2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

[Every Time Ref]

OK maybe an unrealistic suggestion, but do you not think there's a lot to be said for it? Like you, I don't believe Farrell is fundamentally not good enough - just not good enough right now, a lot of which is match fitness and recovering from his injury, which he obviously hasn't fully. To regain match fitness and form, he needs to play rugby. He's going to play more at Saracens, with less pressure on him, than he is going to sitting on the bench - as I see it, there are three options to get his form back:

* Keep playing international rugby and hope he gets it back soon (worst option)
* Sit him on the bench and try o get his form back by giving him 20 minutes a game (decent option)
* Have him playing 80 minutes at a time away from the spotlight for Sarries (best option)

 

[goodNumber10]

I think chucking him out the squad is humiliating and unnecessary. He brings a lot in even outside of the playing side.

I think for the sake of two weeks, drop him to the bench - shows confidence in his ability but tells him he's not immune to loss of form. Send him back to Sarries with the explicit reasoning that he must assert himself in the Sarries team and nail himself on as a starter.

Give him the exact same deal Eastmond got.

 

[j'nuh]

not really sure what he's supposed to say.

He's not going to publically hang him out to dry, plus you know, i gave him a call earlier and said don't worry Stewie, Faz didn't play that badly. He was relived, thought he'd been got it wrong.

Literally no one on the forum believes Lancaster should hang Farrell out to dry. It would be especially a dick move for Lancaster to start calling out his players on an individual basis.

But he can avoid the question, or use media fluff to deflect the question. "He picked up an injury so we'll monitor his progress" or "He'll work hard in training and we'll make the decision based on what the fly-halves have shown" is good enough. Literally every coach in the world does this.

What Lancaster did was basically admit that England does not operate on a meritocratic basis. That "trust" trumps form, that he knows Farrell had a bad performance but will stick by him anyway. Do you actually believe that this is a good policy to live by, even if you thought Farrell had a good game?

Thing is, every game that Lancaster picks an out-of-form Farrell is what is hanging Farrell out to dry. Farrell isn't going to reject an England call. Every bad game he has heaps more pressure on him from the England fans and from himself. Let him go back to his club, get over his injury, pick up some form, and come back stronger for the 6N. If he deserves to be first-choice for England, doing this should not be difficult.

A good parallel to strike is Wales and Priestland. The Wales management trusted Priestland for such a long time, through disappointing performance after disappointing performance. Biggar played better in his appearances during this time and Wales went through a big improvement when he was finally brought in as first-choice. Do you believe their trust in Priestland was justified? If not, why does this change when it's England and Farrell?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Right so Farrell is now not good enough to even be on the bench?

I don't buy that, if he's going to be dropped he should stay in the squad, he should drop out for Samoa, but he should be in the match 23 for Australia.

I agree with this. I'd have dropped him for Samoa completely, but then had him on the bench vs Australia (presuming Ford played well vs Samoa).

Lancaster even has the perfect excuse, as well, as he was forced off injured vs the Boks.

"We've taken the decision to rest Owen for this game as he's had a recurrence of an ankle injury playing against South Africa. It gives us the opportunity to give George Ford a start at flyhalf, and gain some valuable experience in the run up to next years world cup."

 

[Patchey]

This whole issue has been brought about by some mad selection, which has really let Farrell down and made him look like a bit of a mug. I'm no Farrell lover, but I'm not one eyed enough to ignore the fact that when on form he is a good player and does bring a number of big positives to the side. Ford is better IMO but thats another debate. What the coaches should have done is kept Farrell at Sarries for the first one or two games and made it publicly clear that he was being allowed to get more game time under his belt after a difficult recovery from injury and not being 'dropped'. A similar approach to how batsmen in cricket are often sent to play with their county side to 'find some form'. The best way to rediscover your previous form after a long lack of game time is, obviously, to play. But test match rugby is not the arena for this.

