2014 QBE Internationals [EOYT] England

[ratsapprentice]

I get the feeling that he's still feeling the effects of the injury he picked up when he tripped over that cable.

 

[Patchey]

Was it tripping over the cable or his celebratory kick of the ball?

If he is back fit in a month I don't see him missing the window because of it tbh.

 

[Big Ewis]

It will either cement his place in the starting XV or end it. I'm leaning towards cementing it.

I see. Concrete words right there.

I get the feeling that he's still feeling the effects of the injury he picked up when he tripped over that cable.

so many feelings in that post...touching.

Well, let's see what the others have to say, I want to know what the general *feeling* is in Angleterre towards Owen Ferret. I say he's good for England, others prefer others on the long term maybe ?

 

[Peat]

He's just about ok. Good kicker, very good tackler, would have to watch closer to talk about him as a defender and an organiser. Limited distributor and carrier, although improving. It's possible he's our best option, and if so it could be worse, but I'm always very happy to see us experiment with the guys with more natural talent as attacking fly-halves.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Well, let's see what the others have to say, I want to know what the general *feeling* is in Angleterre towards Owen Ferret. I say he's good for England, others prefer others on the long term maybe ?

Obviously everyone has their own views. Personally I think we could do much worse than Farrel, he is pretty solid and has been improving so it won't be the end of the world if we have him. I just question if he really is the best 10 we have. I feel he has been treated as if he already owns the 10 position despite not really doing anything to deserve it and thus preventing others who may have been better in the long run from getting a go. Sort of the same with Robshaw, the guy is definitely a good player and puts in a great shift but he's never put aside and someone else given a chance in his position. Pretty much every other player on the pitch has had other players playing for reasonable lengths of time. Maybe include Brown in that as well but I feel he is probably our best FB when on form so don't care too much about that.

 

[TheSaffycen]

I'm not 'happy' he's injured but I'm definitely not sad either. I want him to play for Saracens so I wish he was fit but In the case of England, I didn't want him too play. That wasn't because of him but just because Ford, Burns and Cips all need to have game time in an England shirt. Then in the 6 nations we dont have the pressure of trying everyone out V Italy. Give Ford the All Blacks game, possibly the Oz then Burns South Africa and have Cips start against Samoa. Try and give them decent game time off the bench and then we see what Farrell gives us and takes away too.

 

[Wendigo7]

I personally think he's overrated but he does a job. He's a bit like Morne Steyn, kicks alot of goals, good in defence and his stats look good, but for actual ability as a fly half ball in hand, he's pretty shocking.

All 3 options are better all round players probably but the team is largely built around the 10 and 12 being defensively strong, perhaps giving the 12 way too much work load which means who ever takes on that job currently has too much to do.

My preference as most people know is Ford. He's the most natural player in the league by a country mile, kicking around 93% currently and hasn't missed a tackle in the first 3 games (25/0). If Ford wasn't at least on the subs, it would pretty much be disgusting and slightly based because he's miles the on form player in the league with Eastmond. You could happily also make a case for Cippers as well.

No matter though, the next 3 games could be shockers so we need to see how everyone else does.

 

[Big Ewis]

He's just about ok. Good kicker, very good tackler, would have to watch closer to talk about him as a defender and an organiser. Limited distributor and carrier, although improving. It's possible he's our best option, and if so it could be worse, but I'm always very happy to see us experiment with the guys with more natural talent as attacking fly-halves.

Yes. England need Michalak. It's decided !!

And strange arranger, I see what you're saying, but the no.10 jersey is one that requires utter stability, so you can understand where Stuart Lancaster is coming from. Penrith.
But I do understand as the Talès bet from PSA didn't work out for France and I know the feeling of having a flyhalf play for your country who doesn't give whole satisfaction, while the whole staff and flyhalf himself settle for uncreative, strict, formulaic Rugby. Difference is Farrell has been part of an excellent run for England result wise in the past 3 years since he's been leading his national side. Young as fk (whole England squad) and getting 2nd in the 6N, drawing in S.A., and then two more very good 6N campaigns while looking pretty good during mid-year or November tours - for a kid who's just 23 now, that's alright "innih" ?

