[2015 Six Nations] England vs Scotland (Round 4)

[Peat]

Ford-Manu-Joseph would be fun to see, that is for sure.

Would make me sad to give Youngs-Ford, too. I know Youngs will never be everyone's cup of tea, but he and Ford unsurprisingly show a real understanding and that's been behind a lot of our good moments.

 

[j'nuh]

Why are people overlooking Nowell's errors btw? Some massive positioning mistakes in this game. May would have been destroyed on here for making the same mistakes.

Yes I am serious and I'd have thought the reason would be really super obvious.

Ford is a defensive liability and that has not been improving. All tournament he has either been giving up cheap yards or has been requiring hiding. I don't see any particular reason to hope this will improve. His physique is too against him.

And therefore I don't see him as a long term England starting 10. He probably has all the other skills for it, but this is no longer an era where a 10 who's notably poor in defence can be received with a mere shrug. It's too costly. Ultimately, it means he will slip down the queue compared to any fly-half who can do all the rest on a more physical frame. And even if you do not agree with that for your own tastes, please look at Stuart Lancaster's record on this matter and tell me what you think his likely reaction is to a player who loses ground every tackle.

Enter Henry Slade. An outright more physical player (for all he does not fill out his frame much) and so far, fairly defensively sound at every level he's played. But also a guy with all the makings of a top notch attacking and kicking fly-half. A little rough around the edges in that respect, but he looks like he'll make it. And lets hope he does, and quickly, as neither Ford nor Farrell meet all the requirement for a top international fly-half and as previously noted, it would surprise no one to see Farrell given the nod right now. He is our best hope of a player who can end that impasse by overtaking both.


Yes, he won't make it for the WC, and more's the pity. But I want him in place for the 2017 6N by the very latest, assuming his talent plays out like it's looking to. I wish he was on the bench right now, as that'd increase the chance of him making the 2016 6N.


And yes, it means we're still looking for a 12. But hey ho. Maybe he can play 12 up until that point. Or maybe we'll soldier on without a really good one for a bit. Maybe Hill will come to the fore, or Burgess will finally do what Lancaster's dreaming of, or some young guy like Sloan will make a big bang there, or whatever. Or maybe the inevitable Tuilagi-Joseph combo will work second time around. I don't know, and compared to our one in a generation shot at a guy who could be an all round great 10, I don't really care.

Challenge for you: find an instance where Ford's passive tackling has led to something particularly bad happening today.

Fly-half is the most difficult position to master because of the insane number of skills required to master it. It's why so few fly-half greats ever come about compared to nearly every other position on the field. So when you have a player like Ford who has a natural ability in the most important fly-half skills, and you neglect him because once or twice a game he might give up one or two meters more than another option, I don't know, I find that line of thinking to be a little too reductive.

If Slade can marry Ford's natural ability with Farrell's defensive and physical ability, he'd instantly be within the top 3 fly-halves in the world. That's why I am not as convinced that it will happen like you think it will; it puts way too much expectation on Slade. Maybe it'll happen, but I hoped it would happen with any number of English fly-halves before this point.

(It's also worth pointing out that Ford is still 21. It's not like he's at his physical peak yet. See Halfpenny's transformation.)

 

[Peat]

Lets break this down into 3 facets - Ford's defence, Slade's ability, and Lancaster's preferences.

We'll start with Lancaster's preferences. So far, its fair to say that his selectorial track record suggests that, if forced, he values defensive integrity over attacking flair, the ability to do a lot of things "ok" over some things great and a few things bad. Given those preferences, how confident are people that Ford will start the World Cup ahead of Farrell if fit? I mean, we've had this discussion already on p8, but it needs to be re-raised in this context. Fazlet vs Ford in Lancaster's eyes? You didn't reply at the time j'nuh, but what do you think's going to happen there?

Personally I think it will be Fazlet. Even if its not, he'll be on the bench and probably will occupy the shirt for major periods going forwards if its Fazlet vs Ford. I don't want it to be Fazlet, I want it to be a fly-half who does all the ball-in-hand fly-half stuff well and right now that means Ford, but that's the way the cracker crumbles so I've gotta rewrite my dreams. Lancaster needs a fly-half who is good enough in all aspects, not just the attacking ones, or Fazlet probably remains the main man.

Which brings me to facet 2, Ford's defence, because his defence isn't good enough and I'd really like to be amazed that anyone thinks otherwise.

