RugbyRebels

Beasties wrote:Just on the subject of Furlong v Sinck wtf's happened to Owen Franks? Gone from best in the world a couple of years ago to nowhere.

Age caught up with him.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't know NZ have any much better options than Farrell at 12, maybe Crotty if his head wasn't made of paper mâché, Crotty has better decision making but doesn't have the same passing game.

Also on Farrell, he's rated by a huge number of players across the game, so it's possible we're quite wrong in our preference for not picking him

ALB and SBW are not only good acronyms but also excellent 12's. Crotty is a bit glass jawed but is an excellent 12 and 13, though somewhat under-rated outside NZ.

The Faz mystery continues; he's become a reasonably solid international player, but that's it. And his passing left to right if its any more than 3 yards is still poor, I don't think he even tries a long pass that way any more. Maybe I'm just picky.

SBW is an odd one, a brilliant individual player, akin to Folau in a different role, but all over the place with his teamwork, positioning and decision making. ALB is okay, but nothing special. And critically neither SBW or ALB is an acronym

And yes there are problems with Farrell's passing, but none of the Kiwi options at 12 could fairy be described as better, one might argue with Crotty in particular he has better decision making around the shorter passes, but none of them are close to Faz's wider passing game, and Faz has much faster distribution albeit a little haphazard, especially as noted off his left (though I still recall his fling off the right 5m behind Mike Brown in Dublin with a certain fondness)

Nothing fairy bout ALB or Crotty They are both better all round 12's than Faz in my view; if you are claiming Faz's edge is his passing, then its not much of an edge frankly, if at all.

I'd agree that Mako is the best LH overall but I would still start with Marler who rarely gets a mention in 'world class' debates. Marler for 50 minutes followed by Mako for 30 is more destructive of the opposition than playing them the other way around, IMO. Both would be in my World XXIII.

Oakboy wrote:I'd agree that Mako is the best LH overall but I would still start with Marler who rarely gets a mention in 'world class' debates. Marler for 50 minutes followed by Mako for 30 is more destructive of the opposition than playing them the other way around, IMO. Both would be in my World XXIII.

I'd rather Mako for longer...

He's just world class.

I love Marler, but he's simply a good international. Mako is the best 1 in the world.

I don't see Furlong as that much stronger than Sink in the scrum, certainly not by enough to justify choosing furlong. Mako is the same, others may be a bit better scrummagers, but it's going to be 1 penalty, maybe 2 difference, otherwise most scrums are fairly stable. But Mako offers so much more around the pitch, like Sink, his workrate is insane.

Puja wrote:

Timbo wrote:I don’t think Fofana or Ringrose should be anywhere near a world XV right now, personally.

Who would you have in the centres? It's not a strong position globally.

Puja

Just in terms of talent and match-winning ability, if Manu puts 10 decent games together at full fitness, there aren't many more effective 13s in the world.

Do we have to give EJ some credit for helping to turn players who are there or there abouts into world class players?

3 years ago I'm not sure I'd have said that Mako was best 1 in the world,
Sinck one of the best 3,
May one of the best wingers,
or George one of the best hookers

(And other than Billy, probably no-one else that would have made that list)

And now we're suggesting we could have as many as 5 players who would make a starting world XV, and probably as high as 7 or 8 if we looked at top 30 in the world (two teams)

Hmm, so basically not playing George was actually a fiendishly clever way of making him into a world class player? Interesting.

Actually it's quite difficult to know where to apportion credit in fairness. Maybe there's a large element of these players being raw when Eddie arrived and they've simply matured over time. I suppose we'll find out in a few years when they all have books to promote whether Eddie deserves most of the credit.

May and Sinck have surprised me, I'd just about given up on May becoming a quality international after those early caps when he played like a frightened rabbit. I also doubted Sinck's ability to become a solid scrummager at this level but he's proved me wrong on that count and added massively to the team in the last few months.

Renniks wrote:Do we have to give EJ some credit for helping to turn players who are there or there abouts into world class players?

