England's back line

[Maverick1987]

I know what you're saying but it'd be a massive fall from grace for Farrell to drop to the bench/out of the match day squad.

I don't get it when people say he doesn't win games. His kicking keeps us in touch with pretty much anyone and i think anyone who contributes 20 points to the winning of a match can be seen as winning a game.

So yeah he may not score a try from 50 metres out but not many people do. I know who i'd like to be taking a match winning kick. Also the other things he brings to the team - leadership in defence and so on i think these things are really undervalued when people look at ford making a break or burns passing game etc...

I think the thing for me is his average traits are very much outweighed by his strengths - just my opinion mind.

I get what you are saying and to be honest I'm a big fan of Farrell . When I said match winner maybe it would have been fairer to say game breaker .

Like you say he's definitely someone we can rely. it's just I'm not sure if he's the main fault for the midfield not firing .

I could be off the mark mind

I'd love to see a quartet of

9. Care
10. Cipriani
12. Tuilagi
13. Joseph

Such a shame that midfield between Manu and Joseph cut short in SA a few years back although I wouldn't mind if Burrell was outside Tuilagi . Cipriani would use Manu as a dummy really well imo

 

[goodNumber10]

that Tuilagi & Joseph midfield worked well, Manu at 12.

I still think Manu at 12 and Burrell at 13 would be interesting even though i prefer a passing 12.

Im not sure about the height of these guys but Twelvetrees looks tall and looked good against the ABs IMO.

He is:

Height: 6' 4" (1.93 m)
Weight: 220 lbs (100 kg)

Wikifact

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

that Tuilagi & Joseph midfield worked well, Manu at 12.

I still think Manu at 12 and Burrell at 13 would be interesting even though i prefer a passing 12.



He is:

Height: 6' 4" (1.93 m)
Weight: 220 lbs (100 kg)

Wikifact

Errr is that the match where tuilagi didn't pass once and Joseph saw the ball twice or something like that? Tuilagi at 12 will not work until he learns to offload or pass.

 

[Peat]

Yeah, you basically repeated what I said in half the words.

It's a funny thing... is a culture shift needed in England (and perhaps the NH in general) in order to produce better backs?

A shift to Summer rugby (promotes handling skills)? More touch and sevens from a younger age (including enforced practice for age-grade rugby)? Shorter seasons to allow for a longer off-season, where more time can be put aside into coaching soft skills?

I feel that if the pack weren't as important as they are to union, that we'd still be regularly steamrollered by the SH.

Don't forget the rhyming! Highly key to my post.

Anyway... yes and no. While a greater emphasis on running, distributing rugby at a younger age would probably help us as a rugby nation, we do produce backs. We've produced some great backs. Right now, we're in a shaky spot thought. It happens. I mean, if we want to be better, then, yeah, of course we need to improve our rugby culture, but I don't think the current resource pool is "Change Everything" bad.

Maverick - Maybe, but they've been so inconsistent for so long that I feel it wouldn't completely change things.

I cannot agree with GN10's defence of Farrell. He has a fairly average international goal kicking average, he has a short range, and there's been enough wobbles that I feel the whole "made of ice" thing needs questioning. I mean, he's still probably our best available international goal kicker (largely cos we've never tried anyone else much), but it's not like he's a Leigh Halfpenny-style everyone would want him goal kicker. I also think that his defensive attributes are rightly underconsidered when compared to Burns/Ford/anyone having ability as an attacking 10, because you pick a 10 to run an attack and pretty much everything else second (unless he's also your goal kicker). I mean, it's a not insignificant bonus, but if the 10 can't spark the attack as well as his competitors, it shouldn't come into it.

Sadly, I suspect GN10 is right about how nailed on Fazlet is. He's not doing badly right now, but I do find the way our coaching staff seem to think he's nailed on alarming.

 

[Crapspray]

Farrell kicked 17 in a row at the end of the Six Nations, and is 29 of 36 so far this year (81%). Excluding the mudbath at Murrayfield, it jumps to 26 of 29 (90%). Halfpenny's stats were 18 of 21 in the Six Nations (86%). Admittedly, that doesn't show the differences in range and angle, but Farrell is not far off Halfpenny and is in no way "fairly average". Not to mention his kicking out of hand is ignored (particularly when going for the corner- not that anything ever comes of it thanks to the naff attack...). He's also been comfortable with kicking near the halfway line for a season now.

