Re: Autumn review?
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:47 am
NZ would want the same player from our midfield we want in our midfield, Manu.
because that's my opinion. I think ALB is an excellent centre, and Goodhue fine. Do you really think he is a better 12 than either of them? and apologies, I was guilty of hyperbole, he isn't way worse, but he is not a very good centre by any benchmark I'd use. He's a passable 10. And I know frankly I'm shouting into the wind vis a vis most of the opinions that actually count.Epaminondas Pules wrote:Of course you would.Banquo wrote:I'd say he's way worse than either Lienart-Brown or Goodhue at 12. He'd certainly look like he was walking though.Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Judging by how they've performed and the mess that is their centres I'd say he'd walk in. That's more a comment on the All Blacks than Farrell.
well yes, and also he- faz- takes easier shots in general, or rather doesn't take on difficult ones much.Puja wrote:Across all competitions, Farrell has stayed steady at a 78% goalkicking average for the past three seasons. Ford, on the other hand has gone from 81%, to 83%, to 88% last year.
Puja
Banquo wrote:because that's my opinion. I think ALB is an excellent centre, and Goodhue fine. Do you really think he is a better 12 than either of them? and apologies, I was guilty of hyperbole, he isn't way worse, but he is not a very good centre by any benchmark I'd use. He's a passable 10. And I know frankly I'm shouting into the wind vis a vis most of the opinions that actually count.Epaminondas Pules wrote:Of course you would.Banquo wrote: I'd say he's way worse than either Lienart-Brown or Goodhue at 12. He'd certainly look like he was walking though.
So as we all suspected: Farrell steady as a rock and Ford a bit temperamental.Puja wrote:Across all competitions, Farrell has stayed steady at a 78% goalkicking average for the past three seasons. Ford, on the other hand has gone from 81%, to 83%, to 88% last year.
Puja
For sure, building anything around him in terms of future tactics has been proven pointless, regrettably. He is simply too injury-prone. Jones needs to sort out our centre pairing without Tuilagi and use any availabilty as a bench-bonus.Digby wrote:NZ would want the same player from our midfield we want in our midfield, Manu.
Unless Jones leaves him out and tries someone else for a few games, I just don't see how he can measure Farrell's contribution/influence. He (and others) see Farrell's match-to-match performances as monumentally significant. As long as that remains the case, I think the team's ceiling remains wastefully lowered and that is the biggest concern of all.Epaminondas Pules wrote:f a fan of Farrell, certainly at 12, though there is something there that literally all the coaches at the highest level see both on the pitch and in leadership skills.
Measuring someone's influence by the hole they leave behind isn't a great method.Oakboy wrote:Unless Jones leaves him out and tries someone else for a few games, I just don't see how he can measure Farrell's contribution/influence. He (and others) see Farrell's match-to-match performances as monumentally significant. As long as that remains the case, I think the team's ceiling remains wastefully lowered and that is the biggest concern of all.Epaminondas Pules wrote:f a fan of Farrell, certainly at 12, though there is something there that literally all the coaches at the highest level see both on the pitch and in leadership skills.
I think ALB should just stick to 12, Goodhue isn't great by AB standards, but imo he'd still get in our midfield at 12Epaminondas Pules wrote:Banquo wrote:because that's my opinion. I think ALB is an excellent centre, and Goodhue fine. Do you really think he is a better 12 than either of them? and apologies, I was guilty of hyperbole, he isn't way worse, but he is not a very good centre by any benchmark I'd use. He's a passable 10. And I know frankly I'm shouting into the wind vis a vis most of the opinions that actually count.Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Of course you would.
ALB is a good centre, though he does blow a little hot and cold at times. When he's on he's seriously good. For some reason they don't seem sold on him in any particular position, which is why he slots in and out of 12 and 13. Goodhue is, well from an AB standard, the worst centre I've seen them consistently play for a good while. A lot of that is how spoilt they were with some of the finest centres to play the game in the last 15 or so years. I mean they're even playing Rieko 'hands of clay" Ioane at 13. It is a tangent, but when he was mooted as playing 13 I think it was Rugby Pass who posted a video of his school highlights to say he was a born 13 and it was hilarious. In every sense he looked like a winger, just with 13 on his back. The amount of times the ball was in one hand and the wrong one to be able to distribute was epic.
He's a different player than ALB, I'm not that much of a fan of Farrell, certainly at 12, though there is something there that literally all the coaches at the highest level see both on the pitch and in leadership skills.
There's the rub, that's much easier said than done, and it can't be done in isolation in the absence of outstanding players there. You might work a backline around the likes of BOD, or possibly even Manu, but not around our options.Oakboy wrote:For sure, building anything around him in terms of future tactics has been proven pointless, regrettably. He is simply too injury-prone. Jones needs to sort out our centre pairing without Tuilagi and use any availabilty as a bench-bonus.Digby wrote:NZ would want the same player from our midfield we want in our midfield, Manu.