This raises the question: is an attack-minded 10 really what England need ? Not sure sacrificing Farrell's defense, physical solidity and boot for someone more creative is the right bet for England. It surely is for France - when we have too rigid a 10, we fail. Not to discount our current staff's massacre, and tbh Talès takes too much shiit from us French public - but France needs a bit of hubris in their attack; we need the Michalak/Trinh-Duc/Plisson type. But it's no news England have thrived every time I've watched them with a metronome-like, consistent 10. Wilko is widely regarded as the best ever from England, if not more (which is very strange, given he's a Frenchman...), and he was always more rigor than talent.

 

[Wendigo7]

Yes. England need Michalak. It's decided !!

And strange arranger, I see what you're saying, but the no.10 jersey is one that requires utter stability, so you can understand where Stuart Lancaster is coming from. Penrith.
But I do understand as the Talès bet from PSA didn't work out for France and I know the feeling of having a flyhalf play for your country who doesn't give whole satisfaction, while the whole staff and flyhalf himself settle for uncreative, strict, formulaic Rugby. Difference is Farrell has been part of an excellent run for England result wise in the past 3 years since he's been leading his national side. Young as fk (whole England squad) and getting 2nd in the 6N, drawing in S.A., and then two more very good 6N campaigns while looking pretty good during mid-year or November tours - for a kid who's just 23 now, that's alright "innih" ?

This raises the question: is an attack-minded 10 really what England need ? Not sure sacrificing Farrell's defense, physical solidity and boot for someone more creative is the right bet for England. It surely is for France - when we have too rigid a 10, we fail. Not to discount our current staff's massacre, and tbh Talès takes too much shiit from us French public - but France needs a bit of hubris in their attack; we need the Michalak/Trinh-Duc/Plisson type. But it's no news England have thrived every time I've watched them with a metronome-like, consistent 10. Wilko is widely regarded as the best ever from England, if not more (which is very strange, given he's a Frenchman...), and he was always more rigor than talent.

Ford is averaging 93% this season and 87% over the last season and a half, Burns is kicking around 80%, Myler must be near 85%, so he has options. It's always the defensive question. The argument I would have with England currently is, they are probably, hand on heart good enough to dispatch all bar NZ at home. Not arrogant just an honest assessment of where they are. They are also very good at developing players and telling them how to improve as players. Strong in the set piece, breakdown, lineout, goalkicking can waver but generally good. The question comes from potentially an issue in potency in attack which is fine against the NH teams and probably australia, but against SA and NZ in a tight game, you need someone to distribute with accurate timing and can lead the game with a great pack. There are still alot of question marks with Farrell on that one and England are playing formulaic rugby to accomodate for his deficiencies when we shouldnt have to, the players are there anyway.

The french comparison if I'm honest isn't a fair one. They seem to have poor fitness levels at the clubs, great team squads mind, but poorly coached and trained through the league. It's also negative non expansive rugby and looking at the french team it's filtered into that so it doesn't matter if Plisson is a cracking 10 or not for example, Saint Andre is clueless from 1-15 and the performances in the last few years have showed it. Need to wrestle the game away from the clubs a little bit more, not totally and find someone in that league who can actually coach. I would have said Noves but he's lost the plot recently so I'm a bit unsure who's best. Castres coach would be a decent bet off the top of my head.

 

[Peat]

Balls.

The run has not been excellent. It's been pretty good, but no 6N win and no Away win vs SANZAR = Not excellent. We've had 12 stabs at beating SANZAR opposition iirc, about that, two successes. One of those was largely due to illness. A success rate of about 16.83pc or so against the world's best countries lies below our historic average. No, it's not been excellent.

This side probably won't win a World Cup as things stand. It is testament to the poverty of France, Australia and South Africa; the advantages of being at home; and the pack that we actually talk about it. So we must look at ways to improve.