However, Farrell was selected and asked to do something that we was no ready to do. That is largely the coaches fault. Farrell is clearly very proud to play for England and of the role he has within the tea (who wouldn't be?) and is never going to say no if asked to play. Why was be picked regardless? I'd wager the fact that Ford has had precious little test experience played a big part. Why has he had so little experience? Because of, in my view, incorrect selection decisions made back in the Six Nations. So Farrell ends up starting against the All Blacks and plays poorly, embarrassing himself a little on a big stage, largely because of one historic and one very recent selection blunder.

And of course, once he has player against NZ he has to stay in the squad. To drop him would both shatter his confidence and cause no little stir in the media, who have been happy to talk about Farrell like he's god's own choice fly half up until now. If he has been dropped to go and find some form the question would also have been asked, 'if he was out of form, why play him against New Zealand?', to which there is no reasonable answer. So he played again SA and was poor again, and now a lot of those who previously filled column inches about his growing genius are looking a bit more critically.

So I feel pretty sorry for him and pretty p*ssed about the way the coaching staff have let him down (just as I'm not happy with selecting Lawes after that concussion and amazed they're not even asking JJ to train!). It looks like he'll keep his place this week, and I don't have any real objection to him benching. If he is shoe horned in at twelve though, that is criminal. Sure, we performed very well at 12 with Ford inside him in the age grade set up. But England's age grade forwards make everyone else look like mewling, pre-pubescent children, so it is really no fair comparison. He certainly won't regain form at inside centre.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I think chucking him out the squad is humiliating and unnecessary. He brings a lot in even outside of the playing side.

I think for the sake of two weeks, drop him to the bench - shows confidence in his ability but tells him he's not immune to loss of form. Send him back to Sarries with the explicit reasoning that he must assert himself in the Sarries team and nail himself on as a starter.

Give him the exact same deal Eastmond got.

Maybe you're right, but if a player thinks that being dropped from the squad when he a) is out of form; b) is not match fit; and c) has picked up another knock is "humiliating", then he probably doesn't have the stones for international rugby. As it happens, I do think OF has the stones for it, I think if he was dropped he'd take it on the chin and fight his way back into contention, and that would be great for England. I also think in the meantime Ford would find his feet in an England shirt, and we'd have genuine competition between two quality players in a key position.

Eastmond was a slightly different prospect too - Lancaster has already demonstrated a huge amount of faith in Farrell over his time in charge, it would have been a very different thing to drop a guy after 1 1/2 games.

 

[goodNumber10]

Literally no one on the forum believes Lancaster should hang Farrell out to dry. It would be especially a dick move for Lancaster to start calling out his players on an individual basis.

But he can avoid the question, or use media fluff to deflect the question. "He picked up an injury so we'll monitor his progress" or "He'll work hard in training and we'll make the decision based on what the fly-halves have shown" is good enough. Literally every coach in the world does this.

What Lancaster did was basically admit that England does not operate on a meritocratic basis. That "trust" trumps form, that he knows Farrell had a bad performance but will stick by him anyway. Do you actually believe that this is a good policy to live by, even if you thought Farrell had a good game?

Thing is, every game that Lancaster picks an out-of-form Farrell is what is hanging Farrell out to dry. Farrell isn't going to reject an England call. Every bad game he has heaps more pressure on him from the England fans and from himself. Let him go back to his club, get over his injury, pick up some form, and come back stronger for the 6N. If he deserves to be first-choice for England, doing this should not be difficult.

A good parallel to strike is Wales and Priestland. The Wales management trusted Priestland for such a long time, through disappointing performance after disappointing performance. Biggar played better in his appearances during this time and Wales went through a big improvement when he was finally brought in as first-choice. Do you believe their trust in Priestland was justified? If not, why does this change when it's England and Farrell?

We're talking two average games for Farrell, i re-iterate he wasn't as bad as people make out, and on both occasions he's playing in a team that isn't functioning across the park - it's a completely different scenario to Preistland and completely incomparable. Priestland had a break through season was possibly the 10 of the NH for a good year or so and then capitulated after injury, Gatland has kept him in despite indifferent form for nearly three years.

Lancaster doesn't have to avoid any questions, he's openly said he's off form, not playing well enough - he doesn't need to make up BS to cover Farrell.

