2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

[goodNumber10]

so, more on the Owens thing, it's being investigated after the letter to the Guardian.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/30033343

not sure why the guy didn't report it at the time, but at least it's going to eb dealt with.

 

[Patchey]

Sod machine guns, we've got an actual tank commander in the squad

I like your style.

 

[j-dawg]

If thats our equivalent then its also the equivalent of france, germany, turkey, austria, russia especially and by god even New zealand.

Id say it was more of a one time craze than a traditional, like big hair in the 80s

 

[goodNumber10]

Torygraph stretching credibility.....

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Column on why rugby has lost moral high ground. Its crowds are as bad as football's <a href="http://t.co/leWVEJ4r0E">http://t.co/leWVEJ4r0E</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/TelegraphSport">@TelegraphSport</a></p>&mdash; Oliver Brown (@oliverbrown_tel) <a href="https://twitter.com/oliverbrown_tel/status/532883601202085888">November 13, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[ratsapprentice]

The point i'm making in all of this is you guys can't have it both ways.
You can't then say pick the best player, but oh, also pick this guy because he needs experience it has to be one or the other and you're all just contradicting yourself..
Now if Farrell is their choice as the best 10 then he deserves the game time, if he isn't then ford deserves to play.

You are saying that as if it's an objective truth when it's anything but. It's ********, frankly.
Fair enough - you think that you select your best player and consider absolutely nothing else.

Other people want to give other players experience when possible.

I think you are also assuming that the people who want Ford to have gametime also simultaneously think Farrell is the better player?
Which judging by those people's comments, is definitely not true.

I also completely refute the idea that giving people gametime can even be "for the sake of it" - you give them gametime in order to give them experience and for you to judge their present capabilities.

 

[goodNumber10]

You are saying that as if it's an objective truth when it's anything but. It's ********, frankly.
Fair enough - you think that you select your best player and consider absolutely nothing else.

Other people want to give other players experience when possible.

What I think is when you play the top teams in the world you put out your strongest 23, with your best starting 15.

I don't think, if you're the England coach, that you throw in what you consider to be your 2nd best/back up fly half to give him experience.

My second point is if experience is so important why deny Farrell getting it? after all he's not that experienced, but you guys are only content to play the card in one direction.

I think you are also assuming that the people who want Ford to have gametime also simultaneously think Farrell is the better player?
Which judging by those people's comments, is definitely not true.

I have no idea where you've plucked that from, I'm not assuming anything of the sort. People clearly prefer Ford. But they are putting both reasoning forward and i don't agree with one of them...they are saying he is the better 10 (and at the moment i'd agree), but they are also saying he should get game time for experience sake - i don't agree. That's basically forcing him into the team by any means necessary.

Lancaster has clearly favoured staying with the same team as much as possible.

The point i'm making is this; if you are the England coach and you have a must win game of Rugby, like this has now become, would you put out your second choice 10 to give him experience?

No you f*cking well wouldn't. you'd pick the best 10 and look to win the game, and Lancaster has clearly said he will go with his first choice in big games.

Now fair enough there is a separate discussion based around who is better, Ford or Farrell - and i'm not saying Farrell is better or Ford is worse - i'm saying i understand why Lancaster and co wouldn't put Ford in for experience, and that i wouldn't either.

I also completely refute the idea that giving people gametime can even be "for the sake of it" - you give them game time in order to give them experience and for you to judge their present capabilities.

Not against the best sides in the world when it's a must win series of games as people have alluded to. Against Samoa? yeah alright, against Italy? yeah again, Fiji yea, not problem fill your boots. But not against Australia, SA and NZ.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I have no idea where you've plucked that from, I'm not assuming anything of the sort. People clearly prefer Ford. But they are putting both reasoning forward and i don't agree with one of them...they are saying he is the better 10 (and at the moment i'd agree), but they are also saying he should get game time for experience sake - i don't agree. That's basically forcing him into the team by any means necessary.

They are saying he should get experience because they think he's the best 10 and he hasn't had any meaningful gametime.
They are forcing him into the team in a situation that they control rather than assuming that Farrell will be both in form and fit during the world cup, at which point you would have to cap him in a situation beyond your control.

The point i'm making is this; if you are the England coach and you have a must win game of Rugby, like this has now become, would you put out your second choice 10 to give him experience?

No you f*cking well wouldn't. you'd pick the best 10 and look to win the game, and Lancaster has clearly said he will go with his first choice in big games.

No I wouldn't - but Farrell wouldn't be my first choice 10, and even if he was, Ford would have gained more than 5 minutes experience in a drubbing of Italy by now, meaning that it would be less critical that he gained experience in a game against a top three side or in a six nations game where my team would ideally be nailed on because the RWC is only a few months away.

 

[Wendigo7]

Do both sides want the nutshell of it.

Lancaster made his mind up in late 2012 that the 10 he was going to blood was Farrell. To put that in perspective I think Dan Carter could come through the rank and Lancaster has already made his mind up. Farrell will play regardless and that's the end of it really. Is it fair? No. Will it happen? Yes.

