RugbyRebels

An England side without Farrell. Right now, there is an issue with not having a fit Manu. Anything else at 12 is largely unknown / unproven and also requires covering organisational aspects of his role. I get that he's a figure of hate and a pantomime villain, but he does lead the defensive organisation, which it's pretty hard to argue against the value he brings. But he jumps out of the line blah blah blah, which is quite blatantly a tactic, which for example Saracens have used to phenomenal effect for years. Our defence is excellent in just about all aspects, aggression, linespeed, scramble, drift, cut off, multi-phase, kick receipt. Someone has to take that role on, and whilst we have some good defenders in the backs, there isn't anyone that jumps out as a natural organiser or leader in that regard. Just saying the players know the system isn't good enough. On the pitch leadership plays a very large role in maintaining effectiveness.

In short, it's not just playing someone at 12, it is also finding someone to lead organisationally, especially in defence. This also means that Ford has to play or you lose your entire backline organisation. The alternative is someone brand new.

Where am I going with this? I think to say that it is not as simple as drop Farrell and everything becomes rosey. We've played some excellent rugby with Farrell playing at 10 and 12 as we were able to manipulate defences with multi-threat options. You lose a big threat. A frankly world class threat ball in hand and you'll struggle. Plus sides will analyse you more and more to negate your threats. Countering that is largely a coaching issue. How do we now break this adapted defence down. How do we co-adapt in game. Neither Ford or Farrell has really displayed that ability. They have demonstrated an ability to stay on script and trust in said script and systems, which is effective, until it isn't.

Anyway. A side.

9 Youngs - in a not too dissimilar position to 12, the alternatives aren't smashing the door down. Robson is there or there about.
10 Ford - has to play, otherwise post 9 there is little on field leadership.
11 - May - done
12 - erm....yeah Devoto / Redpath??
13 - Slade / JJ / Marchant / Lawrence
14 - Watson - if fit plays - likely wing. Not my choice, but reality.
15 - Daly - you could rotate the back three one and have Daly 11, May 14 and Watson 15, but realistically it'll be as is. I get Malins is the new hope having displayed a decent input to the game against France and good play for Bristol, but is unproven and a theory option at present.

Centres is an issue. None of the squad look comfortable 12's. Lawrence could theoretically look good there, maybe, in the right conditions, though that would also negate other strengths of his game. Slade seems to be a regularly promoted idea at 12, but am yet to see anything to suggest that would be fruitful. Yes he can pass and kick, and could be an ersatz 10 type player at 12 in theory, but it is almost entirely theory. Other than that it is an uncapped option or injury prone option, who does look to have a good rounded game.

And regardless it still has the tiny issue of where the leadership and organisational hole will be filled from. You can down play Farrell's role here all you like, but it is an aspect that has to be factored into any decisions. To not recognise that would be silly. And it isn't just shouting 'hit him, hit him'.

For me, I don't know the answer. I think without Manu is a more important problem than with Farrell.

Oh yeah and we are winning, so every cloud and all that.

Faz is not a figure of 'hate' ...he's just not very good. I do have a personal antipathy towards him from when he played against my sons school side eons ago, and was foul, frankly. But 'hate'....nah. He's just incredibly fortunate imo.

Banquo wrote:Faz is not a figure of 'hate' ...he's just not very good. I do have a personal antipathy towards him from when he played against my sons school side eons ago, and was foul, frankly. But 'hate'....nah. He's just incredibly fortunate imo.

Come on dude. Name another player to get the vitriol he gets, largely down to other people's opinions of him.

I'm not defending him here, but he is the pantomime villain of the board.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:Faz is not a figure of 'hate' ...he's just not very good. I do have a personal antipathy towards him from when he played against my sons school side eons ago, and was foul, frankly. But 'hate'....nah. He's just incredibly fortunate imo.

Come on dude. Name another player to get the vitriol he gets, largely down to other people's opinions of him.

I'm not defending him here, but he is the pantomime villain of the board.

Its not vitriol, its mostly frustration about his ability. Hate is just a daft word imo.