Six Nations 2014:

Halfpenny 18 of 21 (86%)
Farrell 24 of 30 (80%)
Sexton: 19 of 25 (76%)
Doussain: 10 of 16 (63%)
Allan: 6 of 11 (55%)
Laidlaw: 7 of 14 (50%)

Doussain, Farrell, and Laidlaw all had to kick at Murrayfield.

Either way, nailed-on. Sorting 12 out is probably going to yield a greater improvement anyway.

 

[goodNumber10]

Errr is that the match where tuilagi didn't pass once and Joseph saw the ball twice or something like that? Tuilagi at 12 will not work until he learns to offload or pass.

hence me saying "even though i prefer a passing 10"

Don't forget the rhyming! Highly key to my post.

Anyway... yes and no. While a greater emphasis on running, distributing rugby at a younger age would probably help us as a rugby nation, we do produce backs. We've produced some great backs. Right now, we're in a shaky spot thought. It happens. I mean, if we want to be better, then, yeah, of course we need to improve our rugby culture, but I don't think the current resource pool is "Change Everything" bad.

agreed.

I cannot agree with GN10's defence of Farrell. He has a fairly average international goal kicking average, he has a short range, and there's been enough wobbles that I feel the whole "made of ice" thing needs questioning. I mean, he's still probably our best available international goal kicker (largely cos we've never tried anyone else much), but it's not like he's a Leigh Halfpenny-style everyone would want him goal kicker. I also think that his defensive attributes are rightly underconsidered when compared to Burns/Ford/anyone having ability as an attacking 10, because you pick a 10 to run an attack and pretty much everything else second (unless he's also your goal kicker). I mean, it's a not insignificant bonus, but if the 10 can't spark the attack as well as his competitors, it shouldn't come into it.

Sadly, I suspect GN10 is right about how nailed on Fazlet is. He's not doing badly right now, but I do find the way our coaching staff seem to think he's nailed on alarming.

In New Zealand we scored more test Trys with Farrell on the pitch then with Burns or Cipriani combined, and it really wasn't a vintage attacking performance by any stretch of the imagination.

For me you pick a 10 to run your game plan, that is Attack yes, but also tactics and kicking and in some cases the defence.

For me Farrell is better in the two than the others are than him in attack (if that makes sense).

I don't buy the he can't spark an attack either, we've scored some fantastic trys with him on the pitch and he's been playing flat and attacking the line far more since he got back from the lions tour - sorry to spam but this is still pretty much what i think of Englands backs options: http://www.thedeadballarea.com/focus-england-balanced-midfield/

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Danny

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Cipriani

 

[goodNumber10]

is

 

[ratsapprentice]

Getting the **** out of Manchester as soon as he can.

 

[goodNumber10]

lulz!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Fight me

 

[TRF_Olyy]

All of you

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Fight me.

 

[goodNumber10]

you vs Rats

[video=youtube_share;rJk4MqhOF9g]http://youtu.be/rJk4MqhOF9g[/video]

 

[Peat]

In New Zealand we scored more test Trys with Farrell on the pitch then with Burns or Cipriani combined, and it really wasn't a vintage attacking performance by any stretch of the imagination.

For me you pick a 10 to run your game plan, that is Attack yes, but also tactics and kicking and in some cases the defence.

For me Farrell is better in the two than the others are than him in attack (if that makes sense).

I don't buy the he can't spark an attack either, we've scored some fantastic trys with him on the pitch and he's been playing flat and attacking the line far more since he got back from the lions tour - sorry to spam but this is still pretty much what i think of Englands backs options: http://www.thedeadballarea.com/focus-england-balanced-midfield/

Ok, first off, I never said he can't spark an attack. I said asking for his defensive abilities to be given equal weighting to other players' attacking abilities does not make sense.

Secondly, as a case for his attacking abilities, saying we scored 3 tries with him on the park against New Zealand despite it being a not-great attacking performance, is awful logic. He may or may not have had anything to do with the tries, he certainly had something to do with it not being great. That's a case of general logic rather than the specifics of 1 try he had nothing to do with, 1 try he had a bit to do with that shouldn't have been given and 1 try he didn't have much to do with that was scored when the game went dead.

And Crapspray, 80pc isn't an international kicking percentage to get excited about. It's good, but there are plenty of guys hitting it. Freddie Burns has an 80pc conversion rate at international level so far. It's not undroppable

The specific things I said about Farrell was

a) He's not doing bad i.e. he's doing ok
b) He shouldn't be nailed on, even though he is

I'm not calling for to be dropping tomorrow or some ****. But is he so far ahead of his competition that he's definitely going to be the best choice come the World Cup? Nope, I don't see it. An 80pc kicking rate, great defence and sorta adequate sometimes good sometimes not good attacking skills (and ok tactical kicking and game management) don't make an undroppable international fly-half, particularly not when we have a bunch of guys who could be the real deal.