Ford is the better 10 which means he needs game time. Irrelavant. Lancaster has invested too much time in Farrell and he will look a fool if he drops him now.

Id also argue it's the same for Robshaw, Wood, Cole and Hartley. They are the 5 players I believe he has built the team around. 2 of those have not played well for about a good year and a bit and 1 is coming back from injury which was predicated by playing him too much because they didn't show any faith in Wilson and kept playing Cole for the sake of it. The same is happening with Farrell. Difference is Cole is world class and deserves the acclaim, Farrell has never been that standard.

 

[goodNumber10]

No I wouldn't - but Farrell wouldn't be my first choice 10, and even if he was, Ford would have gained more than 5 minutes experience in a drubbing of Italy by now, meaning that it would be less critical that he gained experience in a game against a top three side or in a six nations game where my team would ideally be nailed on because the RWC is only a few months away.

There we go.

From a selection point of view you, as England coach, go with your best 10 - regardless of who needs experience.

Let's not forget Ford would have got at least one start in New Zealand and possibly more.... Fate dealt him a hand, it's not for SL to make adjustments against the top 3 to give him some game time.

Let's not forget SL has backed Ford the whole way as well. From the minute he popped up at Leicester he has firmly been in his plans as an England player.


I also do not believe for one minute that SL won't drop Farrell because of his ego....

 

[ratsapprentice]

There we go.

From a selection point of view you, as England coach, go with your best 10 - regardless of who needs experience.

Let's not forget Ford would have got at least one start in New Zealand and possibly more.... Fate dealt him a hand, it's not for SL to make adjustments against the top 3 to give him some game time.

Let's not forget SL has backed Ford the whole way as well. From the minute he popped up at Leicester he has firmly been in his plans as an England player.

That would be a perfectly reasonable argument if Ford was actually given gametime in the 6N.
The fact he was then injured highlights very well the reason why he needs experience (because the same could happen to Farrell) and why you can't put it off.
The same happened to Wade. It's all a bit Aesop...

 

[goodNumber10]

That would be perfectly reasonable argument if Ford was actually given gametime in the 6N.
The fact he was then injured highlights very well the reason why he needs experience (because the same could happen to Farrell) and why you can't put it off.
The same happened to Wade.

Not against the top 2 sides in the world.

As I've pointed out before there is no guarantee either will even be playing come the world cup.

Look we don't have to agree. I was merely trying to illustrate Lancaster's thinking. I'd like to see Ford play, but I understand why he isn't.

Let's stop clogging up the game thread with stuff we have discussed a million times

 

[Peat]

Not so sure Hartley is one of Lancaster's "spine" group. Don't think he'd be starting if Tom Youngs was a good enough thrower.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

If Lancaster's thinking is anything like you suggest GN10 then he has to go. Players get injured and Lancaster seems to refuse to develop beyond the starting 15. No coach worth their salt now develops 15 players and ignores everyone else. All the Flyhalves who are eligible to play for England have less caps than Farrell combined yet he has done nothing to deserve to be first choice regardless of form. When has any other team in the world gone "we could be happy with Farrell instead of our 10"? He is simply not that good yet is treated as if he's the next Carter or Wilko. It's treatment that is completely undeserved.

I mean how can people not be shocked that more than once we've had to replace injured players with completely new people because no 2nd option was given ANY game time? Consistency goes beyond being consistent with just the first 15, it is about having a full team where you can replace injuries without it affecting the team too much.

I want Farrell out and Ford in not just because I think Ford needs game time but because I think Farrell is fundamentally not good enough and every game he is playing instead of another Flyhalf is wasting a chance to get better talent into the team.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Not against the top 2 sides in the world.

Depends...

Not if it's the 60th minute and you're in the lead and trying to win.
But if it's half time, you're getting tanked and you're in the situation England are (12 months out without an established backup in arguably the most important position on the pitch) then you should absolutely get the kid on.

This is entirely the point though - ideally you don't do it, but ideally you give Ford experience in easier games.
Which Lancaster has completely neglected doing.

 

[Peat]

While I'm fully a fan of the idea that you need to develop a squad, not just a team, any advocacy of Ford really doesn't need to go beyond the idea that he'd probably be an upgrade on Farrell, as that is the most convincing possible argument.

 

[j'nuh]

Torygraph stretching credibility.....

<iframe id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" allowfullscreen="" style="display: block; max-width: 99%; min-width: 220px; padding: 0px; border-top-left-radius: 5px; border-top-right-radius: 5px; border-bottom-right-radius: 5px; border-bottom-left-radius: 5px; margin: 10px 0px; border-color: rgb(238, 238, 238) rgb(221, 221, 221) rgb(187, 187, 187); border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14902) 0px 1px 3px; position: static; visibility: visible; width: 500px;" ***le="Embedded Tweet" height="359"></iframe>
<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The Gavin Muirs article that Oliver Brown references in his tweet is actually spot on. Objective facts and a good interview with Owens.

