RugbyRebels

Mikey Brown wrote:No, not really. I don't think I suggested that. I'm not saying Farrell doesn't offer a lot, I just find all this stuff about his consistency/reliability doesn't match up with reality.

This never-ending debate will roll on. Let's face it, there will only be a different approach once Jones is gone. With him there, I agree that Farrell should be at 10. With Jones gone, I'd not have Farrell in the squad.

For now, I'd pick Farrell, Slade and Marchant at 10, 12, 13 and stick with it. Experimentation at this late stage should be restricted to the other backs and kept to a minimum.

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:No, not really. I don't think I suggested that. I'm not saying Farrell doesn't offer a lot, I just find all this stuff about his consistency/reliability doesn't match up with reality.

This never-ending debate will roll on. Let's face it, there will only be a different approach once Jones is gone. With him there, I agree that Farrell should be at 10. With Jones gone, I'd not have Farrell in the squad.

For now, I'd pick Farrell, Slade and Marchant at 10, 12, 13 and stick with it. Experimentation at this late stage should be restricted to the other backs and kept to a minimum.

With Jones gone who are your 10 and 12s then? I would expect any incoming coach to be more pragmatic than Jones not less

pandion wrote:

Puja wrote:I'm impressed that you've managed to slip Ford into the list of Barnes, Hodgson, Smith "who'll throw it around and shit the bed" like Ford isn't one of the most impressive game controllers in the world who won the league last year by mostly playing aggressively regimented rugby.

Puja

No he's not and never has been. He's a defensive liability and has struggled to lead good teams, unless he has front foot all the time. He's always been over hyped by English fans in the same way Faz is unjustly slagged off.

Ford was however really good last year and should have been ahead of Smith for England. On the bench though no double 10 and certainly not in front of Faz.

You're impressively confident in your opinion and I do approve of that, but I am confused by your conclusions. Ford's leadership and game management was pretty much the sole reason that Leicester weren't relegated and we very definitely did not have the front foot. He was the fly-half for almost all of England's successful period, not because of "throwing it around" but because of his game management.

I can understand holding the opinion that "Farrell is a better 10 than Ford". I'll disagree with you, but I can see how you got there. I can't understand holding the opinion, "Ford isn't a game manager and never has been". That's just baffling.

Puja

Puja wrote:

pandion wrote:

Puja wrote:I'm impressed that you've managed to slip Ford into the list of Barnes, Hodgson, Smith "who'll throw it around and shit the bed" like Ford isn't one of the most impressive game controllers in the world who won the league last year by mostly playing aggressively regimented rugby.

Puja

No he's not and never has been. He's a defensive liability and has struggled to lead good teams, unless he has front foot all the time. He's always been over hyped by English fans in the same way Faz is unjustly slagged off.

Ford was however really good last year and should have been ahead of Smith for England. On the bench though no double 10 and certainly not in front of Faz.

You're impressively confident in your opinion and I do approve of that, but I am confused by your conclusions. Ford's leadership and game management was pretty much the sole reason that Leicester weren't relegated and we very definitely did not have the front foot. He was the fly-half for almost all of England's successful period, not because of "throwing it around" but because of his game management.

I can understand holding the opinion that "Farrell is a better 10 than Ford". I'll disagree with you, but I can see how you got there. I can't understand holding the opinion, "Ford isn't a game manager and never has been". That's just baffling.

Puja

I agree Ford's a game manager and last season (his best imo) he was very good but nothing like one of the best in the world. He's been hot n cold in top teams performing averagely all his career. As a 10 he has to cop some of the blame for not controlling things and moving them round the park. He's also suffered from the yips, though less as he's matured in fairness.

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Doesn't matter a great deal who plays at 13 whilst Smith is at 10 because they never seem to get the ball. For England anyway, even when it's Marchant who works really well with Smith AR club level. I think Marchant is easily international class and in a different side would be far more noticeable.