And yes i think it's fair enough, i think two average games don't get a player discarded, i can accept him dropping to the bench. I don't think hanging a player out to dry because he made a couple of mistakes (that his replacement also made) is a particularly confidence boosting thing for a squad.

Squads need stability, and if the squad is picked initially on merit (and you can argue that point separately) then i don't think the squad should get split apart the first sign of a bit of trouble, or a small loss of form.

Question, why is no one hanging brown out to dry? he's been far worse than Farrell, he was dismal in New Zealand, awful in the first match last week has been cr*p for quins all season yet not a peep from "the fans" despite the fact he's under performed for 5 straight games.

Eastmond was a slightly different prospect too - Lancaster has already demonstrated a huge amount of faith in Farrell over his time in charge, it would have been a very different thing to drop a guy after 1 1/2 games.

It was a pretty devastating 1/2 a game though wasn't it?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

There's no one obvious to take his place - Foden's not been setting the world a light for a while, Goode is....hrmmm, and Watson/Nowell are both fulltime wingers these days.
Brown had a poor summer, but I'm willing to let that slide/attribute it to burnout (Launchbury wasn't particularly stand out over the summer, compared to his usual form anyway). NZ game was poor, but SA was far better (not quite 6N level though).
Issues at 10 are far more pressing than issues at 15, imo.
Brown is out of form but was the best player in the 6N half a year ago. There's always been question marks over Farrell at 10 since day one.

Guess he's a bit of a scapegoat, but there's no smoke without fire.

 

[Maverick1987]

We're talking two average games for Farrell, i re-iterate he wasn't as bad as people make out, and on both occasions he's playing in a team that isn't functioning across the park - it's a completely different scenario to Preistland and completely incomparable. Priestland had a break through season was possibly the 10 of the NH for a good year or so and then capitulated after injury, Gatland has kept him in despite indifferent form for nearly three years.

Lancaster doesn't have to avoid any questions, he's openly said he's off form, not playing well enough - he doesn't need to make up BS to cover Farrell.

And yes i think it's fair enough, i think two average games don't get a player discarded, i can accept him dropping to the bench. I don't think hanging a player out to dry because he made a couple of mistakes (that his replacement also made) is a particularly confidence boosting thing for a squad.

Squads need stability, and if the squad is picked initially on merit (and you can argue that point separately) then i don't think the squad should get split apart the first sign of a bit of trouble, or a small loss of form.

Question, why is no one hanging brown out to dry? he's been far worse than Farrell, he was dismal in New Zealand, awful in the first match last week has been cr*p for quins all season yet not a peep from "the fans" despite the fact he's under performed for 5 straight games.



It was a pretty devastating 1/2 a game though wasn't it?

You should say YOU DONT THINK he was as bad as everyone said because imho he was the worst player on the field by a fair margin . There's one thing being defensive and not amazing going forward then there's making horrible basic errors on at least 4 occasions that I can think of that completely killed front foot ball. I will be hopelessly disappointed with Lancaster if Farrell starts at 10 or 12 this weekend

 

[Patchey]

Yeah, Brown hasn't been at his best. But I guess the fact that he was so good prior to the NZ tour gives him more 'money in the bank' or whatever the phrase that gets used is. That and the fact he's actually started to find some form again.

Dire for Quins is a little harsh. Average in a dire back line more like.

As Olly says, he wasn't the only player to look stretched too thin in NZ. 10 is also a much more high profile position, and I'm still not convinced English rugby has recovered physiologically from losing Wilkinson. We (the media and fans) are still looking for a world beating, man of steel to play fly half and as such are prone to pay a lot more attention to Farrell and lay a lot more responsibility on his shoulders.

 

[Maverick1987]

I think Browns fall to grace has been overstated tbh he's had a few of bad games but probably the fact that for as good as a whole year he was winning MoM almost every game he played in . I'd say he's a victim of his own success if anything . However he's still our best choice at full back atm

 

[j'nuh]

It's not even true that we haven't questioned Brown anyway. I picked it up on this thread (page 37, reply #1087) and it was discussed somewhere else which I can't quite remember. I'm sure a few members have even suggested Goode ahead of Brown. This is coming from a board that is particularly anti-Goode.