Jones gets far more abuse, probably Youngs and Calum Clark too, Billy gets his share as well. Hell jnGF has probably abused Curry more than Faz gets it (joking, obvs)

Does he lead the entire defensive formation as well- genuine Q? and I think our forwards defence is well ahead of the backs defence, which does look shaky on occasion- its streets better when JJ plays, for example.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:Faz is not a figure of 'hate' ...he's just not very good. I do have a personal antipathy towards him from when he played against my sons school side eons ago, and was foul, frankly. But 'hate'....nah. He's just incredibly fortunate imo.

Come on dude. Name another player to get the vitriol he gets, largely down to other people's opinions of him.

I'm not defending him here, but he is the pantomime villain of the board.

Its not vitriol, its mostly frustration about his ability. Hate is just a daft word imo.

Jones gets far more abuse, probably Youngs and Calum Clark too, Billy gets his share as well.

Does he lead the entire defensive formation as well- genuine Q?

Now that's just laughable.

And yes. And then they break into different areas and have leadership for that area. Underhill was forwards defence captain, but Maro lineout defence.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Come on dude. Name another player to get the vitriol he gets, largely down to other people's opinions of him.

I'm not defending him here, but he is the pantomime villain of the board.

Its not vitriol, its mostly frustration about his ability. Hate is just a daft word imo.

Jones gets far more abuse, probably Youngs and Calum Clark too, Billy gets his share as well.

Does he lead the entire defensive formation as well- genuine Q?

Now that's just laughable.

And yes. And then they break into different areas and have leadership for that area. Underhill was forwards defence captain, but Maro lineout defence.

glad I amused you. The point is that lots of players get stick, but it doesn't mean that they are 'hated'....this isn't insta . Billy for example is regularly called out for being immobile, fat, slow, making no ground, as well as being a bad human- which actually is more like hate speech than saying 'bad tackler', 'rash in defence' and 'not exactly the ice man'.

So Faz coordinates defence, as well as (say) playing 10 and organises and communicates the backs defence in real time. Well well.

From what I’ve read on here, most think he’s good enough to be in the EPS and some think he should be first choice at 12. Most, possibly all, think Ford is the better 10. Everyone thinks he is incredibly overrated by most of the rugby world, and have said many times that we must be missing something on here. That doesn’t really make him the pantomime villain, I just think we all get exasperated with the media, analysts etc feting him when he does something good and giving him a pass when he’s bad. For example, on Sunday the commentator said he makes his kicks when it matters....

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: Its not vitriol, its mostly frustration about his ability. Hate is just a daft word imo.

Jones gets far more abuse, probably Youngs and Calum Clark too, Billy gets his share as well.

Does he lead the entire defensive formation as well- genuine Q?

Now that's just laughable.

And yes. And then they break into different areas and have leadership for that area. Underhill was forwards defence captain, but Maro lineout defence.

glad I amused you. The point is that lots of players get stick, but it doesn't mean that they are 'hated'....this isn't insta

So Faz coordinates defence, as well as (say) playing 10 and organises and communicates the backs defence in real time. Well well.

Well it was laughable. You only have to take a cursory glance at the language used alongside the volume.

And yeah, he's kind of pivotal in one of, if not our best area of play. And that's not to say he should be picked, just that it has to be factored in to any thought process.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Now that's just laughable.

And yes. And then they break into different areas and have leadership for that area. Underhill was forwards defence captain, but Maro lineout defence.

glad I amused you. The point is that lots of players get stick, but it doesn't mean that they are 'hated'....this isn't insta

So Faz coordinates defence, as well as (say) playing 10 and organises and communicates the backs defence in real time. Well well.

Well it was laughable. You only have to take a cursory glance at the language used alongside the volume.

And yeah, he's kind of pivotal in one of, if not our best area of play. And that's not to say he should be picked, just that it has to be factored in to any thought process.

apologies, but edited - Billy actually does get quite a lot of what you youngsters call hate speech.

and of course Faz will get a volume proportionate to his standing and 'influence'. I don't see a lot of especially vitriolic language other than critiquing play. But then I'm not trying to defend him

That's a massive job btw, I'd hope the outside backs help him!

