game.

Yeah I mean he might as well. Maybe I didn’t phrase it well but I was saying as much as I like Simmonds I just don’t think he’ll be in the mix. The point he might like to add some more pace at 8 I think he’d simply try Earl there, if anything.

I’d like to see him at 12 ahead of whoever it is we would normally pick there. He’s already got a fantastic connection with Slade.

Think he could have been more daring and interesting with that selection - not surprising I suppose

Mellsblue wrote:Is it worth asking S Simmonds to convert back to centre now Tuilagi is injured? (Insert tongue in cheek emoji here)
If nothing else, it would simplify the how many brothers can you get in one Eng team game.

People will scoff at this but I would love to try it as well.

Final 32 man squad for Baabaas:
FORWARDS
Alex Dombrandt, Harlequins*
Tom Dunn, Bath Rugby*
Charlie Ewels, Bath Rugby
Ellis Genge, Leicester Tigers
Jamie George, Saracens
Joe Heyes, Leicester Tigers*
Ted Hill, Worcester Warriors
Maro Itoje, Saracens
Alex Moon, Northampton Saints*
Beno Obano, Bath Rugby*
David Ribbans, Northampton Saints*
Will Stuart, Bath Rugby
Sam Underhill, Bath Rugby
Billy Vunipola, Saracens
Mako Vunipola, Saracens
Mark Wilson, Newcastle Falcons

BACKS
Ali Crossdale, Saracens*
Fraser Dingwall, Northampton Saints*
Owen Farrell, Saracens
Piers Francis, Northampton Saints
George Ford, Leicester Tigers
George Furbank, Northampton Saints
Willi Heinz, Gloucester Rugby
Jonathan Joseph, Bath Rugby
Ollie Lawrence, Worcester Warriors*
Joe Marchant, Harlequins
Jonny May, Gloucester Rugby
Alex Mitchell, Northampton Saints*
Ollie Thorley, Gloucester Rugby*
Anthony Watson, Bath Rugby
Ben Youngs, Leicester Tigers

*denotes uncapped players