Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:25 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73931 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1816, 1817, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821, 1822 ... 1849  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14366
DragsterDriver wrote:
forrester wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
Anyone got a subscription to show the article on Owen Farrell’s missed tackles in the telegraph?


It’s not great tbh. He points out a few genuine misses but tries to justify most of them like it’s part of our defensive system. Farrell’s only weakness apparently is when he shoots out the line he doesn’t take into account who’s either side of him.


It’s an absolute fluff piece, as if Ford would get that.


Faz missing tackles just shows how keen he is. So many interactions. And he's a gentle and generous lover.

Ford only makes so many tackles because the opposition attack his channel. And I hear he doesn't even like kittens.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 7:03 pm
Posts: 41
DragsterDriver wrote:
I agree with most of that, has ford ever had a run with a 12 say teo outside him?

How good is Farrell kicking percentage now?

Genuine questions :)

Best I can find on recent success rate is here: [url]https://twitter.com/SARugbymag/status/1048470411510472705/photo/1
[/url]
This shows him at 77% over the last couple of years, which puts him just below half-way in the league table of regular international kickers. Respectable but not special. But he has "ice in his veins" per Miles Harrison, so that's ok.

Edit - not sure how to make that a hyperlink.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25412
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
Cheers!

When you listen to ‘experts’ you start to wonder if you’re watching different games?

50% tackle completion

70% kicking

Charlie Hodgson or Cipriani would be shot for that not declared a ‘test match animal’.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:35 am
Posts: 1475
Location: England
Ah, but they don't have the right attitude.

And they don't make the kicks that count.

Or make crucial match winning interventions.


Except that they do and that Farrell is also more than capable of offering the inverse of those attributes such as ref whinging petulance, missing all his kicks during the Ireland game this 6 Nations and all but gifting SA a chance to win the game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:35 am
Posts: 1475
Location: England
S Club wrote:
elfieldinho wrote:
Spoiler: show
I've a fair deal of sympathy for Faz fans and for Jones for picking him. The intangibles are clearly there in terms of will, competitiveness and nerve. The skill set is tantalisingly close to matching the intangibles at two different positions. He has the kicking game, the game intelligence, the requisite physicality and the nerve under fire to play 10. He has the passing game, the kicking game, the appreciation of space and the aggression to play 12.

He isn't a good enough or imaginative passer to play 10 though. He isn't strong enough or quick enough to play 12 in the modern game either. Ford has fewer attributes than Faz. He doesn't seem to be much of a leader. He is less obviously a big game player. He's no-one's idea of a centre as he is small and slight. He is though, incredibly good at creating space for others with perfectly and imaginatively timed passes.

That's it. One thing. Whereas Farrell gives you power and aggression and leadership and physicality at 10, Ford offers only the superb passing. I think that one thing should outweigh all the others at international level and would pick Ford.

Eddie has picked Farrell because I think - wrongly- he has given up on the idea of England being able to play a quick and expansive game. The flat, knackered forwards last year, along with Farrell's own limitations at 12 have convinced him that we're not up to it. I'd argue that we've more chance of doing that, than grinding teams down through power right now.

Other than the deluded press, most people rating Farrell aren't blind to his flaws; they've just lowered their ambitions for what England can be in terms of attack and decided that the bigger, stronger player, the more aggressive and inspiring player and the better kicker make more sense for a team without real centres or much in the way of wit and intelligence.


I approve of this poster. The thinking man's Chuckles.


Think that's harsh on Ford to be honest, he offers a lot more than just a great passing game. His tactical kicking is often far better than Farrell's and his general ability to read a game in order to move his team around the field via hand or boot is superior.

We often don't see the best of him because he's shackled to Farrell in the midfield, i.e. someone a player whose deficiencies inhibit Ford's options. Then you throw in Youngs frequently delivering abominable ball...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22327
elfieldinho wrote:
I've a fair deal of sympathy for Faz fans and for Jones for picking him. The intangibles are clearly there in terms of will, competitiveness and nerve. The skill set is tantalisingly close to matching the intangibles at two different positions. He has the kicking game, the game intelligence, the requisite physicality and the nerve under fire to play 10. He has the passing game, the kicking game, the appreciation of space and the aggression to play 12.

