In defence of Andy Farrell

All things Rugby
WitchKing
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:14 pm

In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by WitchKing »

Englands back play recently has been as good as I've seen it for many years.

The reasons we failed are poor selection and forward play.

Stuart Lancaster has got to hold final say on selection - I don't believe he's so spineless that the other coaches can bully him into selections.

I think Farrell senior is copping for more stick than he maybe deserves - perhaps it's because he comes from a RL background?
User avatar
nicebutdim
Posts: 3327
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by nicebutdim »

WitchKing wrote:Englands back play recently has been as good as I've seen it for many years.

The reasons we failed are poor selection and forward play.

Stuart Lancaster has got to hold final say on selection - I don't believe he's so spineless that the other coaches can bully him into selections.

I think Farrell senior is copping for more stick than he maybe deserves - perhaps it's because he comes from a RL background?
Rugby League background, Saracens links, Owen Farrell selection controversy, Sam Burgess selection Controversy, Barritt selection controversy, Wigglesworth selection controversy.

All sticks to beat him with.
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 18569
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Raggs »

Our backline has varied from half decent to diabolical. Reported/rumoured/suggested that Catt is the driving force behind the attacking mentality, and widely known that Farrell is the defence guy. That Lancaster backed a defensive/route one game plan after our attack doing well is very likely down to Farrells advice/recommendation.
User avatar
Petros
Posts: 4075
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Petros »

Raggs wrote:Our backline has varied from half decent to diabolical. Reported/rumoured/suggested that Catt is the driving force behind the attacking mentality, and widely known that Farrell is the defence guy. That Lancaster backed a defensive/route one game plan after our attack doing well is very likely down to Farrells advice/recommendation.
Too true, with selection of 10-14 all over the place for much of the past 2 years
User avatar
nicebutdim
Posts: 3327
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by nicebutdim »

Raggs wrote:Our backline has varied from half decent to diabolical. Reported/rumoured/suggested that Catt is the driving force behind the attacking mentality, and widely known that Farrell is the defence guy. That Lancaster backed a defensive/route one game plan after our attack doing well is very likely down to Farrells advice/recommendation.
And Lancaster judgement and decision. Ultimately.
User avatar
village
Posts: 3818
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by village »

WitchKing wrote:Englands back play recently has been as good as I've seen it for many years.

The reasons we failed are poor selection and forward play.

Stuart Lancaster has got to hold final say on selection - I don't believe he's so spineless that the other coaches can bully him into selections.

I think Farrell senior is copping for more stick than he maybe deserves - perhaps it's because he comes from a RL background?
Burn the heretic! :x
User avatar
Pakia Pakia
Posts: 1345
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Pakia Pakia »

I thought Englands back play was the pretty good while the forwards were mostly garbage. Not sure who coaches the forwards but that would be the worst forward performance I have seen by England outside of the 97 SH tour.
User avatar
nicebutdim
Posts: 3327
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by nicebutdim »

Pakia Pakia wrote:I thought Englands back play was the pretty good while the forwards were mostly garbage. Not sure who coaches the forwards but that would be the worst forward performance I have seen by England outside of the 97 SH tour.
Rowntree has undue influence over Lancaster. And pictures of him and Calum Clark in bondage gear.
User avatar
blindcider
Posts: 8097
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by blindcider »

The defensive tactics against Aus were atrocious.

To deliberately non-compete at the tackle area meant when Aus were attacking it was more akin to a semi-opposed training session and the speed they could recycle the ball at meant England would always run out of numbers eventually. I'm not necessarily saying you need to have a groundhog but you need to slow the ball down by competing legally.
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 18569
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Raggs »

Pack play was awful, set piece was generally poor and breakdown was an issue. Breakdown may put down partially to our strategy in attack and defence (keeping players available, rather than in the ruck), but those few getting invovled should have been in there faster.