Smith will continue at 10 that much is obvious. A) because Ford is injured and might be back up and running by 6N earliest and B) the attack is built around Smith being able to pass or run as he chooses. Now Smith made a real hash of it in Australia but England lack another 10 with a running game so it's either tweak the attack or retain Smith. There's also no real option on the Ford/Smith level available to England outside those two. Finn Smith might get there or maybe Haydon-Wood but not soon.

as I said......... no midfield.

Or just one you don't like. Not that I like it much either but it is an improvement on what we have immediately post Covid.

just making the point that' midfield is a (n obvious) weak point; even v oz it was pretty pants.

Raggs wrote:Ford is a better 10 than Farrell.

Name a better EQP 12 than Farrell.

that's a frickin high bar, given how few EQPs play at 12, yet simultaneously low as Faz is such an average 12, and he doesn't even play 12 for Sarries. Dingwall for one , and I think POC but no evidence.. Farrell is a much better 10 than 12 imo.

pandion wrote:

Puja wrote:I'm impressed that you've managed to slip Ford into the list of Barnes, Hodgson, Smith "who'll throw it around and shit the bed" like Ford isn't one of the most impressive game controllers in the world who won the league last year by mostly playing aggressively regimented rugby.

Puja

No he's not and never has been. He's a defensive liability and has struggled to lead good teams, unless he has front foot all the time. He's always been over hyped by English fans in the same way Faz is unjustly slagged off.

Ford was however really good last year and should have been ahead of Smith for England. On the bench though no double 10 and certainly not in front of Faz.

jeez if you think Ford is a defensive liability, what do think about Smith. Faz is a liability in defence in his own way- ask Porter for details.

Mikey Brown wrote:No, not really. I don't think I suggested that. I'm not saying Farrell doesn't offer a lot, I just find all this stuff about his consistency/reliability doesn't match up with reality.

he's an excellent club 10 in the armchair that sarries normally give him.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Ford is a better 10 than Farrell.

Name a better EQP 12 than Farrell.

that's a frickin high bar, given how few EQPs play at 12, yet simultaneously low as Faz is such an average 12, and he doesn't even play 12 for Sarries. Dingwall for one , and I think POC but no evidence.. Farrell is a much better 10 than 12 imo.

Farrell is an average international 12, whilst also being a very good leader on the pitch who definitely adds something to the squad.

We've got other 12s in the league, but none that scream to me that they'd be an upgrade.

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Ford is a better 10 than Farrell.

Name a better EQP 12 than Farrell.

that's a frickin high bar, given how few EQPs play at 12, yet simultaneously low as Faz is such an average 12, and he doesn't even play 12 for Sarries. Dingwall for one , and I think POC but no evidence.. Farrell is a much better 10 than 12 imo.

Farrell is an average international 12, whilst also being a very good leader on the pitch who definitely adds something to the squad.

We've got other 12s in the league, but none that scream to me that they'd be an upgrade.

We will have to agree to differ on half of the above. I can see why forwards and coaches like Farrell- but imo they are seeing the trees not the woods.

There aren't many EQP 12's tbh- I somewhat shoehorned Dingwall in that he switches between 12 and 13 (very well), and he's a much better centre ball in hand than Farrell tbh. Atkinson's time has gone, Devoto is never fit, and...er...Lozowski hardly plays there...POC ditto....I'm struggling now

Easy to call for Farrell to be dropped when you don't have to say who replaces him.

Raggs wrote:Easy to call for Farrell to be dropped when you don't have to say who replaces him.

Very true but I’d go Dingwall then Slade if that helps. Sticking with someone who handbrakes your play seems dreadfully dull.

What’s your favoured midfield?

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Easy to call for Farrell to be dropped when you don't have to say who replaces him.

Very true but I’d go Dingwall then Slade if that helps. Sticking with someone who handbrakes your play seems dreadfully dull.

What’s your favoured midfield?