Farrell's boot probably will not be missed. Burns' international kicking percentage is 80pc, a mere 2.6pc below Farrell's. Both the sadly exiled Flood and Cipriani (shocked as I am here) have better international kicking records. Farrell's international kicking record is not exceptional and there are guys waiting who might reasonably be expected to get near. I know it's only 3 games, but Ford's kicking average is something stupid like 93pc, Cips is a respectable 80pc, Burns is just below that.

So there's just the defence. Meh. I know its important. But the fly-half's role leading the attack and dictating the game is more important. There's three guys who look like they offer a notably superior product in that arena while being mostly defensively sound and roughly equal goal kickers. Maybe they'll fail the test but it'd be pretty cool to find out.

 

[TheSaffycen]

Yeah we haven't really been incredible on the big stage. Since Lancaster has took over I think it's 10 out of 12 in the 6 nations ? We should have beaten France but, no offence to the french, we let them win really. We took the lead then Lancaster made some horrible subs and lost us the test. On away tours to the big boys 6 games 5 losses and 1 draw. Against South Africa we got battered physically in the first two test and we really missed a chance too win in the 3rd. In New Zealand we missed a chance to win the first test then got easily beaten in the other 2, even if the scores say we were close some of the performances weren't impressive.

 

[goodNumber10]

Balls.

The run has not been excellent. It's been pretty good, but no 6N win and no Away win vs SANZAR = Not excellent. We've had 12 stabs at beating SANZAR opposition iirc, about that, two successes. One of those was largely due to illness. A success rate of about 16.83pc or so against the world's best countries lies below our historic average. No, it's not been excellent.

This side probably won't win a World Cup as things stand. It is testament to the poverty of France, Australia and South Africa; the advantages of being at home; and the pack that we actually talk about it. So we must look at ways to improve.

Farrell's boot probably will not be missed. Burns' international kicking percentage is 80pc, a mere 2.6pc below Farrell's. Both the sadly exiled Flood and Cipriani (shocked as I am here) have better international kicking records. Farrell's international kicking record is not exceptional and there are guys waiting who might reasonably be expected to get near. I know it's only 3 games, but Ford's kicking average is something stupid like 93pc, Cips is a respectable 80pc, Burns is just below that.

So there's just the defence. Meh. I know its important. But the fly-half's role leading the attack and dictating the game is more important. There's three guys who look like they offer a notably superior product in that arena while being mostly defensively sound and roughly equal goal kickers. Maybe they'll fail the test but it'd be pretty cool to find out.

Seriously?

You're comparing a 25 cap kicking statistic against a 3 cap, 5 cap and an 8 cap kickers statistics and claiming they are better kickers because they have a 2% better average?

Turn it in.

Chalrie Hodgson was statistically a better premiership kicker than wilkinson, who would you rather have had kick to win a match?

 

[Peat]

Seriously?

You're comparing a 25 cap kicking statistic against a 3 cap, 5 cap and an 8 cap kickers statistics and claiming they are better kickers because they have a 2% better average?

Turn it in.

Chalrie Hodgson was statistically a better premiership kicker than wilkinson, who would you rather have had kick to win a match?

Reading comprehension fail.

I did not claim they were better kickers. I claimed it looked like they could/would be "roughly equal goal kickers" (clear inference if not explicitly stated). Those are the exact words I used. How the dickens you get me saying they are better kickers from that I do not know.

To expound and clarify - we do not have enough data to conclusively say any of the three main contenders are goal kickers equal to, inferior to or superior to Farrell at international level. But what data we do have suggests that all three are at least theoretically talented enough to be in the same ballpark. Whether their temperament will hold in the international arena is unknown although the early indication is that Burns and Cipriani at least can pull it off. But for all three of them, a definite answer remains unknown, but the signs are hopeful. One of them at least should prove equal so it's likely that Farrell's goal kicking would not be missed. But only probably.

 

[goodNumber10]

Reading comprehension fail.

