[England] Post-6N/Pre-RWC Player Watch

[goodNumber10]

What has happened to the last 4 or 5 England under 20s 12s? I know Farrell was one of them at some point but do we have any young players who are physical, play maker and a good kicking game around?

Well Farrell was the last 'playmaker' to fill that bearth, Hill is playing 12 for Exeter, but isn't really a passing/kicking/playmaker.

It's not that unusual for a 10 to move to 12 when they hit seniors and this goes right through every level of the game, less time on ball at the top so those skills transfer well to 12 where they have a slightly little more time to play rugby.

Would take too long to explain all the reasoning why but for me Slade is a 12, not a 10.

 

[nickdnz]

Not for nothing, but other than better kicking I'm not sure what Slade would offer at 12, over a guy like Eastmond. Slade is a taller - but a similar weight. Eastmond has a very good distributing game, and in my opinion looks more dangerous taking the ball the line. Is Slade's defense superior?

 

[goodNumber10]

Not for nothing, but other than better kicking I'm not sure what Slade would offer at 12, over a guy like Eastmond. Slade is a taller - but a similar weight. Eastmond has a very good distributing game, and in my opinion looks more dangerous taking the ball the line. Is Slade's defense superior?

Defence is far more aggressive than Eastmond, Eastmond gives up 7kg to Slade. Slade is a lot better than Eastmond on the gain line - Eastmond's passing is excellent but he doesn't have the ability to get through the contact zone in the same way Slade does.

So yeah, apart from having a kicking game, being bigger than and a better defender than eastmond he offers very little more than Easmond.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Eastmond's passing is excellent but he doesn't have the ability to get through the contact zone in the same way Slade does.

Eh....

 

[TobesHodges]

I'm pretty sure I'm the minority, but I don't know why Farrell has been thrown under the bus on here since Ford started to shine a little, it was only 2 years ago we were saying Farrells the next Johnny Wilkinson, he has led a team to 3 premiership finals won 2 of them and a Heineken cup final in the last 3 years.. He's beaten the all blacks, yes his attack is a step below Fords, but if he got his attacking game to fords level, there would be no dbout he would be #1 fly half, i can't see ford ever being as aggressive or have the same ferocity in defence, Ford just reminds me of Toby Flood to much I just hope he doesn't choke at the vital moments like he has done in the past.. And then we all look back and say Farrell would have held his nerve..

 

[goodNumber10]

I'm pretty sure I'm the minority, but I'm don't know why Farrell has been thrown under the bus on here since Ford started to shine a little, it was only 2 years ago we were saying Farrells the next Johnny Wilkinson, he has led a team to 3 premiership finals won 2 of them and a Heineken cup final in the last 3 years.. He's beaten the all blacks, yes his attack is a step below Fords, but if he got his attacking game to fords level, there would be no about he would be #1 fly half, i can't see ford ever being as aggressive or have the same ferocity in defence, Ford just reminds me of Toby Flood to much I just hope he doesn't choke at the vital moments like he has done in the past.. And then we all look back and say Farrell would have held his nerve..

I think the biggest issue is people believe that the way forward for England is to become an all singing all dancing attack machine, but we just don't have the core skill sets of teams like NZ, SA and Australia - so personally i think it's a bit misguided, I don't see the problem in playing to English strengths.

Ford does is integral to those who want the game played like that and Farrell will never get to that level attacking wise because a lot of that can't be taught, Ford is as he is and Farrell is as he is.

So really it comes down to what you want, and for me Farrell fits the England 10 slot well, I enjoy watching Ford but i remain to be convinced he's the right choice long term for England.

 

[ZeroTwo]

I think the biggest issue is people believe that the way forward for England is to become an all singing all dancing attack machine, but we just don't have the core skill sets of teams like NZ, SA and Australia - so personally i think it's a bit misguided, I don't see the problem in playing to English strengths.

Ford does is integral to those who want the game played like that and Farrell will never get to that level attacking wise because a lot of that can't be taught, Ford is as he is and Farrell is as he is.

So really it comes down to what you want, and for me Farrell fits the England 10 slot well, I enjoy watching Ford but i remain to be convinced he's the right choice long term for England.

