• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

Without getting in to the nitty gritty of the marginal calls Farrell made in this particular incident, clearly the most obvious issue here is that Farrell has a 40 metre head start on Serfontein yet by the time he picks the ball up barely gives himself enough time to get a decent kick away, and that's why he chooses to run.

Don't amble, get to the ball, clear your lines, end of story. Then, if you want, you can bollock Watson for not working hard enough or whatever.
 
GN10 don't fool yourself into thinking you've answered anything, you haven't. You've made excuses for Farrell in the Watson case and you answered him messing up the kick as "well Ford did it too." None of your excuses are good enough so the evidence stands, Farrell messed up. I've told you why alreayd and you have simply gone "nuh uh because I say so." I'm not going to go through the match looking for every fault Farrell makes when you've already dismissed the biggest ones.

Part of the reaosn for the reaction is what you had been saying about the Flyhalf situation prior to the game. You claimed that Farrell shouldn't start and then proceed to defend him in 2 bad games. There are only 2 conclusions:

1) Farrell did NOT make large errors and therefore, by your arguments before, should be starting at 10.
2) Farrell DID make large errors and therefore it's right he is not starting at 10 but also should not be at 12.

You can't claim he made no significant errors but then also that he shouldn't be starting at 10. If he is too injured still then he shouldn't have start against SA and should not start against Samoa and should not have started vs NZ. You're all over the place between saying Farrell is our top Flyhalf then he isn't then he made no errors but shouldn't be starting then it's no problem he's starting but in the wrong position then it's fine Ford gets time when before it wasn't. It's quite hard to misinterpret such a mess of opinions.
 
surely the most damning issue is that England yet again lost the ball, not even in contact, letting SA hoof it down field putting England back on their own goal line?


GN10 don't fool yourself into thinking you've answered anything, you haven't.

lies.

You've made excuses for Farrell in the Watson case

No I've presented an alternative view point that you don't agree with because it doesn't lay the blame firmly on everyones favourite anit-christ.


you answered him messing up the kick as "well Ford did it too."

Which he did, so if it's an error for Farrell it's an error for Ford, it can't be both ways.

everyone said Farrell made kicking mistakes, and Ford should come on for him because of that - Ford came on and made the same mistakes.

Everyone said Farrell struggled to get the ball going, yet Ford also came on and struggled to get the ball going.

I pointed out this was neither of their faults really and more to do with quality of ball.

None of your excuses are good enough so the evidence stands, Farrell messed up. I've told you why alreayd and you have simply gone "nuh uh because I say so." I'm not going to go through the match looking for every fault Farrell makes when you've already dismissed the biggest ones.

No, more lies. I've addressed the big ones.

A: the Watson penalty i don't agree with you on
B: The kicking - I said yes they were mistakes, and they happened because he is not match fit, but that we shouldn't brush over the fact Ford also made the same mistake.

Part of the reaosn for the reaction is what you had been saying about the Flyhalf situation prior to the game.

Which you just can't seem to understand.... because you still seem to think i said Farrell should start when i have long said Ford should.

and then proceed to defend him in 2 bad games. There are only 2 conclusions:

1) Farrell did NOT make large errors and therefore, by your arguments before, should be starting at 10.
2) Farrell DID make large errors and therefore it's right he is not starting at 10 but also should not be at 12.

You can't claim he made no significant errors but then also that he shouldn't be starting at 10. If he is too injured still then he shouldn't have start against SA and should not start against Samoa and should not have started vs NZ. You're all over the place between saying Farrell is our top Flyhalf then he isn't then he made no errors but shouldn't be starting then it's no problem he's starting but in the wrong position then it's fine Ford gets time when before it wasn't. It's quite hard to misinterpret such a mess of opinions.

I've not at any point said Farrell is our Top fly half during this period or that he should start i've said he was struggling for fitness and form but that he wasn't playing as bad as people make out.

I can say he didn't make signifcant errors in open play because he didn't - he did make two kicking errors in the 50 minutes he was on after he appeared to be injured.

That has nothing to do with if i think he's playing well enough to hold Ford out - which i did actually say he wasn't, but you keep ignoring.
 
Last edited:
There was a lot of problems in that game. Farrell made a couple of high profile mistakes and it reminded me of a goal keeper in football, everyone will remember them but there where a lot of mistakes made by players like Hartley, Lawes, Wood, Care, Vunipola and co. but they don't become as glaring obvious. Still he has to be held acountable for them and so does everyone else. It was 15 guys who lost the game not just Farrell.
 
There was a lot of problems in that game. Farrell made a couple of high profile mistakes and it reminded me of a goal keeper in football, everyone will remember them but there where a lot of mistakes made by players like Hartley, Lawes, Wood, Care, Vunipola and co. but they don't become as glaring obvious. Still he has to be held acountable for them and so does everyone else. It was 15 guys who lost the game not just Farrell.

no mate it was just Farrell, all on his lonesome.

Oh, and his dad.

They lost the game for England, Lancaster is a little accountable depending on if you're a tigers fan or not.
 
Guuuuuuuys! Stop fighting!

Can't we all just bond over mutual relief that Calum Clark has been dropped and Matt Banahan will never wear an England shirt again? Please?
 
Well we will just have to disagree then GN10. I think at his peak Farrell is a decent Flyhalf but nothing special and certainly shouldn't be treated as if he already owns the shirt. He has it primarily down to how little others have had a chance in it as far as I can see. I think Farrell's current form is shocking and that he shouldn't have been selected at all as he has not had time to recover.

