2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

[goodNumber10]

As I understand the role, and as is suggested by it's ***le - I don't see why he would have any real effect on the attacking shape of the team.
More - Farrell tells him he wants Brad Barritt to chuck in a cross-field kick and Catt works on it with BB, or whatever skill with whoever.

That's generally not how skills coaches work, you don't work on skills completely in isolation it will be within the context of the attack pattern and that will be a two way process. Whole, Part, Whole. Even core skills will have a bigger context behind them.

err... does that not constitute consulting?
You don't need an embossed silk business-card in order to hold a consultation.

Yes of course, i didn't realise it was "official" as such... I thought Stewie Lancs and Ashto were old mates and that he was just checking in for a bit of a squad chat, not that he'd been brought in professionally to work on elements and then review.

I really feel he needs to be playing these autumn internationals if we are to head into the world cup year with more than one fly half with adequate experience.

However, our coaches appear to obsess first and foremost about continuity and I therefore wouldn't be surprised at all if Farrell is consistently picked to start, regardless.

I think they are right to as well, i think 4 wins is far more beneficial to our development as a team then giving one or two players game time and i think that comes with continuity.

 

[ratsapprentice]

That's generally not how skills coaches work, you don't work on skills completely in isolation it will be within the context of the attack pattern and that will be a two way process. Whole, Part, Whole. Even core skills will have a bigger context behind them.

Yes - but the crux of this is whether or not he is heavily involved in the tactics and design of the attack pattern or he is just implementing what Farrell tells him.
I think it's more of the latter.

It doesn't have to be "official" to be a consultation - professionalism isn't implied by the term.

 

[goodNumber10]

Yes - but the crux of this is whether or not he is heavily involved in the tactics and design of the attack pattern or he is just implementing what Farrell tells him.
I think it's more of the latter.

It doesn't have to be "official" to be a consultation - professionalism isn't implied by the term.

I don't agree.

As i said though, that will be a two way street, none of it is compartmentalised, so Catt as Attack Skills coach will be working with Farrell on attack patterns and what is needed to deliver them.

Farrell can't just rock up and say, "i want to change the attack pattern to this and i want everyone kicking to the corners". Everyone within the coaching team will have a major influence on that, including Rowntree as forwards coach, and will have a large input into the type of attack England will use.

Catt will work backwards from that and deliver the skills they need to deliver the attack plan - if they all agree they want a gain line based attack catt will work on handling and decision making under pressure along with footwork and so on, Rowntree will deliver the rucking and pod system to implement them - the process has to be multicoached..

we'll just have to agree to disagree mate, even if i am right

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

That's generally not how skills coaches work, you don't work on skills completely in isolation it will be within the context of the attack pattern and that will be a two way process. Whole, Part, Whole. Even core skills will have a bigger context behind them.




Yes of course, i didn't realise it was "official" as such... I thought Stewie Lancs and Ashto were old mates and that he was just checking in for a bit of a squad chat, not that he'd been brought in professionally to work on elements and then review.


I think they are right to as well, i think 4 wins is far more beneficial to our development as a team then giving one or two players game time and i think that comes with continuity.

This isn't just idly and benignly handing out caps, but about ensuring depth in just about the most important position! The next year is crammed full of rugby - what are the odds of Farrell making it through unscathed? Even if he makes it to the world cup, can we expect him to play every minute of every pool game (and hopefully beyond)

The biggest risk lies in relying on Farrell alone and not showing faith in Farrell. The coaches are going to look absolutely stupid if Farrell gets crocked leading up to the world cup, and as far as I can see their 'cunning plan' is to stick their fingers in ears and pretend it can't happen!

 

[goodNumber10]

Ford has 2 England caps, If they went with Farrell starting then he'll likely have 6 by the end of this AI, 3 coming from the bench and starting against Fiji. He'll probably gain more in the 6 nations.

We are playing the best two teams in the world, and NZ and SA will not be playing development players against us at least not in key positions like 10 - we need to go strongest 15.

I'm not saying Ford shouldn't start, he's been playing well, but i really disagree with this " we must blood players", the world cup is a focus but it's not the only focus... we cannot demean test rugby just because of a four year cycle.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Where to start...

Firstly, he definitely won't have 6 caps by the end of this AI if the coaches continue the tradition of playing Farrell for a full 80!
Neither do I count a symbolic 2 minute run out as helping much either so caps are not nearly as good an indication of experience as minutes played are.