He isn't a good enough or imaginative passer to play 10 though. He isn't strong enough or quick enough to play 12 in the modern game either. Ford has fewer attributes than Faz. He doesn't seem to be much of a leader. He is less obviously a big game player. He's no-one's idea of a centre as he is small and slight. He is though, incredibly good at creating space for others with perfectly and imaginatively timed passes.

That's it. One thing. Whereas Farrell gives you power and aggression and leadership and physicality at 10, Ford offers only the superb passing. I think that one thing should outweigh all the others at international level and would pick Ford.

Eddie has picked Farrell because I think - wrongly- he has given up on the idea of England being able to play a quick and expansive game. The flat, knackered forwards last year, along with Farrell's own limitations at 12 have convinced him that we're not up to it. I'd argue that we've more chance of doing that, than grinding teams down through power right now.

Other than the deluded press, most people rating Farrell aren't blind to his flaws; they've just lowered their ambitions for what England can be in terms of attack and decided that the bigger, stronger player, the more aggressive and inspiring player and the better kicker make more sense for a team without real centres or much in the way of wit and intelligence.


IS Faz actually more inspiring? His win record with England under Jones isn't great at 10 and under Lancaster it was a case of coming up short constantly. I think you forget that Faz has had to be dropped form the 10 shirt by every test coach he has played under. I agree about his intangibles and have discussed them before, but leadership sin't a substitute for ability. On that note I disagree about your comment Faz appreciates space. He's got very limited reading of space and where it opens up compared with say Ford or any southern hemisphere 10.

It's possible coaches depending on Faz is actually holding back other players to adopt leadership roles. It's like how people quieten down when surrounded by the gobby one. The All Blacks would never pick a player for leadership when they have such glaring flaws for a position. They pick the best and develop leaders under them and make the whole squad understand their roles. Some how in England we are stuck to the idea leaders and authority is born not moulded.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22327
sockwithaticket wrote:
S Club wrote:
elfieldinho wrote:
Spoiler: show
I've a fair deal of sympathy for Faz fans and for Jones for picking him. The intangibles are clearly there in terms of will, competitiveness and nerve. The skill set is tantalisingly close to matching the intangibles at two different positions. He has the kicking game, the game intelligence, the requisite physicality and the nerve under fire to play 10. He has the passing game, the kicking game, the appreciation of space and the aggression to play 12.

He isn't a good enough or imaginative passer to play 10 though. He isn't strong enough or quick enough to play 12 in the modern game either. Ford has fewer attributes than Faz. He doesn't seem to be much of a leader. He is less obviously a big game player. He's no-one's idea of a centre as he is small and slight. He is though, incredibly good at creating space for others with perfectly and imaginatively timed passes.

That's it. One thing. Whereas Farrell gives you power and aggression and leadership and physicality at 10, Ford offers only the superb passing. I think that one thing should outweigh all the others at international level and would pick Ford.

Eddie has picked Farrell because I think - wrongly- he has given up on the idea of England being able to play a quick and expansive game. The flat, knackered forwards last year, along with Farrell's own limitations at 12 have convinced him that we're not up to it. I'd argue that we've more chance of doing that, than grinding teams down through power right now.

Other than the deluded press, most people rating Farrell aren't blind to his flaws; they've just lowered their ambitions for what England can be in terms of attack and decided that the bigger, stronger player, the more aggressive and inspiring player and the better kicker make more sense for a team without real centres or much in the way of wit and intelligence.


I approve of this poster. The thinking man's Chuckles.


Think that's harsh on Ford to be honest, he offers a lot more than just a great passing game. His tactical kicking is often far better than Farrell's and his general ability to read a game in order to move his team around the field via hand or boot is superior.

We often don't see the best of him because he's shackled to Farrell in the midfield, i.e. someone a player whose deficiencies inhibit Ford's options. Then you throw in Youngs frequently delivering abominable ball...


