Backline Dilemma for Gatland in the British Lions Team

[j'nuh]

I think the point is there is no game plan which is not improved by a flyhalf who does this, without requiring any other changes in plan or personnel. We talk about "basics" in terms of scrumhalfs' passing, props' scrummaging etc. but IMO playmaking is a basic requirement of a FH at any level.

My major issue with Faz is what kind of FH is he? He isn't a playmaker who puts others into space, commits defenders and creates gaps - but neither is he a great tactical kicker who controls territory and kicks to the corners all the time. A 10 should specialise in one and at least be passably good at the other; I see Faz as passable at both.

Good points here.

Farrell's point of difference is that he's pretty damn good in defence as far as fly-halves go... but I prefer on-the-ball skills from a 10, considering how often they have the ball.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Didn't Faz open a few eyes by playing pretty flat on the last tour? Largely depends on team structure I guess.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Good points here.

Farrell's point of difference is that he's pretty damn good in defence as far as fly-halves go... but I prefer on-the-ball skills from a 10, considering how often they have the ball.

Good defence is always a plus in any position, but so are good ball skills - I agree with you, ball skills are more important at FH. Especially in this country where they seem to be in short supply in other positions.

Didn't Faz open a few eyes by playing pretty flat on the last tour? Largely depends on team structure I guess.

I don't remember a lot of that? I remember his job in being to get the ball wide quickly and accurately to the back 3, but memories fade, maybe I've forgotten.

 

[valley commando]

Laughable. If Sam Davies is really that good, you wouldn't have needed to say 'IF he starts' ... He'd have to be a nailed-on starter for Wales before he's even in the conversation and as you've already pointed out with your 'if', he's not.

The IF is due to having a stand in coach who may not have the balls to pick him, or to see what the majority of fans and pundits in Wales can see.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

The Davies thing is best ignored.

I'd still quibble with that for Farrell tbh. He's won little of note as an international fly-half and its made all the starker by the difference Ford makes with roughly the same team.

I don't know. He is a proven international player... but I'm not sure about proven quality. And that game against NZ aside, I struggle to think of games where he's been exceptional against teams that could beat us in matches that matter in a 10 shirt (other than from the kicking tee).

He ideally needs a run of internationals at 10 to make his case that he's grown.

Eh? Farrell's been perpetual first choice for the last five years, has been consistently the best option and has delivered every time.

The fact he's now shoehorned into 12 has nothing to do with the fact he's not quality, he'd be 10 if Ford could play 12 and he couldn't. He's never achieved much internationally at 10, but at 12 he's won a Grand Slam, whitewashed of Australia and gone a year unbeaten. Oh and he's scored 500 points for England.

The difference between Ford and Farrell at fly half you talk about is Jones.

Sure there was some improvement in the 2015 6Ns with Ford at fly half, but you could also attribute that to Joseph or Watson, or just not Twelvetrees and Burrell. And they still came second, losing to Ireland.

 

[Peat]

Eh? Farrell's been perpetual first choice for the last five years, has been consistently the best option and has delivered every time.

The fact he's now shoehorned into 12 has nothing to do with the fact he's not quality, he'd be 10 if Ford could play 12 and he couldn't. He's never achieved much internationally at 10, but at 12 he's won a Grand Slam, whitewashed of Australia and gone a year unbeaten. Oh and he's scored 500 points for England.

The difference between Ford and Farrell at fly half you talk about is Jones.

Sure there was some improvement in the 2015 6Ns with Ford at fly half, but you could also attribute that to Joseph or Watson, or just not Twelvetrees and Burrell. And they still came second, losing to Ireland.

I don't agree that he delivered between 2012 and 2015 and I don't agree that he's been quality. And I don't care what he's done at 12 when considering him as a 10 and I don't care how many points he's kicked when judging him as a fly-half, not a goal kicker.

You could attribute the improvement in the 2015 6Ns to Joseph and Watson. I'm not sure why you would though; Ford scored as many tries as Watson and was instrumental in creating every single one of Joseph's tries. Ford was one of the last three people to touch the ball for 11 of England's 19 tries that 6N. He was pretty clearly a huge difference.

But if you really want to see the difference between Ford and Farrell, look at the 2014 AIs where we lost the games Farrell started at 10 and won the games Ford started at 10. Or the Australia games in the World Cup and the first summer test, where Farrell started and was moved for Ford both times, with both times resulting in the score line improving. Or compare the results in big games they've started. Farrell's 8 big games* at fly-half since 2014 have resulted in 2 wins and 6 defeats. Ford's 4 big games in the same period under just Lancaster gives you 3 wins and 1 defeat.