You talk a lot of sense at least 90% of the time.

Adding to this, why the obsession with a 10 who can break the line? I see that it's popular and useful but I don't think at the expense of other strengths. Not saying Farrell is better than Ford, but I'd ALWAYS rather a good distributing 10 who can run a game from fly half. We're yet to see if Ford has this. Farrell does, just not consistently unfortunately.

 

[Patchey]

You talk a lot of sense at least 90% of the time.

Adding to this, why the obsession with a 10 who can break the line? I see that it's popular and useful but I don't think at the expense of other strengths. Not saying Farrell is better than Ford, but I'd ALWAYS rather a good distributing 10 who can run a game from fly half. We're yet to see if Ford has this. Farrell does, just not consistently unfortunately.

If he doesn't do it consistently though, what's the point?

That's like picking 36 because he can, sometimes, be incredible.

 

[yaboyjj]

You talk a lot of sense at least 90% of the time.

Adding to this, why the obsession with a 10 who can break the line? I see that it's popular and useful but I don't think at the expense of other strengths. Not saying Farrell is better than Ford, but I'd ALWAYS rather a good distributing 10 who can run a game from fly half. We're yet to see if Ford has this. Farrell does, just not consistently unfortunately.

Are you're saying that Farrell is a better distributing fly half than Ford? for most of his career so far he has been throwing most of his passes a good 5m behind the gain line, whereas Ford can throw accurate passes bang on the gain line in traffic- he gives masterclasses week in week out for Bath this way, getting forwards into the game with short passes off his shoulder- he is certainly not just a running fly half (someone like Barrett would be a better example of this). He might not have given masterclasses in tactical kicking at int level yet- but he certainly has this in his locker.

RE Slade, I'm currently of the opinion he is a better centre than fly half. Ford and Slade are probably the most skillfull backs we have had for a generation- lets have them both on the field please. The worst thing England can do is pretend they are something they are not- we have heard over the last few years that the team should stick to scrummaging and up-the-jumper stuff from the forwards. It's the same principle now though, where we have dynamite players like Ford/Slade/Joseph, and yet remain convinced that we need to find some kind of bosh merchant. Play to your strengths and the resources available to you, and don't pick Burgess or Burrell for the sake of it. Ireland played 10 years with a midfield of D'arcy and O'Driscoll, with ROG at fly half....

 

[ncurd]

I think the simple fact boils down to two things,

1) A lot of fans want to see their team playing attractive rugby Ford offers this more than Farrell.

2) I (and probably others) personally don't think we'll the RWC playing to type ie. hunkering down trying to grind out wins sure we're not going to get humiliated playing that way but I think Ire/NZ/SA can all do that better than us nd have a higher chance of wiining those games. By opening up sure two of those teams can probably do it better than us but I think the chances of us winning the game are higher.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

I think the simple fact boils down to two things,

1) A lot of fans want to see their team playing attractive rugby Ford offers this more than Farrell.

2) I (and probably others) personally don't think we'll the RWC playing to type ie. hunkering down trying to grind out wins sure we're not going to get humiliated playing that way but I think Ire/NZ/SA can all do that better than us nd have a higher chance of wiining those games. By opening up sure two of those teams can probably do it better than us but I think the chances of us winning the game are higher.

Long term I'd agree with you, but if Lancaster had spent the last four years developing a team that could grind out wins in the way that the 2003 era team could (when they needed to), even if it had none of the other facets of that team, I think we'd be in a better position to win the World Cup.

 

[goodNumber10]

Are you're saying that Farrell is a better distributing fly half than Ford? for most of his career so far he has been throwing most of his passes a good 5m behind the gain line, whereas Ford can throw accurate passes bang on the gain line in traffic- he gives masterclasses week in week out for Bath this way, getting forwards into the game with short passes off his shoulder- he is certainly not just a running fly half (someone like Barrett would be a better example of this). He might not have given masterclasses in tactical kicking at int level yet- but he certainly has this in his locker.