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: glad I amused you. The point is that lots of players get stick, but it doesn't mean that they are 'hated'....this isn't insta

So Faz coordinates defence, as well as (say) playing 10 and organises and communicates the backs defence in real time. Well well.

Well it was laughable. You only have to take a cursory glance at the language used alongside the volume.

And yeah, he's kind of pivotal in one of, if not our best area of play. And that's not to say he should be picked, just that it has to be factored in to any thought process.

apologies, but edited - Billy actually does get quite a lot of what you youngsters call hate speech.

and of course Faz will get a volume proportionate to his standing and 'influence'. I don't see a lot of especially vitriolic language other than critiquing play. But then I'm not trying to defend him

That's a massive job btw, I'd hope the outside backs help him!

I'm only young mentally mate

Communication wise they do, but less so organisationally. Daly seems to be the most prominent in that group.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Well it was laughable. You only have to take a cursory glance at the language used alongside the volume.

And yeah, he's kind of pivotal in one of, if not our best area of play. And that's not to say he should be picked, just that it has to be factored in to any thought process.

apologies, but edited - Billy actually does get quite a lot of what you youngsters call hate speech.

and of course Faz will get a volume proportionate to his standing and 'influence'. I don't see a lot of especially vitriolic language other than critiquing play. But then I'm not trying to defend him

That's a massive job btw, I'd hope the outside backs help him!

I'm only young mentally mate

Communication wise they do, but less so organisationally. Daly seems to be the most prominent in that group.

Yes, when I was eking out my career at 15 I spent most of the time talking to the centres and wings in defence. Certainly better at that than under the high ball by that stage- so I am Daly . JJ is the man, and I wonder if that's part of why they tried the third centre piece- his defending and communication are that good, generally.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: apologies, but edited - Billy actually does get quite a lot of what you youngsters call hate speech.

and of course Faz will get a volume proportionate to his standing and 'influence'. I don't see a lot of especially vitriolic language other than critiquing play. But then I'm not trying to defend him

That's a massive job btw, I'd hope the outside backs help him!

I'm only young mentally mate

Communication wise they do, but less so organisationally. Daly seems to be the most prominent in that group.

Yes, when I was eking out my career at 15 I spent most of the time talking to the centres and wings in defence. Certainly better at that than under the high ball by that stage- so I am Daly . JJ is the man, and I wonder if that's part of why they tried the third centre piece- his defending and communication are that good, generally.

His defence is excellent and he does organise one in and out well and maintain structural contact better than anyone else IMO, alongside excellent decision making. And let's face it his attacking skills are kinda good too.

Mellsblue wrote:From what I’ve read on here, most think he’s good enough to be in the EPS and some think he should be first choice at 12. Most, possibly all, think Ford is the better 10. Everyone thinks he is incredibly overrated by most of the rugby world, and have said many times that we must be missing something on here. That doesn’t really make him the pantomime villain, I just think we all get exasperated with the media, analysts etc feting him when he does something good and giving him a pass when he’s bad. For example, on Sunday the commentator said he makes his kicks when it matters....

Very well summarised. That captures much thoughts very well and I think it is a good assessment of this board’s collective opinion, barring a few who rate Farrell more highly for the ‘intangibles’ he brings.

He’s certainly criticised heavily here, but almost solely on his play and almost exclusively with exasperation rather than ‘vitriol’.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
I'm only young mentally mate

Communication wise they do, but less so organisationally. Daly seems to be the most prominent in that group.

Yes, when I was eking out my career at 15 I spent most of the time talking to the centres and wings in defence. Certainly better at that than under the high ball by that stage- so I am Daly . JJ is the man, and I wonder if that's part of why they tried the third centre piece- his defending and communication are that good, generally.

His defence is excellent and he does organise one in and out well and maintain structural contact better than anyone else IMO, alongside excellent decision making. And let's face it his attacking skills are kinda good too.

something has gone awry with his running in attack though, he's developed a stutter step when he gets the ball, so isn't hitting at pace the times I've seen him in the last couple of years....but it was encouraging to see his interventions off the blindside wing, when he was running into the ball and looking genuine threatening again with the ball, plus nice bits of link play; I think he's probably overthinking/overplaying in attack, and needs to simplify a bit. I really rate him, but can see why he's not automatic 1st choice at 13. I think Ford, Manu, JJ could be dynamite, and JJ and Manu could mix and match in attack.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: Yes, when I was eking out my career at 15 I spent most of the time talking to the centres and wings in defence. Certainly better at that than under the high ball by that stage- so I am Daly . JJ is the man, and I wonder if that's part of why they tried the third centre piece- his defending and communication are that good, generally.