3 years ago I'm not sure I'd have said that Mako was best 1 in the world,
Sinck one of the best 3,
May one of the best wingers,
or George one of the best hookers

(And other than Billy, probably no-one else that would have made that list)

And now we're suggesting we could have as many as 5 players who would make a starting world XV, and probably as high as 7 or 8 if we looked at top 30 in the world (two teams)

We can temper that some, with:
Daly, one of the best wingers forced to play poorly at FB
Lawtoje, two great locks forced to play poorly at 6

And more besides (eg Marler, the possibility of Ford as SH cover)

Mikey Brown wrote:I have no idea why you'd do that but okay.

Alan Wyn Jones can play....but he is not top draw....the Welsh have built him up into an icon so they can sing songs about him...isnt it.

Oakboy wrote:How can opinion vary so much? IMO, Farrell cannot be in the top 45 players on the grounds that he would not get into the top three teams selected from world rugby.

Not too sure about that logic. He is worth a top 25 slot at least on his kicking.
Anyway..how do you compare a player in a first team of weak resources to brilliant 3rd choice player in a blessed team?

Oakboy wrote:I'd agree that Mako is the best LH overall but I would still start with Marler who rarely gets a mention in 'world class' debates. Marler for 50 minutes followed by Mako for 30 is more destructive of the opposition than playing them the other way around, IMO. Both would be in my World XXIII.

You know...Mako is getting so built up these days. There is no question in old fashioned terms he is brilliant about the park. I am not sure he has ever been the absolutely dominant scrummager you should be to classed as the worlds best loosehead.

Ok. At the elite level, its swings and roundabouts and front row can be marginal, centimeter stuff. Or about streetwise, bluff and counter bluff. Mako has never let anyone down so maybe its there.

richy678 wrote:

Oakboy wrote:How can opinion vary so much? IMO, Farrell cannot be in the top 45 players on the grounds that he would not get into the top three teams selected from world rugby.

Not too sure about that logic. He is worth a top 25 slot at least on his kicking.
Anyway..how do you compare a player in a first team of weak resources to brilliant 3rd choice player in a blessed team?

What if his kicking %age is safely...well poor.

It's actually worse than 6...Welsh kickers.

Yes, 6 Welsh kickers, not 6 WORLD kickers.

He is not an iceman, he is an average international kicker. He's on a par with Finn Russell, ffs. He's not on a par with Sexton or Laidlaw (though it's hard to beat Laidlaw when he turns down every kick that's remotely difficult) or Halfpenny or Biggar. He's marginally better than Foley or Barrett...

Stom wrote:

richy678 wrote:

Oakboy wrote:How can opinion vary so much? IMO, Farrell cannot be in the top 45 players on the grounds that he would not get into the top three teams selected from world rugby.

Not too sure about that logic. He is worth a top 25 slot at least on his kicking.
Anyway..how do you compare a player in a first team of weak resources to brilliant 3rd choice player in a blessed team?

What if his kicking %age is safely...well poor.

It's actually worse than 6...Welsh kickers.

Yes, 6 Welsh kickers, not 6 WORLD kickers.

He is not an iceman, he is an average international kicker. He's on a par with Finn Russell, ffs. He's not on a par with Sexton or Laidlaw (though it's hard to beat Laidlaw when he turns down every kick that's remotely difficult) or Halfpenny or Biggar. He's marginally better than Foley or Barrett...

I will obviously give way to the cold stats, however - as an observer who can see Faz's limitations - not least his "tackling technique" - he is better than 46th best player in the world.

He cops flack on here, I know, as everyone likes the silky old fashioned standoff skills of Ford, and Cips is (figuratively) lusted after. Faz does deserve better than 46th in the world though, purely as a rugby player.

richy678 wrote:

Stom wrote:

richy678 wrote:
Not too sure about that logic. He is worth a top 25 slot at least on his kicking.
Anyway..how do you compare a player in a first team of weak resources to brilliant 3rd choice player in a blessed team?

What if his kicking %age is safely...well poor.

It's actually worse than 6...Welsh kickers.

Yes, 6 Welsh kickers, not 6 WORLD kickers.