Agreed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18872
Location: Investigating racism in the NHS
Just to counterbalance some of the crazy OTT posts re Farrell - here's a quote from Alex Goode in an interview recently

Quote:
“I don’t think I have ever come across someone who, without question, improves with his goalkicking when the pressure gets even more intense.

“That final kick against South Africa last Saturday from the touchline is a great example and it is a talent you very rarely see. I beat him in a kicking contest at the club but there is no way I would beat him in a game situation because he goes to a different level and that is his mentality. He didn’t care about beating me!”


By all means have a go at Farrell for lots of other things, but to try and have a go at his goalkicking is absurd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18660
openclashXX wrote:
Just to counterbalance some of the crazy OTT posts re Farrell - here's a quote from Alex Goode in an interview recently

Quote:
“I don’t think I have ever come across someone who, without question, improves with his goalkicking when the pressure gets even more intense.

“That final kick against South Africa last Saturday from the touchline is a great example and it is a talent you very rarely see. I beat him in a kicking contest at the club but there is no way I would beat him in a game situation because he goes to a different level and that is his mentality. He didn’t care about beating me!”


By all means have a go at Farrell for lots of other things, but to try and have a go at his goalkicking is absurd


If Farrell had got the earlier kick, which was just as important, then that would have been handy, and would have meant that we weren't reliant on getting another penalty later.

The whole "He only misses the ones he doesn't need to get." Is a load of bollocks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 5732
Farrell's goal kicking at the moment is going really well, the sound coming from the point of contact is wholly enjoyable just for itself. I'd still pick Ford, but I am loving the technique level Farrell has reached


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:35 am
Posts: 1475
Location: England
openclashXX wrote:
Just to counterbalance some of the crazy OTT posts re Farrell - here's a quote from Alex Goode in an interview recently

Quote:
“I don’t think I have ever come across someone who, without question, improves with his goalkicking when the pressure gets even more intense.

“That final kick against South Africa last Saturday from the touchline is a great example and it is a talent you very rarely see. I beat him in a kicking contest at the club but there is no way I would beat him in a game situation because he goes to a different level and that is his mentality. He didn’t care about beating me!”


By all means have a go at Farrell for lots of other things, but to try and have a go at his goalkicking is absurd



Team mate talks up team mate shocker.

Farrell is a very good kicker, but his percentages aren't exceptional for a top level, first choice goal kicker they're about par and totally at odds with the rhapsodic praise that's sent his way by the media/press.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 7:03 pm
Posts: 41
sockwithaticket wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
Just to counterbalance some of the crazy OTT posts re Farrell - here's a quote from Alex Goode in an interview recently

Quote:
“I don’t think I have ever come across someone who, without question, improves with his goalkicking when the pressure gets even more intense.

“That final kick against South Africa last Saturday from the touchline is a great example and it is a talent you very rarely see. I beat him in a kicking contest at the club but there is no way I would beat him in a game situation because he goes to a different level and that is his mentality. He didn’t care about beating me!”


By all means have a go at Farrell for lots of other things, but to try and have a go at his goalkicking is absurd



Team mate talks up team mate shocker.

Farrell is a very good kicker, but his percentages aren't exceptional for a top level, first choice goal kicker they're about par and totally at odds with the rhapsodic praise that's sent his way by the media/press.


I think that's right. He's a good player, important to England and played a significant role in the success we had in 2016 and 17. But the press puts him on such a pedestal that there is a tendency to overdo the criticism.

Example of press one-eyed approach: Woodward (yes, I know) on commentary on Saturday rhapsodises about Farrell "leading the team magnificently from 10" during the excellent start to the match. Later writes at length about how England collectively need to improve decision-making with reference to turning down kicks at goal, without any direct reference to Farrell. Balanced view would be, Farrell started the game well, but along with his teammates, felt the pressure as the game wore on and NZ came back at them. He is not an experienced captain and that showed to some extent. Understandably.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:12 pm
Posts: 3165
Do posters here honestly think Ford would have made the tackles Faz missed let alone the ones he made? Ford is lucky Cips is viewed as poisonous or he wouldn't even make the squad. I like watching Ford when he's on the front foot in games that don't matter, it's entertaining. Is tight test match rugby an invironment that suits him? No, not without a 12 to take the strain. I expect the WC to be unbelievably physical and the packs to be a good match for each other across the top 8-10 sides. I can't see how Ford's limitations can be worked around in that scenario where as Faz limitations can be balanced with the players around him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25412
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
I think ford could have waved Crotty through yes and maybe missed the kick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19843
DragsterDriver wrote:
I think ford could have waved Crotty through yes and maybe missed the kick.