But they do in Lancaster time, so whatevs.

 

[goodNumber10]

Ok, first off, I never said he can't spark an attack. I said asking for his defensive abilities to be given equal weighting to other players' attacking abilities does not make sense.

Secondly, as a case for his attacking abilities, saying we scored 3 tries with him on the park against New Zealand despite it being a not-great attacking performance, is awful logic. He may or may not have had anything to do with the tries, he certainly had something to do with it not being great. That's a case of general logic rather than the specifics of 1 try he had nothing to do with, 1 try he had a bit to do with that shouldn't have been given and 1 try he didn't have much to do with that was scored when the game went dead.

The point was more to illustrate the fact the 10 doesn't have to be the spark...

hence me then going on to talk about him not being able to spark the attack as a secondary point.

dunno if that makes sense it was rather clumsily written.

The specific things I said about Farrell was

a) He's not doing bad i.e. he's doing ok
b) He shouldn't be nailed on, even though he is

I'm not calling for to be dropping tomorrow or some ****. But is he so far ahead of his competition that he's definitely going to be the best choice come the World Cup? Nope, I don't see it. An 80pc kicking rate, great defence and sorta adequate sometimes good sometimes not good attacking skills (and ok tactical kicking and game management) don't make an undroppable international fly-half, particularly not when we have a bunch of guys who could be the real deal.

But they do in Lancaster time, so whatevs.

it's the age old discussion isn't it? Mehrtens vs Spencer, Andrew vs Barnes, Campbell vs Ward and so on.... 90% of the time i think the more reliable 10 came out ontop. At the moment Farrell is proven whilst the others aren't, Farrells also never let us down, and has seldom had abad game since returning from the lions.

I dunno, there are things i'd like to see him do better, but i feel a lot better when he's on the pitch.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Assuming they consistently play as we know they can:

9. Care
10. Farrel
11. Yarde
12. Eastmond
13. Tuilagi
14. Daly
15. Brown

Not entirely sure about Daly at 14 but I want that guy in the team somewhere. He certainly has the pace, agility and strength to pull of being a winger. He also seems to have a good rugby brain. I think we cna get away with Farrel not being the most creative 10 by having creativity elsewhere in the backs. I'd rather have our 10 as a game controller to ensure the pressure is always on our opposition and let others come up with the breaks.

 

[Peat]

The point was more to illustrate the fact the 10 doesn't have to be the spark...

hence me then going on to talk about him not being able to spark the attack as a secondary point.

dunno if that makes sense it was rather clumsily written.

It does, and I'd meant to acknowledge that might be what you meant and add a counterpoint to that, but was making the post before work and was in a rush.

And yes, you can score tries if your 10 isn't doing a great deal, but it's not ideal. It would be like, I dunno, picking a no 7 who's not much of a breakdown expert and support runner (oh wait). You can make it work, but if offered the choice, you'd do things the orthodox way.

it's the age old discussion isn't it? Mehrtens vs Spencer, Andrew vs Barnes, Campbell vs Ward and so on.... 90% of the time i think the more reliable 10 came out ontop. At the moment Farrell is proven whilst the others aren't, Farrells also never let us down, and has seldom had abad game since returning from the lions.

I dunno, there are things i'd like to see him do better, but i feel a lot better when he's on the pitch.

Reliable wins out for obvious reasons but I don't see Farrell vs Burns/Ford as reliable vs creative. I see it as proven vs unproven. At peak performance, both Burns and Ford are pretty reliable game runners and kickers. Their defence mightn't be as reliable as Farrell's but a lot of the time it works. Burns and Ford are players that I think can be reliable and creative, which is the dream fly-half. Obviously, tomorrow, proven = reliable = Farrell starting... but we've got a year to try things and for players to make their case. I think that Burns and Ford both have higher ceilings as fly-halves and are in a position where it's not inconceivable that they could be fulfilling enough of that to be better players than Farrell this time next year.

And that is why I don't want to think Farrell of a nailed on.

 

[Maverick1987]

Let's see how Burns gets on at Leicester . If he gets off to a flyer and has a cracking season I think he's in with a shout of displacing Faz . I've heard rumours Cipriani is going to quins too .