[2014 EOYT] England v Australia

[Maverick1987]

He did have a very off form 9 and 10 inside him doing very little to help.

I feel he's been made the scapegoat for that third test.

Couldn't agree more . Used correctly he's by far our best inside centre . I think Barritt has done well too but I think you would see more out of Kyle with Manu or Burrell outside him

 

[Every Time Ref]

yeah, it's a difficult process to understand.

Honestly, i was very underwhelmed with Eastmond's contributions in the NZ & SA games, but he did show some moments - i wonder if he's still suffering form the 3rd test in NZ int eh eyes of the coaches.

I was reasonably happy with Eastmond against NZ, although he didn't set the world alight in the second half I don't really see how he was supposed to when England didn't have the ball at all for 40 minutes. In the first half he looked brighter and was one club second team standard piece of handling away from a really high class assist at a crucial time. Other than that, he defended pretty solidly - the big worry following the notorious "Third Test Of Doom".

Against SA was worse but again no issues with his defence and at least when he messed up he messed up trying stuff - the first knock on, for e.g.. I don't mind seeing because he broke the line and was looking to make an offload which could, had there been a support runner there, been a match-changing play. Unfortunately there wasn't, and he misjudged it, but he had got himself into a better position than any other England player did all half before he dropped it. The weak pass over the top was less defensible, but the feeling I got from both incidents was that, as the only ballplayer in a dour backline he was forcing things a bit too much and that was causing bad decisions.

As Tommi points out, in both games he was outside an off form half-back pairing and inside a solid but unremarkable attacker at thirteen, there's only so much one can offer in that situation. I, like many, would like to see him pairing up with Ford, taking a bit of pressure of both of them.

EDIT: ... and just to prove it's not sheer Bath bias, I have a Tiger agreeing with me! Just need to get a Glaws on board to prove unequivocally that I am speaking gospel truth!

 

[ratsapprentice]

He had the ball knocked out of his hand by a tackler - he didn't just drop it cold.

Attempted pass over the top was during advantage wasn't it?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

If GN10 starts saying Farrell's performance at 12 vs Samoa > Eastmond's performances at 12 then I'm going to lose it :lol:

 

[goodNumber10]

He had the ball knocked out of his hand by a tackler - he didn't just drop it cold.

Attempted pass over the top was during advantage wasn't it?

Is that part of the Eastmond discussion?

I was reasonably happy with Eastmond against NZ, although he didn't set the world alight in the second half I don't really see how he was supposed to when England didn't have the ball at all for 40 minutes. In the first half he looked brighter and was one club second team standard piece of handling away from a really high class assist at a crucial time. Other than that, he defended pretty solidly - the big worry following the notorious "Third Test Of Doom".

yes, hence me saying he did show some moments.

If GN10 starts saying Farrell's performance at 12 vs Samoa > Eastmond's performances at 12 then I'm going to lose it :lol:

not at all, i think it's tough for Eastmond if he doesn't get another run in what is likely to be the most open game of the series.

But if you're going to make a post saying Farrells stats are an embarrassment at least check those stats against the other England 12's - the only one he's really down on is meters run, but then he wasn't used as a battering ram on Saturday night and you also have to factor in that the forwards are standing and passing in the 10/12 channel more meaning the backs are passing less.

I'd also point out that comparing one games stats to guys who have played there for coming up 3 years is a big bag of BS.

Like i said stats are fine, but it's all about interpretation, you have to look at how England tried to play and so on...

 

[ratsapprentice]

yes... continuing on from the previous five posts.

 

[goodNumber10]

I hadn't read all of everytime Refs post before i posted that...

I'd also point out that everyone is defending Eastmond with the same argument i used for Farrell - players inside him, bad ball etc... etc...

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Is that part of the Eastmond discussion?



yes, hence me saying he did show some moments.



not at all, i think it's tough for Eastmond if he doesn't get another run in what is likely to be the most open game of the series.

But if you're going to make a post saying Farrells stats are an embarrassment at least check those stats against the other England 12's - the only one he's really down on is meters run, but then he wasn't used as a battering ram on Saturday night and you also have to factor in that the forwards are standing and passing in the 10/12 channel more meaning the backs are passing less.

