RugbyRebels

Peej wrote:Farrell injured in training this week so won't play for Sarries

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Peej wrote:Farrell injured in training this week so won't play for Sarries

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

Puja

Hopefully it’s not too serious. Just a little niggle that will keep him out for……. if I’m plucking a figure out of the air… oooh, I don’t know…. let’s say exactly two months.

Statement from Saracens: https://www.saracens.com/injury-update-owen-farrell/

“Owen Farrell suffered an injury in training this week ahead of the game against London Irish, ruling him out of the match.

“Owen was back in full training having recovered from the ankle injury he sustained against Australia during the Autumn internationals. We will have a further update after he sees a specialist early next week.”

I retract my above glee a bit, cause it does actually sound like it might be a bit of a setback for him if he's having to see a specialist and I don't want to be cheering on players getting injured. I hope he gets better soon and that he's not going to suffer any long-lasting effects. From an England perspective however, him missing the Scotland match has just drastically increased our chances of winning.

Puja

SDHoneymonster wrote: In other news, Farrell's pulled out of the London Irish game with an injury...

Will miss the Scotland game too according to the Beeb. I'm faintly terrified of what the backline *could* end up as

Telegraph are reporting he's a serious doubt for the entire campaign. Who's voodoo doll was it?

Danno wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote: In other news, Farrell's pulled out of the London Irish game with an injury...

Will miss the Scotland game too according to the Beeb. I'm faintly terrified of what the backline *could* end up as

I'm actually very excited. With no Fazlet, it's going to be Smith, Slade and AN Other and frankly any of the options in the squad would work for me. Marchant? Ideal. Late call for Manu? Perfect. Northmore or Atkinson? I don't necessarily rate them, but one of them would do as a stop-gap foil outside of S&S. Nowell? Bizarre, but I'll take it.

Basically, any runner outside of S&S is an upgrade over the line of three distributors that we were likely to get if Farrell had been fit. Mind, this is probably where Bailey gets put in at 12, isn't it?

Puja

10. Smith 12. Bailey 13. Ford

10. Smith. 12. Simmonds. 13. Nowell. 14. Marler.

My concern is it brings Atkinson a step closer to being included. Farrell is an international level 12, with a world class work rate. He's not a good international 12, but he's at the level. I don't believe Atkinson is even there, and I don't think he's going to make it either.

SDHoneymonster wrote:10. Smith. 12. Simmonds. 13. Nowell. 14. Marler.

Puja wrote:

Danno wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote: In other news, Farrell's pulled out of the London Irish game with an injury...

Will miss the Scotland game too according to the Beeb. I'm faintly terrified of what the backline *could* end up as

I'm actually very excited. With no Fazlet, it's going to be Smith, Slade and AN Other and frankly any of the options in the squad would work for me. Marchant? Ideal. Late call for Manu? Perfect. Northmore or Atkinson? I don't necessarily rate them, but one of them would do as a stop-gap foil outside of S&S. Nowell? Bizarre, but I'll take it.

Basically, any runner outside of S&S is an upgrade over the line of three distributors that we were likely to get if Farrell had been fit. Mind, this is probably where Bailey gets put in at 12, isn't it?

Puja

I refuse to spike my hopes. Eddie gonna Eddie.

So who is the reserve 10 for the Scotland match? and should Smith get crocked before then, who would start, eh Eddie?

Banquo wrote:So who is the reserve 10 for the Scotland match? and should Smith get crocked before then, who would start, eh Eddie?

Furbank + Malins I'd guess.

Woo.

Raggs wrote:My concern is it brings Atkinson a step closer to being included. Farrell is an international level 12, with a world class work rate. He's not a good international 12, but he's at the level. I don't believe Atkinson is even there, and I don't think he's going to make it either.

I would agree with you on that in general, but Atkinson has the major advantage of not being a block to Smith and Slade. He might not be a great international player, but he'll run a line and he'll do as he's told, rather than wanting to run the backline himself. Also, while he might not be a good international option, he does provide an opportunity of proof of concept that Smith can be trusted without Farrell holding his hand, which Eddie does not currently seem to believe.

Puja

He’s also as close a player to Esterhuizen that we have.

Atkinson looked miles behind the game when he came on before, just not reacting quick enough etc. I'd rather have Farrell.

Guess we'll see what eddie has planned after the weekend.

EDIT - Just remembered, Eddie was talking up Bailey as a potential 12...

Raggs wrote:Atkinson looked miles behind the game when he came on before, just not reacting quick enough etc. I'd rather have Farrell.

Guess we'll see what eddie has planned after the weekend.

EDIT - Just remembered, Eddie was talking up Bailey as a potential 12...

Comparing Farrell and Atkinson is apples and oranges in the way they play at 12. Certainly would hugely change the way the backline would play.

Danno wrote:

Banquo wrote:So who is the reserve 10 for the Scotland match? and should Smith get crocked before then, who would start, eh Eddie?

Furbank + Malins I'd guess.

Woo.

It'd be a bit mad to go in with either of them as even 1st back up imo, when you don't have to.

Barbeary played 12 at school... And that would be similar to Esterhuizen... I'd love to see it .

Raggs wrote:Barbeary played 12 at school... And that would be similar to Esterhuizen... I'd love to see it .

I don't think you would. He'd be as embarassed as Sam Burgess imo

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Barbeary played 12 at school... And that would be similar to Esterhuizen... I'd love to see it .

I don't think you would. He'd be as embarassed as Sam Burgess imo

There's no way it would be that bad. Burgess had no idea where to be whether playing 6 or 12, Barbeary is far more comfortable around the pitch.

Would it be terribly unfashionable of me to say I actually rate Atkinson and would quite like to see him play?

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Barbeary played 12 at school... And that would be similar to Esterhuizen... I'd love to see it .

I don't think you would. He'd be as embarassed as Sam Burgess imo

There's no way it would be that bad. Burgess had no idea where to be whether playing 6 or 12, Barbeary is far more comfortable around the pitch.

That's a fair point in multiphase play, but off set piece and a couple of phases of back attacks, I think he'd be heavily exposed.

SDHoneymonster wrote:Would it be terribly unfashionable of me to say I actually rate Atkinson and would quite like to see him play?

I'm a big fan of his type of i/c and he's played well in the prem- my worry even before he played internationally was his agility and reaction times- which will be exposed by pace of play and intensity.....and the first signs didn't make me less worried. His time was probably a couple of years ago, but not averse to giving him a shot.