RE Slade, I'm currently of the opinion he is a better centre than fly half. Ford and Slade are probably the most skillfull backs we have had for a generation- lets have them both on the field please. The worst thing England can do is pretend they are something they are not- we have heard over the last few years that the team should stick to scrummaging and up-the-jumper stuff from the forwards. It's the same principle now though, where we have dynamite players like Ford/Slade/Joseph, and yet remain convinced that we need to find some kind of bosh merchant. Play to your strengths and the resources available to you, and don't pick Burgess or Burrell for the sake of it. Ireland played 10 years with a midfield of D'arcy and O'Driscoll, with ROG at fly half....

He's not saying anything of the sort, he's saying he wants a good distributorthat can run the game, not that Farrell IS a better distributor.

Also your perception of Farrell as a passer is way off.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the simple fact boils down to two things,

1) A lot of fans want to see their team playing attractive rugby Ford offers this more than Farrell.

2) I (and probably others) personally don't think we'll the RWC playing to type ie. hunkering down trying to grind out wins sure we're not going to get humiliated playing that way but I think Ire/NZ/SA can all do that better than us nd have a higher chance of wiining those games. By opening up sure two of those teams can probably do it better than us but I think the chances of us winning the game are higher.

If we try to play SH type of Rugby against the SH teams we will lose - it's about Balance.

Traditionally the English need a powerful pack with solid backs with good strike runners - we're almost there, but forcing that very square peg into a round whole is not the way to win.

The U20's have shown the best way to play the SH teams is stick to what your best at.

 

[nickdnz]

I think on the Ford/Farrell situation, it really is about the confidence you have in the backline. Farrell isn't especially creative. When you select him then you may as well fill the rest of the backline with low error players who are going to make their tackles, and make reasonable metres in contact. For my mind guys like Barritt, Nowell, Tuilagi/Burgess. Safe options, not really distributors. Not a scary backline, but probably pretty accurate for the 10 man rugby you are likely to be playing.

I think selecting Ford just offers a lot more potential, and I disagree that England don't have skilled enough players to do it. The reality is that Ford has been expected to perform with a rotating backline. It is insane that this discussion can be happening with only two more matches till the RWC. It would seem that the reason he can tear things up with Bath is because there are consistent combinations. Add to that a reasonably creative coaching staff. It may come down to Lancaster not knowing what the heck to do with an attacking backline.

The U20's have shown the best way to play the SH teams is stick to what your best at.

Being 10kgs heavier than everyone barring South Africa doesn't work at senior level.

That aside I think England's under 20s have been a lot more ambitious with their back play than Lancaster's England. What I would give to see Christian Wade get an extended run in the senior team.

 

[goodNumber10]

I think on the Ford/Farrell situation, it really is about the confidence you have in the backline. Farrell isn't especially creative. When you select him then you may as well fill the rest of the backline with low error players who are going to make their tackles, and make reasonable metres in contact. For my mind guys like Barritt, Nowell, Tuilagi/Burgess. Safe options, not really distributors. Not a scary backline, but probably pretty accurate for the 10 man rugby you are likely to be playing.

I think selecting Ford just offers a lot more potential, and I disagree that England don't have skilled enough players to do it. The reality is that Ford has been expected to perform with a rotating backline. It is insane that this discussion can be happening with only two more matches till the RWC. It would seem that the reason he can tear things up with Bath is because there are consistent combinations. Add to that a reasonably creative coaching staff. It may come down to Lancaster not knowing what the heck to do with an attacking backline.



Being 10kgs heavier than everyone barring South Africa doesn't work at senior level.

That aside I think England's under 20s have been a lot more ambitious with their back play than Lancaster's England. What I would give to see Christian Wade get an extended run in the senior team.

what rotating backline is that then?

He started every game of the 6 nations with the same 9, 12 & 13.

- - - Updated - - -

That aside I think England's under 20s have been a lot more ambitious with their back play than Lancaster's England. What I would give to see Christian Wade get an extended run in the senior team.

Not sure which U20's you've been watching but they built most of their game on a solid physically powerful core with a couple of exciting players here and there... they played almost identical Rugby to the Seniors.

 

[TobesHodges]

You lot talk about Farrell as if he can't pass a rugby ball, if you watched the back end of the season in the prem, he has been playing much more on the gain line to accommodate his style and is working on his running game, his passing game isn't a million miles off Fords just not bang on, Just annoys me the trickleness of some people, willing to throw decent players away at the drop of a hat..