Secondly, in the above you effectively painted George Ford, the currrent best English possibly British fly-half, and a nailed-on match day player, as a 'development' player - quoi?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'demeaning test rugby players' - if Lancaster selects as he should, he'll be picking the best and most in-form players. I don't think theres anything demeaning about recognising that no fly half should realistically be expected to play a full 80 every game - especially when he's not even our best fly half available.
Nor is this about a general blooding of players - I'm not advocating giving gametime to fringe players or 'future talents' like Luke Cowan-Dickie, I'm talking about essential key players here and now!
The problem imho is that Ford is not currently being seen as a quality player in his own right but rather as 'what we have to settle with when Farrell can't play 80 minutes'

I agree with you about the world cup in that I do think its silly the way people talk about the world cup as the only important rugby event in 48 calendar months - but it would on the other hand be wrong to pretend that in a world cup year, the world cup isn't the most important tournament.

 

[Wendigo7]

Where to start...

Firstly, he definitely won't have 6 caps by the end of this AI if the coaches continue the tradition of playing Farrell for a full 80!
Neither do I count a symbolic 2 minute run out as helping much either so caps are not nearly as good an indication of experience as minutes played are.

Secondly, in the above you effectively painted George Ford, the currrent best English possibly British fly-half, and a nailed-on match day player, as a 'development' player - quoi?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'demeaning test rugby players' - if Lancaster selects as he should, he'll be picking the best and most in-form players. I don't think theres anything demeaning about recognising that no fly half should realistically be expected to play a full 80 every game - especially when he's not even our best fly half available.
Nor is this about a general blooding of players - I'm not advocating giving gametime to fringe players or 'future talents' like Luke Cowan-Dickie, I'm talking about essential key players here and now!
The problem imho is that Ford is not currently being seen as a quality player in his own right but rather as 'what we have to settle with when Farrell can't play 80 minutes'

I agree with you about the world cup in that I do think its silly the way people talk about the world cup as the only important rugby event in 48 calendar months - but it would on the other hand be wrong to pretend that in a world cup year, the world cup isn't the most important tournament.

Substitute appearances are not the same. Over half of Floods 57 caps were off the bench. It doesn't mean he ever learnt to be a good international.

Ford needs to start with Barritt as mentor.. then pick someone at 12. The idea that if for whatever reason Farrell even in cotton wool gets injured and can't play in the World Cup is daunting..

What happens then? The other incumbents have no time at all... it would leave us up **** creek frankly and there's no hiding from that issue.

Also, were playing Samoa not Fiji. That actually is quite a physical game and the perfect game for him to be thrown in and frankly look ****. Which is very possible and solidify the Farrell position.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Chucking him in the Samoa game is a no-win situation...

He plays well and it's "but it's only Samoa!" doesn't play well and it's "and that was against Samoa!"

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

True Rats, on the other hand a good showing against Samoa would make it harder to drop him for the next game and if gets selected for the next game and plays well, he's well on the way to building a case.
Worth bearing in mind that by this point we will already have lost to New Zealand, so there won't be an unbeaten tour to lose, and in fact we would have lost the last 4 games! What better time to try something else than after New Zealand.

 

[Aristodemus]

I would go with Farrell & Eastmond myself. Farrell has definitely grown on me this last year but I feel he can't play (at international level anyway) with someone like Barritt outside him.

 

[goodNumber10]

@Wendigo7 Fiji/Samoa you got what i meant, it was just a typo.

Where to start...

Firstly, he definitely won't have 6 caps by the end of this AI if the coaches continue the tradition of playing Farrell for a full 80!

Not if Farrell moves to centre.

Secondly, in the above you effectively painted George Ford, the currrent best English possibly British fly-half, and a nailed-on match day player, as a 'development' player - quoi?

Semantics and opinions, you think he's the best, others don't the point i'm making is if he's not the first choice 10 then we shouldn't be picking him for the NZ, SA and Aus game just to give him some game time.

If he's the best 10 then pick him.

Nor is this about a general blooding of players - I'm not advocating giving gametime to fringe players or 'future talents' like Luke Cowan-Dickie, I'm talking about essential key players here and now!

Read what i said above - giving game time for the sake of game time is idiotic.

The problem imho is that Ford is not currently being seen as a quality player in his own right but rather as 'what we have to settle with when Farrell can't play 80 minutes'

The best player should start - if that's Ford then great if not then we shouldn't shoe horn ford in just because we want him to get some game time.