His defence is excellent and he does organise one in and out well and maintain structural contact better than anyone else IMO, alongside excellent decision making. And let's face it his attacking skills are kinda good too.

something has gone awry with his running in attack though, he's developed a stutter step when he gets the ball, so isn't hitting at pace the times I've seen him in the last couple of years....but it was encouraging to see his interventions off the blindside wing, when he was running into the ball and looking genuine threatening again with the ball, plus nice bits of link play; I think he's probably overthinking/overplaying in attack, and needs to simplify a bit. I really rate him, but can see why he's not automatic 1st choice at 13. I think Ford, Manu, JJ could be dynamite, and JJ and Manu could mix and match in attack.

Yeah, I'm with you. Not sure if it was injury related, or maybe a slight dip in pace, but he definitely altered his game. I like that Jones wants him on the pitch/involved cause he is so good. I was worried slightly about his pace when he was picked on the wing vs Ireland as he had looked (to my eye) to have just dropped a yard since the last injury, but he was still rapid.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
His defence is excellent and he does organise one in and out well and maintain structural contact better than anyone else IMO, alongside excellent decision making. And let's face it his attacking skills are kinda good too.

something has gone awry with his running in attack though, he's developed a stutter step when he gets the ball, so isn't hitting at pace the times I've seen him in the last couple of years....but it was encouraging to see his interventions off the blindside wing, when he was running into the ball and looking genuine threatening again with the ball, plus nice bits of link play; I think he's probably overthinking/overplaying in attack, and needs to simplify a bit. I really rate him, but can see why he's not automatic 1st choice at 13. I think Ford, Manu, JJ could be dynamite, and JJ and Manu could mix and match in attack.

Yeah, I'm with you. Not sure if it was injury related, or maybe a slight dip in pace, but he definitely altered his game. I like that Jones wants him on the pitch/involved cause he is so good. I was worried slightly about his pace when he was picked on the wing vs Ireland as he had looked (to my eye) to have just dropped a yard since the last injury, but he was still rapid.

Pre-dated his injury iirc, probably a function of playing in a chop and change Bath team, and also the England backs were changing about quite a bit. I do wonder if he thought he needed to force more plays in response to the threat of Slade and Manu to an extent; he certainly has been doing a lot more link plays with Bath and a lot more distribution. But he all too often takes the ball almost standing still, which kills his excellent outside break.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: glad I amused you. The point is that lots of players get stick, but it doesn't mean that they are 'hated'....this isn't insta

So Faz coordinates defence, as well as (say) playing 10 and organises and communicates the backs defence in real time. Well well.

Well it was laughable. You only have to take a cursory glance at the language used alongside the volume.

And yeah, he's kind of pivotal in one of, if not our best area of play. And that's not to say he should be picked, just that it has to be factored in to any thought process.

apologies, but edited - Billy actually does get quite a lot of what you youngsters call hate speech.

"Hate speech"?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Well it was laughable. You only have to take a cursory glance at the language used alongside the volume.

And yeah, he's kind of pivotal in one of, if not our best area of play. And that's not to say he should be picked, just that it has to be factored in to any thought process.

apologies, but edited - Billy actually does get quite a lot of what you youngsters call hate speech.

"Hate speech"?

Puja

fat, immobile, slow, bad human. I am being slightly tongue in cheek, in what us oldsters call humour.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: apologies, but edited - Billy actually does get quite a lot of what you youngsters call hate speech.

"Hate speech"?

Puja

fat, immobile, slow, bad human. I am being slightly tongue in cheek, in what us oldsters call humour.

Ahhhh, you're trying to be amusing! No wonder I didn't recognise it.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
"Hate speech"?

Puja

fat, immobile, slow, bad human. I am being slightly tongue in cheek, in what us oldsters call humour.