But Brown actually had a decent game against SA. He showed a big improvement on the previous week. For me, it's just about enough to save him, although mostly on the account that there isn't another reasonable player to pick. If we had a good fullback on the go right now, I'd definitely want that player to come in for Samoa.

The more apt player to pick on would be Care. He hasn't received as much criticism as Farrell and has played nearly as bad. The main issue at hand is that Farrell has an obvious replacement who everyone would like to see, Care does not. (That said, what I would give for Laidlaw to be English...)

GN10 is literally the only person I've seen anywhere that is calling Farrell's performance average. Every other member on here and on planet rugby, as well as all the newspaper ratings I've seen, and Farrell himself, have said that he played poor. It's such a damning consensus. I just wish there was a full game available online so I could dissect it. His performance was a comedy of errors, probably the worst fly-half performance I've seen since RO'G vs Scotland in 2013.

(This one.)





----------------------

Reading the Lancaster post-match interview, it feels like he doesn't appreciate what his detractors are even saying:

However, a defiant Lancaster refutes the suggestion England are in crisis.

"I don't think that's true at all. If you say that, you're talking about a team that has no belief in what they're doing, has no sense of direction," Lancaster said at Monday's press conference.

"You're talking about a group of players who are not aligned with what you're trying to do, not agreeing with where you're going and have poor discipline on and off the field.

"That's a team in crisis. For me at the moment, I don't see any of those traits in this England team."

(http://www.espnscrum.com/england/rugby/story/248223.html#7EF0xwPalWlhmwI4.99)

I agree with him broadly. He has a direction, it's just the wrong one, and he's going to waste a generation if he doesn't come up with a new direction soon. What's become apparent in these AIs is:
1. His stubbornness in not changing away from players that will not deliver
2. His tactics limit any exciting player he picks

 

[ratsapprentice]

Media saying that Care and Vunipola drop out of the squad, Youngs and Morgan to start.
Wigglesworth and Clark on the bench.

Farrell at 12.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Media saying that Care and Vunipola drop out of the squad, Youngs and Morgan to start.
Wigglesworth and Clark on the bench.

Farrell at 12.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I physically can't cheer on Callum Clarke. He's just such a disgusting human being.

 

[goodNumber10]

You should say YOU DONT THINK he was as bad as everyone said because imho he was the worst player on the field by a fair margin .

Er, isn't that exactly what i have said?

There's one thing being defensive and not amazing going forward then there's making horrible basic errors on at least 4 occasions that I can think of that completely killed front foot ball. I will be hopelessly disappointed with Lancaster if Farrell starts at 10 or 12 this weekend

what were they? give me the game clock so we can look at them in detail.

It's not even true that we haven't questioned Brown anyway. I picked it up on this thread (page 37, reply #1087) and it was discussed somewhere else which I can't quite remember. I'm sure a few members have even suggested Goode ahead of Brown. This is coming from a board that is particularly anti-Goode.

But Brown actually had a decent game against SA. He showed a big improvement on the previous week. For me, it's just about enough to save him, although mostly on the account that there isn't another reasonable player to pick. If we had a good fullback on the go right now, I'd definitely want that player to come in for Samoa.

We have plenty of good fullbacks, Daly (the forum favourite) can play there, Watson can play there, Foden has been in good form for Saints... etc....

The more apt player to pick on would be Care. He hasn't received as much criticism as Farrell and has played nearly as bad. The main issue at hand is that Farrell has an obvious replacement who everyone would like to see, Care does not. (That said, what I would give for Laidlaw to be English...)

Care also suffers from poor quality ball going forward, he's a 9 that snipes and liks to run how does he dot hat off slow static ball?

A bigger issue with care is his defensive positioning - where was he on the Lambie chip? He was ont he wrong side of the ruck running clockwise rather than anti and defusing the kick.