No idea! I like the idea of Slade but feel he not actually gone well there in the past, same with loz etc. Farrell 12 and Manu 13 probably, with maybe marchant as backup.

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Easy to call for Farrell to be dropped when you don't have to say who replaces him.

Very true but I’d go Dingwall then Slade if that helps. Sticking with someone who handbrakes your play seems dreadfully dull.

What’s your favoured midfield?

No idea! I like the idea of Slade but feel he not actually gone well there in the past, same with loz etc. Farrell 12 and Manu 13 probably, with maybe marchant as backup.

Agreed Slade hasn't shown up well at 12 for England. There was the first half Vs SA and that's about it for good 12 performances from him.

Dingwall has played well for Saints but I'm not particularly convinced he would make an impact at international level. I'd rather we gave Kelly more caps as he's very similar to Dingwall but more physical and explosive, he's also showing signs of a kicking game with a crossfield kick for a try and knocking over a conversion towards the end of last season.

Farrell, Manu is probably the best we've got currently.

Talking about Manu feels as useful as talking about Greenwood making a return.

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Easy to call for Farrell to be dropped when you don't have to say who replaces him.

Very true but I’d go Dingwall then Slade if that helps. Sticking with someone who handbrakes your play seems dreadfully dull.

What’s your favoured midfield?

No idea! I like the idea of Slade but feel he not actually gone well there in the past, same with loz etc. Farrell 12 and Manu 13 probably, with maybe marchant as backup.

Lol ...but who at 10 (as the midfield is 10/12/13 in my mind ).

FKAS wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote: Very true but I’d go Dingwall then Slade if that helps. Sticking with someone who handbrakes your play seems dreadfully dull.

What’s your favoured midfield?

No idea! I like the idea of Slade but feel he not actually gone well there in the past, same with loz etc. Farrell 12 and Manu 13 probably, with maybe marchant as backup.

Agreed Slade hasn't shown up well at 12 for England. There was the first half Vs SA and that's about it for good 12 performances from him.

Dingwall has played well for Saints but I'm not particularly convinced he would make an impact at international level. I'd rather we gave Kelly more caps as he's very similar to Dingwall but more physical and explosive, he's also showing signs of a kicking game with a crossfield kick for a try and knocking over a conversion towards the end of last season.

Farrell, Manu is probably the best we've got currently.

Surprisingly a Tigers fan goes for a Tiger....Dingwall also has a good kicking game btw . I've not seen enough of Kelly in fairness, but I have seen a lot of Fraser, and he's a very intelligent centre, which is what we have been lacking

On Slade, he's not played much at 12 for England in fairness (and then in a misfiring team outside a 10 trying to find his own way), and Faz has really not shown that well there either, yet we keep capping him .

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote: Very true but I’d go Dingwall then Slade if that helps. Sticking with someone who handbrakes your play seems dreadfully dull.

What’s your favoured midfield?

No idea! I like the idea of Slade but feel he not actually gone well there in the past, same with loz etc. Farrell 12 and Manu 13 probably, with maybe marchant as backup.

Lol ...but who at 10 (as the midfield is 10/12/13 in my mind ).

Ford, but happy to bring Smith on for now as I'm confident in ford.

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:
No idea! I like the idea of Slade but feel he not actually gone well there in the past, same with loz etc. Farrell 12 and Manu 13 probably, with maybe marchant as backup.

Lol ...but who at 10 (as the midfield is 10/12/13 in my mind ).

Ford, but happy to bring Smith on for now as I'm confident in ford.

two out of three ain't bad though the odds on Manu being a force at the wrong end of injuries and career have to be slimmer than slim jack mcslim
as an aside I'm not convinced about Smith in this England side tbh.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote: Lol ...but who at 10 (as the midfield is 10/12/13 in my mind ).

Ford, but happy to bring Smith on for now as I'm confident in ford.

two out of three ain't bad though the odds on Manu being a force at the wrong end of injuries and career have to be slimmer than slim jack mcslim
as an aside I'm not convinced about Smith in this England side tbh.