I'm not going to look at the game today, because it proves nothing and it should be really obvious it proves nothing because Scotland with most of the possession means it's pretty difficult for things to go wrong in defence. What proves something is that all tournament long, Ford has been giving up cheap yards routinely when placed in defensive positions and usually to players who, no offence them, aren't really known for piling through fly-halves at rates of knots. That's a weakness. It's the sort of weakness that can often get buried in all the other wrongs going wrong, and is often only noticeable as "That's what went wrong" when you go back two or three phases and notice you're a man short on your blind side because two men had to do a one man tackle and they got quick ball anyway.

It is flat out a weakness and, do you know, if we want to be one of the top 3 sides in the world consistently, if we want to beat NZ and win Grand Slams, there we can't afford those sort of weaknesses. I know we've got to deal with limited selection pools but, actually, we should either expect England to deliver players with the total skillsets needed to compete at that level, or we should expect England to keep making a pig's ear of it. Ford's defence does not fall into that total skillset.

I don't know why I'm bothering though - fact is, its really, really obvious, and if people don't want to see it, they won't.


As for the final facet - Slade's ability - is it actually at all outlandish to suggest, independent of defence, that with a solid season of playing the position Slade would be a rival to Ford as it is? He is an able goal kicker with a big range. He has a full range of distribution, technically speaking. His running game is undoubted. His game management arguably needs a little gloss, but that's what that season is there for. He has all the tools, he just needs the experience. He is a huge fly-half prospect in his own right and there's a lot of reason to think its his best position. Yes, plenty of English fly-halves have failed to make the leap for whatever reason but, if he's not able to cope with the expectation or master the consistency needed for international rugby... then he's probably not going to do it in any position. And none of us seem to think that's the case.

But I accept that at this stage my hopes are just hopes. I believe I've indicated that. I accept it won't happen tomorrow and may never happen. I've definitely indicated it won't happen tomorrow. But whether Slade's gonna make it, how close he is, its almost really besides the point.

The point is Ford has a borderline unacceptable weakness for a international 10 and we need to find a guy without them if possible. The point is there's a really good chance Lancaster won't see Ford as a better player than Farrell while he has it. The point is English rugby would be best served by a 10 who had some measure of Farrell's defensive qualities while having most Ford's attacking ones and we should be hoping for such a player.

Slade just happens to be the best hope for that.


And yes, yes, lots of other people have weaknesses. I hope they're replaced by better players too. Far easier said than done, but I continue to hope.

 

[Wendigo7]

There's a fair lot of truth in all of that.

1 thing. There are 2 aspects Ford is superior to Slade which I don't think Slade will make up in, Vision and Awareness and Decision Making/Game Management.

J'Nuh is right though, you put the aspects on Slade as a template you'd have Dan Carter. As much as I rate Ford, or many other players, the only "complete" player I've ever seen is Dan Carter and it would feel irrational to expect players to reach that standard.

He was a complete one off. Drive to be that good, absolutely, but 80/90% of the time all teams and let's not just focus on England, all teams have weaknesses and cover it up. That's a fact of life even with the All Blacks.

Also looking at defence, in a wider stance at 10s, not just with ourselves, or goalkicking for that matter. Did we not look at Cruden, Barrett, Cooper, Carter Now, Pollard, Sexton whilst analysing this?

Cruden has been woeful at goalkicking this last year, must have been hanging around 55-60% with the amount of off days he had last year. He also was falling off tackles a fair bit. NZ dealt with it fairly well though. He's still a very good player most of the time. Pollard's clearly probably the best idea of the next Carter but his game management is very wavey, lots of work to be done on him. Missing tackles at times. Carter was 55% in Super Rugby last year for Goalkicking, Barrett wasn't fantastic at goalkicking under pressure and can miss the odd tackle but also makes some cracking try saving tackles with his speed. Sexton clearly buckles when it really matters. NZ 2013, England 2014, bit of a meltdown yesterday.

My point to you is all players are work ons and teams set the defence to cover for weaknesses. Slade for his defensive abilities for his size was also mauled by Rene Ranger and was a speed bump a couple of times this season too so let's not have the he's the saviour. There's only one Carter and it would take a long time before we start to see a complete player in attack or defence who is world class at absolutely everything.

