He's got about 4 weeks to agree a deal with Leicester or he's off. The badges on the left of this post will kinda tell you that I'm not exactly unbiased when I say Flood must stay and Stuart Lancaster needs to sort out his Back line selection. Last weekend I watched Leicester scrape past Gloucester and the one tigers try came from Flood smashing through a gap and off loading a try scoring pass. when it come to keeping backlines honest flood is brilliant. he scores tries, he makes tries. he basically gives England teeth. With England he's been picked inside waddling Brad bleedin' Barritt for ages, then as soon as Billy Twelvtrees actually gets a game England are again hamstrung by the selection of Owen Farrell! Stuart Lancaster's Backs section will be one of the most keenly viewed elements of next year's six nations and letting our most experience and best attacking no.10 walk away from England will probably define England's rugby world cup campaign. It really is put or shut up time for England, When you'e got Eastman, Tuilagi, Twelvetrees and May available for most or all of the 6 nations, picking a Saracen Back to run the back line is actually plain old incompetence. Losing test matches where you have damn near 70% possession of the ball is unacceptable. Its about as big an indication that your back-line sucks that you can get. If Flood is allowed to walk away then English rugby has screwed up yet again. What sort of demented drooling chimpanzees run this sport in England????
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Toby Flood heading to France?
- Thread starter Packman
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
I hope he goes.
I think we'd both agree Burns is in godawful form. I think we'd both agree Farrell is just godawful. Who would you pick with Flood out the picture?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
I wouldn't agree that burns is in "godawful" form. He's not in great form, but that stems wholly from their utterly inept tight 5 IMO.
I'd give Burns time from the bench, and starts in the matches against Scotland and Italy.
If he doesn't perform then he stays on the bench.
I'd give Burns time from the bench, and starts in the matches against Scotland and Italy.
If he doesn't perform then he stays on the bench.
Last edited:
Burns' lack of form has been a little overstated imo. His kicking percentage is poor, but it always seems as if when players kick poor, people are prone to criticising everything about the player. Burns isn't playing terribly. I think he's been okay given the context of what he has to work with. I'd still pick Burns for England, as long as he has a goal kicker in the squad. (13. Daly)
I think Burns is controlling games poorly as well, though. His kicking from the tee is god awful, but from hand isn't markedly better. He looks like a player with no confidence, and if Davies keeps giving him the kicking duties, with his kicking the way it is, it's only going to get worse.
Wind back to clock a year or so, and he's basically Priestland for Wales.
Wind back to clock a year or so, and he's basically Priestland for Wales.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,878
- Reaction score
- 15
I remember in 2010/11 when England were playing some decent attacking rugby and Flood was the starting 10 as well. I think he's still pretty important to England.
Big Ewis
Hall of Fame
cool...maybe France can poach him soon...we'll just change his name to Tobe Floude and some of his wiki details.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
Apparently Burns kicks for Gloucester because he has the highest percentage in practice. I guess it goes to show how much of a different beast kicking is when you have to play in front of expectant fans. But I think that whilst he's got the highest percentage on the training field, there's always that temptation to give him the duties when it comes to match day, hoping that Burns will calm his nerves and kick like he should be.
I'd give the duties to Twelvetrees for now though.
Is that what you'd do, or what you think Lancaster will do?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
A bit of both.
If I was England head coach I doubt Farrell would be the incumbent.
But as he is I would give Freddie time from the bench in the more pressurised matches and start him in the less pressurised ones.
Realistically no-one is going to start ahead of Farrell unless he gets injured, and the same can be said for him being benched.
If I was England head coach I doubt Farrell would be the incumbent.
But as he is I would give Freddie time from the bench in the more pressurised matches and start him in the less pressurised ones.
Realistically no-one is going to start ahead of Farrell unless he gets injured, and the same can be said for him being benched.
I think England has this terrible habit of selecting kids like Burns, Farrel and Cipriani before they are anywhere near the finished article. And just as bad, we dump players in their prime like Flood and before him Wilko as soon as some new shiny name is bigged up by the media. I mean ciprinai over Wilkinson???? really? Same goes with Farrel / Burns over Flood.
I have no doubt that Toby Flood is best equipped to steer England at the 2015 Rugby World Cup. This is Toby Flood's time, if Lancaster and Leicester let him leave for France then it would a a colossal brain fart. (So given that we're talking about English rugby I'll bid Toby Adieux.)
I have no doubt that Toby Flood is best equipped to steer England at the 2015 Rugby World Cup. This is Toby Flood's time, if Lancaster and Leicester let him leave for France then it would a a colossal brain fart. (So given that we're talking about English rugby I'll bid Toby Adieux.)