If he'd made that break against the saffas he would have got much more out of it as well.

Ford, despite being lightweight is not banged off in the tackle as much as Farrell. He goes lower and does concede more ground, but he hangs on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 34906
Location: Planet Rock
sockwithaticket wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
Just to counterbalance some of the crazy OTT posts re Farrell - here's a quote from Alex Goode in an interview recently

Quote:
“I don’t think I have ever come across someone who, without question, improves with his goalkicking when the pressure gets even more intense.

“That final kick against South Africa last Saturday from the touchline is a great example and it is a talent you very rarely see. I beat him in a kicking contest at the club but there is no way I would beat him in a game situation because he goes to a different level and that is his mentality. He didn’t care about beating me!”


By all means have a go at Farrell for lots of other things, but to try and have a go at his goalkicking is absurd



Team mate talks up team mate shocker.

Farrell is a very good kicker, but his percentages aren't exceptional for a top level, first choice goal kicker they're about par and totally at odds with the rhapsodic praise that's sent his way by the media/press.

So what if he is no Neil Jenkins. No ones that good


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25412
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
happyhooker wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
I think ford could have waved Crotty through yes and maybe missed the kick.

If he'd made that break against the saffas he would have got much more out of it as well.

Ford, despite being lightweight is not banged off in the tackle as much as Farrell. He goes lower and does concede more ground, but he hangs on.


Exactly! No Hollywood big bangs and maybe yields a yard but he’s a much better defender. He’s a much better 10 fullstop.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2016 1:43 am
Posts: 345
Ford is only good when the goings good, has no balls for the big occasion, is a turnstile in the tackle, and is a sub-par place kicker. I’d prefer Smith at Quinn’s to be honest, at least he has a bit of terrier in him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19843
TopNacker wrote:
Ford is only good when the goings good, has no balls for the big occasion, is a turnstile in the tackle, and is a sub-par place kicker. I’d prefer Smith at Quinn’s to be honest, at least he has a bit of terrier in him.

Your first sentence is bollocks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:12 pm
Posts: 3165
TopNacker wrote:
Ford is only good when the goings good, has no balls for the big occasion, is a turnstile in the tackle, and is a sub-par place kicker. I’d prefer Smith at Quinn’s to be honest, at least he has a bit of terrier in him.

True, I know who I'd want beside me in the trenches when it's tight and tough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:13 pm
Posts: 2123
Both sentences were bollocks.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there an awful lot of posters on here (and other forums) who watch a minimal amount of rugby and form opinions based upon whatever they think is fashionable.

Anyone who actually watches Ford play for what is a highly average Leicester team can’t have any doubts about his ability to perform when the going is anything but good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:35 am
Posts: 1475
Location: England
TopNacker wrote:
Ford is only good when the goings good, has no balls for the big occasion, is a turnstile in the tackle, and is a sub-par place kicker. I’d prefer Smith at Quinn’s to be honest, at least he has a bit of terrier in him.


We've only got one turnstile 10 in defence and it ain't Ford. As others noted, he might not put the opposition down straight away, but he very rarely misses them.

Frankly, all of your first sentence is shite, but that bit really stuck out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19843
Scrumhead wrote:
Both sentences were bollocks.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there an awful lot of posters on here (and other forums) who watch a minimal amount of rugby and form opinions based upon whatever they think is fashionable.

Anyone who actually watches Ford play for what is a highly average Leicester team can’t have any doubts about his ability to perform when the going is anything but good.

