• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

@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.

You are allowed. But you would have to agree that you are being a bit too favourable towards the guy. The general consensus on this forum as well as others in the rugby community was that Farrell was crap!

And as an outsider, I couldn't really care less where he plays. And if he plays crap, in those positions then the same would apply as it does here...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:eek:

Although I guess Sarries won a Premiership final with him at 13 right?

I wouldn't do it at this level, but i'd be interested to see how he went there for Sarries.

You are allowed. But you would have to agree that you are being a bit too favourable towards the guy. The general consensus on this forum as well as others in the rugby community was that Farrell was crap!

And as an outsider, I couldn't really care less where he plays. And if he plays crap, in those positions then the same would apply as it does here...

right, so i'm allowed my opinion, but only if it's in keeping with everyone else?

How am i favouring the lad? I've said repeatedly Ford should start, even before this game. I've said he's not playing as well as he can or should. I've said he made errors towards the end of his time on the pitch. I've even posted analysis that counters what i think - which would have been pretty easy to ignore all things considered.

Yet everyone just keeps saying the same things to me, that apparently i'm missing these things (even though i'm clearly not).

In fact i'm saying the exact same things as everyone else except when we get to the point that i don't think he was sh*t, and that he was ok outside of those errors. The thing that has set this off is that I don't agree the Watson incident is all on him for a multitude of factors.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't do it at this level, but i'd be interested to see how he went there for Sarries.

IMO he can fill a hole in the centres at Premiership, but I;ve never been enthused when I've seen him there.

He actually ended up at 13 in the All Black's game for the last few phases I think. Not that it really mattered in the end.
 
he is fine in the centre, not amazing but ok.

I'd like to see the 15 experiment, big boot, can tackle, runs a defence, he actually has a decent top end of pace just very poor accelration, and lets be frank he can't run any worse lines than Goode, or even Brown right now.
 
right, so i'm allowed my opinion, but only if it's in keeping with everyone else?

yes, you are allowed your opinion. No, it shouldn't be the same as everyone else, that would make this forum very boring!!

How am i favouring the lad? I've said repeatedly Ford should start, even before this game. I've said he's not playing as well as he can or should. I've said he made errors towards the end of his time on the pitch. Yet everyone just keeps saying the same things to me, that apparently i'm missing these things (even though i'm clearly not).

Here's the crux, he didn't make errors towards the end. He made errors throughout the game. And they weren't minor errors either!

In fact i'm saying the exact same things as everyone else except when we get to the point that i don't think he was sh*t, and that he was ok outside of those errors. The thing that has set this off is that I don't agree the Watson incident is all on him for a multitude of factors.

Every player is ok outside of his errors! Even the referees are ok outside of their errors! That is not really a good way to persuade anyone or to validate an argument. Nobody cares about the things the guys do OK-ish. Everyone comments on the things a guy does very well or very badly.

The argument on the Watson incident is all on him IMHO. Watson made his debut, he was the most inexperienced player on the field for England. Farrell was more experienced, he's the team's playmaker, and he was the guy with the ball in his hand. The other players can only be held accountable for their positioning, but to be fair to them, they didn't know what Farrell was going to do.
 
he is fine in the centre, not amazing but ok.

I'd like to see the 15 experiment, big boot, can tackle, runs a defence, he actually has a decent top end of pace just very poor accelration, and lets be frank he can't run any worse lines than Goode, or even Brown right now.

So an English Halfpenny?

I mean, there are worse ideas. I wouldn't do it myself, but I can see the appeal. I'm not sure what Fazlet is like under the high ball though?

As for Brown, I think you're being a bit harsh. His lines haven't been that bad, it's more his high ball confidence that was galled me recently. He appears to have sorted that, and cut some nice lines in broken play against the Boks.
 
Here's the crux, he didn't make errors towards the end. He made errors throughout the game. And they weren't minor errors either!

Such as?

Every player is ok outside of his errors! Even the referees are ok outside of their errors! That is not really a good way to persuade anyone or to validate an argument. Nobody cares about the things the guys do OK-ish. Everyone comments on the things a guy does very well or very badly.