I get what you mean though.
If the World Cup started next month then I'd want Flood starting at 10 - he's the most well rounded of our 10s atm, and has the experience too.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get that. Surely if you were England head coach, and you don't think Farrell should be the incumbent, you'd get rid of him as quickly as possible? You want an experienced option to guide the ship while Burns becomes first choice, why go for the guy who's got less experience and a worse kicking percentage? I'd also say less talent, but that's less empirically proven.
I can see an argument that as Farrell is seemingly undroppable at the moment, people want the fantastic development opportunities of a benchside view to go to a younger man than Burns. I completely disagree with that, but fair enough, not the point. My point is Rats - straight out, who do you think is a better player, Owen Farrell or Toby Flood? Because if Flood is the better player, then given the weaknesses with the various other candidates, we're on the verge of losing the guy who should be England's first choice. And I don't see how that's good.
He's also the only guy who has caused Farrell to be dropped and seemingly the only guy who might cause him to be dropped again, if we're basing our choices firmly around Lancaster's given thoughts. I'm not sure, if we're basing our logic on Lancaster, where having Flood depart is a good thing as it opens up a scenario that seems rather unlikely i.e. Burns getting much in the way of gametime under Lancaster.
I can see an argument that as Farrell is seemingly undroppable at the moment, people want the fantastic development opportunities of a benchside view to go to a younger man than Burns. I completely disagree with that, but fair enough, not the point. My point is Rats - straight out, who do you think is a better player, Owen Farrell or Toby Flood? Because if Flood is the better player, then given the weaknesses with the various other candidates, we're on the verge of losing the guy who should be England's first choice. And I don't see how that's good.
He's also the only guy who has caused Farrell to be dropped and seemingly the only guy who might cause him to be dropped again, if we're basing our choices firmly around Lancaster's given thoughts. I'm not sure, if we're basing our logic on Lancaster, where having Flood depart is a good thing as it opens up a scenario that seems rather unlikely i.e. Burns getting much in the way of gametime under Lancaster.
I agree!
On the Cipriani v Wliko argument......are we talking about them now or a few years ago because if it is now, there is no question that it must be Cipriani on present form and age!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
If I inherited the team today, then I wouldn't pick Farrell.
I would pick Flood, with the intent to bring Burns in ahead of him ASAP.
Farrell is nowhere near the top 5 FH's in the country.
There are areas of his game that he is top dog, but those are ancillary ones IMO. (defensive aggression/breakdown work/being a ****ly ****)
On average I don't think you could say that there is that much difference between any of the candidates' kicking from hand - all are relatively good, the guys who can be great are generally inconsistent.
He's one of our better goal kickers from inside 35-40 metres, but again there isn't that much difference between them.
The fundamental issue with Farrell is his passing and running is consistently average at premiership level, and poor at international level.
The single biggest issue with our backline at the moment, from what I can make out, is the quality of passing.
Flood is the most consistent good passer we have.
I feel that Burns has the potential to give slightly better service and with better vision.
It's difficult to say with hindsight, but that's probably how I would have gone about it after the WC.
I would pick Flood, with the intent to bring Burns in ahead of him ASAP.
Farrell is nowhere near the top 5 FH's in the country.
There are areas of his game that he is top dog, but those are ancillary ones IMO. (defensive aggression/breakdown work/being a ****ly ****)
On average I don't think you could say that there is that much difference between any of the candidates' kicking from hand - all are relatively good, the guys who can be great are generally inconsistent.
He's one of our better goal kickers from inside 35-40 metres, but again there isn't that much difference between them.
The fundamental issue with Farrell is his passing and running is consistently average at premiership level, and poor at international level.
The single biggest issue with our backline at the moment, from what I can make out, is the quality of passing.
Flood is the most consistent good passer we have.
I feel that Burns has the potential to give slightly better service and with better vision.
It's difficult to say with hindsight, but that's probably how I would have gone about it after the WC.
Aristodemus
Bench Player
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
- Messages
- 973
- Reaction score
- 46
I think Flood was screwed by Johnson, as someone pointed out he was playing very well leading up to the WC in 2011. We won the 6N and had quite a few good performances vrs the SH guys and then all of a sudden he was dropped in favour of Wilko, it cost Johnson his job imo because JW was shocking that WC. Like a much worse version of the Farrell we have in the side now. I hope the future is one from Burns, Flood and Ford although I think Ford is not ready yet. I would like Burns in the team for the 6N but he has to pick up his form, however Lancaster knows who his #1 is for the WC already I feel.