I did not claim they were better kickers. I claimed it looked like they could/would be "roughly equal goal kickers" (clear inference if not explicitly stated). Those are the exact words I used. How the dickens you get me saying they are better kickers from that I do not know.

It's certainly what you alluded to.

To expound and clarify - we do not have enough data to conclusively say any of the three main contenders are goal kickers equal to, inferior to or superior to Farrell at international level. But what data we do have suggests that all three are at least theoretically talented enough to be in the same ballpark. Whether their temperament will hold in the international arena is unknown although the early indication is that Burns and Cipriani at least can pull it off. But for all three of them, a definite answer remains unknown, but the signs are hopeful. One of them at least should prove equal so it's likely that Farrell's goal kicking would not be missed. But only probably.

It suggests nothing of the sort, you could at best compare them to each other or perhaps Farrells first 5 starts, but even then he kick 23/28 - which would actually give Farrell a lower % but then it doesn't factor in anything like difficulty or number of kicks (chance of missing goes up the more kicks you take % comes down).

Or maybe compare them to the same opposition, but stats really don't tell the whole truth.

All i would say is people can discount Farrell at their own peril, but i certainly didn't see Gloucester, Bath or Sale in the HCup or Premierhsip finals last season.... and i would always feel more confident with OF on the pitch over the other 10's we keep discussing.

 

[Big Ewis]

Seriously?

You're comparing a 25 cap kicking statistic against a 3 cap, 5 cap and an 8 cap kickers statistics and claiming they are better kickers because they have a 2% better average?

dude, that's not even the worst issue in his post. The worst issue is how he referred to 'percentage'. Who the fk writes "pc", that's just disgusting. It's...it's immoral. I was cringing throughout his entire post and got vividly tempted throughout to just block him or at very least report that. "so uhm yeah Jason Farrell kicks about ninety three pee cee" uhhh WHAT ..WHYY ??
Peat, it is fair to claim I'm in consistent appreciation of your being as it is represented on this forum, but...dat just wrong dude.

Okay so who's a better fit for Roger Farrell then..?

 

[goodNumber10]

Lol

 

[Patchey]

To join in on a theme, while I'd never wish any player (even Thomas Waldrom) an injury, Farrell being out for the IAs would present an interesting question. Presuming he missed all, or all but one, of the tests it would result in a run of six or seven tests where Farrell was not in the 10 shirt. That is easily the longest since his debut and would give Lancaster three or four games to look at Ford or Burns as a strting ten, on top of the three in the summer he had to look at Burns.

Would Farrell walk back into the 10 shirt after that?

Obviously if his replacement is dire then yes. But there is little to indicate, going on the data and performances we have, that any of the three main challengers to Farrell would be worse than him. Different yes, but not worse. Obviously there is precedent in this England era for players to waltz back in to their shirt after longish injury absences (Croft) but if you look, the majority of significant changes in who 'owns' a starting shirt have come due to injury and the next in line taking their chance. See Mike Brown v Alex Goode for the best example.

So while I don't want Farrell to be injured, it is certainly the best opportunity for Ford/Burns/Cips to take the shirt from him. It isn't going to happen while he's fit enough to jog onto the field.

All hypothetical but fun.

 

[Big Ewis]

mmm yeah okay super so you guys want Michalak or not ? We're selling at record prices...we'll throw in some really awesome T-shirts too and some coupons.

 

[Wendigo7]

mmm yeah okay super so you guys want Michalak or not ? We're selling at record prices...we'll throw in some really awesome T-shirts too and some coupons.

Galan and Camara for Chris Ashton.

Double or Nothing. We'll save them from Noves' oblivion (as seen tonight)

 

[TheSaffycen]

If Farrell missed all of the AI tests he should be allowed to try and get his shirt back in the 6 nations no matter how well the others play in the AI. It wouldn't be fair on Farrell to not get the opportunity as he really hasn't done anything wrong. People might think that there are better options but I don't think the guy has really ever let us down, unlike other guys who have had the shirt. Anyway lets give Ford, Burns and Cips a go, this would probably mean Eastmond starting 12 because of his club partnership.