I was trying to avoid a shitfight about Smith who I think could be very good


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13158
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
happyhooker wrote:
TopNacker wrote:
Ford is only good when the goings good, has no balls for the big occasion, is a turnstile in the tackle, and is a sub-par place kicker. I’d prefer Smith at Quinn’s to be honest, at least he has a bit of terrier in him.

Your first sentence is bollocks


Only the first?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4524
Location: 'ertfordshire
happyhooker wrote:
Scrumhead wrote:
Both sentences were bollocks.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there an awful lot of posters on here (and other forums) who watch a minimal amount of rugby and form opinions based upon whatever they think is fashionable.

Anyone who actually watches Ford play for what is a highly average Leicester team can’t have any doubts about his ability to perform when the going is anything but good.

I was trying to avoid a shitfight about Smith who I think could be very good

Check young Grayson of Saints out. Looks at least as potentially good as Smith


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 7:03 pm
Posts: 41
Given the personnel we have available at 9 and 12, I think there is a good case for playing Farrell at 10 and also a good one for playing Ford there alongside Farrell at 12. I think EJ's judgement in this area is sound enough.

If we had better options in those two positions, then Ford's strengths might make him a stronger candidate at 10 without Farrell having always to be involved. But we don't. There's barely a decent international standard scrum half or inside centre on the horizon. Without someone at 9 who can deliver a good service and someone at 12 who can interest defenders, Ford's virtues are not accentuated. Shame, as he is hugely gifted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25412
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
Which lands me at-

If we MUST play farrell, he hampers us less at 10 than 12.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 46859
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
TopSpacker still talking utter arse I see. Even forgetting Ford's presence and performances (which have on the whole been good to very good) in a deeply inconsistent Tigers side, the fact that he was a central component of the 18 game win streak which included some tough games, and in particular included the Gustard Special in Melbourne, and most of all included coming on and massively shoring up our game in the first test in Australia, should put an end to any serious idea that Ford lacks the temperament for big games of rugby. He's one of the best English fly halves I can remember in a good while when the going is good, and fronts up fine enough when it isn't. I'd honestly be fine with going back to the Ford-Faz axis but swapping JJ for Manu or even Te'o. So much of the team is built around Faz's presence but if you were judging purely on ability to perform the role I find it hard to justify putting him at 10 over Ford. I more or less think the exact opposite of this:

DragsterDriver wrote:
Which lands me at-

If we MUST play farrell, he hampers us less at 10 than 12.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 793
DragsterDriver wrote:
Which lands me at-

If we MUST play farrell, he hampers us less at 10 than 12.


You’ve got that the wrong way round. With Ford at 10 and Farrell our backline functions well; look at some of the tries the backs have scored over the last 3 years. The backline has been fine. The games we’ve lost have been fudge all to do with who’s at 10 or 12.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:35 am
Posts: 1475
Location: England
Yeah, I'm with the other lads, Dragster. I think Farrell at 12 allows us to work around his deficiencies more effectively than starting him at 10 with Ford nowhere to be seen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19843
sockwithaticket wrote:
Yeah, I'm with the other lads, Dragster. I think Farrell at 12 allows us to work around his deficiencies more effectively than starting him at 10 with Ford nowhere to be seen.

I suspect he's mistyped


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25412
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
Yeah sorry I’ve smashed my ankle up and my brains gone to mush :blush: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:12 pm
Posts: 3165
Would be interesting to see Faz n Ford swap clubs for a season. Ford's done sweet fa in club rugby but Faz gets grief for an armchair ride with Sarries. A playmaker 12 like Eastmond helps Ford as would a strong running threat like Teo but it should also be remembered that Faz is hampered by Brad who's a non entity in attack.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:13 pm
Posts: 2123
Indeed.

Eastmond has only just joined Tigers and even if his presence benefits Ford, he is hampered by a poor pack and Youngs at 9 who combine to serve up a pretty crappy platform.

Barritt is a non-entity in attack but at least Farrell receives the ball in space and on the front foot.

Comparing them for England is tough as both are equally hampered by Youngs’ delivery.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22327
openclashXX wrote:
Just to counterbalance some of the crazy OTT posts re Farrell - here's a quote from Alex Goode in an interview recently

Quote:
“I don’t think I have ever come across someone who, without question, improves with his goalkicking when the pressure gets even more intense.

