RugbyRebels

Danno wrote:Oh no.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... rnationals

That doesn't actually worry me too much. Farrell works hard to be as good as he can be. At times it feels like he defaults to kicking because he's not good enough at scanning for opportunities (or can't react to them quickly enough when he sees them etc), but I don't think he's going to say other options are bad.

It was tongue firmly in cheek. I'm far more worried about coaches throttling his instincts. Hard agree on Farrell's work ethic

If a Smith-Farrell 10-12 pairing does not set the world alight we all know that Farrell will be at 10 for the next match, regardless.

Nah Tuilagi will break and Ford will get called up.

Oakboy wrote:Yet, if it's not Ford's fault at all, why has Jones dropped him. As far as I can tell, from what I am told on this thread anyway, Ford WAS doing what Jones wanted and doing it well. Now he has been dropped and replaced by Smith, a young flair-merchant. Worse, though, Farrell has not gone and is the only other FH in the squad.

Somebody tell me why the two FHs are NOT Smith and Ford. OR, why both are not in the squad with Farrell just as a IC option.

I agree. Although it’s not really accurate to label Smith as a ‘flair merchant’. He certainly has flair, but that helps to create a false narrative that he is a maverick type of 10, when his game management is now top notch. Quins love broken field, but a lot of our play is a lot more structured than you’d think.

I’m not suggesting that’s what you meant BTW - I just worry that flair = maverick in a lot of people’s minds which creates doubt.

Good point. I was just meaning that his skill level was high.

Strangely enough, IF Smith can get his application to a level, relative to HIS skill, to match Farrell's balance, he will be special. Much as I don't like Farrell's presence/influence, he has to be acknowledged as being one of the most effective players relative to his skill.

Keegan was the best footballer I have ever seen in terms of performance relative to his skill level. Farrell is similar, IMO. Smith, has the skill (flair??) to take his performance way beyond Farrell's IF he achieves similar application and IF he is allowed to develop while running the show. Any sort of restriction, including Farrell at 12, could curb his instincts AND demoralise him, IMO.

Farrell at 12 is simply a different limitation to what he has at Quins. It's not like the Quins midfield is an all singing all dancing affair, so he's already shown he can handle some restriction

Digby wrote:Farrell at 12 is simply a different limitation to what he has at Quins. It's not like the Quins midfield is an all singing all dancing affair, so he's already shown he can handle some restriction

But, fundamentally, nobody stops him being in charge of playing situations at Quins. Players' individual skill limitations outside him are simply factors that he can cope with because he makes the decisions.

Farrell is a player of limited skill at 12 but he rules the roost. That is a double whammy curtailing Smith's natural instinct, his playing skill and his game-running decision-making.

Oakboy wrote:
Strangely enough, IF Smith can get his application to a level, relative to HIS skill

From what I’ve read, it already is.

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Yet, if it's not Ford's fault at all, why has Jones dropped him. As far as I can tell, from what I am told on this thread anyway, Ford WAS doing what Jones wanted and doing it well. Now he has been dropped and replaced by Smith, a young flair-merchant. Worse, though, Farrell has not gone and is the only other FH in the squad.

Somebody tell me why the two FHs are NOT Smith and Ford. OR, why both are not in the squad with Farrell just as a IC option.

I agree. Although it’s not really accurate to label Smith as a ‘flair merchant’. He certainly has flair, but that helps to create a false narrative that he is a maverick type of 10, when his game management is now top notch. Quins love broken field, but a lot of our play is a lot more structured than you’d think.

I’m not suggesting that’s what you meant BTW - I just worry that flair = maverick in a lot of people’s minds which creates doubt.

I disagree. His game management is much better than he's often given credit for but it is not top notch and nowhere near it. He failed, along with Care, to keep Sale at arm's distance the other week which meant their pack tired, fell off the pace due to the number of phases of defence required. Last season Youngs and Ford provided a masterclass in how a lesser team can dominate a game at WR, this included a period where with a two player advantage Care and Smith messed around inside their own 22 and lost the 15 v 13 period by 3-0.

Smith is an excellent 10 but he's not the finished article and I do worry that some fans and the media who are building up into the Messiah for English rugby are forgetting that he's 22 and that most starting international flyhalfs are older than that for good reason. You learn game management as you get older. Smith may end up as the premier 10 in the world but right now he's merely very good.

I just hope Smith gets a proper backline to work with and not the type of unbalanced crap Ford had to try and drag round the park.

But, will Smith learn how to manage a game better with Farrell at 12? Conversely, if, say, Tuilagi and Slade are outside him, will he make natural progress more quickly?

Then, there is Youngs. Will he help or hinder?

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:Farrell at 12 is simply a different limitation to what he has at Quins. It's not like the Quins midfield is an all singing all dancing affair, so he's already shown he can handle some restriction

But, fundamentally, nobody stops him being in charge of playing situations at Quins. Players' individual skill limitations outside him are simply factors that he can cope with because he makes the decisions.

