Owen Farrell
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Re: Owen Farrell
Unfortunately Farrell (and Robshaw) are shoe in's no matter how badly they play. Every England coach for the last decade or so has had similar blind spots and these two are Lancasters. Centres and Wings are a revolving door in the hope that Lancaster can find someone, anyone that can fit in with OF.
Nowadays referees decide matches, players by how much.
Re: Owen Farrell
Owen who?
Whoever said "one person cannot change the world' never ate undercooked bat
-
- Bronze Member
- Posts: 495
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:44 am
- Location: Out in the sticks
Re: Owen Farrell
Don't think Lancaster will worry too much about that when his contract has another 6 years to go!baz1664 wrote: three defeats against the Southern Hemisphere big 3 could be devastating for Lancaster!!
Re: Owen Farrell
Alas for England he may not get that far, indeed may not get much further than Xmas if the meeja really go for him. It takes one or two more to go agin' him and a tipping point may be reached.Nailsworthstiger wrote:Don't think Lancaster will worry too much about that when his contract has another 6 years to go!baz1664 wrote: three defeats against the Southern Hemisphere big 3 could be devastating for Lancaster!!
Alas for England, equally, he may survive to take us to group disaster in the WC. We need Wales to malfunction badly next year. Imagine what Schmidt would do with our player resources.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
-
- Bronze Member
- Posts: 495
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:44 am
- Location: Out in the sticks
Re: Owen Farrell
I really cannot see the "Old Farts" allowing to get egg on their face.jgriffin wrote:Alas for England he may not get that far, indeed may not get much further than Xmas if the meeja really go for him. It takes one or two more to go agin' him and a tipping point may be reached.Nailsworthstiger wrote:Don't think Lancaster will worry too much about that when his contract has another 6 years to go!baz1664 wrote: three defeats against the Southern Hemisphere big 3 could be devastating for Lancaster!!
Alas for England, equally, he may survive to take us to group disaster in the WC. We need Wales to malfunction badly next year. Imagine what Schmidt would do with our player resources.
Re: Owen Farrell
Nepotism rules.
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1909
- Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:45 am
Re: Owen Farrell
When you actually consider his play he is woefully inadequate in all areas except those that seem to be King for this England team being Defence and goal kicking..I would rather see any 10 from Cipriani, Ford, Myler, Slade or Burns in the slot if only there was another kicker on the field who could slot those kicks (mainly in Ford and Burn's case) I am hoping that Slade is the future as I think he is a classy player who has everything needed!
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 853
- Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:03 am
Re: Owen Farrell
There are many things that annoy me about the whole Farrel thing, but the one that irritates me particularly is how some pundits (Cleary, Woodward) have conceded he is not the best option at 10, so he therefore ought to play at 12. Any ideas why? Apart from nepotism, obviously
Re: Owen Farrell
Because most of them are resigned to the fact that we struggle to score trys against the top teams, or at the very least we only convert a relatively low proportion of our try scoring opportunities. Therefore, to stand any chance against these teams, we need someone on the pitch who can kick goals from anywhere. The hope is a lot of 3 point penalties and a strong defence will win us the game.northerntiger wrote:There are many things that annoy me about the whole Farrel thing, but the one that irritates me particularly is how some pundits (Cleary, Woodward) have conceded he is not the best option at 10, so he therefore ought to play at 12. Any ideas why? Apart from nepotism, obviously
Re: Owen Farrell
I think you are correct in your analysis, but this is a failure of strategy. We have IMO good enough players, but have suffered from the lack of investment on the flair side. SL's side is built to avoid losing, which is nowhere near playing to win.Will S wrote:Because most of them are resigned to the fact that we struggle to score trys against the top teams, or at the very least we only convert a relatively low proportion of our try scoring opportunities. Therefore, to stand any chance against these teams, we need someone on the pitch who can kick goals from anywhere. The hope is a lot of 3 point penalties and a strong defence will win us the game.northerntiger wrote:There are many things that annoy me about the whole Farrel thing, but the one that irritates me particularly is how some pundits (Cleary, Woodward) have conceded he is not the best option at 10, so he therefore ought to play at 12. Any ideas why? Apart from nepotism, obviously
Apparently Cockers team at halftime against Sale was that, if we are going to lose, let's lose while trying to win. England do not have that philosophy.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Re: Owen Farrell
I agree with you jg, but surely picking May, Eastmond & Watson is an indication that Lancaster is looking to include more attack minded players ?jgriffin wrote: this is a failure of strategy. We have IMO good enough players, but have suffered from the lack of investment on the flair side. SL's side is built to avoid losing, which is nowhere near playing to win.
Apparently Cockers talk at halftime against Sale was that, if we are going to lose, let's lose while trying to win. England do not have that philosophy.
Picking a midfield 10/12/13 of Myler/Farrell/Barritt with Yarde or Nowell in place of May would look much more "defensively sound" surely ? It would certainly look less threatening in attack !!
Re: Owen Farrell
I read in the media today that Lancaster is considering dropping Farrell and Care for the South Africa game saying the exit kicking from the half backs wasn't good enough
Re: Owen Farrell
The kicking from both of them was not good enough but I do not believe either player will be dropped. Farrell has never been dropped regardless of form.ellis9 wrote:I read in the media today that Lancaster is considering dropping Farrell and Care for the South Africa game saying the exit kicking from the half backs wasn't good enough
Without hope we are nothing, keep the faith, a Tiger for eternity
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1043
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:37 pm
- Location: Kenilworth
Re: Owen Farrell
No point having Eastman, Watson, May and Roko on the pitch if all 9 and 10 do is kick badly. No attacking moves down the back line at all just poor kick / chase. Thank goodness May got his hand on the ball once and as did Eastman who floated what should have been a scoring pass to Brown.Jay C wrote:I agree with you jg, but surely picking May, Eastmond & Watson is an indication that Lancaster is looking to include more attack minded players ?jgriffin wrote: this is a failure of strategy. We have IMO good enough players, but have suffered from the lack of investment on the flair side. SL's side is built to avoid losing, which is nowhere near playing to win.
Apparently Cockers talk at halftime against Sale was that, if we are going to lose, let's lose while trying to win. England do not have that philosophy.
Picking a midfield 10/12/13 of Myler/Farrell/Barritt with Yarde or Nowell in place of May would look much more "defensively sound" surely ? It would certainly look less threatening in attack !!
Jez
Only Winners Win!
Only Winners Win!
Re: Owen Farrell
If you read that in the media then I'd say it was because Lanacster made sure it was leaked and hence was a testing the water situation.sapajo wrote:The kicking from both of them was not good enough but I do not believe either player will be dropped. Farrell has never been dropped regardless of form.ellis9 wrote:I read in the media today that Lancaster is considering dropping Farrell and Care for the South Africa game saying the exit kicking from the half backs wasn't good enough
We had the same thing with Manu at wing in the summer (which was as I predicted a failure).
My guess is that Farrell will start at 12, Youngs at 9 and Ford at 10.
Nowadays referees decide matches, players by how much.