Owen Farrell

[gingergenius]

I've never understood why Farrall is so highly rated. He's a solid defender, who'll make most of his kicks and is a decent kick out of hand. He's never going to be a world beater. He's a solid player but he won't ignite a backline. He'd be a good dependable bench option but there's definitely better English 10's and it's probably worth playing someone else center.

As everyone knows he's young and could well prove me wrong but I doubt it.

He's highly rated because at 19 he's been the 10 (always the glory position) who's steered Saracens into being the best team in England. You can say he's benefitted from a strong pack etc. but good touchfinders, high goalkicking percentage and well-executed 6th-tackle-style grubbers are all his own work, and they're a major contributing factor to Saracens' success. He deserves all the praise he gets for this.

Now, whether this is what matches your idea of an England fly half/ 12 is a different proposition. No, Farrell is not the footballer that Flood is, let alone the likes of Burns and Lamb (thinking of the competition for the 10 spot).

It's a simple tossup that must be made. Burns and Lamb, for example, are both unreliable with their kicking game and general game management. Watching Burns yesterday, he's got fantastic skills and vision but his poor kicking was one of the reasons that a poor Bath side were able to stay in touch with Gloucester.

So, you can choose to opt for the more attacking options, but I guarantee you (as happened with Wilko's recalls towards the end of his career) poor kicking/ temperament will lose a game and people will start to shout for a more reliable player. England must accept that we have no Dan Carter. We don't have a footballer who can tackle well and has nerves of steel. So we can go the Aussie route and pick a maverick at 10, or the Saffa route and pick a points machine. And we can adjust our midfield around these principles, with perhaps a footballer at 10 and a points machine at 12 or vice versa.

 

[Gavin]

The kid is 20; seriously give him some time to evolve.

 

[Draggs]

All I can say is he has improved immensely over the past 18 months.
He certainly has time on his side, and can get much better.

 

[j'nuh]

England would have lost to Italy if they didn't have a competent goal kicker

Heard the same argument to keep Parks, Wilkinson and Jones playing for their respective countries. It's a tired one. As I said, flyhalves which can't attack or release their backs won't get us into the position to regularly hit penalties if the opposite team has a decent pack. All that will happen is continuous clearing kicks from inside our half followed by the other team running the ball back - repeat. All the while, Foden, Tuilagi, Sharples etc., who thrive on a loose game, will get isolated in a defensive job.

Even when he's been in form for the last few years, when has Wilkinson put in a better performance than Flood? Just one will do. On the other hand, the best I've seen England play in I don't know how many years (Aus 2010) came off the back of an on-fire English backline. When was the last time England did something special by playing 10-man rugby?

So we can go the Aussie route and pick a maverick at 10, or the Saffa route and pick a points machine. And we can adjust our midfield around these principles, with perhaps a footballer at 10 and a points machine at 12 or vice versa.

These aren't our only options. Wales are now using Halfpenny, a very competent kicker for a winger. France use Yachvili/Parra. Australia use O'Connor. NZ used Weepu for a couple of games in the WC. (Besides, I think you have insane standards for a good kicker. You seem to be looking for someone with 90+% kicking percentage. Burns is 80+% I think, which is a decent enough percentage for me. (Loss of 10% for an attacking game is a decent trade-off.)) Penalty kicking is also something a player can easily improve in, especially with high-standard coaching that should come with being involved with England.

But like I've said, you only get to kick penalties if you have the territory to be in the position to kick penalties, something we're not likely to get with Farrell imo.

 

[racingmetrofan]

Heard the same argument to keep Parks, Wilkinson and Jones playing for their respective countries. It's a tired one. As I said, flyhalves which can't attack or release their backs won't get us into the position to regularly hit penalties if the opposite team has a decent pack. All that will happen is continuous clearing kicks from inside our half followed by the other team running the ball back - repeat. All the while, Foden, Tuilagi, Sharples etc., who thrive on a loose game, will get isolated in a defensive job.

Even when he's been in form for the last few years, when has Wilkinson put in a better performance than Flood? Just one will do. On the other hand, the best I've seen England play in I don't know how many years (Aus 2010) came off the back of an on-fire English backline. When was the last time England did something special by playing 10-man rugby?

