Perhaps why Owen is once again shoved out to 13. He has lost the 10 and the 12 shirts at Sarries to better more developed players and if Powell or Wyles start showing better form he will find himself on the bench there. Depsite all the hype Farrell currently has as many flaws as Ford the only difference being he is 18 months older and is more physically developed which is allowing him to cope with the rigours of the AP more effectively. Bringing in the likes of Ford and Harrison over a period of time should help their develop long term, it didn't do Youngs, Cole or Croft any harm.Farrel was about a year older than George is now when he started playing and he was hardly the complete article from the word go.
Rugby Club and George Ford
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
-
- Super User
- Posts: 7056
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:27 pm
- Location: Shepshed
Re: Rugby Club and George Ford
Re: Rugby Club and George Ford
What's the rush? Young players (usually) need to be eased in slowly. He's already played a lot of first team rugby this season.
If he is "the future", doesn't mean he's ready for the present.
If he is "the future", doesn't mean he's ready for the present.
Re: Rugby Club and George Ford
It's good to see Sam Harrison getting an extended run. The so-called pundits didn't have the sense to see that it would put a lot more pressure on him with an inexperienced 10 outside him. Tigers have a great record of bringing on young players and I am sure that they are doing the right thing for both Sam and George.
tf22
Re: Rugby Club and George Ford
Since A Cruden has been mentioned the Hurricanes website quotes him as 185cm and 84 kg which if ther website and my maths are correct is 6'1" and 13st 3lb which in my book is more than slightly bigger than George......... & for those upset by Rugby Club just use the off switch.
Re: Rugby Club and George Ford
Allblacks.com has him listed at 1.75m and 82kg.GEH wrote:Since A Cruden has been mentioned the Hurricanes website quotes him as 185cm and 84 kg which if ther website and my maths are correct is 6'1" and 13st 3lb which in my book is more than slightly bigger than George......... & for those upset by Rugby Club just use the off switch.
And he certainly doesn't look 6'1 and 13st 3. Here he is alongside fellow FH Robbie Robinson, listed everywhere as 181cm and 84kg.
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/twWLwwD8 ... ron+Cruden
Re: Rugby Club and George Ford
In my opinion, this highlights one of the problems with Northen Hemisphere rugby - an over-obsession with size. Many of our players spend too much time in the gym and not enough time practising basic skills.
Re: Rugby Club and George Ford
Actual and perceived size are strange things. I, like many others I suspect, always thought that Dan Cole was a typical prop and indeed he does look like a typical prop.
However, if you check his stats you'll find he is virtually the identical height and weight as Jordan Crane who I always envisaged as a typical large, but rangy, back row.
They are both 6' 3" (1.91 metres to anyone under 30) and 17½ stone (110 Kg).
However, if you check his stats you'll find he is virtually the identical height and weight as Jordan Crane who I always envisaged as a typical large, but rangy, back row.
They are both 6' 3" (1.91 metres to anyone under 30) and 17½ stone (110 Kg).
For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name,
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
Re: Rugby Club and George Ford
I backed the decision to give Ford his chance at the start of the Season but confess that I was a bit dissappointed . His defence was probably a bit better than I expected , but thought his game management was pretty average and his kicking out of hand very poor indeed .His loose kicking cost a lot of tries and he is nowhere near the finished article .
Re: Rugby Club and George Ford
^ thismike wrote:I backed the decision to give Ford his chance at the start of the Season but confess that I was a bit dissappointed . His defence was probably a bit better than I expected , but thought his game management was pretty average and his kicking out of hand very poor indeed .His loose kicking cost a lot of tries and he is nowhere near the finished article .
Re: Rugby Club and George Ford
Tiglon said:
"In my opinion, this highlights one of the problems with Northen Hemisphere rugby - an over-obsession with size. Many of our players spend too much time in the gym and not enough time practising basic skills."
Thats what Guscott said in todays Rugby Paper!
"In my opinion, this highlights one of the problems with Northen Hemisphere rugby - an over-obsession with size. Many of our players spend too much time in the gym and not enough time practising basic skills."
Thats what Guscott said in todays Rugby Paper!
Re: Rugby Club and George Ford
This is merely a matter of degree - they've still got to do both.Snorbins wrote:Tiglon said:
"In my opinion, this highlights one of the problems with Northen Hemisphere rugby - an over-obsession with size. Many of our players spend too much time in the gym and not enough time practising basic skills."
Thats what Guscott said in todays Rugby Paper!
Depends on what you want to do. To me watching the AP over this weekend Glos/Sarries and Bath/LI games (or even the Tigers/Sale although I am biased about this one) were far better viewing than anything on show at the RWC. They may not have been free flowing skills but they were compelling, competitive, 100% commitment battles.
I'm getting to the stage that I think we should tell the SH to shove it and go back to competing at the breakdown, rucking and real rugby and let them get on with their Rugby League hybrid and falling gates and decline in public interest.
For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name,
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
Re: Rugby Club and George Ford
Go with that DickyP! Far more compelling viewing and more intense.
To my mind George Ford is work in progress and The Rugby Club would love to see Tigers fail this season. Its a professional sport and you cannot afford mistakes and drop points; GF will come good in time but Tigers are adrift of the front runners and cannot afford just chucking in high grade academy youngsters.
To my mind George Ford is work in progress and The Rugby Club would love to see Tigers fail this season. Its a professional sport and you cannot afford mistakes and drop points; GF will come good in time but Tigers are adrift of the front runners and cannot afford just chucking in high grade academy youngsters.
Re: Rugby Club and George Ford
Of course DickyP, you need both size and skill. My argument is that one is being over-emphasized at the expense of the other.
Completely agree that the AP is more exciting than the WC was. I think that's largely due to the fact that most WC matches were, for various reasons, mismatches.
Completely agree that the AP is more exciting than the WC was. I think that's largely due to the fact that most WC matches were, for various reasons, mismatches.
Re: Rugby Club and George Ford
I'm not sure that's true. The thing is that rugby is a very physical game, and the lighter and weaker players WILL be exposed in a game. It is a problem that has to be worked on. Like being a poor passer off one hand, or a poor kicker, or a mediocre tackler.Tiglon wrote:In my opinion, this highlights one of the problems with Northen Hemisphere rugby - an over-obsession with size. Many of our players spend too much time in the gym and not enough time practising basic skills.
In order to compete at the top level, Ford will have to ensure that he is physically able to cope. He knows this, and so does everybody else.
However, this is true of many players of similar stature, both in the NH and the SH. There's no obsession with bulky gym-monkeys in the NH - there is, in both hemispheres, a realism about the physical requirements of the game.
If Ford can work on his strength and put on a couple more kilos (as Ben Youngs did, for example) then he will not be putting himself at serious a physical disadvantage. It's the same for small guys the world over. You won't see NZ picking a small guy who is a complete physical liability. If they pick a small guy, it's because he has shown he can cope despite his size (Aaron Cruden, for example). Same in the NH.
I think we had this debate before the season kicked off. No one is suggesting that Ford will not make it because he's small, or that he needs to stick on 2 stone of muscle in order to get games. He just needs to ensure that he's physically up to the demands of modern rugby. Most players bulk up between 18-22 as they spend more time in a fully-pro environment. I'd expect Ford, who has already shown surprising strength for a small guy, to reach a build like Cruden or Youngs without any trouble at all, and certainly without impacting his game.