Lancaster should be moved up/sideways, Farrell and Rowntree out, Catt probably out.
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 9523
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Leinsterman »

From an outsider looking in, I'd have to disagree that the back play was good. It seemed to me that it consisted of flinging the ball out wide as quickly as possible to the likes of Watson and hoping something happened which, invariably, it did against the weaker sides.
The problem was when faced with stronger teams, the passes stopped going to hand, sloppiness etc and there was no real structure in the back play.
As soon as Plan A failed, the backs seemed clueless and mistakes crept in very quickly.
Contrast that to Foley's second try on Saturday which was absolutely fantastic to watch. That's what you need the backs to be doing.
Slade, Joseph, Ford, Watson, Brown - some very nice ball players there if there's some structure put on it.
User avatar
nicebutdim
Posts: 3327
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by nicebutdim »

Raggs wrote:Pack play was awful, set piece was generally poor and breakdown was an issue. Breakdown may put down partially to our strategy in attack and defence (keeping players available, rather than in the ruck), but those few getting invovled should have been in there faster.

Lancaster should be moved up/sideways, Farrell and Rowntree out, Catt probably out.
I love this notion that after sacking the HC certain members of his coaching team will either be retained or dismissed by the RFU hierarchy. Thats not how this works.
User avatar
Frodder
Posts: 10405
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 pm
Location: Leafy Cheshire (West)

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Frodder »

Dare I say that WG had a point when he said that England have plenty of depth but as they don't know their 1st XV then their game plan is also unknown.

When I saw Ford was dropped at 10 before Wales game I nearly wee'd myself and first thought was 'We've been given a chance'. The backline became more stale and less dynamic especially with JJ injured. That's down to the ex-League mungo and Lancaster
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 18569
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Raggs »

nicebutdim wrote:
Raggs wrote:Pack play was awful, set piece was generally poor and breakdown was an issue. Breakdown may put down partially to our strategy in attack and defence (keeping players available, rather than in the ruck), but those few getting invovled should have been in there faster.

Lancaster should be moved up/sideways, Farrell and Rowntree out, Catt probably out.
I love this notion that after sacking the HC certain members of his coaching team will either be retained or dismissed by the RFU hierarchy. Thats not how this works.
I'm aware, I just wonder if Catt may survive to work with the incoming coach, probably not, but out of all of them, I'd say his chances are best. He also has some familiarity with the players, which could be of interest to a new coach.
Hawk97
Posts: 14171
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Location: Westerlands

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Hawk97 »

He's also "defence" coach, apparently. We shipped 60 points in two games at home. That's repugnant
User avatar
sewa
Posts: 21742
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by sewa »

How can we as non insiders honestly know who is responsible for what? Its pure speculation whose fault it is in the back room team as the final calls should be made by Lancaster.
User avatar
theo
Posts: 13023
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by theo »

We need a fresh start. Only one I would consider again is Catt.
User avatar
nicebutdim
Posts: 3327
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by nicebutdim »

Raggs wrote:
nicebutdim wrote:
Raggs wrote:Pack play was awful, set piece was generally poor and breakdown was an issue. Breakdown may put down partially to our strategy in attack and defence (keeping players available, rather than in the ruck), but those few getting invovled should have been in there faster.

Lancaster should be moved up/sideways, Farrell and Rowntree out, Catt probably out.
I love this notion that after sacking the HC certain members of his coaching team will either be retained or dismissed by the RFU hierarchy. Thats not how this works.
I'm aware, I just wonder if Catt may survive to work with the incoming coach, probably not, but out of all of them, I'd say his chances are best. He also has some familiarity with the players, which could be of interest to a new coach.
Its utterly irrelevant to me. If he fits the vision of the coaching staff for the new HC and is considered the best candidate then fine. But frankly who cares. Catt is a skills coach and whether he is retained or not is just an underhand dig at Rowntree or Farrell suggesting he's the only guy whos career isnt in tatters. A bit like Rowntree last time around. Not that it stopped Ford from going on to be successful in the Bath job either.
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 18569
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Raggs »

nicebutdim wrote:
Raggs wrote:
nicebutdim wrote:
Raggs wrote:Pack play was awful, set piece was generally poor and breakdown was an issue. Breakdown may put down partially to our strategy in attack and defence (keeping players available, rather than in the ruck), but those few getting invovled should have been in there faster.