He is not an iceman, he is an average international kicker. He's on a par with Finn Russell, ffs. He's not on a par with Sexton or Laidlaw (though it's hard to beat Laidlaw when he turns down every kick that's remotely difficult) or Halfpenny or Biggar. He's marginally better than Foley or Barrett...

I will obviously give way to the cold stats, however - as an observer who can see Faz's limitations - not least his "tackling technique" - he is better than 46th best player in the world.

He cops flack on here, I know, as everyone likes the silky old fashioned standoff skills of Ford, and Cips is (figuratively) lusted after. Faz does deserve better than 46th in the world though, purely as a rugby player.

Why does he deserve a slot in the top players?

I'm not questioning the fact he has an impact, but he's never one of the top 25 players in World Rugby. And if you're saying he's in the top 45...you're saying he's better than many other players who could also argue they deserve a spot.

richy678 wrote:

Stom wrote:

richy678 wrote:
Not too sure about that logic. He is worth a top 25 slot at least on his kicking.
Anyway..how do you compare a player in a first team of weak resources to brilliant 3rd choice player in a blessed team?

What if his kicking %age is safely...well poor.

It's actually worse than 6...Welsh kickers.

Yes, 6 Welsh kickers, not 6 WORLD kickers.

He is not an iceman, he is an average international kicker. He's on a par with Finn Russell, ffs. He's not on a par with Sexton or Laidlaw (though it's hard to beat Laidlaw when he turns down every kick that's remotely difficult) or Halfpenny or Biggar. He's marginally better than Foley or Barrett...

I will obviously give way to the cold stats, however - as an observer who can see Faz's limitations - not least his "tackling technique" - he is better than 46th best player in the world.

He cops flack on here, I know, as everyone likes the silky old fashioned standoff skills of Ford, and Cips is (figuratively) lusted after. Faz does deserve better than 46th in the world though, purely as a rugby player.

It does sound harsh to say he's 46th in the world at best, but think about it this way - where is he in the fly-half rankings? Below Barrett and Mo'unga, provably behind Ford, definitely behind Sexton. And I don't know he'd fare any better in the 12 rankings.

He is a good player, but there's a lot of good players who wouldn't be in the top 50 in the world.

Puja

He cannot be behind Mo'unga. It'd be quite reasonable to think Mo'unga will go on to (easily) surpass Farrell, but he's not done so yet.

Digby wrote:He cannot be behind Mo'unga. It'd be quite reasonable to think Mo'unga will go on to (easily) surpass Farrell, but he's not done so yet.

Really? How come? You'd genuinely expect that, if Farrell were a Kiwi, New Zealand would pick him ahead of Mo'unga?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:He cannot be behind Mo'unga. It'd be quite reasonable to think Mo'unga will go on to (easily) surpass Farrell, but he's not done so yet.

Really? How come? You'd genuinely expect that, if Farrell were a Kiwi, New Zealand would pick him ahead of Mo'unga?

Puja

He's not ahead of actual games played so far. And actually for delivery in the next few weeks yes I do think they'd pick Farrell ahead of Mo'unga, but heading into the next WC again I'd expect they'd pick Mo'unga. Farrell does have a lot of positives, he's just not as good as Ford, but I don't overlook he's on 70 odd caps and Mo'unga is on 7 or so

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:He cannot be behind Mo'unga. It'd be quite reasonable to think Mo'unga will go on to (easily) surpass Farrell, but he's not done so yet.

Really? How come? You'd genuinely expect that, if Farrell were a Kiwi, New Zealand would pick him ahead of Mo'unga?

Puja

He's not ahead of actual games played so far. And actually for delivery in the next few weeks yes I do think they'd pick Farrell ahead of Mo'unga, but heading into the next WC again I'd expect they'd pick Mo'unga. Farrell does have a lot of positives, he's just not as good as Ford, but I don't overlook he's on 70 odd caps and Mo'unga is on 7 or so

For once I actually agree with Digby, you can't pick Mo'unga ahead of Farrell. Yet.

But you can pick Barrett, Sexton, Ford, and have debates over Biggar, Russell, Lopez, Foley, Pollard.