I'm still not wedded to Smith, but in the absence of anyone obviously offering a great improvement on his potential, I'm happy to keep developing him as the backup to Ford.

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Raggs wrote:
No idea! I like the idea of Slade but feel he not actually gone well there in the past, same with loz etc. Farrell 12 and Manu 13 probably, with maybe marchant as backup.

Agreed Slade hasn't shown up well at 12 for England. There was the first half Vs SA and that's about it for good 12 performances from him.

Dingwall has played well for Saints but I'm not particularly convinced he would make an impact at international level. I'd rather we gave Kelly more caps as he's very similar to Dingwall but more physical and explosive, he's also showing signs of a kicking game with a crossfield kick for a try and knocking over a conversion towards the end of last season.

Farrell, Manu is probably the best we've got currently.

Surprisingly a Tigers fan goes for a Tiger....Dingwall also has a good kicking game btw . I've not seen enough of Kelly in fairness, but I have seen a lot of Fraser, and he's a very intelligent centre, which is what we have been lacking

On Slade, he's not played much at 12 for England in fairness (and then in a misfiring team outside a 10 trying to find his own way), and Faz has really not shown that well there either, yet we keep capping him .

Dingwall is a very intelligent centre and organised a good defence. I can't remember seeing him kick the ball to be honest. He cuts nice lines but seems to lack a little physicality. Certainly wouldn't be adverse to him or Ojomoh getting a go in the AIs but Kelly's form last season was simply exceptional and only highlighted once the Tigers attack started grinding to a halt without him. I really hadn't expected us to miss him anywhere close to as much as we did, him out the side had more impact than Ford out the side.

Slade's had chances and disappointed. We can't give every player the excuse that they are playing on a misfiring team. He was there as the midfield general and well he wasn't. He's a good defensive player with a nice range of skills on the ball but we need more presence. Farrell for his many flaws has been the England 12 holding the midfield together and freeing up space for the 10 during recent England successes including the awesome unbeaten run period and then the last world cup where we beat Argentina, Australia and New Zealand, just couldn't finish the SH sweep.

FKAS wrote:We can't give every player the excuse that they are playing on a misfiring team.

There’s a point where you have to wonder why we’re unable to consistently get much out of any of the backs we have available. Trying to bed in new combinations with our revolving door approach to the coaching staff and tactics is obviously going to have a big impact.

I know we’re lacking some clear world-class midfield (yes, 10, 12, 13) talents, but we do have 5 or 6 players who are definitely capable of delivering at this level. Trouble is we’ve now been in this limbo state for such a long time there is no real trustworthy combination of players/tactics to fall back on. Ford/Farrell/Slade is the last combo that got any decent sort of run, and I think we all hoped to have moved forward from that by now.

Mikey Brown wrote:

FKAS wrote:We can't give every player the excuse that they are playing on a misfiring team.

There’s a point where you have to wonder why we’re unable to consistently get much out of any of the backs we have available. Trying to bed in new combinations with our revolving door approach to the coaching staff and tactics is obviously going to have a big impact.

I know we’re lacking some clear world-class midfield (yes, 10, 12, 13) talents, but we do have 5 or 6 players who are definitely capable of delivering at this level. Trouble is we’ve now been in this limbo state for such a long time there is no real trustworthy combination of players/tactics to fall back on. Ford/Farrell/Slade is the last combo that got any decent sort of run, and I think we all hoped to have moved forward from that by now.

MB, your last sentence sums it up. Ford and Slade somehow produced despite being hampered by Farrell at 12!!!

Of course, punditry and some on this board see it the other way round with comments like 'Slade has never produced'.

Ideally, pick Ford, Slade, Marchant. With Jones still there, it will have to be Farrell at 10. Basically, anything but Farrell at 12 (even if Ford and Slade have contrived to make him look adequate there occasionally, in the past)!