Lancaster should be moved up/sideways, Farrell and Rowntree out, Catt probably out.
I love this notion that after sacking the HC certain members of his coaching team will either be retained or dismissed by the RFU hierarchy. Thats not how this works.
I'm aware, I just wonder if Catt may survive to work with the incoming coach, probably not, but out of all of them, I'd say his chances are best. He also has some familiarity with the players, which could be of interest to a new coach.
Its utterly irrelevant to me. If he fits the vision of the coaching staff for the new HC and is considered the best candidate then fine. But frankly who cares. Catt is a skills coach and whether he is retained or not is just an underhand dig at Rowntree or Farrell suggesting he's the only guy whos career isnt in tatters. A bit like Rowntree last time around. Not that it stopped Ford from going on to be successful in the Bath job either.
You seem to be trying to place words in my mouth, never mentioned tatters. I suspect both Farrell and Rowntree will go on to have at least half decent careers in coaching.
piquant
Posts: 9122
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by piquant »

As well as, Ford, doing well at Bath, Smith, did well at Irish and, Wells, has done well for Newcastle. And even Johnson got the driving ban.
User avatar
nicebutdim
Posts: 3327
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:38 pm

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by nicebutdim »

Raggs wrote:
nicebutdim wrote:
Raggs wrote:
nicebutdim wrote:
Raggs wrote:Pack play was awful, set piece was generally poor and breakdown was an issue. Breakdown may put down partially to our strategy in attack and defence (keeping players available, rather than in the ruck), but those few getting invovled should have been in there faster.

Lancaster should be moved up/sideways, Farrell and Rowntree out, Catt probably out.
I love this notion that after sacking the HC certain members of his coaching team will either be retained or dismissed by the RFU hierarchy. Thats not how this works.
I'm aware, I just wonder if Catt may survive to work with the incoming coach, probably not, but out of all of them, I'd say his chances are best. He also has some familiarity with the players, which could be of interest to a new coach.
Its utterly irrelevant to me. If he fits the vision of the coaching staff for the new HC and is considered the best candidate then fine. But frankly who cares. Catt is a skills coach and whether he is retained or not is just an underhand dig at Rowntree or Farrell suggesting he's the only guy whos career isnt in tatters. A bit like Rowntree last time around. Not that it stopped Ford from going on to be successful in the Bath job either.
You seem to be trying to place words in my mouth, never mentioned tatters. I suspect both Farrell and Rowntree will go on to have at least half decent careers in coaching.
This always seems to be the underlying nature of these discussions. How do you know what went on behind the scenes? Perhaps Catt was totally useless as a skills coach. Perhaps Farrell was tremendous as a backs coach (and we did look good in spurts) and was undermined by SL's selections. Perhaps he's a stupendous Defensive coach but was forced to have too much responsibility beyond his skillset, by a weak HC. Perhaps Rowntree is the great Forwards coach we all believed him to be but SL imposed a stupid strength and conditioning program that wrecked his players pre-WC.

As I said all this conjecture about who deserves to stay or go is utterly irrelevant. It only exists in the minds of some on this forum. The new HC will make these decisions and will only retain a coach if he wants to (which I doubt unless he's lazy).
User avatar
Leinsterman
Posts: 9523
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Leinsterman »

sewa wrote:How can we as non insiders honestly know who is responsible for what? Its pure speculation whose fault it is in the back room team as the final calls should be made by Lancaster.

You really are fcuking tedious.
User avatar
Chuckles1188
Posts: 40610
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Chuckles1188 »

I think this coaching team have always been thinking in terms of the future as much as in the here and now, and unfortunately we wound up a) caught in the worst part of the transition period from the old Noon-Tindall up the jumper English rugby approach to their new desired chuck it about style, b) therefore caught between two stools in terms of selection, tactics and execution, and c) in a pool of death which made factors a) and b) terminal where normally they would just been problematic.