I agree with you about the world cup in that I do think its silly the way people talk about the world cup as the only important rugby event in 48 calendar months - but it would on the other hand be wrong to pretend that in a world cup year, the world cup isn't the most important tournament.

Maybe so, but the best teams are teams that are settled, know their starting 15 and their backups and let them play themselves into the world cup.

No one likes a chopping and changing team

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Ford has 2 England caps, If they went with Farrell starting then he'll likely have 6 by the end of this AI, 3 coming from the bench and starting against Fiji. He'll probably gain more in the 6 nations.

We are playing the best two teams in the world, and NZ and SA will not be playing development players against us at least not in key positions like 10 - we need to go strongest 15.

I'm not saying Ford shouldn't start, he's been playing well, but i really disagree with this " we must blood players", the world cup is a focus but it's not the only focus... we cannot demean test rugby just because of a four year cycle.

You mean like how they didn't play 3 new players against us last time we played? That's the trouble, can you name ANY time where you would try out new players? You won't do it in the 6N, you won't do it in the EOYT, there is no time where you are prepared to try out new players. The current team CAN NOT win the world cup, simple as that. I'd rather take a risk on excellence than be satisfied with merely being "good". Using that mentality, Ashton would still be on the wing, Goode would still be our fallback, Hartley would never have got back into the squad, Parling would still be 1st choice, god knows what would be happening on our left wing, our midfield would still be Farrel and Barritt and Ben Youngs would still be our choice Scrumhalf. Imagine what a mess we'd be in if we hadn't swapped players around.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Because I still don't know how to multi-quote...

I don't get this at all - do you really think it's clever to have only one player in a position who is properly prepared for the given level of rugby?

1) 'Not if Farrell moves to centre'? Well, yeah... but Farrell probably won't move to centre ergo no particular reason to think Ford will get gametime. I haven't seen any particular evidence to suggest that this is what Lancaster will do.

2) Semantics? It's not semantics if it genuinely indicates your view of a player, in this case that Ford is a developmental player. The difference between a key squad player and a developmental player is NOT a semantic one, nor is the fact that he is a key squad player just my opinion - its very clear he's the second choice 10.

3) You're approach generally seems to be to say that if the coaches think X is better than Y, the coaches know best. I'm saying that they don't seem to in this case; you also seem to be denying the wisdom of having back-ups who work and are ready to go..

4) ' the best teams are teams that are settled, know their starting 15 and their backups and let them play themselves into the world cup.' - yes... except Lancaster is not acknowledging his back up in this position of the field, and certainly doesn't look like he'll be letting Ford play himself into anything, let alone a world cup..

5) Game time for the sake of game time is idiotic? You've ignored what I've said about squad players - in modern rugby you cannot presume no injuries will occur.

6)What is chopping and changing about letting another 10 to play? Chopping and changing is where you change a number of your starting and squad players each time... there's no evidence we'd be doing this.

Quite apart from all of this is the fact that currently, Farrell looks flat, and ford looks up for it. This alone is justification for picking ford more this autumn; this is doubly so because of the need to prepared your 23 men, as opposed to just your first 15, in advance of a big tournament.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Just on Ashton, I believe he doesn't want to be full time in pro-Rugby anymore.
He works part time as a consultant for Fylde, and has also done a bit of backs coaching on and off for us (specifically when Cipriani arrived, as they're friends) but turned down a full time role (both with us and with Fylde).

 

[Wendigo7]

Please also bear one thing in mind with regards to Farrell.

He brought him in straight away in 2012 and has developed his game (quite well from what he was at) in the last 3 years. Is he as good as Ford... Not in a million years, but has he improved immeasurably, definitely under Lanc.

Now, with a World Cup around 11 months away or so... Ford is clearly the better player, some may argue otherwise but in general yes and he has the tools to be potentially be one of the best.

What we miss is that, Lancaster has invested 3 years into Owen Farrell and making him someone to build the team around rightly or wrongly. If he drops Farrell, it's an admission of failure on his part.

No coach worth their salt will do that. Look at Saint Andre and you will see what I mean but this is definitely something that needs to be taken into consideration.

 

[goodNumber10]

Because I still don't know how to multi-quote...

I don't get this at all - do you really think it's clever to have only one player in a position who is properly prepared for the given level of rugby?

1) 'Not if Farrell moves to centre'? Well, yeah... but Farrell probably won't move to centre ergo no particular reason to think Ford will get gametime. I haven't seen any particular evidence to suggest that this is what Lancaster will do.