So, yeah, Farrell is among the top 9 FHs in the world. Meaning he's probably within the top 135 players in World Rugby.

Russell on his bad days makes about as many mistakes as Farrell, but still creates things Faz couldn’t dream of. When both players are at their best Russell is an absurd distance ahead in terms of using his skills to impact open play.

It’s Farrell’s intangibles that boost him so much though. There’s obviously something to this aura he seemingly has that makes him irresistible to coaches, beyond his attitude, high-pressure kicking and being incredibly vocal on the pitch.

It's all subjective. I could argue that Saracens look more creative with Goode at FH if we are analysing Farrell's skill-set. Or, I could argue that Barritt is more important for leadership, motivation and inspiration if we are assessing Farrell's character.

Farrell is an effective international FH but I just cannot see a case for him being one of the best rugby players in the world. Top 100, yes. Top 50, perhaps. Top 15, never.

Stom wrote:

richy678 wrote:

Stom wrote:
What if his kicking %age is safely...well poor.

It's actually worse than 6...Welsh kickers.

Yes, 6 Welsh kickers, not 6 WORLD kickers.

He is not an iceman, he is an average international kicker. He's on a par with Finn Russell, ffs. He's not on a par with Sexton or Laidlaw (though it's hard to beat Laidlaw when he turns down every kick that's remotely difficult) or Halfpenny or Biggar. He's marginally better than Foley or Barrett...

I will obviously give way to the cold stats, however - as an observer who can see Faz's limitations - not least his "tackling technique" - he is better than 46th best player in the world.

He cops flack on here, I know, as everyone likes the silky old fashioned standoff skills of Ford, and Cips is (figuratively) lusted after. Faz does deserve better than 46th in the world though, purely as a rugby player.

Why does he deserve a slot in the top players?

I'm not questioning the fact he has an impact, but he's never one of the top 25 players in World Rugby. And if you're saying he's in the top 45...you're saying he's better than many other players who could also argue they deserve a spot.

I think your trying to attach too much sentiment to the word "deserve" here. I am not claiming Faz has a birth rite or we owe him something. I just believe saying he is not in the top 45 players is doing him a disservice.
Once again - I am not his biggest fan, but in this melding of the 15 recognised positions, to award a grade position on the bell curve - he would be in the top 45.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:He cannot be behind Mo'unga. It'd be quite reasonable to think Mo'unga will go on to (easily) surpass Farrell, but he's not done so yet.

Really? How come? You'd genuinely expect that, if Farrell were a Kiwi, New Zealand would pick him ahead of Mo'unga?

Puja

If selection were based on form, hard no.

richy678 wrote:

Stom wrote:

richy678 wrote:
I will obviously give way to the cold stats, however - as an observer who can see Faz's limitations - not least his "tackling technique" - he is better than 46th best player in the world.

He cops flack on here, I know, as everyone likes the silky old fashioned standoff skills of Ford, and Cips is (figuratively) lusted after. Faz does deserve better than 46th in the world though, purely as a rugby player.

Why does he deserve a slot in the top players?

I'm not questioning the fact he has an impact, but he's never one of the top 25 players in World Rugby. And if you're saying he's in the top 45...you're saying he's better than many other players who could also argue they deserve a spot.

I think your trying to attach too much sentiment to the word "deserve" here. I am not claiming Faz has a birth rite or we owe him something. I just believe saying he is not in the top 45 players is doing him a disservice.
Once again - I am not his biggest fan, but in this melding of the 15 recognised positions, to award a grade position on the bell curve - he would be in the top 45.

I'm going to have to disagree he'd be in the 45.

He might, but it'd be close.

He's just not that amazing. England win more without him, score more tries without him...

And his kicking %age isn't 90%. It's below 80%. Bang average. His tackle technique is poor, he flies out of the line, he can't pass well off one hand, and he has 0 to no running game.

Plus his kicks from hand are ok at best.

Add in the petulance and you get a not particularly good international player.

I don't want to do my top 100, as I will always favour the players I see more often, but I just don't see him being close in skill terms to any top player.