No you're not understanding what i'm saying, I'm saying he made errors before he was taken off, but up until then he was fine - to ok. Could have done a couple of things differently but he wasn't making mistake after mistake after mistake the whole game as people are claiming.

The argument on the Watson incident is all on him IMHO. Watson made his debut, he was the most inexperienced player on the field for England. Farrell was more experienced, he's the team's playmaker, and he was the guy with the ball in his hand. The other players can only be held accountable for their positioning, but to be fair to them, they didn't know what Farrell was going to do.

NNNNNNNNGGGGHGHHHHHHH!!!!

He takes the ball, can't kick as A: he's middle of the park and he's unlikely to hit touch, and B: has been boxed in by JS and JPP. So he dummies with Brown and sets off. He has JS and JPP on his tail, is travelling at full pelt so the kick is never going to be an option when he's travelling at that speed and i already said he's in the middle of the park so the kick is difficult from static anyway, he could try and hoof it on the run but that's a very difficult kick and if it goes wrong there is only one defender and a wall of Saffers.

He can't pass to Watson as he's too far away and A:the ball is soaking wet and B: it's off his weaker side, at that point Watson does absolutely nothing to help him make that pass, if he comes infield he could pass to him and HE could make the clearing kick, but Watson just holds his space at that point.

So Farrell runs across looking to link with Watson or get closer to touch, at which point if Watson had run the cut back it would have possibly held JPP & JS and allowed to Farrell to slow and make a decent clearing kick to touch and Watson would have been able to still link with Farrell - but he doesn't really do anything - you can see Farrell trying to pull him earlier and then at the exact wrong moment he offers himself on a switch instead of actually taking the space.

Watson is in the far better position than Farrell to see what is happening, he has the space, the depth and the pace to adjust - fine it's his second cap and he is inexperienced but that doesn't mean somehow the situation is different and it's Farrells fault it is how it unfolded and things could have been done differently in hindsight.
 
Last edited:
Agree to disagree then. It's clear you won't take the points myself and others have made for consideration.

I'm no rugby expert, but the first thing a fly half is taught, is to kick the ball out of hand. And when your team is under pressure, in their own 22, with no advantage in numbers or an overlap, you don't hold on to the ball!! you kick the thing out! even if just goes 5m in front of where you kicked it. Look at the very first kick off in the match, we tried to run from our own 22, see it's not going to work, get the ball to Lambie, and under pressure he kicks the ****ing ball out!! And then England got a lineout on the 22m area...

Maybe your mindset is just different than mine...
 
Agree to disagree then. It's clear you won't take the points myself and others have made for consideration.

what points? I'm actually breaking down and analysing the play in detail, you're just saying kick it without actually looking at the mechanics of how he should do it and why he couldn't.

I'm no rugby expert, but the first thing a fly half is taught, is to kick the ball out of hand.

Yes, but the distance is too far for him under that pressure, and trying to kick running at full pelt is one of the most difficult things you can do. Kicking is about timing.

I really think people are not recognising how good the kick chase was.

Look at the very first kick off in the match, we tried to run from our own 22, see it's not going to work, get the ball to Lambie, and under pressure he kicks the ****ing ball out!! And then England got a lineout on the 22m area...

SA didn't try and run the ball, they worked it across the field to give themselves two middle of the pitch kicking options; Lambie right - Le Roux left, and to give both of them a better kicking angle than straight down the tram lines, they did this specifically so he could make touch and not kick wildly and give the ball to England unopposed.

It's a pretty standard exit strategy to be fair, and it was actually executed really well, Lambies kick at the end was just poor.
 