So its clearly not just Jones. There was already a big difference in what you could expect from the two under Lancaster. And that difference is why I disagree with the idea that he delivered and that he's quality.

In fact, the difference is so marked that I'd say consistently having George Ford at fly-half is one of the obvious big personnel changes from Lancaster's reign that has helped Jones achieve an unbeaten year.

*big game here defined as one of Ire, Wal, Fra or SANZAR in 6N/Tour/WC. No WC warm-up games considered.

I did a count of Farrell's big games for the whole of Lancaster's tenure and it comes to 8 wins and 10 losses. So better record overall, but a record that has got progressively worse with time (despite him clearly improving as a player). Strip out all games against the All Blacks and its 7 wins, 7 losses.

 

[Which Tyler]

1. Eh? Farrell's been perpetual first choice for the last five years, has been consistently the best option and has delivered every time.

2. The fact he's now shoehorned into 12 has nothing to do with the fact he's not quality, he'd be 10 if Ford could play 12 and he couldn't. He's never achieved much internationally at 10, but at 12 he's won a Grand Slam, whitewashed of Australia and gone a year unbeaten. Oh and he's scored 500 points for England.

3. The difference between Ford and Farrell at fly half you talk about is Jones.

4. Sure there was some improvement in the 2015 6Ns with Ford at fly half, but you could also attribute that to Joseph or Watson, or just not Twelvetrees and Burrell. And they still came second, losing to Ireland.

1. A poor selector selecting him =/= he was the best option. Only a blind man would claim that he had delivered every time.

2. The fact that he's now shoehorned into 12 has nothing to do with the OPINION that he's not quality, or the OPINION that he is quality; and is irrelevant to his ability as a 10. Equally Ford's ability or otherwise to play 12 is irrelevant to Farrell's ability to play 10. Yo'ure right that Fazlet never acheived much internationally at 10; whilst at 12 he's a much smaller cog in the machine. His ability from the tee is solely indicative of his ability from the tee, and says absolutely nothing about his ability to play rugby.

3. What? only someone who's never seen the two oif them play rugby could claim that the coach is the only difference between them. Surely I'm missing your point here?

4. There was indeed an improvement in 2015 with Ford at FH; and yes, you could attribute it to other players, but to discard the play-maker from the role of making play seems... silly; and most likely a determined effort at post-hoc rationale to support an incorrect viewpoint.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

All fair points, looking back I might have missed Peat's point. That'll teach me to post half asleep.

I also think the numbers have been added automatically btw, don't remember doing that- I didn't have a specific point for each paragraph.

I think it's unfair to judge Farrell by looking at his record, which may sound ridiculous because how else would you do it, but the amount of change elsewhere in the team limits the value of analysis of results.
An example is the World Cup game against Wales- yes Farrell started and lost, but it coincided with Burgess and Barritt being played 12 and 13. The 2014 6Ns was some of the best rugby England played under Lancaster, but by 2015 the game plan had been forced to change and was working better- with Ford being the main change. Farrell losing at fly half tended to coincide with Lancaster reverting to the less successful earlier years formula, imo, I couldn't back that with facts, however.

To dismiss a player's ability from the tee as irrelevant to playing rugby is almost as bad as my ignoring their playmaking ability.

So, to moderate myself: yes there is a difference between Ford and Farrell and Ford would be my preferred choice; you're both very correct in almost everything you mention.

 

[Peat]

A player's ability from the tee is certainly not irrelevant to rugby and it is factored into selection at fly-half, but for me it doesn't factor into their ability as a fly-half. You can always pick someone else as a goal kicker. I don't want to dismiss Farrell's impact at international rugby (a lot of which is to do with goal kicking), but I think a lot of people are going "Big International Impact in Last Year + Being Great Fly-Half for Sarries = Great International Fly-Half". The two parts of the equation look true enough (don't watch Sarries enough to say) but the conclusion is iffy. And I think it goes against the evidence to date.

You're right that Farrell has been a victim of other changes in the team (which is why I put a lot of emphasis on the windows and games where Farrell and Ford both got game time). I think its fair to say a quality fly-half should be able to override some of those challenges though. No other position has so much ability to influence the game.

