2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

[j'nuh]

Lancaster may well think Farrell is his best 10. But I will eat my hat if Farrell's experience and continuity doesn't play a part in that decision. And there marks the problem: by valuing experience and continuity, which you deprive of Ford, you stop Ford from ever getting into a position where he could challenge Farrell, even if he were the form choice. If you want to put Ford and Farrell on a level-playing field, where it's their ability and not their experience that matters, you need to force yourself to give Ford time, even if you don't perceive him to be your best 10.

And I know it's a hard test to do it in. That's why most of us were calling for Lancaster to develop an alternative to Farrell for the last three years. It's Lancaster's fault for leaving it this late.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Moved a chunk of the Flyhalf talk to this thread - not the whole shabang, but enough that discussion can continue here instead on in the match thread.

 

[goodNumber10]

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.

yes, i have said that all along there are two points one is he the best the seocnd should he get game time just for experience.

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?

And you are repainting history to suit your argument.

Scotland was the second game, and only fords second sit down with England, they'd just lost to France and needed a win or their 6nations was over. You can understand why he wouldn't want to blood a new guy on a cr*ppy day in Edinburgh.

Italy, yeah fair enough...he could have got more time. So realistically there was 80 minutes of rugby he could have gotten a substantial amount of game time.

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

No, i'm frustrated at having to argue the same point over and over again. i am giving reasoning as to why i think lancaster would make the decisions he has, and i'm also presenting evidence that he does actually develop players - specifically three fly halfs and the only reaosn we're looking to blood ford now si because flood dissapeared and his third choice 10 literally imploded.

if Flood was still here or burns was on form would we even be having this conversation? Ford would probably be a camp player at best - and have been rotated in post world cup.

Moved a chunk of the Flyhalf talk to this thread - not the whole shabang, but enough that discussion can continue here instead on in the match thread.

thanks

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

In terms of the the 'you play your best fly-half' argument...

Worth remembering that most players have pretty elastic levels of potential. If not put in the right settings or given the right opportunities, they will never become as good as they can be. I'm a firm believer that playing guys at the highest levels is actively what takes them to the next level. There's always something up in the air when you blood a player. When Wales needed an alternative to Ryan Jones at 8, a few people tenatively suggested Toby Faletau; it only gradually emerged as he was gathering international gametime that he had this whole other level of potential.

Applying that back to the current discussion, the play the current best fly-half idea doesn't work for me because it doesn't take account of potential; Ford has a dramatically higher ceiling than Farrell but may never expand to fit it if never given the nod ahead of Farrell. In short the Farrell approach is very short termist - and while I agree that for consistency and continuity coaches and selectors need to not look too far ahead, they need to temper that with ideas of how to improve their team and move it to meet its potential.

 

[goodNumber10]

i don't have a problem with that logic.

My question to everyone, if you were England coach and you were playing the best team in the world:

Would you?

A: pick your experienced 10 who you thought was a great player?

or

B: your possibly more talented 10 because he's not as experienced and you wanna see how he goes?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Those two positions arn't incompatible though in my view. Because I agree, when you're playing the best team in the world and you want to test what you can do, well you'd pick your best player.

But it's a balance; because:
Not every game is played against he best side in the world, most are not.

And additionally, the gap between the two fly halves is, regardless who you prefer, objectively not that big right now. Therefore adding into the equation the fact that Ford is likely to improve and learn more from playing 60 minutes then Farrell is likely to playing an additional 60 minutes, you might very well make the judgement call that it is a good, low risk opportunity to play Ford.
I believe the majority of coaches subscribe to this sort of trade-off logic.
The fact that Lancaster doesn't worries me insofar as it suggests he thinks Farrell is significantly ahead of or better than Ford - and that is simply just not right (again, regardless of you who prefer)

Again, I'd say there's a danger of portraying one player has significantly ahead of the other, and therefore implying that it is a risky business giving gametime to the less experienced one. This is just not the case

 

[goodNumber10]

i don't think any international coaches apart from the Hansen or Meyer are in that position and would make that trade off. The SA and NZ squads are so settled they can afford to change their pivot and with injuries Nz have had the luxury of developing Cruden and Barritt and now having Carter come back.

We have not been in that position.

Now on Ford being better than Farrell i don't have a problem with that, at the moment i would agree that he probably is, i just think it's unreasonable to expect Lancaster to put the biggest game of the year aside to give Ford experience. I understand that, and i'd probably make the same decision - unless i thought out right Ford was the better option for that game which clearly Lancaster doesn't at the moment.

That video Ewis posted was interesting, he touches on this stuff.

 

[j'nuh]

If it were two/three years out from the WC, A. I'd then give Ford a run out in the Samoa game, and if he goes well, another start against Australia.

But we are less than 10 games away from the start of the WC and Ford has around 20 or so minutes of international experience. He's already a long way behind where I'd prefer him to be. So B.