Farrell is a player of limited skill at 12 but he rules the roost. That is a double whammy curtailing Smith's natural instinct, his playing skill and his game-running decision-making.

I'm not sure what exactly you're picturing here? Stop him being in charge in what sense? I feel like it's all been said in this thread already but if Eddie wants Smith to play what's in front of him then I don't see Farrell overruling that.

My biggest issue with Farrell at 10 is how passive he is with ball in hand. He'll throw the occasional great pass but defenders can pretty much ignore him and drift out. At 12 this has been an issue too when playing a very unbalanced centre pairing, with Ford often creating that half gap and then nobody there to exploit it, but if he's paired with Tuilagi that all changes.

With Smith and Tuilagi either side of him I can see that really working for Farrell. He can just focus on pointing and shouting. Following his horrific form in that Autumn Nations thing he actually seemed to be improving quite a bit as a runner.

Youngs is still a huge question mark. If he's allowed to do what he's good at and create a bit of space for Smith then great, but who knows. Smith has been coping with Care playing like an absolute drain for the last 6 months though, so there's hope.

FKAS wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Yet, if it's not Ford's fault at all, why has Jones dropped him. As far as I can tell, from what I am told on this thread anyway, Ford WAS doing what Jones wanted and doing it well. Now he has been dropped and replaced by Smith, a young flair-merchant. Worse, though, Farrell has not gone and is the only other FH in the squad.

Somebody tell me why the two FHs are NOT Smith and Ford. OR, why both are not in the squad with Farrell just as a IC option.

I agree. Although it’s not really accurate to label Smith as a ‘flair merchant’. He certainly has flair, but that helps to create a false narrative that he is a maverick type of 10, when his game management is now top notch. Quins love broken field, but a lot of our play is a lot more structured than you’d think.

I’m not suggesting that’s what you meant BTW - I just worry that flair = maverick in a lot of people’s minds which creates doubt.

I disagree. His game management is much better than he's often given credit for but it is not top notch and nowhere near it. He failed, along with Care, to keep Sale at arm's distance the other week which meant their pack tired, fell off the pace due to the number of phases of defence required. Last season Youngs and Ford provided a masterclass in how a lesser team can dominate a game at WR, this included a period where with a two player advantage Care and Smith messed around inside their own 22 and lost the 15 v 13 period by 3-0.

Smith is an excellent 10 but he's not the finished article and I do worry that some fans and the media who are building up into the Messiah for English rugby are forgetting that he's 22 and that most starting international flyhalfs are older than that for good reason. You learn game management as you get older. Smith may end up as the premier 10 in the world but right now he's merely very good.

I just hope Smith gets a proper backline to work with and not the type of unbalanced crap Ford had to try and drag round the park.

I’m not ‘building him up into the Messiah for English rugby’, but I do think you’re being overly harsh when you say his game management is ‘nowhere near’ top notch. For your one example of him not managing a game particularly well, there are plenty of examples of him doing the total opposite.

Do I think his game management will improve with age/experience, 100%, yes. I just think his current skill set in that area is higher than you appear to.

Thanks for dismissing me to the ‘some fans’ club though.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:Farrell at 12 is simply a different limitation to what he has at Quins. It's not like the Quins midfield is an all singing all dancing affair, so he's already shown he can handle some restriction

But, fundamentally, nobody stops him being in charge of playing situations at Quins. Players' individual skill limitations outside him are simply factors that he can cope with because he makes the decisions.

Farrell is a player of limited skill at 12 but he rules the roost. That is a double whammy curtailing Smith's natural instinct, his playing skill and his game-running decision-making.

I'm not sure what exactly you're picturing here? Stop him being in charge in what sense? I feel like it's all been said in this thread already but if Eddie wants Smith to play what's in front of him then I don't see Farrell overruling that.

My biggest issue with Farrell at 10 is how passive he is with ball in hand. He'll throw the occasional great pass but defenders can pretty much ignore him and drift out. At 12 this has been an issue too when playing a very unbalanced centre pairing, with Ford often creating that half gap and then nobody there to exploit it, but if he's paired with Tuilagi that all changes.

With Smith and Tuilagi either side of him I can see that really working for Farrell. He can just focus on pointing and shouting. Following his horrific form in that Autumn Nations thing he actually seemed to be improving quite a bit as a runner.

Youngs is still a huge question mark. If he's allowed to do what he's good at and create a bit of space for Smith then great, but who knows. Smith has been coping with Care playing like an absolute drain for the last 6 months though, so there's hope.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. Farrell is by definition a limiting factor, IMO. He is what he is. Jones loves him. He will be in the XV. I think he is a disaster waiting to happen at 12 and that Jones should have the bottle to pick him at 10 or leave him out. I think a 10/12/13 combination of Smith/Farrell/Tuilagi is horrible. It would be Smith ordered to shovel it to Farrell, Farrell shovelling it to Tuilagi, big impact, Tuilagi injured.