Just on the 2014 6Ns - we played some nice rugby, but if you look at the highlights, its not Farrell leading the creative charge. Its mainly coming from Danny Care with Mike Brown and Luther Burrell applying some really quality finishes. He had a great game against Italy but that aside, he didn't have a big impact.

He's blossomed as a playmaker under Jones, but how much of that's on the positional swap? Time will tell but his CV isn't the one I'd be looking for in a Lions fly-half.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Just went back to watch the highlights of the first test Vs Australia for the perfect like-for-like comparison between Ford and Farrell playing FH.

Unfortunately having got to the point where Ford came on and Farrell moved to 12, There's been basically nothing to see, because we didn't create any highlights ... ! Only thing to note, the only two brief passages of England attack shown (both leading to penalties), all the play was off Youngs.

 

[dullonien]

To suggest Davies can compete with Farrell ATM is ludicrous. Davies is a fine player, and could develop into something excellent, but Farrell is in a different class right now.

Don't necessarily agree, Davies is just unproven. Of course that counts for a lot, and means atm he's nowhere near the Lions, whilst Farrel is a nailed on tourist. Doesn't mean Farrell is in a different class though.

I think the point is there is no game plan which is not improved by a flyhalf who does this, without requiring any other changes in plan or personnel. We talk about "basics" in terms of scrumhalfs' passing, props' scrummaging etc. but IMO playmaking is a basic requirement of a FH at any level.

My major issue with Faz is what kind of FH is he? He isn't a playmaker who puts others into space, commits defenders and creates gaps - but neither is he a great tactical kicker who controls territory and kicks to the corners all the time. A 10 should specialise in one and at least be passably good at the other; I see Faz as passable at both.

This is probably the point Valley is making, Sam Davies has shown time and again that he's very accomplished at doing both of those things for the Ospreys. On top of that, he's a top quality place kicker, and looks to have the kinda temperament which will flourish under pressure (i.e. bounces back from mistakes immediately, slots the last minute drop-goal to win the game).

If Howley gave him the starting jersey for the 6N (only if because of the coach imo), then I could also see him forcing his way onto the plane. Won't happen though, so may as well forget it really.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Even if Davies plays all 6 nations games, he will be in a loosing team for most of them (joking aside).

He just doesn't have the time to get ahead of sexton, Ford, Russell and Farrell who might be our best 12 (I'll leave that for another debate).

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I don't necessarily think Farrells strong form at 12 earns him automatic selection as a top choice at fly-half. If the selection was tomorrow he should go without doubt imo for his play as a 12 and fly-half for cover, but I don't believe you can project his current form at 12 into the fly-half role.

 

[duncanb]

Let's not forget form of strettle and abendanon at Clermont-Ferrand,Gatland is bound by rules of home country playing.
Both maybe in with a shout of a back 3 spot.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Let's not forget form of strettle and abendanon at Clermont-Ferrand,Gatland is bound by rules of home country playing.
Both maybe in with a shout of a back 3 spot.

Both players are club men. Both struggled to take it to the next level internationally, you'd have to argue as well that we have a load of back three players all playing great rugby to challenge them.

Seymour, Liam Williams, Hogg, halfpenny, Watson, Nowell etc the list goes on

 

[valley commando]

Saturdays MOM was Sam Davies playing out of position at fullback with Biggar playing at 10. Honestly you guys need to see more of him to make proper judgement

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Saturdays MOM was Sam Davies playing out of position at fullback with Biggar playing at 10. Honestly you guys need to see more of him to make proper judgement

No we don't. He's too inexperienced to get on the plane in a key position without being able to show his big game temperament on the international stage.

There's tons of great young players out there, but stick them in an international and they crumble. You couldn't risk that for the lions.

I do wonder if you are just talking rubbish to find people up or if you are so obsessed with wales and the Welsh players you can't see the wood for the trees.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Yeah best not to bite. VC is clearly a low level Welsh troll spouting his agenda to get a reaction.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Yeah best not to bite. VC is clearly a low level Welsh troll spouting his agenda to get a reaction.

There always seem to be welsh trolls banging on about great their average players are. What I want is done more Scottish trolls, telling me about Finn Russell and Seymour, that would make me happy.

 

[Peat]

In fairness, last Lions tour saw Stuart Hogg go as third choice 10 and there was talk of Ian Madigan getting a call. Compared to those two at the time, Sam Davies is a seasoned international veteran at fly-half. Its not completely outrageous to suggest he might get on the tour.

And yes, we're a lot stronger in the position this time round, so its a lot less likely.