Oliver Brown's tweet and article, on the other hand, is the essence of riling others up for views and attention. It's like.. the article he references doesn't even mention anything about football. The only places where "football" is mentioned in the article is in "Rugby Football Union (RFU)".

Outside of that tweet, he has written an article for the Telegraph and I have never heard so much crap. His argument is literally that there is bad crowd behaviour in both rugby and football, therefore the crowds in rugby are as bad as football. It's analogous to saying that there exist drug dealers in two countries, therefore both countries have an equal problem with the illegal drugs trade. More to the point, who cares whether rugby or football is worse? It's a topic for annoying people on a forum, not a newsworthy topic.

I feel bad for giving his view counter a +1 now.<iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" style="display: none;"></iframe>

 

[goodNumber10]

Depends...

Not if it's the 60th minute and you're in the lead and trying to win.
But if it's half time, you're getting tanked and you're in the situation England are (12 months out without an established backup in arguably the most important position on the pitch) then you should absolutely get the kid on.

What easier games were these then? He joined England for the first time in the 6 Nations 2014, he'd never been tried at that time and he was injured for the summer, and now he's on the bench again there has been no opportunity to play him except maybe Italy and to be fair they were chasing the torunament so that had become a play your best team game..

So what easier games wa sit that Ford missed out on?

You all seem to forget Lancaster WAS developing an understudy, Freddy Burns, till he imploded, he WAS getting game time, and against decent oppo, he got a whole tour under his belt whilst Ford was in the gym bulking up.

While I'm fully a fan of the idea that you need to develop a squad, not just a team, any advocacy of Ford really doesn't need to go beyond the idea that he'd probably be an upgrade on Farrell, as that is the most convincing possible argument.

See that! I can respect.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The 6 nations.

Are you suggesting that actually, it's not just against the top 2 teams that that players can't be blooded against, any top ten team is off the table...?

You really think we got more out of the games against Scotland and Italy with Farrell starting than we would have done had Ford started them?

Freddie Burns is irellevant to the argument that we should have a backup with experience, because at the time Burns was rightly discarded there was ample opportunity to have another replace him.
The argument that Ford is the best FH is a separate one to the one that suggests we should have a second FH as a back up; and that you should give that back both experience and the opportunity to prove that he is capable.

 

[goodNumber10]

The 6 nations.

Are you suggesting that actually, it's not just against the top 2 teams that that players can't be blooded against, any top ten team is off the table...?

You really think we got more out of the games against Scotland and Italy with Farrell starting than we would have done had Ford started them?

i said "to be fair", to illustrate his likely thinking and that i understood it.

Freddie Burns is irellevant to the argument that we should have a backup with experience, because at the time Burns was rightly discarded there was ample opportunity to have another replace him. When was Burns Discarded?

Burns was discarded the start of the 6 nations 2014, when Ford came in, so less than 9 months ago.

The argument that Ford is a separate one to the one that suggests we should have a second FH as a back up; and that you should give that back both experience and the opportunity to prove that he is capable.

When Lancaster took over, he openly started to develop two fly halfs - Farrell and Burns (Ford is now the third he was brought into the England set up).

On his arrival he brought in:

Hodgson with understudy Farrell - Ford wasn't even on the scene, Burns in the Saxons.

Then he gave Farrell "the developing fly half" game time with Flood on the bench, then he blooded Burns against the SANZAR teams, and then he played Freddy burns in the summer tour and then Burns got injured and Flood came back in.

So until this years 6 nations he had 3 fly halfs two in development, Farrell and Burns the young developing fly halves, and one, Flood, the older experienced fly half.

Flood f*cked off to France, Burn imploded, and he was left with one - and a bit Farrell and Burns - he immediately brought Ford into the set up (carried on trying to develop Burns by way of the saxons), and Ford would have got game time in the summer if he hadn't been injured.

To claim Lancaster hasn't developed fly half's (as Ragerancher claims) is disingenuous to say the least, he just hasn't developed the fly half you want to see playing - that is a big difference.

There has literally not been anytime to play Ford, and against the SANZR teams is not the time.

*****MODS do you wanna move this to the England EOYT thread?****

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152573427134825

I don't think anyone has actually watched this... it's very good.

 

[ratsapprentice]

and Ford would have got game time in the summer if he hadn't been injured.

To claim Lancaster hasn't developed fly half's (as Ragerancher claims) is disingenuous to say the least, he just hasn't developed the fly half you want to see playing - that is a big difference.

There has literally not been anytime to play Ford, and against the SANZR teams is not the time.

*****MODS do you wanna move this to the England EOYT thread?****

As I clarified in my last post - the argument that Ford should be getting gametime from the bench is separate to the one that suggests he is the best FH.

There have literally (actually literally, not figuratively literally) been 6 games in which to give Ford gametime. 2 of which were gilt edged opportunities.
If games against poor Scottish and Italian sides isn't "the time" then when the **** is?

Frankly I think you're being obtuse. You are fluttering between arguing from Lancaster's perspective and your own.