As for problems elsewhere, Brown is off form but improved vs SA compred to NZ. The pack have lacked a truely effective carrier apart from Morgan and we have lacked a player who can contest breakdowns well. Handling and discipline recently have been bad and the players should be told in no uncertain terms that stupid penalties will not be tolerated. Care has been too slow getting the ball out the back of the ruck when available and is still taking steps slowing down the delivery. He also was highly inefficient at box kicking.

Farrell gets the most flak because it does feel like he has been getting special treatment along with Robshaw, a sense that they are untouchable in the team.
 
Watch when he arrows Serfontein, has sat down. He's assuming the tackle position as he has bought the dummy and is going for Brown, he then realises and changes direction and heads off after Farrell. He would probably have tackled Brown and we'd have been working under our posts.

He can't kick from the ball being on the ground as his three step kicking action would have put him under pressure, so he waits to pull the chasers onto him so he can then set off. I still really disagree about Farrell kicking on the run at full pelt that is a f*cker of a kick to pull off, and you can clearly see a wall of green heading down - to do an effective kick would have been to slow down and he would have been tackled.

Go to 00:57 seconds and look at Watson and the distance he is from Farrell - ideally Farrell would thrown a long pass to him there, and he would clear the lines. But Watson is facing the wrong way as he hasn't made it back, and it's soaking wet so it's a never on pass. The only point he can make that pass is at 1:00 - 1:02 and on a wet day i can understand he doesn't fancy it.

So that leaves one option carry until contact, or hope Watson runs a cut back to hold the defence like Brown does and then take the kick, at 1:04 Farrell dummies the switch trying to get Watson to come but he doesn't move from his line and waits till it's too late.

As the man coming forward it will have been his call to take the ball - as it will have been Browns to not take the ball.

Like i said it's easy to blame Farrell, but there is a load of things that go wrong there and he is helped not one little bit by his team mates.
1. Farrell had 12.2 meters to make the original kick, which is absolutely no pressure. An international fly-half under their goalposts gets that off the field in the first instance.

2. Farrell would have had more than 12.2 meters had he not taken so long to have gotten back and picked up the ball. He's either under pressure, in which case he shouldn't have taken so long to pick up the ball, or he was under no pressure in which case he should have been able to have gotten it off the field. You cannot have it both ways.

3. When Farrell does go past the two South African players, he has plenty of space with which to make a kick. He can do this in two ways:
- Slow down slightly to take the kick. Which is fine, because he's already gone past the two defenders and the other two are far away in front.
- Kick at full pace. Probably wouldn't get the same accuracy on it. Not the best outcome, but significantly better than the inside ball.
Either way, getting it off the field is priority number one, distance is secondary. Throwing the ball to the last man to take into contact is a guaranteed conceded penalty, turnover, or, best case scenario, a scrappy ruck and heavy pressure on the 9 (resulting in, best case scenario, a crap box kick, or worse case scenario, a player dropping back in the pocket to make the kick from deep). Any kick into touch would suffice. Literally, if he slices it and it goes into touch 5m in front of where he takes the kick, it would be a positive outcome compared to making that pass to Watson.

4. Talking about Watson's faults in this is ridiculous. Watson was reacting to Farrell's **** ups. Was an attacking situation on? 2 vs 4, so no it wasn't. Therefore as a winger, his duty was to be in position to chase the kick (that never came).

Matt Banaham is actually ok, he just had a forward pack that gave him crap ball.......
Obligatory:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@j'nuh

1: I disagree, he has 12.2 metres against a moving man with a running start and the ability to jump upwards with arms outstretched. In reality he had a few feet to make that kick, in bad weather on a greasy surface - big difference.

2: I disagree, he had to turn chase back, pick it up against two of the fastest backs in the SA squad - he doesn't need it both ways he didn't take that long to pick it up and was looking at what Brown wanted to do as well as assessing how far he had to kick and how long he had and if he had any other options. We're talking milliseconds you're acting as though he had time to go on holiday.

3: I disagree, that either is an option in that weather, at that distance or at that speed, with that amount of pressure.

4: I disagree, Watson did Farrell no favours - too far away, then too close, then cuts a switch at the wrong time when Farrell had created a 2vs1.


Can I just point out there is no right or wrong here, it's opinion not fact, there is no hard facts that A = B, just conjecture based on what we're seeing within this situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ssssshhhhh!

farrell_2238289b.jpg


Interesting article about England over analysis and over coaching:

http://www.talkingrugbyunion.co.uk/english-coaches-and-their-techniques-under-fire/12034.htm
 
Last edited:
can anyone ever recall a situation where an intermational number 10 has been dropped from from that position and then selected in the centre?
 
can anyone ever recall a situation where an intermational number 10 has been dropped from from that position and then selected in the centre?

I'm not sure this is a dropping as such. Think Lancaster wanted to try the Ford-Farrell combination to see if it's viable, either as a back up at the world cup (testing the versatility of squad), or for one coming on from the bench.
 
Off the top of my head.

Dan Carter world cup 2003
Wilkinson leading up to 1999 world cup and British Lions 2005
Rob Andrew a couple of times
Matt Giteau a couple of times - he was dropped from 12 to 9 as well
James Hook - to 12 and 15 numerous times
Frank Mesnel for France numerous times
Thierry Lacroix for France Numerous times
Didier Camebrabero to the wing for France Numerous times
Christoph Lamaison for France numerous times
 
Top