We need a 6 for me and a 12. We also need that pack to be less dumb and Hartley needs to be dropped, BADLY. His carrying isn't as good as Youngs, he's a penalty machine at times and he's a Card away from another meltdown as well as his underthrowing of late which has been a consistent feature of his game.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I'm not going to pretend Ford wasn't passive in defense but remember we have played against NZ with Ford there and, if you watch the games, their tries did not come from defensive frailties at 10. At the time Eastmond was made the scapegoat when it was actually Manu Tuilagi who was most at fault for being out of position. Had some ludicrous arguments like, that makes it Eastmonds fault because he didn't tell Tuilagi where to stand (as if Tuilagi shouldn't be able to work that out himself) or it's Eastmonds fault for being small and Tuilagi is an innocent victim having to come in and protect him, even when they very rarely went through Eastmond and frequently went around Tuilagi... I can understand it being a possible problem but so far it hasn't led to major problems in defense against top sides. Ford has also made plenty of try-saving tackles. I'd agree it is a weakness but not a game breaker at the moment. I'd say the points difference of having Ford on the pitch is positive right now.

With regards to our game against France, much as I like Attwood, I think he isn't performing reliably at the moment. I'd prefer a Lawes-Parling pair with Attwood as an impact sub as I think he will perform better in that role. Marler isn't having a great time but I wouldn't swap him for Mako. Cole is doing well but needs to have some sense knocked into him, he was very lucky not to get a yellow against Scotland. I'd also be tempted to use Youngs ahead of Hartley.

 

[TommiG88]

Apologies for yesterday, I was a tad over the limit. Now having watched the game sober, I feel we played the best attacking rugby that I have seen for a long time. However we must have butchered 5+ try chances.

Youngs and ford were very good.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Which brings me to facet 2, Ford's defence, because his defence isn't good enough and I'd really like to be amazed that anyone thinks otherwise.

I think it's perfectly satisfactory. Not great =/= not good enough... it is good enough.

I don't disagree that if Slade can show the same abilty as Ford with more physical presence then he'll overtake him - obviously.
I don't think that's quite the given that you're suggesting it is - it's certainly not outlandish, but I wouldn't take it for granted.

I think you need to seriously re-evaluate what the net result of Ford losing ground in the tackle is, because so far... it's not worrying in the slightest IMO.

 

[msf]

I think Ford's defence is noticeably better than a lot of other small 10s, such as Charlie Hodgson (remember his tackle on Ma'a Nonu?). Ryan Lamb (Alesana Tuilagi?) or Ronan 0'Gara (everyone?). It is also a lot better than that of some bigger 10s, such as Cipriani and Cooper, and I doubt if it is much worse than Aaron Cruden's, who, if you've forgotten, is the All Black's no.1 no.10. Someone else made the point on here that Wilkinson was a freak in this regard, and that we won't see a 10 of his size tackling like that again (since players in the other positions have got bigger). Ford's head-on tackling will never be as strong as Farrell, Biggar, or Sexton's, for the simple reason that those players are a lot bigger than him. Slade will probably also always be a better tackler than Ford, once again because he is a lot bigger than Ford. The question is, does Ford's distribution make up for his size? I would say, on the evidence of the last 6 matches, that it certainly does. As someone said above, Ford hasn't let any one run straight through him and score, but he has been instrumental in almost all the tries England have scored in those matches. Slade is also a good distributor, the question is, is he a world class one? Since we don't seem to have any decent ball-playing 12s, Ford and Youngs have to do all the playmaking, just as Flood and Youngs had to under Johnson. I would argue that a 10 who is even slightly less of a threat on the gain line would mean that our attacking game would dry up again, and unlike South Africa this team won't win a World Cup with 10 man rugby.

 

[Aristodemus]

Before we start considering Slade at 10, he has to play every week at 10 for his club surely. For me any negative in Ford's defence (and it isn't like he is a doormat) is far outweighed by his contribution to attack. Burrell is a much bigger problem imo.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I'd rather see Salde at 12, at least to start with.

 

[Tmartin995]

My point to you is all players are work ons and teams set the defence to cover for weaknesses. Slade for his defensive abilities for his size was also mauled by Rene Ranger and was a speed bump a couple of times this season too so let's not have the he's the saviour. There's only one Carter and it would take a long time before we start to see a complete player in attack or defence who is world class at absolutely everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRb0XFrCQZE
Ranger had a run up to him on both occasions and Slade brought him down both times, hardly got "mauled". Not sure too many others 10s could have done that...
I don't recall Slade ever being a speed bump either - any examples?

Personally I think he'd make a great 12 for England, but may need another big forward ball carrier to get across the gain line from first phase ala Wasps, or use the blindside winger ala Chiefs.

 

[LiRFCMatt]

One of Slade/Eastmond/Daley have to come into the 23. Burrell isn't cutting it at the moment I hate to say.