Ahhhh, you're trying to be amusing! No wonder I didn't recognise it.

Puja

well you are that generation

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Now that's just laughable.

And yes. And then they break into different areas and have leadership for that area. Underhill was forwards defence captain, but Maro lineout defence.

glad I amused you. The point is that lots of players get stick, but it doesn't mean that they are 'hated'....this isn't insta

So Faz coordinates defence, as well as (say) playing 10 and organises and communicates the backs defence in real time. Well well.

Well it was laughable. You only have to take a cursory glance at the language used alongside the volume.

And yeah, he's kind of pivotal in one of, if not our best area of play. And that's not to say he should be picked, just that it has to be factored in to any thought process.

What's that? If it's defence, is there any evidence to suggest he's a better defensive organiser than, say, Joseph? And is that a role you want your primary creator to be taking on? Or even your secondary creator...

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: apologies, but edited - Billy actually does get quite a lot of what you youngsters call hate speech.

"Hate speech"?

Puja

fat, immobile, slow, bad human. I am being slightly tongue in cheek, in what us oldsters call humour.

That's not far from being justified tho...

Stom wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: glad I amused you. The point is that lots of players get stick, but it doesn't mean that they are 'hated'....this isn't insta

So Faz coordinates defence, as well as (say) playing 10 and organises and communicates the backs defence in real time. Well well.

Well it was laughable. You only have to take a cursory glance at the language used alongside the volume.

And yeah, he's kind of pivotal in one of, if not our best area of play. And that's not to say he should be picked, just that it has to be factored in to any thought process.

What's that? If it's defence, is there any evidence to suggest he's a better defensive organiser than, say, Joseph? And is that a role you want your primary creator to be taking on? Or even your secondary creator...

Yes it is and yes he is. Jospeh organises to stay in contact inside and outside with his next man. He's not a defensive leader but an individual contributor. Farrell organises the whole defence and then individual leadership roles take care of their aspects, like lineout / maul defence, ruck defence etc. And it makes little difference if they are a creator or not. You can be dual rolled in terms of leadership and organisation, though it does depends on the individual.

Stom wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: glad I amused you. The point is that lots of players get stick, but it doesn't mean that they are 'hated'....this isn't insta

So Faz coordinates defence, as well as (say) playing 10 and organises and communicates the backs defence in real time. Well well.

Well it was laughable. You only have to take a cursory glance at the language used alongside the volume.

And yeah, he's kind of pivotal in one of, if not our best area of play. And that's not to say he should be picked, just that it has to be factored in to any thought process.

What's that? If it's defence, is there any evidence to suggest he's a better defensive organiser than, say, Joseph? And is that a role you want your primary creator to be taking on? Or even your secondary creator...

JJ is a better defender, and perhaps the better communicator. But JJ isn't the man who carries the team forward at pace to apply pressure, JJ might default to let the man take the outside shoulder, Farrell is the one who defaults to moving up, and I can't think of a single side who think a lack of time on the ball is easier to deal with than better organised defence showing you the outside

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Well it was laughable. You only have to take a cursory glance at the language used alongside the volume.

And yeah, he's kind of pivotal in one of, if not our best area of play. And that's not to say he should be picked, just that it has to be factored in to any thought process.

What's that? If it's defence, is there any evidence to suggest he's a better defensive organiser than, say, Joseph? And is that a role you want your primary creator to be taking on? Or even your secondary creator...

JJ is a better defender, and perhaps the better communicator. But JJ isn't the man who carries the team forward at pace to apply pressure, JJ might default to let the man take the outside shoulder, Farrell is the one who defaults to moving up, and I can't think of a single side who think a lack of time on the ball is easier to deal with than better organised defence showing you the outside

yes, but all too often does it without letting anyone else know or oft inappropriately. See France's try for an obvious example. He's a miles better defender with Barritt telling him what to do. Actually quite a lot of England back line players fly up- Slade, Watson, even May. On JJ, he does both situationally- steps in to stop an attack or shows the outside; but at 13, flying up carries even more risk than at 12 imo. I'd also argue that less time for the attack also means less time for the defence to adapt- its the founding principle of the flat back line.....so its not simple.