In defence of Andy Farrell

All things Rugby
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 39329
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Anonymous 1 »

Apparently the only people in the selection meetings are the selectors (shocking).
User avatar
Mr Fedora
Posts: 2106
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:24 pm

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Mr Fedora »

Chuckles1188 wrote: 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.
True, but Cheika started from an equally bad position and has managed to fashion a team of contenders within just one season - with far fewer cattle and far less resources.

By any yardstick Lancaster's failed - and badly.
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:
Chuckles1188 wrote: 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.
True, but Cheika started from an equally bad position and has managed to fashion a team of contenders within just one season - with far fewer cattle and far less resources.

By any yardstick Lancaster's failed - and badly.
No chance. Cheika has mostly picked the same players as were picked by his predecessors, because most of those players were still there, still high quality, still in their prime, and had plenty of test experience already. Cheika had some specific things that were in terrible shape and needed improving. Lancaster had to start almost totally from scratch.
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 »

colonel wrote: 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?
Errr, yes. "Do better, or get fired". Doesn't seem especially controversial. If he can win the 6 Nations then that's a clear sign to me that retaining him is in "Hansen post 2007" territory. If he can't then it confirms that he is not the guy, and while he's getting his final attempt we have time to do the best possible job of setting up his replacement.
User avatar
armchairfan
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by armchairfan »

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.
We all went out and bought our "Flat Cap of Humilty" ....
... and now we are humiliated :x

Next time lets just go back to being arrogant t@ssers at least we won something :P
piquant
Posts: 9122
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by piquant »

Chuckles1188 wrote:
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.
Nothing in this instance being Corbisiero, Hartley, Cole, Lawes, Wood, Haskell, Youngs, Care, Flood, Tuilagi, Foden, Armitage, Strettle, Banahan, Wilson, Ashton?

Now he actually did in practice start with a load of nothings, Dowson, Dickson, JTH, Botha, Palmer, Stevens, Farrell, Barritt, but that was optional on Burt's part, and worth taking into account when assessing him.
WitchKing
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:14 pm

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by WitchKing »

crouchy wrote:
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?
Didn't we score tries in 6n?
Even in warm up games with underpowered forwards

I also want a change, maybe a wholesale change, but it seems like we are re-writing history a bit

If this awful world cup is the only thing to judge by then they must all go

But as I originally said, our backplay has been improving, in my opinion. The backs coach surely gets an ounce of credit for that?
User avatar
hermie
Posts: 9718
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by hermie »

armchairfan 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.
We all went out and bought our "Flat Cap of Humilty" ....
... and now we are humiliated :x

Next time lets just go back to being arrogant t@ssers at least we won something :P
:lol: that's the spirit!
Hawk97
Posts: 14171
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Location: Westerlands

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Hawk97 »

Mr Fedora wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote: 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.
True, but Cheika started from an equally bad position and has managed to fashion a team of contenders within just one season - with far fewer cattle and far less resources.

By any yardstick Lancaster's failed - and badly.

I didn't say it was a total success. I meant in terms of the way we played, the 'culture', the home support, and the direction we were heading looked to knock 2011 out the park. The final outcome is a disaster, don't get me wrong, but I think he's done a lot of things right. To score 18 tries in the 6N for one, I thought I'd never see that. England entertained us for a while, but were poor under pressure. Somehow we need to combine all the positives, and we'll be hard to play.
User avatar
colonel
Posts: 3244
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by colonel »

Chuckles1188 wrote:
colonel wrote: 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?
Errr, yes. "Do better, or get fired". Doesn't seem especially controversial. If he can win the 6 Nations then that's a clear sign to me that retaining him is in "Hansen post 2007" territory. If he can't then it confirms that he is not the guy, and while he's getting his final attempt we have time to do the best possible job of setting up his replacement.
do something youve singularly failed to do 4 times, albeit getting closer than ever the last time you did it thereby showing improvement. Then go backwards for the World cup. manage to bin our traditional strength whilst recent results were made to look good due to a new, emerging strength that you, by your own admission, on happened upon due to injury

then bin that strength for the world cup by combining a backline built for covering up the deficiencies in the forwards but one that failed to deliver any of the paper it was supposed to use for the cracks

one bounce of the ball differently here would have had them as 6N champs, one bounce of the ball there would have put them in the QFs and yet it wouldnt have changed the fact that, with all the prep time anyone could have asked for, the squad took huge strides backwards

Im not sure what giving them another bite of the cherry achieves, either they admit they got everything wrong in the WC and roll the dice on a blank piece of paper or double down on blatent failure

neither of which builds much confidence in them knowing what theyre doing

i think its moot anyway, I reckon he'll jump
User avatar
Joost
Posts: 4170
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Joost »

Homer wrote:
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.
Absolutely, not sure what the forwards got up to in Denver, but most of them seemed to come into the tournament underpowered - we consistently lost the collisions breakdown, the close-in forward exchanges and the midfield in all three matches, even before we start talking about the technical deficiencies in the scrum and at the breakdown (the lineout wasn't too bad in the end, though seemed to scew selection of the locks - think leaving Attwood at home was a mistake, we could have done with some more ballast).

Compare the two utter pastings the forwards took from the French in the warmups vs the 6N game.
User avatar
Scrumhead
Posts: 2486
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:13 pm

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Scrumhead »

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.
This. Our core game plan needs to be based around our strongest players. Right now, I think that is Ford, JJ and the best crop of wingers we've had in a while (especially adding Wade, Yarde and Roko in to the mix).

The forwards obviously need to be solid enough to deliver enough of a platform, but they don't need to be the 'all court' super athletes we seem to have been trying to create.

I think we need to build a squad based around our strengths and establish like for like options to give us depth. For example Cipriani for Ford, Slade/Daly for JJ, Wade/Yarde for May. Whereas Ford/Farrell are too different for any kind of continuity.

Adopting this framework would mean we could stick to a style altering personnel based upon form/availability and not having to fundamentally change course for inevitable injuries.
Rugby2023
Posts: 12121
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by Rugby2023 »

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.
Yes exactly, Lancaster carries the responsibility. The buck stops with him and him alone.
User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 24648
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: In defence of Andy Farrell

Post by DragsterDriver »

I never forgave them for the 30-3 in Cardiff- at least the humiliation of losing to wales 3rd team this RWC wasn't a shock.

He made a lot of noise slating Johnsons England and spent 4 years building a worse team. Wanker.
Post Reply