 

[goodNumber10]

I think you need to seriously re-evaluate what the net result of Ford losing ground in the tackle is, because so far... it's not worrying in the slightest IMO.

you also can't brush it under the carpet, it may not have cost tries but it certainly impacts on the teams ability to play themselves otu of their own red zone - having a defender who can get off the line and make the hits is essential in that. Non-aggresive defence allows teams to maintain pressure, and build momentum so while it's not like people will run through him to score a try further down the sequences it will impact.

Not saying he should be dropped but it has to be dealt with - even if that is hiding him away like other teams do.

The Cruden comparison is a little redundant as he's used completely differently in defence: New Zealand slide so less head on tackles for Cruden and even then in phase play he'll drop to 15 allowing smith to pull up - keeping him out of the front line defence for large periods of the game. Foley is the same, he's a fine tackler but not big so he is hidden away on lineout and phase play. It's fair enough find what the balance you want in the side is, but if Ford is going to defend in that close channel then other people have to compensate and against better teams we'll end up with a very narrow defence.

 

[Raggs]

Surely that's then down to management to fix?

 

[goodNumber10]

Surely that's then down to management to fix?

absolutely.

But you can't make out it doesn't matter because he's a brilliant attacking player.

 

[ratsapprentice]

But you can't make out it doesn't matter because he's a brilliant attacking player.

Of sourse it matters, but Peat is making it seem as if it's terminal and completely unacceptable.

 

[Raggs]

I agree, but with everything it's about balance. He's a fantastic attacking player, better than Slade, and given the chance will keep creating tries for us.

I hope that Slade will actually take the 22 shirt from Farrell in the long term, no real physicality lost, but a better attacking game, also offers cover in the centres, which then gives us the chance to put an actual back 3 replacement in the 23 shirt (or even Daly).

We don't have a Dan Carter, and so have to find the best we can. We'll either miss out in attack or defence, and if there's 1 spot I'd rather opt for attack it's the 10.

 

[msf]

Ford usually loses ground to the opposing 12 off first phase, as would Cruden if teams targeted him there. One of the reasons teams don't target Cruden in this way is because Richie McCaw would be the first man into the breakdown, whereas for us it is Robshaw...

- - - Updated - - -

As for Burrell, I don't think anyone is pretending that he is a playmaker, but he is quite effective at what he does (as Woodward said, international class but not world class). People criticize him for missing tackles, but a lot of these are the result of Burrell blitzing, which overall works pretty well for Northampton, and also worked well against Scotland - England got the ball back on several occasions because of the pressure Burrell applied. Barritt is probably a safer choice in terms of defence, but he offers even less in attack, so I think the Burrell-Joseph partnership is worth sticking with for now.

 

[goodNumber10]

Ford usually loses ground to the opposing 12 off first phase, as would Cruden if teams targeted him there. One of the reasons teams don't target Cruden in this way is because Richie McCaw would be the first man into the breakdown, whereas for us it is Robshaw...

Well this is it isn't it? their defensive ethos/approach is completely different, NZ is based around isolating a defender and attacking the ball on the ground - passive tackles lend themselves to that.

Englands defensive approach is pressure behind the gain line, force the opposition to make mistakes. Ford doesn't lend himself to that defensive pattern, neither would Cruden nor Foley.....and that's why i think we'll end up with Fazlet back at 10 for the world cup because England aren't going to chaneg their defensive approach this close to the tournament.

As for Burrell, I don't think anyone is pretending that he is a playmaker, but he is quite effective at what he does (as Woodward said, international class but not world class). People criticize him for missing tackles, but a lot of these are the result of Burrell blitzing, which overall works pretty well for Northampton, and also worked well against Scotland - England got the ball back on several occasions because of the pressure Burrell applied. Barritt is probably a safer choice in terms of defence, but he offers even less in attack, so I think the Burrell-Joseph partnership is worth sticking with for now.

agree.

- - - Updated - - -

Of sourse it matters, but Peat is making it seem as if it's terminal and completely unacceptable.

i think it's more that he's pointing out that against more aggressive teams like South Africa who are looking to come around the corner it is going to be targeted, and it will cause issues as we committ more to the tackle.

*shrugs* i guess we'll need to see.

 

[msf]

Hmm, I think you might be right about Farrell, although I think it's definitely the wrong decision - remember what happened when we went for Wilkinson over Flood in the last World Cup? Zero attacking threat, and we were knocked out by France in the quarter finals.