In this situation, I'd earmark Ford for the next three tests, Farrell for the start of the 6N, Ford for Italy and Scotland and the form option for the WC warm-ups. When Ford starts, I'd give Farrell short cameos, when Farrell starts I'd give Ford 30+ minutes. I want to squeeze every minute for Ford whilst keeping Farrell in the loop. At this point, I'm concerned that loss of form/injury to Farrell would effectively end all of our WC hopes due to the lack of a deputy.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

My concern with Farrell is he has frequently shown, contrary to the media perception, that he can't handle high importance games. When he gets troubled, he resorts to aimless kicking which then puts England under more pressure resulting in more kicking. He is so ineffective with ball in hand that he doesn't know anything else to do. Do we want that in the WC? Teams learn that once Farrell is under pressure, England can kiss goodbye to any possession. If we get to the WC and Farrell has not improved, we are going to have a very hard time. Whatever his form, we will be lumbered with him.

 

[Jbobo]

Farrell reminds me of a better version of Pristland...


Edit - Of possibly just a less effective version of Biggar.

Cippriani anyone?

 

[mad-dog]

Right, I have been following these forums for a while and just wanted to ask everyone a question, which is actually rather irrelevant (I may be accused of living in the past)... Based on his form between 2011 and 2014, especially '13 and '14, do you think Wilkinson could have done a job for England? I'm just interested to see peoples take on this

 

[Patchey]

Ragerancher has a good point. Farrell is not a 'big game player'. He's a young man who has shown remarkable composure for a sportsman of his age, and this was very quickly warped into the assumption that he has an ice man like nerves. He does get flustered in big games and he does lose his head. Not saying he won't learn to control that over time of course.

Just re the Ford v Faz argument. I would pick Ford as the better fly half, but I'd also suggest that even if he is, as the coaching staff seem to think, secondary to Farrell, we need to be going into the World Cup with a second choice that has more than an hours worth of experience. Going on his current rate of expose, Ford won't have played much more than sixty minutes if international test rugby by the end of the Six Nations. That's a big problem.

 

[j-dawg]

Right, I have been following these forums for a while and just wanted to ask everyone a question, which is actually rather irrelevant (I may be accused of living in the past)... Based on his form between 2011 and 2014, especially '13 and '14, do you think Wilkinson could have done a job for England? I'm just interested to see peoples take on this

I thought he couldve still been doing the job come next years world cup. Shame he retired.

 

[Patchey]

Right, I have been following these forums for a while and just wanted to ask everyone a question, which is actually rather irrelevant (I may be accused of living in the past)... Based on his form between 2011 and 2014, especially '13 and '14, do you think Wilkinson could have done a job for England? I'm just interested to see peoples take on this

Yes and no. He played some of the best rugby of his career in those last few seasons. But he was playing without the additional physical stress of international duty and had some of the world's best attacking talent outside him. Just as he formed a great pairing with Greenwood in the early 2000s, he and Gitteau complimented each other perfectly.

Would be have been good? Sure. Would he have been as good for England as he was for Toulon? Nope.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Wilkinson had intermittent opportunities a few years ago and didn't make the most of them. This was despite being in excellent form at Toulon. He went to the 2011world cup as first choice 10 and didn't deliver. More and more it began to seem as though he could pull the strings of an already talented backline - Toulon - but couldnt get the best out if Englands. Maybe he could have done more with the current backline but I doubt it. In the latter games I saw him he play he wasn't quite able to take it to the line, straighten up, draw defenders etc... All things that international sides desperately need. So in a word....no.

 

[j-dawg]

Wilkinson had intermittent opportunities a few years ago and didn't make the most of them. This was despite being in excellent form at Toulon. He went to the 2011world cup as first choice 10 and didn't deliver. More and more it began to seem as though he could pull the strings of an already talented backline - Toulon - but couldnt get the best out if Englands. Maybe he could have done more with the current backline but I doubt it. In the latter games I saw him he play he wasn't quite able to take it to the line, straighten up, draw defenders etc... All things that international sides desperately need. So in a word....no.

I would argue that most of England's team imploded during that tournament.

Except Simon Shaw. Ironically.

 

[Patchey]

I would argue that most of England's team imploded during that tournament.

Except Simon Shaw. Ironically.

Simon Shaw was incredible. Don't be mean.

 

[j-dawg]

Simon Shaw was incredible. Don't be mean.

I meant because he was held together by tape at that point. One of the few players for England to show some passion that WC.

4eva a ledg

 

[Patchey]

I meant because he was held together by tape at that point. One of the few players for England to show some passion that WC.

4eva a ledg

Ah I see, I'll let you off then. Yeah, he was more tape and deep heat than man at that point wasn't he?

 

[ratsapprentice]

INB4 England coaches try and suggest that they are dropping players due to form rather than meticulously planned changes for Samoa.

This week is going to be very interesting. How will the coaches manage what is certain to be a very aggressive media onslaught.