An honest review would find that the coaching team had a little bit of rotten luck, and made some bad mistakes at crucial moments. All this stuff coming out in the papers has the feel of journos looking for a scandal to me - I'm sure not everything going on within the RFU is above board, but because "England rugby in a complete shambles for years" is more juicy than "It all went a bit tits up, and there's some fairly normal skulduggery going on behind the scenes, but life continues" that's the spin they put on it. The WRU and ARU have hardly been clear of scandals in the last couple of years, and I bet they (and plenty of other unions) still have some Burgess-contract-esque shenanigans bubbling away - the difference is that they aren't out of their own world cup and thus aren't under the lens in the same way.

On Farrell, I am not a fan and think he probably doesn't really fit in with what the coaching setup as a whole are trying to do, but in the wake of a loss a lot of England fans are concocting a full character assassination of him that seems way out of proportion to me - the idea that he bullies Lancaster into picking the team he, Farrell, wants falls for me into the same category as statements like "and I bet he has a tiny dick too"
User avatar
4071
Posts: 5099
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by 4071 »

blindcider wrote:The defensive tactics against Aus were atrocious.

To deliberately non-compete at the tackle area meant when Aus were attacking it was more akin to a semi-opposed training session and the speed they could recycle the ball at meant England would always run out of numbers eventually. I'm not necessarily saying you need to have a groundhog but you need to slow the ball down by competing legally.
It was probably an overreaction to the number of penalties conceded at the breakdown against Wales, many of which were unnecessary as the Welsh were being pretty well contained much of the time.

Instead of competing when it was unnecessary, they decided not to compete when it was necessary.

Clever.
User avatar
Sydvicious
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Winterfell

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Sydvicious »

theo wrote:We need a fresh start. Only one I would consider again is Catt.
They would be morons if they get rid of him.
Hawk97
Posts: 14171
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Location: Westerlands

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Hawk97 »

Chuckles1188 wrote:I think this coaching team have always been thinking in terms of the future as much as in the here and now, and unfortunately we wound up a) caught in the worst part of the transition period from the old Noon-Tindall up the jumper English rugby approach to their new desired chuck it about style, b) therefore caught between two stools in terms of selection, tactics and execution, and c) in a pool of death which made factors a) and b) terminal where normally they would just been problematic.

An honest review would find that the coaching team had a little bit of rotten luck, and made some bad mistakes at crucial moments. All this stuff coming out in the papers has the feel of journos looking for a scandal to me - I'm sure not everything going on within the RFU is above board, but because "England rugby in a complete shambles for years" is more juicy than "It all went a bit tits up, and there's some fairly normal skulduggery going on behind the scenes, but life continues" that's the spin they put on it. The WRU and ARU have hardly been clear of scandals in the last couple of years, and I bet they (and plenty of other unions) still have some Burgess-contract-esque shenanigans bubbling away - the difference is that they aren't out of their own world cup and thus aren't under the lens in the same way.
You think we should persist then? Reading your piece, it sounds like we are onto something, but are still in the early stages of development and this set back (bad though it seems now) is just a stepping stone?

Must admit, I was up for a wielding axe following the exit, but the more I think about it, the more I see Lanc's reign as an overall positive.
Homer
Posts: 901
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Homer »

Leinsterman wrote:From an outsider looking in, I'd have to disagree that the back play was good. It seemed to me that it consisted of flinging the ball out wide as quickly as possible to the likes of Watson and hoping something happened which, invariably, it did against the weaker sides.
The problem was when faced with stronger teams, the passes stopped going to hand, sloppiness etc and there was no real structure in the back play
.
As soon as Plan A failed, the backs seemed clueless and mistakes crept in very quickly.
Contrast that to Foley's second try on Saturday which was absolutely fantastic to watch. That's what you need the backs to be doing.
Slade, Joseph, Ford, Watson, Brown - some very nice ball players there if there's some structure put on it.
Agreed. We don't seems to have much in the way of strike plays and variations. Usually these will come from having a good fly half and inside centre (and a coach with an idea of how to use them).