GN10 is literally the only person I've seen anywhere that is calling Farrell's performance average. Every other member on here and on planet rugby, as well as all the newspaper ratings I've seen, and Farrell himself, have said that he played poor. It's such a damning consensus.

So?

I am allowed to have a different opinion you know. I am allowed to say i don't agree with the general consensus - I don't think people are being fair or consistent with their criticism.It's ok to not agree. Besides what is Farrell supposed to say? "No you're all d*cks and i was awesome"? He's just going to say "yeah, not my best game but it's not far away etc...".

We have the luxury of discussing these things away from the press, who are hankering to have an effect and sell stories and a team having to deal with that. We can be more objective and put aside what the press and that say and look at the actual impact of things.

I just wish there was a full game available online so I could dissect it. His performance was a comedy of errors, probably the worst fly-half performance I've seen since RO'G vs Scotland in 2013.

Please list this comedy of errors that make it the worst flyhalf performance ever.

He makes some kicking errors towards the end when he is clearly injured and tired, and as I've pointed out I don't agree the Watson thing was all his fault - thought Watson had a very poor game that being one of contributing factors to the incidents.

Reading the Lancaster post-match interview, it feels like he doesn't appreciate what his detractors are even saying:


(http://www.espnscrum.com/england/rugby/story/248223.html#7EF0xwPalWlhmwI4.99)

I agree with him broadly. He has a direction, it's just the wrong one, and he's going to waste a generation if he doesn't come up with a new direction soon. What's become apparent in these AIs is:
1. His stubbornness in not changing away from players that will not deliver
2. His tactics limit any exciting player he picks

or, his players are not performing on the field despite his tactical instructions and despite his selection. Do you honestly think tactically Lancaster is saying, right lads lets go out play slow ball, give care and Faz s*it, and knock it on every other recycle.

Lets look at the last couple of years, it's been a quite similar story in England not performing in the AI's, then starting slow in the 6N.

It takes time to transition from clubs that are all playing different patterns and different styles to be cohesive with confidence in each other.

A team is the sum of it's parts not one individual player, errors have a knock on effect. Bad decisions can be recovered, slow ball can be turned into quick ball, just seldom by a 9 or a 10.

England failed collectively on Saturday and against the AB's i think that's what Lancaster is saying, and that's what i'm saying about Farrell, he made mistakes yeah - i said that all along - but i don't agree they had as big an impact as you guys are making out and that there were far worse basic errors in the game that you guys are skirting over to have your 2pence on Fazlet.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Er, isn't that exactly what i have said?



what were they? give me the game clock so we can look at them in detail.



We have plenty of good fullbacks, Daly (the forum favourite) can play there, Watson can play there, Foden has been in good form for Saints... etc....



Care also suffers from poor quality ball going forward, he's a 9 that snipes and liks to run how does he dot hat off slow static ball?

A bigger issue with care is his defensive positioning - where was he on the Lambie chip? He was ont he wrong side of the ruck running clockwise rather than anti and defusing the kick.



So?

I am allowed to have a different opinion you know. I am allowed to say i don't agree with the general consensus - I don't think people are being fair or consistent with their criticism.It's ok to not agree. Besides what is Farrell supposed to say? "No you're all d*cks and i was awesome"? He's just going to say "yeah, not my best game but it's not far away etc...".

Besides , we have the luxury of discussing these things away from the press, who are hankering to have an effect and sell stories and a team having to deal with that. We can be more objective and put aside what the press and that say and look at the actual impact of things.



Please list this comedy of errors that make it the worst flyhalf performance ever.

He makes some kicking errors towards the end when he is clearly injured and tired, and as I've pointed out I don't agree the watson thing was all his fault - thought watson had a very poor game that being one of contributing factors the incidents.



or, his players are not performing on the field despite his tactical instructions and despite his selection. Do you honestly think tactically Lancaster is saying, right lads lets go out play slow ball, give care and Faz s*it, and knock it on every other recycle.

Lets look at the last couple of years, it's been a quite similar story in England not performing in the AI's, then starting slow in the 6N.

