[RWC2023] England vs Samoa (07/10/2023)

[Ragey Erasmus]

But Farrell can sure win trophies

Because, again, he is a system player. He is in perhaps the most efficient, ruthless and durable systems in club rugby at Saracens. I don't doubt if Ford played for them and got into their systems he could also win trophies. Farrell has only ever played at one club in one system so has a familiarity with it on par with any other team player.

When games break down or the system is found out, Farrell is never the one to offer an alternative, he will keep plugging away at the same failing thing over and over. Ford and Smith don't, they can mix things up on the fly in a way Farrell simply doesn't. When did you last see Farrell start a running game to change from what he was doing? Basically never. Doubly bad considering he played at 12, who is supposed to have a strong running game, he learned nothing from all his times at 12 and continued to play the system as a 10 at 12 rather than a 12.

Farrell is not useless, he is good but he is good in specific environments. International rugby requires teams to be adaptable and Farrell is anything but, he is one of the least adaptive 10s in tier 1. Hell even Biggar varies his game more than Farrell.

 

[dirty harry]

I'm going to need

Yeah, 21 of those were in a row

Im going to need a source for that, I dont remember Daly doing anything other than flittering between 15 and wing, especially during games

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I'm going to need

Im going to need a source for that, I dont remember Daly doing anything other than flittering between 15 and wing, especially during games

Elliot DALY profile and stats

Elliot DALY : bio, stats, play time, birthdate, height, weight...

all.rugby

Look at 17/18 through to 19/20. 21 starts in a row at 15 for England.

 

[dirty harry]

Elliot DALY profile and stats

Elliot DALY : bio, stats, play time, birthdate, height, weight...

all.rugby

Look at 17/18 through to 19/20. 21 starts in a row at 15 for England.

That's fascinating stuff! I stand corrected.

Interestingly, hes used at mostly centre at club level, followed by fullback and wing.

Maybe that feels like why hes never had a run at FB properly, even though hes clearly had a run with Eddie Jones, he doesnt get the same run at club level. It's got to be hard playing 15 two periods a year, and then predominantly playing 13 for your club.

That's a fascinating website btw, I'm going to waste a LOT of time on there hahahaha

Also interestingly is, his win rate for England isnt amazing 44/62, however his runs at FB comes at the most successful periods of English rugby since 20023. RWC 2019 he played a lot there, Autumn nations a few years after etc.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Maybe that feels like why hes never had a run at FB properly, even though hes clearly had a run with Eddie Jones, he doesnt get the same run at club level. It's got to be hard playing 15 two periods a year, and then predominantly playing 13 for your club.

I'm pretty sure 13 is his preferred position,
He's just come up against Manu and then Slade there for England, and his skillset is more suited to moving to the back 3 than those are (plus he was playing a lot of 15 in his early career at Wasps)

 

[Which Tyler]

Yeah 13 is his preferred position, and where he played at Wasps.
But I'm still far from convinced that it's his best position - because his defence there is... erm... questionable.
Sarries are better than anyone else at accommodating a specific weakness from a player, and in some cases (eg Farrell shooting out of the line in defence) turning into an active strength (eg. not by stopping him, but by aiming him just outside the FH's outside shoulder).
My impression is that Daly flits about between positions more at Saracens than he does at international level - it was only really at Wasps where he was consistent in 1 position.

15 SHOULD be his best position, but in the same way that 12 SHOULD be Slade's best position, it just doesn't pan out that way on the rugby pitch.
Wing is simply IMO where he's put his best performances in, and has actually looked (briefly) world class - largely because it's so much easier to his pace (and the touchline) to help him out in defence.

 

[dirty harry]

I'm pretty sure 13 is his preferred position,
He's just come up against Manu and then Slade there for England, and his skillset is more suited to moving to the back 3 than those are (plus he was playing a lot of 15 in his early career at Wasps)

I think that's been part of Englands issues for years now, too many players of too high a quality, being forced in to a team by a coach under pressure from fans and media.

I personally think Tuilagi is over rated, and I always enjoy seeing his name on the team sheet v Wales, hes had half a dozen top class games, but is mostly over used or returning from injury.

 

[whocaresaboutthetruth]

Because, again, he is a system player. He is in perhaps the most efficient, ruthless and durable systems in club rugby at Saracens. I don't doubt if Ford played for them and got into their systems he could also win trophies. Farrell has only ever played at one club in one system so has a familiarity with it on par with any other team player.

When games break down or the system is found out, Farrell is never the one to offer an alternative, he will keep plugging away at the same failing thing over and over. Ford and Smith don't, they can mix things up on the fly in a way Farrell simply doesn't. When did you last see Farrell start a running game to change from what he was doing? Basically never. Doubly bad considering he played at 12, who is supposed to have a strong running game, he learned nothing from all his times at 12 and continued to play the system as a 10 at 12 rather than a 12.

Farrell is not useless, he is good but he is good in specific environments. International rugby requires teams to be adaptable and Farrell is anything but, he is one of the least adaptive 10s in tier 1. Hell even Biggar varies his game more than Farrell.