Saying that, the reason that we are out of the RWC is down to poor forward play which resulted in us getting stuffed at the breakdown and struggling at set-piece.
User avatar
Chuckles1188
Posts: 40610
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Chuckles1188 »

Hawk97 wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:I think this coaching team have always been thinking in terms of the future as much as in the here and now, and unfortunately we wound up a) caught in the worst part of the transition period from the old Noon-Tindall up the jumper English rugby approach to their new desired chuck it about style, b) therefore caught between two stools in terms of selection, tactics and execution, and c) in a pool of death which made factors a) and b) terminal where normally they would just been problematic.

An honest review would find that the coaching team had a little bit of rotten luck, and made some bad mistakes at crucial moments. All this stuff coming out in the papers has the feel of journos looking for a scandal to me - I'm sure not everything going on within the RFU is above board, but because "England rugby in a complete shambles for years" is more juicy than "It all went a bit tits up, and there's some fairly normal skulduggery going on behind the scenes, but life continues" that's the spin they put on it. The WRU and ARU have hardly been clear of scandals in the last couple of years, and I bet they (and plenty of other unions) still have some Burgess-contract-esque shenanigans bubbling away - the difference is that they aren't out of their own world cup and thus aren't under the lens in the same way.
You think we should persist then? Reading your piece, it sounds like we are onto something, but are still in the early stages of development and this set back (bad though it seems now) is just a stepping stone?

Must admit, I was up for a wielding axe following the exit, but the more I think about it, the more I see Lanc's reign as an overall positive.
His big error I think was picking players from clubs who don't fit with what he's trying to do - Wigglesworth, Farrell and Barritt should not have been in that squad. Not necessarily because they aren't good enough, but they just aren't right for the gameplan the team are building. There are some obvious coaching issues going on as well though, I don't want to come across as an apologist.

I can't help but go back to the NZ tour and all the opportunities missed - it feels to me like we stalled badly in 2014 after the 6 Nations (where we were looking potentially good value to kick on and become a real threat at the World Cup) and spent most of 2015 trying to catch up to where we were supposed to be 6-9 months before.
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 18569
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Raggs »

Chuckles1188 wrote:
Hawk97 wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:I think this coaching team have always been thinking in terms of the future as much as in the here and now, and unfortunately we wound up a) caught in the worst part of the transition period from the old Noon-Tindall up the jumper English rugby approach to their new desired chuck it about style, b) therefore caught between two stools in terms of selection, tactics and execution, and c) in a pool of death which made factors a) and b) terminal where normally they would just been problematic.

An honest review would find that the coaching team had a little bit of rotten luck, and made some bad mistakes at crucial moments. All this stuff coming out in the papers has the feel of journos looking for a scandal to me - I'm sure not everything going on within the RFU is above board, but because "England rugby in a complete shambles for years" is more juicy than "It all went a bit tits up, and there's some fairly normal skulduggery going on behind the scenes, but life continues" that's the spin they put on it. The WRU and ARU have hardly been clear of scandals in the last couple of years, and I bet they (and plenty of other unions) still have some Burgess-contract-esque shenanigans bubbling away - the difference is that they aren't out of their own world cup and thus aren't under the lens in the same way.
You think we should persist then? Reading your piece, it sounds like we are onto something, but are still in the early stages of development and this set back (bad though it seems now) is just a stepping stone?

Must admit, I was up for a wielding axe following the exit, but the more I think about it, the more I see Lanc's reign as an overall positive.
His big error I think was picking players from clubs who don't fit with what he's trying to do - Wigglesworth, Farrell and Barritt should not have been in that squad. Not necessarily because they aren't good enough, but they just aren't right for the gameplan the team are building. There are some obvious coaching issues going on as well though, I don't want to come across as an apologist.

I can't help but go back to the NZ tour and all the opportunities missed - it feels to me like we stalled badly in 2014 after the 6 Nations (where we were looking potentially good value to kick on and become a real threat at the World Cup) and spent most of 2015 trying to catch up to where we were supposed to be 6-9 months before.
He's had 4 years to not be picking them. Barritt I can understand sticking with, but Wiggles had been out of the picture for how long? And how well had Simpson been playing (and his injury was healed before the USA camp). He was going to take Strettle along ffs, and went back to Ashton.