Last edited:
Did you watch England vs Italy in the 6nations, he was the best attacking 13 in the tournament. Admittedly that was back when Englands pack had a clue.

cant believe the things gn10 said about rhys priestland.......
i was thinking exactly the same and just about to post my views.

i cant imagine wales winning the world cup with priestland and i cant think they will win without tuperic.....luckily for us they will probably prefer warburton to him.

i dont think england will win with farrell,watson, wood and hartley.

lots of talk here about skills......most if not all these players have been playing since they were at primary school............if they cant pass and catch now then something is seriously wrong.
even the evolution of the ball makes it easier to pass and catch as is the compounds they use on their hands.
as for wet and windy conditions..........standard for uk.

in almost every world cup i can remember , some squad members didnt get a game,so have burgess in the squad.
there are no easy matches for us except perhaps uraquay (sorry uraquay) and they will certainly be tough.
our pool could come down to points difference which is helpful as we play uraquay last and will probably know what we need to do.
enter sam burgess if we need the points........got to give him 20 minutes at international level before then.
 
what points, i'm actually breaking down and analysing the play in details you're just saying kick it without actually looking at the mechanics of how he should do ti and why he couldn't'.



Yes, but the distance is too far for him under pressure, and trying to kick running at full pelt is one of the most difficult things you can do. Kicking is about timing.




No.

SA didn't try and run the ball out, they worked it across the field to give themselves two middle of the pitch kicking options; Lambie right - Le Roux left, and to give both of them a better kicking angle than straight down the tram lines, they did this specifically so he could make touch and not kick wildly and give the ball to England unopposed.

It was actually really good what they did, Lambies kick at the end was just poor.

Lambie was in the exact same position as Farrell on the pitch!! Even if Farrell made a crappy clearance, it would've been a better option. How is Lambie's clearance any different from Farrell's? Lambie's clearance had a higher chance of being charged down than Farrell's would have been, had he kicked it...
 
Lambie was in the exact same position as Farrell on the pitch!! Even if Farrell made a crappy clearance, it would've been a better option. How is Lambie's clearance any different from Farrell's? Lambie's clearance had a higher chance of being charged down than Farrell's would have been, had he kicked it...

Because Lambie is square on, has a scrum half pass to move him onto his right foot, is able to time his kick and has people blocking the chasers.

Seriously mate. They are not even comparable situations other than they are both near the posts, lambie is under far less pressure and it's a clearly rehearsed exit strategy.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Charlie Hodgson on Farrell at 12: &quot;It might go against something George is trying to do... it could be quite a difficult situation.&quot;</p>&mdash; Christopher Jones (@chjones9) <a href="https://twitter.com/chjones9/status/534625358365327360">November 18, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Haskell is injured? That explains it then.

A few news sources reporting that 36 isn't training because of an ankle injury and will be assessed this evening, and Eastmond can't train until Friday until the earliest.

So Ford/Farrell/Barritt looking very likely. Why on earth JJ hasn't been brought in considering we have two non training centres in the squad is beyond me.
 
After reading all this stupid stuff 1 thing is obvious.....

Goodnumber10 doesn't know what a good number 10 looks like!
 
Haskell is injured? That explains it then.

Is he?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Charlie Hodgson on Farrell at 12: "It might go against something George is trying to do... it could be quite a difficult situation."</p>— Christopher Jones (@chjones9) <a href="https://twitter.com/chjones9/status/534625358365327360">November 18, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I'd be interested to know what he is referring to - in an as such manner.
 
Last edited:
Haskell Injured?

What fantastic news to go with all the other fantastic news!
No point in hoping for anything else - Wood & Clark it is then.

I would also like to add to 'Farrellgate' that personally, I never felt he should be dropped out of the squad for Australia. I still think he has a role to play especially in tight games against big opposition - I just don't feel that is a starting role, right now especially. I also would have kept him on the bench for South Africa.

I think that given the circumstances you have to wish for feasible things. Farrell has been an important member of the England squad and can still contribute plenty. Given the coaches' blatent rejection of Cipriani, the downfall of Burns, the relative 'greenness' of Slade, and the general mediocrity of Myler, I think we will need to make do with what we have right now. Personally I would have released Farrell to his club for Samoa, to ease some pressure and help him recover. I don't have a particular preference for Myler over him and would probably therefore have Farrell back on the bench for the Oz-Tralians. Personally for Samoa I would have Cipriani benching, but that is simply not on the table.
 
Top