It takes time to transition from clubs that are all playing different patterns and different styles to be cohesive with confidence in each other.

A team is the sum of it's parts not one individual player, errors have a knock on effect. Bad decisions can be recovered, slow ball can be turned into quick ball, just seldom by a 9 or a 10.

England failed collectively on Saturday and against the AB's i think that's what Lancaster is saying, and that's what i'm saying about Farrell, he made mistakes yeah - i said that all along - but i don't agree they had as big an impact as you guys are making out and that there were far worse basic errors in the game that you guys are skirting over to have your 2pence on Fazlet.

GN10, I think you should calm down a bit. You are the only one defending Farrell. Why? Are you his cousin or something??

Last night on SA's Afrikaans Rugby show, they had a few fly halves talking about Farrell, And Nick Mallett and Naas Botha also said the same thing immediately after the game. Farrell was atrocious. And just to be clear I neither like nor dislike the lad, I see very little of him playing so I can't judge his general performance. I can only judge on what I saw, and this past weekend he was crap.

He has no vision, he knuckles under pressure, and it seems like doesn't always know what to do when he has the ball.

Here's a few things that I can remember from the game which he did:

1. Tried to run out the ball from his own goal line, which resulted in the first points for SA.
2. Kicked the ball out on the full from a restart - Which is inexcusable if there is no wind to speak of.
3. Made an up-and-under kick that actually went backwards.

And just to get back to the run from his own goal line, Jan Serfontein (correct spelling) and JP Pietersen couldn't catch him when he made the run, so there was actually time for him to slow down a bit and kick it away. Also, why did he run towards the corner?? He basically limited his and the team's options by doing that! If he was more central, then there was a chance to make a play on either side and maybe counter or kick the ball out. His decision making was poor!

 

[Patchey]

Media saying that Care and Vunipola drop out of the squad, Youngs and Morgan to start.
Wigglesworth and Clark on the bench.

Farrell at 12.

[video]http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnkuv8fey31qfv91lo1_500.gif[/video]

Please. No. Not Clark.

 

[goodNumber10]

GN10, I think you should calm down a bit. You are the only one defending Farrell. Why? Are you his cousin or something??

Keeping it personal? Cool!

Last night on SA's Afrikaans Rugby show, they had a few fly halves talking about Farrell, And Nick Mallett and Naas Botha also said the same thing immediately after the game. Farrell was atrocious. And just to be clear I neither like nor dislike the lad, I see very little of him playing so I can't judge his general performance. I can only judge on what I saw, and this past weekend he was crap.

He has no vision, he knuckles under pressure, and it seems like doesn't always know what to do when he has the ball.

Here's a few things that I can remember from the game which he did:

1. Tried to run out the ball from his own goal line, which resulted in the first points for SA.
2. Kicked the ball out on the full from a restart - Which is inexcusable if there is no wind to speak of.
3. Made an up-and-under kick that actually went backwards.

And just to get back to the run from his own goal line, Jan Serfontein (correct spelling) and JP Pietersen couldn't catch him when he made the run, so there was actually time for him to slow down a bit and kick it away. Also, why did he run towards the corner?? He basically limited his and the team's options by doing that! If he was more central, then there was a chance to make a play on either side and maybe counter or kick the ball out. His decision making was poor!

Seriously? are you actually watching that clip up above?

@heineken I'm allowed my opinion bit all that's lead to is personal insults.

I've said he made mistakes, I said I felt they were down to him not being match fit. Why do you and everyone keep pushing that I haven't you cheeky are not reading what I write and just wrong your own point.

I'm currently transcribing the game will do a player analysis piece.

Just to fry everyone noodles is quite like to see how OF goes at 15.

 

[Patchey]

Just to fry everyone noodles is quite like to see how OF goes at 15.

Although I guess Sarries won a Premiership final with him at 13 right?
@TRF_Olyy Would you actively feel like booing Clark if you were at the game? I really find it hard to stomach him being selected myself, not sire what my reaction would be if I saw him in an England shirt live.