Yet saracens have changed there style this season and still won the premiership so therefore to me he can play at least two “systems”..He’s also been successful with the lions and England at international level or is that forgotten about?.I don’t really agree with your assessment as the examples above show your reasoning isn’t really accurate.

 

[Geordie]

Steve Borthwick has a big responsibility over the next few years.

As i said above the whole backline needs overhauled, and theres a raft of talented but untested kids coming through....hope he gets it right.

 

[dirty harry]

Yet saracens have changed there style this season and still won the premiership so therefore to me he can play at least two “systems”..He’s also been successful with the lions and England at international level or is that forgotten about?.I don’t really agree with your assessment as the examples above show your reasoning isn’t really accurate.

I agree with this, from an opposition perspective I'd much rather see a panicked Smith attempt a line break every 5th phase than have Farell try to work out what's going wrong, and how he can put his team in a position to fix it.

He really does manage the pack well, and compliments the structure impeccably. I think Englands failings of a plan B have been attributed to Farrell unfairly.

Again, apologies to make a Welsh comparison, Mike Phillip's got the same criticism, despite managing games, and implementing the game plan very well, when Gatlands plan A broke down Wales struggled, and Phillip's took the brunt for his workman like role.

 

[HenryChinaski]

I think the debate about Farrells merits can get a bit reductive tbh, because we've seen a number of different phases with him. I remember when Farrells first became a favourite in the early Lancaster years, over a decade ago, and on this forum most of us were adamantly against him as England's choice fly half, because his attacking game, and ability to run an attacking back line, was severely limited. And we were 100% correct

However it's also wrong not to point that out he developed into a much more competent player in attack, often at 12 to be fair. He added a new dimension to his game and could pick some good lines. I'm not really sure when this changed but I feel like in the years after the 2015 world cup.

Now we're in a different phase again, and he's not the same player in that regard that he was previously but he's definitely still a cut above his 2012 self imo, but it's right that we have better attacking options at 10. I do also think his discipline has got to the point where it also overshadows his merits.
For what it's worth, I'm not sure everyone acknowledges that he's gone through those cycles and has at times brought other strengths to us, correlated with many of our successes I might add.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I think the debate about Farrells merits can get a bit reductive tbh, because we've seen a number of different phases with him. I remember when Farrells first became a favourite in the early Lancaster years, over a decade ago, and on this forum most of us were adamantly against him as England's choice fly half, because his attacking game, and ability to run an attacking back line, was severely limited. And we were 100% correct

However it's also wrong not to point that out he developed into a much more competent player in attack, often at 12 to be fair. He added a new dimension to his game and could pick some good lines. I'm not really sure when this changed but I feel like in the years after the 2015 world cup.

Now we're in a different phase again, and he's not the same player in that regard that he was previously but he's definitely still a cut above his 2012 self imo, but it's right that we have better attacking options at 10. I do also think his discipline has got to the point where it also overshadows his merits.
For what it's worth, I'm not sure everyone acknowledges that he's gone through those cycles and has at times brought other strengths to us, correlated with many of our successes I might add.

Indeed. And pretty major failures.

He made his debut in 2012 so is now a veteran. He has evolved his game to an extent, but not radically as BO’D did for example - arcing OC to auxiliary flanker.

One of the big issues is the captaincy. He’s not suited to it and I think has been detrimental to his personal game. It’s always a tough gig for a 10 and goal kicker, especially when there aren’t many other leaders in the team and your natural tendency is to take on the world.

 

[whocaresaboutthetruth]

I think the debate about Farrells merits can get a bit reductive tbh, because we've seen a number of different phases with him. I remember when Farrells first became a favourite in the early Lancaster years, over a decade ago, and on this forum most of us were adamantly against him as England's choice fly half, because his attacking game, and ability to run an attacking back line, was severely limited. And we were 100% correct

However it's also wrong not to point that out he developed into a much more competent player in attack, often at 12 to be fair. He added a new dimension to his game and could pick some good lines. I'm not really sure when this changed but I feel like in the years after the 2015 world cup.

Now we're in a different phase again, and he's not the same player in that regard that he was previously but he's definitely still a cut above his 2012 self imo, but it's right that we have better attacking options at 10. I do also think his discipline has got to the point where it also overshadows his merits.
For what it's worth, I'm not sure everyone acknowledges that he's gone through those cycles and has at times brought other strengths to us, correlated with many of our successes I might add.

This obsession with attacking rugby all the time wins games is a myth.Matches first and foremost are won on defense and generally who makes the least mistakes and has field position.England’s defence has been nowhere near good enough and there error count and discipline very poor although both aspects have improved significantly in the world cup games so far so it’s pretty irrelevant who can make a break and score a 80metre try when your leaking points and penalties left right and centre.This has probably been the case for the last 3 years with England.I think it’s probably what the Ireland coaching staff corrected first.They built a foundation on good basics and good defence and from there they have grown into an excellent team.I believe this may be what borthwick is trying to do.