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Agreed Slade hasn't shown up well at 12 for England. There was the first half Vs SA and that's about it for good 12 performances from him.

Dingwall has played well for Saints but I'm not particularly convinced he would make an impact at international level. I'd rather we gave Kelly more caps as he's very similar to Dingwall but more physical and explosive, he's also showing signs of a kicking game with a crossfield kick for a try and knocking over a conversion towards the end of last season.

Farrell, Manu is probably the best we've got currently.

Surprisingly a Tigers fan goes for a Tiger....Dingwall also has a good kicking game btw . I've not seen enough of Kelly in fairness, but I have seen a lot of Fraser, and he's a very intelligent centre, which is what we have been lacking

On Slade, he's not played much at 12 for England in fairness (and then in a misfiring team outside a 10 trying to find his own way), and Faz has really not shown that well there either, yet we keep capping him .

Dingwall is a very intelligent centre and organised a good defence. I can't remember seeing him kick the ball to be honest. He cuts nice lines but seems to lack a little physicality. Certainly wouldn't be adverse to him or Ojomoh getting a go in the AIs but Kelly's form last season was simply exceptional and only highlighted once the Tigers attack started grinding to a halt without him. I really hadn't expected us to miss him anywhere close to as much as we did, him out the side had more impact than Ford out the side.

Slade's had chances and disappointed. We can't give every player the excuse that they are playing on a misfiring team. He was there as the midfield general and well he wasn't. He's a good defensive player with a nice range of skills on the ball but we need more presence. Farrell for his many flaws has been the England 12 holding the midfield together and freeing up space for the 10 during recent England successes including the awesome unbeaten run period and then the last world cup where we beat Argentina, Australia and New Zealand, just couldn't finish the SH sweep.

Fair enough’….though I still don’t think Slade hasn’t had a decent enough go at 12 if we remain wedded to having a 2nd 5/8 style of player there. I think you are giving more credit to Faz than he warrants- credit is due I guess - because the clue is in the phrase…his many flaws. Which are apparently outweighed by mystic leadership abilities and presence

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

FKAS wrote:We can't give every player the excuse that they are playing on a misfiring team.

There’s a point where you have to wonder why we’re unable to consistently get much out of any of the backs we have available. Trying to bed in new combinations with our revolving door approach to the coaching staff and tactics is obviously going to have a big impact.

I know we’re lacking some clear world-class midfield (yes, 10, 12, 13) talents, but we do have 5 or 6 players who are definitely capable of delivering at this level. Trouble is we’ve now been in this limbo state for such a long time there is no real trustworthy combination of players/tactics to fall back on. Ford/Farrell/Slade is the last combo that got any decent sort of run, and I think we all hoped to have moved forward from that by now.

MB, your last sentence sums it up. Ford and Slade somehow produced despite being hampered by Farrell at 12!!!

Of course, punditry and some on this board see it the other way round with comments like 'Slade has never produced'.

Ideally, pick Ford, Slade, Marchant. With Jones still there, it will have to be Farrell at 10. Basically, anything but Farrell at 12 (even if Ford and Slade have contrived to make him look adequate there occasionally, in the past)!

Strangely, I feel like Slade has been better with Farrell than without. It feels like whenever he's asked to step up as a senior player, he just doesn't. Despite the fact he's no longer the young tyro, he still plays like it. Some players seem wise beyond their age (Ford), while others seem like they're always 21 (Slade, 36, Danny Care until he hit his mid 30s).

Right now, I would probably pick Smith-Farrell-Marchant in my midfield. But I'm not wedded to that midfield, and despite being a Smith fan, I'd have Ford back the instant he was fit.

At which point, I'd be sorely tempted to bring in ANYONE for Farrell. It is strange how we fail to produce players in certain positions, though. I feel like Australia would just go "feck it", and play Ford/Smith at 10/12, and screw the absolute mess it would make of defence.