To be fair though, England's 'best' attacking rugby was played with two big, crash it up the middle centres!!! Looking at our strengths, we have great wingers, great fullbacks, a couple of very solid 12s and good options at 13.

Farrell may not look like he's going to release the England backs, but he's been playing at 12 next to a 10 who hasn't shown himself to be much better at attacking play on recent form - coupled with a crash ball ish 12 playing at 13. And also, who knows what the coaches have been telling him to do...

There should be absolutely no problem with a nerves of steel, accurate kicking, good defending fly half when 11 to 15 is filled with attacking quality, which we have.

 

[Aedaphon]

The kid is 20; seriously give him some time to evolve.

Well said.

And to the above, you're taking players who were all at the end of their test careers. An argument can be made that Farrell needs more time to develop outside of international rugby, but frankly he has anchored the England side well in his two test matches so far. It's ludicrous saying he should be barred from a team from being uncreative, especially given that he's slotting into what was previously the Hape-Tindall pairing of absolutely no flair whatsoever.

Farrell has the passing ability that could let us play the wide and expansive game we need to utilise our backs to best effect. Between Flood and Farrell we could ship the ball across the pitch in two passes, something we would not have if Tuilagi was moved to 12 as many are suggesting. It is not a huge leap of the imagination to say that he could develop as a strong distributor for England

 

[RandV]

He's highly rated because at 19 he's been the 10 (always the glory position) who's steered Saracens into being the best team in England. You can say he's benefitted from a strong pack etc. but good touchfinders, high goalkicking percentage and well-executed 6th-tackle-style grubbers are all his own work, and they're a major contributing factor to Saracens' success. He deserves all the praise he gets for this.

Now, whether this is what matches your idea of an England fly half/ 12 is a different proposition. No, Farrell is not the footballer that Flood is, let alone the likes of Burns and Lamb (thinking of the competition for the 10 spot).

It's a simple tossup that must be made. Burns and Lamb, for example, are both unreliable with their kicking game and general game management. Watching Burns yesterday, he's got fantastic skills and vision but his poor kicking was one of the reasons that a poor Bath side were able to stay in touch with Gloucester.

So, you can choose to opt for the more attacking options, but I guarantee you (as happened with Wilko's recalls towards the end of his career) poor kicking/ temperament will lose a game and people will start to shout for a more reliable player. England must accept that we have no Dan Carter. We don't have a footballer who can tackle well and has nerves of steel. So we can go the Aussie route and pick a maverick at 10, or the Saffa route and pick a points machine. And we can adjust our midfield around these principles, with perhaps a footballer at 10 and a points machine at 12 or vice versa.

I agree with all of this. I really don't get the 'he's no good' rants on here. The guy is barely out of his teens! Sure he (so far) hasn't offered a real running game, but I'd like to see him have a go at 10, and unlike nearly all the alternatives which are continually offered up on here, Farrel has actually won something as the fly half in a championship winning team! Who knows what style he was instructed to play at Saracens, but he executed what ever that was very well indeed.

I'd love England to have a winning open running style of play, but lets get real, that is still a while away. I'll settle for a consistent, well executed display that results in a win for these Six Nations matches, and I think he has proved he can do that at 10.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

He's a better 12 than 10, as that's his preferred position.
He's a capable 10, but really he got so much game time there due to injuries rather than due to him being first choice 10, hence him going back to 12 (and 13) this season, and playing 12 for England U20s (and now England).

 

[Aedaphon]

He's a better 12 than 10, as that's his preferred position.
He's a capable 10, but really he got so much game time there due to injuries rather than due to him being first choice 10, hence him going back to 12 (and 13) this season, and playing 12 for England U20s (and now England).

And Foden's preferred position when he signed for Northampton was scrum-half...

He has the skill set to play 10 and even if he's only cover it's worth establishing if he could play a full game at 10 at international level.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It just doesn't make sense - he's not a great attacker, so why move him to a position where has an even bigger hand in it?
If we want to switch things round then he should be dropped to the bench and someone else brought in at 12/13.

 

[Sir-Fon]

He's a better 12 than 10, as that's his preferred position.
He's a capable 10, but really he got so much game time there due to injuries rather than due to him being first choice 10, hence him going back to 12 (and 13) this season, and playing 12 for England U20s (and now England).