 

[HenryChinaski]

This obsession with attacking rugby all the time wins games is a myth.Matches first and foremost are won on defense and generally who makes the least mistakes and has field position.England’s defence has been nowhere near good enough and there error count and discipline very poor although both aspects have improved significantly in the world cup games so far so it’s pretty irrelevant who can make a break and score a 80metre try when your leaking points and penalties left right and centre.This has probably been the case for the last 3 years with England.I think it’s probably what the Ireland coaching staff corrected first.They built a foundation on good basics and good defence and from there they have grown into an excellent team.I believe this may be what borthwick is trying to do.

I mean, it's not a myth that having an attacking facet to your game is important and I'm curious to hear where you think you are hearing an obsession with attacking rugby on here. I agree insofar as some people think "true rugby" is playing basketball and slinging it around all game, but most people here don't think this way. Having defence and attack are not mutually exclusive, and Borthwick will not be successfull if he never manages to address our attacking woes

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

This obsession with attacking rugby all the time wins games is a myth.Matches first and foremost are won on defense and generally who makes the least mistakes and has field position.England’s defence has been nowhere near good enough and there error count and discipline very poor although both aspects have improved significantly in the world cup games so far so it’s pretty irrelevant who can make a break and score a 80metre try when your leaking points and penalties left right and centre.This has probably been the case for the last 3 years with England.I think it’s probably what the Ireland coaching staff corrected first.They built a foundation on good basics and good defence and from there they have grown into an excellent team.I believe this may be what borthwick is trying to do.

I don’t think anyone has an obsession with attacking rugby (in this hemisphere at least) more about doing the right thing at the right time and taking the chances as they arise - not kicking when there’s a 4 man overlap etc.

Teams have to be equally competent in attack and defence for consistent results. Attack doesn’t have to be restricted to running rugby either, but can also include working yourself into pressure positions where you can take points. In that sense the Arg game was probably our finest attacking performance in years - playing exactly what was in front of us and banking the available points.

 

[whocaresaboutthetruth]

I mean, it's not a myth that having an attacking facet to your game is important and I'm curious to hear where you think you are hearing an obsession with attacking rugby on here. I agree insofar as some people think "true rugby" is playing basketball and slinging it around all game, but most people here don't think this way. Having defence and attack are not mutually exclusive, and Borthwick will not be successfull if he never manages to address our attacking woes

My point was successful teams aren’t built on great attack.

 

[HenryChinaski]

My point was successful teams aren’t built on great attack.

.....no....but that doesn't make it an irrelevant competency to discuss for a fly half

 

[Half Pint]

If I may draw a comparison with the England cricket team to help the Farrell debate : there was a point a couple o' years back where Joe Root was head and shoulders better than everyone else in the England setup. He was, however, quite possibly the worst team captain they have ever fielded. The tactics were negative, the minds were defeated, and seemingly every decision was a defensive one. Once they swapped to Ben Stokes, the team changed in a heartbeat, and the same players became world-beaters. Joe Root is still the best batter in the team, and possibly even better for not having to shoulder the burden of captaincy.

For Faz, I'm wondering if the opposite is true. That is: he's a brilliant captain - always got something to say, always motivational - but unfortunately he's just not the best 10 in the squad, and also not the best 12, and I always feel like he's taking the shirt of someone who could do so much more on the pitch. I think that his best position is probably on the bench.. to come on and get people back on plan if the game needs rescuing for the last quarter.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

My point was successful teams aren’t built on great attack.

Trying to win in a good defence, low scoring game is risky because it may only take a single try leaking in for you to lose. Great attack alone doesn't win games but if your plan is to spend an entire game absorbing punches and throwing none back except the odd opportunistic jab, you are unlikely to win much. You have to present a threat in attack yourself too.

 

[ncurd]

For Faz, I'm wondering if the opposite is true. That is: he's a brilliant captain - always got something to say, always motivational

He seams great in camp but I'll be honest his leadership on field never seams to materialise.

Look its been said here Farrell is a system player he's great if he's working with a team that designed around his skillset. Sadly he very limited in playing what's in front of him so in the wrong system he's more likely to butcher an attack than excute it well. There is plenty of evidence in "kick everything" system England currently have.

Ford in opinion is a step above he will play what in front of him but stick within the system. This means players can rely on him to play the system correctly so they know what they are doing but if an opptunity arises Ford will take it more often than not.

Smith currenty is young an attack orientated system player, his issue it he doesn't play the system the players are coached in and it looks a mess because he's trying thing and they are not on the right wavelength.

Ford is the current best option and should be the only fly half on the pitch with Smith on the bench if we need to force a game. Farrell isn't doing that an never has (if someone can point out to a international match he's taken by the scruff of its neck when on the back foot please point it out, there's plenty of caps to pick from).

Smith is the option for the future but England need to build the gameplan around his skillset not play a system that isn't.


We don't have a Dupont a scrummmie I know but a player capable of operating a level above that instinctively knows whats in front of them, what their team mates are capable of and executing it on the fly.