Some months/years back, I debated long and hard with Banquo about Tuilagi. He wanted him at 12. I wanted him at 13. Now, I think Tuilagi is at 12 or on the bench. He no longer has the raw line-breaking burst at 13 that I used to revere. He has, though, improved his defence-targeting and his off-loading. He would give Smith superb options at 12 whereas Farrell would give him none. I know many have written Slade off. I would too if he could not rise to a Smith/Tuilagi combo. Slade has always looked hampered outside Farrell and needs a test with someone else.

Farrell would offer him little running threat, sure, assuming he had none coming from elsewhere, which has often been our issue. That’s an issue with a lot of selections though, we often look totally impotent without Manu.

Farrell is a lot of things but I don’t think he would demand that all play comes through his hands in the way you have described. We can at least agree we don’t want to see 12. Farrell 13. Slade.

Haven’t seen enough of Tuilagi recently to comment specifically on him at 12 vs 13. If he’s 100% fit and at least 50% of the player he was then he starts.

Smith, Tuilagi, Slade would probably be fun to watch but there’s little point entertaining the idea of a midfield without Faz.

Oakboy wrote:We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. Farrell is by definition a limiting factor, IMO. He is what he is. Jones loves him. He will be in the XV. I think he is a disaster waiting to happen at 12 and that Jones should have the bottle to pick him at 10 or leave him out. I think a 10/12/13 combination of Smith/Farrell/Tuilagi is horrible. It would be Smith ordered to shovel it to Farrell, Farrell shovelling it to Tuilagi, big impact, Tuilagi injured.

Having Farrell at 12 allows England to split their playmakers on either side of the breakdown. Have as many players comfortable at first receiver, or working out the back of a pod of forwards as possible. The amount of times at test level a team will have 10-12-13 lined up putting the ball through hands is negligible.

Timbo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. Farrell is by definition a limiting factor, IMO. He is what he is. Jones loves him. He will be in the XV. I think he is a disaster waiting to happen at 12 and that Jones should have the bottle to pick him at 10 or leave him out. I think a 10/12/13 combination of Smith/Farrell/Tuilagi is horrible. It would be Smith ordered to shovel it to Farrell, Farrell shovelling it to Tuilagi, big impact, Tuilagi injured.

Having Farrell at 12 allows England to split their playmakers on either side of the breakdown. Have as many players comfortable at first receiver, or working out the back of a pod of forwards as possible. The amount of times at test level a team will have 10-12-13 lined up putting the ball through hands is negligible.

Agreed, but it has usually amounted to which of Ford or Farrell kicked it up in the air. We surely must move on from that?

Yes. It can be Smith or Farrell.

On a non facetious note, EJ is on record as saying that - paraphrasing - ball in hand is more favoured with this year's law changes. AUS binning SA off twice in a row despite their (SA) reliance/insistence on kicking every 3rd-5th phase does slightly reflect that. Whether he follows through with that well, I guess we'll find out in a fortnight.

It does make some sense though, given the number of penalties awarded, and quickly awarded, for not rolling in the Prem of late, it seems better to be on the attack than waiting for a kick, penalty or a jackal

http://rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5499

Further evidence that the RFU and Burt were right to play hardball with SArmitage and refuse to make exceptions, no matter how exceptional someone believes themselves to be. This, plus the Welsh and Scottish lineups this weekend, compared to England's 100% attendance at just a training camp, validates our decision to keep England selection just to those under the auspices of the EPS agreement.

Puja

It's always been about attendance at training camps, performances and results are for the weak

Digby wrote:It's always been about attendance at training camps, performances and results are for the weak

I suspect Australia's results might be impacted by the withdrawals and England's might be impacted by preparation time on their own terms.

Puja

Obano is now out with a serious ACL rupture. No news on how long for, but you've got to worry it'll be the majority of this season. Poor sod can't seem to catch a break with injuries.

Puja

Prep is important, better players likely more important still. I mean okay if your levels of fatigue/prep are simply god awful it's going to be a thing, but the relative gains in this area aren't likely to be chalk and cheese.

Digby wrote:Prep is important, better players likely more important still. I mean okay if your levels of fatigue/prep are simply god awful it's going to be a thing, but the relative gains in this area aren't likely to be chalk and cheese.

But we are currently getting all of our best players because of our previous hard line on the matter. So now we get to have both prep and best players.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Prep is important, better players likely more important still. I mean okay if your levels of fatigue/prep are simply god awful it's going to be a thing, but the relative gains in this area aren't likely to be chalk and cheese.

But we are currently getting all of our best players because of our previous hard line on the matter. So now we get to have both prep and best players.

Puja

Rarely has that resulted in a string of strong performances and results so tiny whoop. And if we were say to lose Ford and both Vunipolas to France in the next season or so then not so much anyway.