The development argument holds fast only if we lose due to playing a developing team, which many of those picks for the squad and lineups, argue against.
User avatar
covrich
Posts: 2133
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Middle England

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by covrich »

The style of play and the players both chopped and changed.. in the last 6Ns We seemed to have a settled midfield but as soon as JJ got injured and a big fixture against Wales the whole thing was torn open and Burgess planted in the middle.
User avatar
Chuckles1188
Posts: 40610
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Chuckles1188 »

Agree with both of the above. I think as a result of the lost time in 2014 the coaches got to the big event and lost their nerve and made some bad picks. Like I said, I'm not looking to excuse the coaching setup of any responsibility, but the reality is that this is not a dreadful England team, even though there are some players in there who shouldn't be and some bad mental errors were made both by coaches and players at key moments. What the coaches should have done is hold their nerve, keep going the direction they were looking to go. Part of that needed to involve dropping players like Wigglesworth, Farrell and Barritt who, whatever their rating as players, did not fit what the team were trying to accomplish. If they felt comfortable bringing Morgan in they should have taken the same approach with Simpson instead of Wiggles, and Cipriani instead of Farrell. It's not that Farrell wasn't playing well (not brilliantly, but well by his standards), but even a performing Farrell is not the kind of player this England team needed in the mix.

Another dimension to this of course is the preparation for the cup itself, which was clearly wrong. Fine work on fitness to some extent, you need to give your guys a big pre-season, but the emphasis on beasting them in training and losing weight has left us with an undercooked pack and thus no platform.
User avatar
colonel
Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by colonel »

covrich wrote:The style of play and the players both chopped and changed.. in the last 6Ns We seemed to have a settled midfield but as soon as JJ got injured and a big fixture against Wales the whole thing was torn open and Burgess planted in the middle.

It was a contractually obligated injury

allegedly
WitchKing
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by WitchKing »

Raggs wrote:Our backline has varied from half decent to diabolical. Reported/rumoured/suggested that Catt is the driving force behind the attacking mentality, and widely known that Farrell is the defence guy. That Lancaster backed a defensive/route one game plan after our attack doing well is very likely down to Farrells advice/recommendation.
But all if that is guesswork isn't it?
It just seems a bit unfair to bury the guy based on supposition and rumour.
It also seems a bit too neat to me, everything bad is Farrell everything good is someone else.

And everyone who says the backplay wasn't good, I suggest they think a bit harder about our backplay over the last 12 years.

Compared to Australia our backplay wasn't good
For England it was a step up (I'm talking in general over last 12 months, not a specific match)
User avatar
nuffsaid
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 7:50 am
Location: Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by nuffsaid »

Frodder wrote:Dare I say that WG had a point when he said that England have plenty of depth but as they don't know their 1st XV then their game plan is also unknown.

When I saw Ford was dropped at 10 before Wales game I nearly wee'd myself and first thought was 'We've been given a chance'. The backline became more stale and less dynamic especially with JJ injured. That's down to the ex-League mungo and Lancaster
Clearly you dare say it, and I agree completely. In fact the biggest single criticism I have of Lancaster is that there was no discernable game plan. I am all for being able to play more than one way but we were guilty of irrational flip-flopping imo.

I do think Farrell is copping more than his fair share because he is ex RL. If he was no good at his job but left to it, or if his influence was excessive, that is ultimately Lancaster's fault.
ZIP
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 2:42 pm

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by ZIP »

WitchKing wrote:Englands back play recently has been as good as I've seen it for many years.

The reasons we failed are poor selection and forward play.

Stuart Lancaster has got to hold final say on selection - I don't believe he's so spineless that the other coaches can bully him into selections.