 

[nickdnz]

what rotating backline is that then?

He started the 6 nations with the same 9, 12 & 13.

And we are almost certainly not going to see a Burrell/Joseph combination heading into the France warmups is more my point.

But for the record prior to this Six Nations he had played with:

Care/Twelvetrees/Burrell
Care/Eastmond/Barritt
Youngs/Farrell/Barritt
Youngs/Twelvetrees/Barritt
Youngs/Eastmond/Barritt

I'm not sure five matches in a row constitutes a firm fixture for the midfield.

 

[goodNumber10]

You lot talk about Farrell as if he can't pass a rugby ball, if you watched the back end of the season in the prem, he has been playing much more on the gain line to accommodate his style and is working on his running game, his passing game isn't a million miles off Fords just not bang on, Just annoys me the trickleness of some people, willing to throw decent players away at the drop of a hat..

Farrell plays pretty flat on first phase ball, he runs the exact same patterns as Ford with the block and Slides and Maske dpassing, the bigger issue is what does he have ouside him?

Barritt vs Eastmond
Bosch vs Joseph

When Farrell has attack minded players outside him he looked far more comfortable, look at the Lions and last years 6 Nations - he's not Ford, never will be, don't see why he should try to be. He's good enough to play international Standard in the right set up, as is Ford it's purely a question of how England ant to play.

- - - Updated - - -

And we are almost certainly not going to see a Burrell/Joseph combination heading into the France warmups is more my point.

But for the record prior to this Six Nations he had played with:

Care/Twelvetrees/Burrell
Care/Eastmond/Barritt
Youngs/Farrell/Barritt
Youngs/Twelvetrees/Barritt
Youngs/Eastmond/Barritt

I'm not sure five matches in a row constitutes a firm fixture for the midfield.

Not sure it constitutes a rotating policy as you claim. BTW where did the Youngs/Eastmond/Barritt or the Care/Twelvetrees/Burrell selection come from?

He played:
Italy:
Youngs/Farrell/Tuilagi
NZ:
Youngs/Farrell/Barritt
SA:
Youngs/Eastmond/Barritt
Samoa:
Youngs/Farrell Barritt
Australia:
Youngs/36/ Barritt

6Nations:
Youngs/Burrell/Joseph

So in 5 of his 7 starts he's played with the same center combination 5 times - and the others haven't exactly been revolving chairs. The 6nations Centers are are only different from the first two starts because of injury (Barritt would likely have continued at 13) - so again not sure you can call that a rotating backline when it's been enforced by injury.

 

[Raggs]

Farrell is perfectly capable on 1st phase ball, and 2nd and 3rd pretty much, but once the fixed plan is used up, he doesn't come across as someone who is able to create anything off the cuff. His passing is OK, it's not dire, but he just doesn't seem like someone who can read the game well, which may work fine if we pair him with someone like Slade and Joseph, but it seems odd to try and crowbar him in by changing the players around him, instead of just playing someone who can read the game as a 10 exceptionally well.

If we run a strict game, basically crashing it up and "resetting" before running another set of preplanned runs, Farrell will be just fine, but even then Ford will offer more of an individual threat, enabling everyone else that bit more room.

 

[goodNumber10]

Farrell is perfectly capable on 1st phase ball, and 2nd and 3rd pretty much, but once the fixed plan is used up, he doesn't come across as someone who is able to create anything off the cuff. His passing is OK, it's not dire, but he just doesn't seem like someone who can read the game well, which may work fine if we pair him with someone like Slade and Joseph, but it seems odd to try and crowbar him in by changing the players around him, instead of just playing someone who can read the game as a 10 exceptionally well.

If we run a strict game, basically crashing it up and "resetting" before running another set of preplanned runs, Farrell will be just fine, but even then Ford will offer more of an individual threat, enabling everyone else that bit more room.

How many scoring sequences go over 5-6 phases? Not many so it's unlikely he'd need to play off the cuff, and Fazlets decision making is fine, even if he err's on the side of caution more often than not.