James Haskell likes this postMikey Brown wrote:So as we all suspected: Farrell steady as a rock and Ford a bit temperamental.Puja wrote:Across all competitions, Farrell has stayed steady at a 78% goalkicking average for the past three seasons. Ford, on the other hand has gone from 81%, to 83%, to 88% last year.
Puja
I don't really get why you'd say he's too injury prone. He's been unlucky with injury, but that's different to being prone other than the groin issue, and the groin issue is hopefully resolved.Oakboy wrote:For sure, building anything around him in terms of future tactics has been proven pointless, regrettably. He is simply too injury-prone. Jones needs to sort out our centre pairing without Tuilagi and use any availabilty as a bench-bonus.Digby wrote:NZ would want the same player from our midfield we want in our midfield, Manu.
Maybe with ALB. But that leaves them with the problem of who plays 13. They tried it with ALB 12 and Goodhue 13 and have now reversed it.Banquo wrote:I think ALB should just stick to 12, Goodhue isn't great by AB standards, but imo he'd still get in our midfield at 12Epaminondas Pules wrote:Banquo wrote: because that's my opinion. I think ALB is an excellent centre, and Goodhue fine. Do you really think he is a better 12 than either of them? and apologies, I was guilty of hyperbole, he isn't way worse, but he is not a very good centre by any benchmark I'd use. He's a passable 10. And I know frankly I'm shouting into the wind vis a vis most of the opinions that actually count.
ALB is a good centre, though he does blow a little hot and cold at times. When he's on he's seriously good. For some reason they don't seem sold on him in any particular position, which is why he slots in and out of 12 and 13. Goodhue is, well from an AB standard, the worst centre I've seen them consistently play for a good while. A lot of that is how spoilt they were with some of the finest centres to play the game in the last 15 or so years. I mean they're even playing Rieko 'hands of clay" Ioane at 13. It is a tangent, but when he was mooted as playing 13 I think it was Rugby Pass who posted a video of his school highlights to say he was a born 13 and it was hilarious. In every sense he looked like a winger, just with 13 on his back. The amount of times the ball was in one hand and the wrong one to be able to distribute was epic.
He's a different player than ALB, I'm not that much of a fan of Farrell, certainly at 12, though there is something there that literally all the coaches at the highest level see both on the pitch and in leadership skills., he at least can run and defend
.
I don't get Faz at 12 at all....his defence is shonky there if nothing else. I can just about cope with him being a bench option, given he probably wont miss too many kicks at goal, and sort of covers 12-ish.
He misses enough games over a period to be labelled injury-prone, IMO. If, say, Lawrence were to develop to the extent that he and Tuilagi could be played as a like-for-like 1st/2nd choice, perhaps you could continue down that route. I doubt that Lawrence is going to get to that level though I hope he does. I think a regular 20-30 minutes of Tuilagi off the bench would scare the opposition more than a 'paced' 80 minutes. A flat-out 80 minutes will too often break him.Digby wrote:I don't really get why you'd say he's too injury prone. He's been unlucky with injury, but that's different to being prone other than the groin issue, and the groin issue is hopefully resolved.Oakboy wrote:For sure, building anything around him in terms of future tactics has been proven pointless, regrettably. He is simply too injury-prone. Jones needs to sort out our centre pairing without Tuilagi and use any availabilty as a bench-bonus.Digby wrote:NZ would want the same player from our midfield we want in our midfield, Manu.
Yes we need a plan for not having Manu, but it's highly doubtful if he's available again you'd put one of your most significant assets on the bench, the people happiest to have him on the bench in a given selection would be your opponents
it is also quite interesting that Farrell's percentage kicks have stayed constant (actually decreasing over his career slightly), but his value add has dropped ..ie he is having less success on trickier kicks.Puja wrote:Across all competitions, Farrell has stayed steady at a 78% goalkicking average for the past three seasons. Ford, on the other hand has gone from 81%, to 83%, to 88% last year.
Puja
That, on the back of scraping a win over their 3rd XV.Mikey Brown wrote:Possibly just poor wording, or wilful misinterpretation on my part, but France “staying in the game for so long” made me laugh. Weren’t they literally ahead or level for the entire game?
Nothing to do with their physicality, their set piece or their unbelievable defence? Nope, all about the kicking.
Quite. I usually quite like Moore's journalism but this was just feeding Jones the right lines. Let's face it, over the decades, England have been accused of being boring countless times. Jones might at least have responded to why Moore asked that question at this time, though (whereas nobody did, say, two years ago). Something might just have changed?Stom wrote:What I really hate about these articles is that the journalist inevitably sticks to pre-framed questions and doesn't ask follow ups. I mean, Moore asks a question, gets an answer, says a sentence related to the answer, and then asks a different question! What about the follow ups? Where's the insight? We all know the basics, Jones says them enough times.
In the end we learn nothing new, we don't provide content for anyone with a more in depth knowledge or understanding of the sport, and those with a passing interest aren't that interested in reading/listening to this anyway...
So it's an absolute waste of time for everyone.
Mostly. But it's not unknown in the Estuary lexicon. You know - the kind of 'orrible sounds made by L. Dallaglio, Jamie Oliver et.al.Digby wrote:You mean Australians?