I think Farrell senior is copping for more stick than he maybe deserves - perhaps it's because he comes from a RL background?
This statement alone wrecks your argument

There has been little to celebrate in the backline play. Many had said before the effort of Barritt & what he brings? Well tackling with your face is not all that ingenious. Now the papers his International career is over? Farrel as backs coach has done little except court criticism.
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 18569
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Raggs »

WitchKing wrote:
Raggs wrote:Our backline has varied from half decent to diabolical. Reported/rumoured/suggested that Catt is the driving force behind the attacking mentality, and widely known that Farrell is the defence guy. That Lancaster backed a defensive/route one game plan after our attack doing well is very likely down to Farrells advice/recommendation.
But all if that is guesswork isn't it?
It just seems a bit unfair to bury the guy based on supposition and rumour.
It also seems a bit too neat to me, everything bad is Farrell everything good is someone else.

And everyone who says the backplay wasn't good, I suggest they think a bit harder about our backplay over the last 12 years.

Compared to Australia our backplay wasn't good
For England it was a step up (I'm talking in general over last 12 months, not a specific match)
Guesswork to suppose that the guy often credited with running our defence (which has become leakier) and our backs, which have been erratic at best, only looking at their best with multiple members of the same AP side involved, and 2 guys recognised as the best attacking options in their position (10/13), has to perhaps shoulder some of the blame that it's not gone well? Not really.

I want all 3 of the main coaches out. I've also said Catt is probably (as in more than 50%) out as well, but by "happy" fact that he was simply "skills" coach, likely won't be seen as being in the same position of responsibility of Rowntree or Farrell.
User avatar
crouchy
Posts: 5244
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 11:34 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by crouchy »

WitchKing wrote:Englands back play recently has been as good as I've seen it for many years.

The reasons we failed are poor selection and forward play.

Stuart Lancaster has got to hold final say on selection - I don't believe he's so spineless that the other coaches can bully him into selections.

I think Farrell senior is copping for more stick than he maybe deserves - perhaps it's because he comes from a RL background?
What back play?
User avatar
Mr Fedora
Posts: 2107
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:24 pm

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Mr Fedora »

Hawk97 wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:I think this coaching team have always been thinking in terms of the future as much as in the here and now, and unfortunately we wound up a) caught in the worst part of the transition period from the old Noon-Tindall up the jumper English rugby approach to their new desired chuck it about style, b) therefore caught between two stools in terms of selection, tactics and execution, and c) in a pool of death which made factors a) and b) terminal where normally they would just been problematic.

An honest review would find that the coaching team had a little bit of rotten luck, and made some bad mistakes at crucial moments. All this stuff coming out in the papers has the feel of journos looking for a scandal to me - I'm sure not everything going on within the RFU is above board, but because "England rugby in a complete shambles for years" is more juicy than "It all went a bit tits up, and there's some fairly normal skulduggery going on behind the scenes, but life continues" that's the spin they put on it. The WRU and ARU have hardly been clear of scandals in the last couple of years, and I bet they (and plenty of other unions) still have some Burgess-contract-esque shenanigans bubbling away - the difference is that they aren't out of their own world cup and thus aren't under the lens in the same way.
You think we should persist then? Reading your piece, it sounds like we are onto something, but are still in the early stages of development and this set back (bad though it seems now) is just a stepping stone?

Must admit, I was up for a wielding axe following the exit, but the more I think about it, the more I see Lanc's reign as an overall positive.
England were knocked out of their own RWC after just three games ffs!

One success Lancaster seems to have had is lowering the expectations of the average English rugby follower.
User avatar
Chuckles1188
Posts: 40610
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Chuckles1188 »

Mr Fedora wrote:
Hawk97 wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:I think this coaching team have always been thinking in terms of the future as much as in the here and now, and unfortunately we wound up a) caught in the worst part of the transition period from the old Noon-Tindall up the jumper English rugby approach to their new desired chuck it about style, b) therefore caught between two stools in terms of selection, tactics and execution, and c) in a pool of death which made factors a) and b) terminal where normally they would just been problematic.