No one is saying crowbar him into the side, the point is more about deciding what's the most effective England and what's likeliest to win us the World Cup, dispatching Italy and France by 50 points is not the same as New Zealand or South Africa on a cold wet Quarter Final day. Those games seldom come down to moments of genius but more often to the guys who can stay on script for 80 minutes (not saying Ford can't do that)

 

[Peat]

I think on the Ford/Farrell situation, it really is about the confidence you have in the backline. Farrell isn't especially creative. When you select him then you may as well fill the rest of the backline with low error players who are going to make their tackles, and make reasonable metres in contact. For my mind guys like Barritt, Nowell, Tuilagi/Burgess. Safe options, not really distributors. Not a scary backline, but probably pretty accurate for the 10 man rugby you are likely to be playing.

I must demur on an important point here.

I don't think England have been trying to play 10 man rugby at any point, nor do I think they're about to start. I think they've been playing 15 man rugby, often fairly ineptly.

I think selecting Ford just offers a lot more potential, and I disagree that England don't have skilled enough players to do it. The reality is that Ford has been expected to perform with a rotating backline. It is insane that this discussion can be happening with only two more matches till the RWC. It would seem that the reason he can tear things up with Bath is because there are consistent combinations. Add to that a reasonably creative coaching staff. It may come down to Lancaster not knowing what the heck to do with an attacking backline.

No one's pinned any expectations on Ford in an England shirt until this 6N, when he got the straight run with the same partnership(-ish - injury intervened in any games). In fact, if you want to point to an England fly-half as weighed down by a rotating backline, I think Farrell's been *far* the worse served there.

There have been a fair few *big* hit-outs with Ford at the helm for England. I think Lancaster's overall attacking game plan is a little nonsensical, but I don't think it's he doesn't know what to do with attacking backs.

Being 10kgs heavier than everyone barring South Africa doesn't work at senior level.

You cheeky sod :lol: Categorically hasn't been the case if you weren't joking.

That aside I think England's under 20s have been a lot more ambitious with their back play than Lancaster's England. What I would give to see Christian Wade get an extended run in the senior team.

England U20s have more pack dominance and face weaker defences. It's not a surprised if they look more ambitious with their back play, as they have a lot more scope for it.


I should have known this would happen :lol:

Anyway...

I have always been Faz-skeptic and know a great many who would be far ruder about him than me. This idea that England fans suddenly decided he wasn't what we wanted after hailing him as the next Wilko is... well, it doesn't tally with my experiences. The papers have been like that somewhat, but not the fans I know *shrugs*

In any case, I don't think the way to victory for England is "Attack attack attack". I think it lies in an having an All-Court game and Farrell simply couldn't deliver on that for a fair bit of his international career. He's improved - although I'm very wary of considering his Sarries performances too heavily, he's getting a platform he simply doesn't see with England - but I still don't think he's outstanding in that area of the game.

I also feel other parts of his game are overrated. I don't know whether he lets down his chasers or his chasers let him down, but his tactical kicking could do with work. His goal kicking could do with more range. His defence could do with knowing when and when not to go for the big physically dominant hit (Nonu is not that time).

Which is nit-picking. Just as pointing out Ford's tendency to play too loose in pressure games is a bit nitpicky as well. Both men are young and improving too. But the aim should be perfection. I think if Slade concentrated more on the position, he could have a stronger all-round game than both of them.

And if not, the better he knows fly-half, the stronger he will be as a centre down the line anyway.

What has happened to the last 4 or 5 England under 20s 12s? I know Farrell was one of them at some point but do we have any young players who are physical, play maker and a good kicking game around?

Ryan Mills got injured a lot then went to Wuss after Glaws signed Twelvetrees. He's probably the closest we had, as in Devoto is the closest we've got, but I think mainly played other than 12 at that level.

Hill, Sloan and Tomkins are the other guys coming to mind off the top of my head... never really watched enough of Tomkins to say, but Hill and Sloan have potential as Lancaster's desired strong man, but their technical games are not at a playmaker level. Sloan's had problems with injuries too.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who's wondered why Sam Hill hasn't crossed Lancaster's radar this season and, given all the hissing and cursing over Burgess, I think Sam Hill's been the real victim there.