“That final kick against South Africa last Saturday from the touchline is a great example and it is a talent you very rarely see. I beat him in a kicking contest at the club but there is no way I would beat him in a game situation because he goes to a different level and that is his mentality. He didn’t care about beating me!”


By all means have a go at Farrell for lots of other things, but to try and have a go at his goalkicking is absurd


Farrell is a good goal kicker. No one denies that. He's had a fair few shite high profile misses though and his percentage is hardky spectacular these days. Wilkinson he is not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22327
TopNacker wrote:
Ford is only good when the goings good, has no balls for the big occasion, is a turnstile in the tackle, and is a sub-par place kicker. I’d prefer Smith at Quinn’s to be honest, at least he has a bit of terrier in him.



All the the bold is quite incorrect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22327
SaintK wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Scrumhead wrote:
Both sentences were bollocks.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there an awful lot of posters on here (and other forums) who watch a minimal amount of rugby and form opinions based upon whatever they think is fashionable.

Anyone who actually watches Ford play for what is a highly average Leicester team can’t have any doubts about his ability to perform when the going is anything but good.

I was trying to avoid a shitfight about Smith who I think could be very good

Check young Grayson of Saints out. Looks at least as potentially good as Smith


He does but in the last U20 world cup Smith at 10 looked way better than Grayson.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22327
Scrumhead wrote:
Indeed.

Eastmond has only just joined Tigers and even if his presence benefits Ford, he is hampered by a poor pack and Youngs at 9 who combine to serve up a pretty crappy platform.

Barritt is a non-entity in attack but at least Farrell receives the ball in space and on the front foot.

Comparing them for England is tough as both are equally hampered by Youngs’ delivery.


Whoever thought Leicester would ever get to that state?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 46859
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
eldanielfire wrote:
Scrumhead wrote:
Indeed.

Eastmond has only just joined Tigers and even if his presence benefits Ford, he is hampered by a poor pack and Youngs at 9 who combine to serve up a pretty crappy platform.

Barritt is a non-entity in attack but at least Farrell receives the ball in space and on the front foot.

Comparing them for England is tough as both are equally hampered by Youngs’ delivery.


Whoever thought Leicester would ever get to that state?


It's pretty astonishing isn't it. Makes more sense when you look at the forwards coach's CV though

https://www.leicestertigers.com/player/mark-bakewell
Quote:
Born in Christchurch, New Zealand, he grew up in Australia and gave lengthy service to Eastern Suburbs as a prop or back-rower. He then spent six years as coach for the Sydney club and has since travelled throughout the rugby world.

He was head coach of Brive in France and forwards coach at Beziers before spending three years in the Premiership with Bath from 2006. Subsequent moves took him to Melbourne Rebels, Eastern Suburbs again, Tonga and Suntory Sungoliath in Japan before spending two years back in England with Bristol.

He has also coached the Barbarians with All Blacks boss Steve Hansen and worked with the Australian national team under three head coaches.


Doesn't exactly scream "the best in the business at producing rampaging packs"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4524
Location: 'ertfordshire
eldanielfire wrote:
SaintK wrote:
happyhooker wrote:
Scrumhead wrote:
Both sentences were bollocks.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there an awful lot of posters on here (and other forums) who watch a minimal amount of rugby and form opinions based upon whatever they think is fashionable.

Anyone who actually watches Ford play for what is a highly average Leicester team can’t have any doubts about his ability to perform when the going is anything but good.

I was trying to avoid a shitfight about Smith who I think could be very good

Check young Grayson of Saints out. Looks at least as potentially good as Smith


He does but in the last U20 world cup Smith at 10 looked way better than Grayson.

I don't know about "way better" but he certainly showed up well and made his experience as an EJ aapprentice tell
Grayson certainly looking improved under Boyd's management


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73931 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1816, 1817, 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821, 1822 ... 1849  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BBB, comets, ElementFreak, Google Adsense [Bot], Hong Kong, Jay Cee Gee, MungoMan, Uthikoloshe, waguser, Wignu and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group