An honest review would find that the coaching team had a little bit of rotten luck, and made some bad mistakes at crucial moments. All this stuff coming out in the papers has the feel of journos looking for a scandal to me - I'm sure not everything going on within the RFU is above board, but because "England rugby in a complete shambles for years" is more juicy than "It all went a bit tits up, and there's some fairly normal skulduggery going on behind the scenes, but life continues" that's the spin they put on it. The WRU and ARU have hardly been clear of scandals in the last couple of years, and I bet they (and plenty of other unions) still have some Burgess-contract-esque shenanigans bubbling away - the difference is that they aren't out of their own world cup and thus aren't under the lens in the same way.
You think we should persist then? Reading your piece, it sounds like we are onto something, but are still in the early stages of development and this set back (bad though it seems now) is just a stepping stone?

Must admit, I was up for a wielding axe following the exit, but the more I think about it, the more I see Lanc's reign as an overall positive.
England were knocked out of their own RWC after just three games ffs!

One success Lancaster seems to have had is lowering the expectations of the average English rugby follower.
Had the 2011 team played in this World Cup I wouldn't be at all surprised if they'd lost the opener.

I don't know whether Lancaster's reign should be seen as overall positive or negative, but he really was starting with practically nothing and that's worth taking into account when assessing him. It's also worth remembering that this is the most ridiculously difficult pool in the history of the RWC.

Having said all that, the coaches definitely made some crucial errors and should be very uncomfortable. My personal feeling is that the best move would be to give them the 2016 6 Nations to redeem themselves, and while that's going on take the time to make absolutely sure that if England do not win said 6N (which has to be the success criteria to demonstrate progress being made with the team) the best possible candidate to take over is found and given all the tools necessary to turn England around.
User avatar
colonel
Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by colonel »

Chuckles1188 wrote:
Mr Fedora wrote:
Hawk97 wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:I think this coaching team have always been thinking in terms of the future as much as in the here and now, and unfortunately we wound up a) caught in the worst part of the transition period from the old Noon-Tindall up the jumper English rugby approach to their new desired chuck it about style, b) therefore caught between two stools in terms of selection, tactics and execution, and c) in a pool of death which made factors a) and b) terminal where normally they would just been problematic.

An honest review would find that the coaching team had a little bit of rotten luck, and made some bad mistakes at crucial moments. All this stuff coming out in the papers has the feel of journos looking for a scandal to me - I'm sure not everything going on within the RFU is above board, but because "England rugby in a complete shambles for years" is more juicy than "It all went a bit tits up, and there's some fairly normal skulduggery going on behind the scenes, but life continues" that's the spin they put on it. The WRU and ARU have hardly been clear of scandals in the last couple of years, and I bet they (and plenty of other unions) still have some Burgess-contract-esque shenanigans bubbling away - the difference is that they aren't out of their own world cup and thus aren't under the lens in the same way.
You think we should persist then? Reading your piece, it sounds like we are onto something, but are still in the early stages of development and this set back (bad though it seems now) is just a stepping stone?

Must admit, I was up for a wielding axe following the exit, but the more I think about it, the more I see Lanc's reign as an overall positive.
England were knocked out of their own RWC after just three games ffs!

One success Lancaster seems to have had is lowering the expectations of the average English rugby follower.
Had the 2011 team played in this World Cup I wouldn't be at all surprised if they'd lost the opener.

I don't know whether Lancaster's reign should be seen as overall positive or negative, but he really was starting with practically nothing and that's worth taking into account when assessing him. It's also worth remembering that this is the most ridiculously difficult pool in the history of the RWC.

Having said all that, the coaches definitely made some crucial errors and should be very uncomfortable. My personal feeling is that the best move would be to give them the 2016 6 Nations to redeem themselves, and while that's going on take the time to make absolutely sure that if England do not win said 6N (which has to be the success criteria to demonstrate progress being made with the team) the best possible candidate to take over is found and given all the tools necessary to turn England around.
So england will have to win a tournament that is significantly more difficult to win than getting out of the pool was or theyre done?

How about we judge them on not getting out of this pool the way that they didnt

the fact they had the winning of the key match and threw it away?
Post Reply