I'd also point out that comparing one games stats to guys who have played there for coming up 3 years is a big bag of BS.

.

Just like unfavorably comparing Eastmond, who did pretty well playing against the two top sides in the world to Farrell who did nothing much against a side whose defence you can typically drive a bus through, is also a big bag of BS.

Which is to say, I expect Eastmond would have torn Samoa a new one had he played.

 

[goodNumber10]

do read what's been written.

I haven't compared Farrell to Eastmond.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

do read what's been written.

I haven't compared Farrell to Eastmond.

Implicit in all of this is a comparison, because you, and I, are weighing up how one did with consideration of how others have done - you have also been engaging in stats comparisons.
To go as far as to say that Eastmond has underwhelmed whilst avoiding going quite so far for Farrell is pretty much to compare Eastmond unfavorably to Farrell as a 12.

 

[goodNumber10]

Seriously, just ***** off!

I never brought the stats up i was pointing out they tell little in the way of how a player has performed. Besides i clearly say over the last 3 years not singling anyone out... If i'd wanted to compare Farrell > Eastmond i'd have just plucked third test out of NZ and been done with it.

I also say clearly I was underwhelmed but that he showed some moments. indicating i think he showed promise and thus the complete opposite of what you're claiming and i said that it in the context of pointing out that i don't understand why the coaches would pick Farrell over Eastmond.

Everytime i post you look for something else in the posts, and it's getting really really tiring... what's the point of coming on here if all that ever happens is people shout you down?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

So you're saying you don't understand why the coaches would pick Farrell over Eastmond now.... where a week ago you were telling us X Y and Z reasons why you can see why Farrell would be picked at 12?

 

[goodNumber10]

do you just make this sh*t up as you go along?

I have never said they should pick Farrell over Eastmond, which is what you're alluding to.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

You present all the reasons underpinning something, you recognize the validity of the evidence for why coaches would play Farrell at 12 .. but you stop short of saying "DEY SHUD PIK FARREL OVER EASTMOND" in so many words...but by virtue of everything else you've said, it seemed pretty clear you were happy with Farrell at 12.

Why describe all the reasons why you can see Farrell working at 12 and then at a later time saying you don't understand why they would pick Farrell there over Eastmond?

When it's not entirely clear what your opinions are on a topic despite many posts, there's clearly a problem!

 

[j-dawg]

Seriously, just ***** off!

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

 

[goodNumber10]

You present all the reasons underpinning something, you recognize the validity of the evidence for why coaches would play Farrell at 12 .. but you stop short of saying "DEY SHUD PIK FARREL OVER EASTMOND" in so many words...but by virtue of everything else you've said, it seemed pretty clear you were happy with Farrell at 12.

Why describe all the reasons why you can see Farrell working at 12 and then at a later time saying you don't understand why they would pick Farrell there over Eastmond?

When it's not entirely clear what your opinions are on a topic despite many posts, there's clearly a problem!

What has pointing out why they would try Farrell at 12 got anything to do with them picking him over Eastmond?

The problem is that you don't bother reading what has been written, fill in the blanks and accuse someone of things they haven't said without attempting to seek clarification of what you don't understand.

Essentially what you're alluding to today is that I'm somehow saying Farrell should be picked over eastmond. Last week it was Farrell should be picked over ford.

Neither of which i said or think but was the sole base of your argument.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Ford to start against Australia, hinting at twelvetrees as well.

"George has earned the right to start again. He's played well enough for that," Lancaster said.

"Billy Twelvetrees impressed me from the bench. He did well and brought good energy to the team.

"He's worked hard on the feedback we gave him when he came back into camp and he's a genuine prospect for us at 12."

Here's the link for Wendigo and co http://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-u...lf-for-england-against-australia-this-weekend

 

[Wendigo7]

Link?

- - - Updated - - -



I did say a while ago I was interested in the balance of Ford, Twelvetrees and Barritt.

 

[TommiG88]

That's a backward step in my opinion.