He lacks the pace needed to be International class 12. There is a big step up in pace and power from club rugby to international class.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Lacks the pace?
He's not the fastest, but I'd wager he's faster than D'Arcy/De Luca.
Wouldn't surprise me if he was faster than John Davies, and possibly Jamie Roberts too. It's not his pace that's holding him back.

 

[Gavin]

Would mind seeing everyone who is having a go at Farrell in his position. To be twenty years of age, have two England caps, been a standout performer for Saracens and helped them win the league. What this kid has achieved in only twenty years is probably more than everyone on this forum will achieve in their life-time. Dan Carter made his debut at 21 and wasn't the fastest or most attacking inside center but he had a calm boot and a beautiful passing game. Farrell has more than a decade left in his rugby career and I would like to point out that No. 10s only really hit their peak during their mid-20s.

 

[Sir-Fon]

Gavin he is a highly paid rugby player who will be praised by many and also criticised by others but I don't think our lifetime achievements should be judged on our postings in a rugby forum

 

[Gavin]

Gavin he is a highly paid rugby player who will be praised by many and also criticised by others but I don't think our lifetime achievements should be judged on our postings in a rugby forum

Who is 20 and only just entered the international rugby scene.

 

[Sir-Fon]

His age has nothing to do with it he is either good enough to play international rugby or he is not.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

If we're talking about his career in general, then yes he has every chance of improving his attacking game and becoming a great 12/10.
If we're talking about this Six Nations then I don't think he's the right choice. He'd be a good option on the bench covering flyhalf and centre, and with his kicking game you could bring him on to kick the corners etc.


Having said that, he's not terrible - I think the Wales game will be the real test, as we'll be at home, the weather should be better and we'll see how he handles himself in attack.
If it's not great then we could/should look at switching things around for the final two matches, just to see what our options are within the EPS atm.

 

[Peat]

Lacks the pace?
He's not the fastest, but I'd wager he's faster than D'Arcy/De Luca.
Wouldn't surprise me if he was faster than John Davies, and possibly Jamie Roberts too. It's not his pace that's holding him back.

D'Arcy's a busted flush, De Luca never was (but I think is probably faster), Jon Davies is really rapid and if he's not quicker than Farrell I'll be amazed, and Jamie Roberts started on the wing so make your judgements on his pace from there. I wish Farrell was as quick as those two, we could park him on one wing Tom Homer style.

An international quality 12 either needs massive strength, gas to burn or a great step at the very least. Farrell has none of them.

Would mind seeing everyone who is having a go at Farrell in his position. To be twenty years of age, have two England caps, been a standout performer for Saracens and helped them win the league. What this kid has achieved in only twenty years is probably more than everyone on this forum will achieve in their life-time. Dan Carter made his debut at 21 and wasn't the fastest or most attacking inside center but he had a calm boot and a beautiful passing game. Farrell has more than a decade left in his rugby career and I would like to point out that No. 10s only really hit their peak during their mid-20s.

My achievements have sod all to do with my ability to judge a player.

What Farrell's achieved is amazing and I doff my cap to it, but right now the judgement is over his ability as an England player now - and maybe a little over what he may be. Right now he's not up to standard because he lacks a running threat (barely tolerable in a 10 and unforgivable in a centre) and he rarely displays creative spark and looking ahead to his development, while you can see the potential for a creative spark there, it's very hard to see where the running game's going to come from. I forget who pointed the difference between Farrell snr's end of career weight and Farrell jnr's start, but there's plenty of young Englishmen coming off the production line bigger than him at his age - I don't believe he's going to get much bigger. Nor is he going to get much quicker. Nor does he has a fantastic natural step.

I hope Farrell continues to develop. He has a fantastic temperament and some great ball skills. He could be a great. But right now he's a substandard international centre who goalkicks very well, which isn't actually a worry for England as long as Hodgson/Flood aren't having a wobble, and is being massively overhyped by the press on account of being young, English and fairly talented.

 

[Luimneach18]

Owen Farrell should be moved to fly half, that's my personally opinion.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

You would say that, we haven't played you yet!