2) Semantics? It's not semantics if it genuinely indicates your view of a player, in this case that Ford is a developmental player. The difference between a key squad player and a developmental player is NOT a semantic one, nor is the fact that he is a key squad player just my opinion - its very clear he's the second choice 10.

3) You're approach generally seems to be to say that if the coaches think X is better than Y, the coaches know best. I'm saying that they don't seem to in this case; you also seem to be denying the wisdom of having back-ups who work and are ready to go..

4) ' the best teams are teams that are settled, know their starting 15 and their backups and let them play themselves into the world cup.' - yes... except Lancaster is not acknowledging his back up in this position of the field, and certainly doesn't look like he'll be letting Ford play himself into anything, let alone a world cup..

5) Game time for the sake of game time is idiotic? You've ignored what I've said about squad players - in modern rugby you cannot presume no injuries will occur.

6)What is chopping and changing about letting another 10 to play? Chopping and changing is where you change a number of your starting and squad players each time... there's no evidence we'd be doing this.

Quite apart from all of this is the fact that currently, Farrell looks flat, and ford looks up for it. This alone is justification for picking ford more this autumn; this is doubly so because of the need to prepared your 23 men, as opposed to just your first 15, in advance of a big tournament.

Did you actually read what I said?

You mean like how they didn't play 3 new players against us last time we played? That's the trouble, can you name ANY time where you would try out new players? You won't do it in the 6N, you won't do it in the EOYT, there is no time where you are prepared to try out new players. The current team CAN NOT win the world cup, simple as that. I'd rather take a risk on excellence than be satisfied with merely being "good". Using that mentality, Ashton would still be on the wing, Goode would still be our fallback, Hartley would never have got back into the squad, Parling would still be 1st choice, god knows what would be happening on our left wing, our midfield would still be Farrel and Barritt and Ben Youngs would still be our choice Scrumhalf. Imagine what a mess we'd be in if we hadn't swapped players around.

Well for a start I don't think Farrell is merely good.

I've also indicated that I think ford if bit starting should get game time from the bench if their have strategy allows it, I think on this AI that is enough.

What I don't agree with is putting someone on only to get game time.

If we beat NZ with Farrell and Barrett playing how many of you will be crying that we didn't give ford any game time against NZ (rhetorical question).

If we get into a grandslam position and win it will you be complaining? (Again rhetorical).

I understand you all like ford. I do too, but I'd rather win the next game thanks.

If you don't like that cool. But as a player and a coach I want to win the next game and to do that I feel you put out the strongest side you can regardless....

We have development pathways that being a player on. He is on the environment and will get his chance when appropriate.

New Zealand and SA get the luxury of blooding new payers in games against teams like Scotland and Italy where nothing is riding on the game other than a loss they seldom blood players against us unless it's injury provoked.

We don't get that luxury, we play those teams in a major competition.

We can't throw away a crack at the best to give game time.

Ford will get his chance when he died it should be because he was genuinely selected as the better 10.

How frustrating for Ford do you think it is to be thrown a bone because you might not be ready?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Will you be happy if we lose in the future because we haven't given a player in a key position experience and they have to replace someone due to injury?

 

[goodNumber10]

Will you be happy if we lose in the future because we haven't given a player in a key position experience and they have to replace someone due to injury?

I'm never happy that we lose but i wouldn't blame it on experience.

Seriously If what you want is a fly half with experience you should have stuck with Flood or Burns.

We have 9 games (?) Till the world cup, we need to pick as close to the best team now and stick with it and of Ford gets in on merit so be it, of not he can get his time off the bench.

As we saw with New Zealand you can prep as many as you want but you may still end up on your 5th/6th choice.

Are you going to give them all experience on the off chance they might have to play?

We don't have the players or the time.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Are you going to give them all experience on the off chance they might have to play?

No, but it might be sensible to give your most obvious second choice player more than a 5 minute cameo against Italy.


Anyway... good interview with Big Dave, as ever: http://www.englandrugby.com/news/fe...rce=Social&utm_medium=media&utm_campaign=2014

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

We need a 23 with experience for the World Cup not just 15. To win a World Cup it takes more than 15 players.

What we need to do is make sure all 23 have experience to be called on when needed.

Not giving ford any game time would be disastrous if Farrell got injured. We shouldn't have been In this place. Lancaster has made poor coaching choices by not having a proper back up going into the World Cup