Players who should never put on an England shirt again

[JM2K6]

Pfff, you're just behind the times mate. You don't understand that centres are interchangeable and are mostly there to chase and tackle. You guys need to catch up to modern rugby.

[Torquemada 1420]

I watched the Scotland v England game again yesterday and kept an eye on Russell throughout the game. I thought he was superb throughout and mistakes were few and far between. He missed a penalty which was very makeable but for the vast majority of the game he controlled it well. His kick pass to VdM was actually pretty much spot on but the ball bounced far higher than you would expected, if it had bounced normally it was in the breadbasket. VdM is 6'4" and despite jumping up with arms outstretched it went over him! He had one kick to touch missed. However his passing and link play was excellent, his defence spot on and he created space all day for Redpath and other runners. I would argue all day long that Russell was instrumental in winning that game for us, despite playing just ok. He completely outshone 'Mr Dependable' Farrell who had no spark to his game whatsoever. I think Russell's consistency and spot on decision making is often over looked just because he can execute the outrageous skills that no one else can. I think his record against England in his last 4 games is W W D W - consistent enough for me!

So you missed
- the missed conversion
- the clownshow in midfield between he and Hogg which could have led to an Eng try
- the comic drop goal attempt
- and the yellow card for a trip (Serge Betsen --> Stuart Abott, Jerry Flannery --> Alexis Palisson anyone?)

You see, that highlight part of the point I'm making. Romantics see though rose tinted glasses!

[Torquemada 1420]

Torq, ask yourself why these players continue to get picked by club and national coaches and why they have long and successful careers.

Ask yourself why you want Jones out (as you wanted Lancaster out).........?

Personally, I think Farrell is doing a fine job at FH as is Daley at FB.

[sturginho]

I watched the Scotland v England game again yesterday and kept an eye on Russell throughout the game. I thought he was superb throughout and mistakes were few and far between. He missed a penalty which was very makeable but for the vast majority of the game he controlled it well. His kick pass to VdM was actually pretty much spot on but the ball bounced far higher than you would expected, if it had bounced normally it was in the breadbasket. VdM is 6'4" and despite jumping up with arms outstretched it went over him! He had one kick to touch missed. However his passing and link play was excellent, his defence spot on and he created space all day for Redpath and other runners. I would argue all day long that Russell was instrumental in winning that game for us, despite playing just ok. He completely outshone 'Mr Dependable' Farrell who had no spark to his game whatsoever. I think Russell's consistency and spot on decision making is often over looked just because he can execute the outrageous skills that no one else can. I think his record against England in his last 4 games is W W D W - consistent enough for me!

So you missed
- the missed conversion
- the clownshow in midfield between he and Hogg which could have led to an Eng try
- the comic drop goal attempt
- and the yellow card for a trip (Serge Betsen --> Stuart Abott, Jerry Flannery --> Alexis Palisson anyone?)

You see, that highlight part of the point I'm making. Romantics see though rose tinted glasses!

You can't put the fluffed DG on Russell though, it was an awful pass to him

[JM2K6]

Torq, ask yourself why these players continue to get picked by club and national coaches and why they have long and successful careers.

Ask yourself why you want Jones out (as you wanted Lancaster out).........?

Personally, I think Farrell is doing a fine job at FH as is Daley at FB.

Because he's making England play extremely negative rugby and making really bad selection calls out of loyalty and stubbornness?

Farrell is nothing like any of the players we're discussing. And he usually plays 12 (and usually does just fine).

[JM2K6]

I watched the Scotland v England game again yesterday and kept an eye on Russell throughout the game. I thought he was superb throughout and mistakes were few and far between. He missed a penalty which was very makeable but for the vast majority of the game he controlled it well. His kick pass to VdM was actually pretty much spot on but the ball bounced far higher than you would expected, if it had bounced normally it was in the breadbasket. VdM is 6'4" and despite jumping up with arms outstretched it went over him! He had one kick to touch missed. However his passing and link play was excellent, his defence spot on and he created space all day for Redpath and other runners. I would argue all day long that Russell was instrumental in winning that game for us, despite playing just ok. He completely outshone 'Mr Dependable' Farrell who had no spark to his game whatsoever. I think Russell's consistency and spot on decision making is often over looked just because he can execute the outrageous skills that no one else can. I think his record against England in his last 4 games is W W D W - consistent enough for me!

So you missed
- the missed conversion
- the clownshow in midfield between he and Hogg which could have led to an Eng try
- the comic drop goal attempt
- and the yellow card for a trip (Serge Betsen --> Stuart Abott, Jerry Flannery --> Alexis Palisson anyone?)

You see, that highlight part of the point I'm making. Romantics see though rose tinted glasses!

You can't put the fluffed DG on Russell though, it was an awful pass to him

It was his decision to sit back in the pocket to go for a DG in the first place, and his decision to try and go for it off a bad pass as well.

[Torquemada 1420]

Torq, ask yourself why these players continue to get picked by club and national coaches and why they have long and successful careers.

Ask yourself why you want Jones out (as you wanted Lancaster out).........?

Personally, I think Farrell is doing a fine job at FH as is Daley at FB.

Because he's making England play extremely negative rugby and making really bad selection calls out of loyalty and stubbornness?

Farrell is nothing like any of the players we're discussing. And he usually plays 12 (and usually does just fine).

You are side stepping the wider point; namely coaches don't always get it right.

But in answer to your question, I think it's demand > supply across the board (i.e. as much of the reason so many of the journeymen you mention have long and successful careers). FHs are a rare enough commodity than anyone who has anything above ordinary abilities is going to get a shot. Even Billy Burns FFS!

We aren't going to agree on this one. For now Townsend feels that Russell offers more than he costs (or is his best option regardless) but I'll throw in my acid test when I look at opposition. "Am I happier that the player is in than I would be if he were not?". In England's case, every time I see that Randall is not selected, I am happy and every time I see Farrell is selected (at 10) I am happy. I would always want Russell lined up against me because I figure he's more likely to gift me a chance that is taken than create one that does the same and, equally, I cringe every time I see his name on the team sheet for an important Racing game and sit with fingers crossed he has a game where he doesn't f**k up.

PS Farrell has an equal number of caps at FH and centre.

[Slick]

Keen readers may recognise the following words, some of which appeared under a headline in The Times twhich hailed Scotland and a “True masterclass of precision and control”. “Patience and self-assurance” were words used to describe it, and “a display of outstanding maturity and control” and also: “real conviction, maturity and good sense, pushing on the accelerator when the time was right but rarely inclined to force things.”

How were such words ever assembled to describe a team with Finn Russell at its helm?

In rugby, indeed across the sport pages, we tend to stereotype our heroes. Russell has also been labelled as a maverick. He contributed wholeheartedly to that conviction this time a year ago when he walked out on the Scotland squad following a row over an out-of-hours appearance at the bar. Patience, good sense and outstanding maturity were not Russell. He was therefore not much of a Warren Gatland-type player and certainly not the type to lead an attack against South Africa. Which is why, a year ago, you would never have imagined him as the starting No 10 on a British & Irish Lions tour.

However, Russell can now be considered a strong contender and that is not just due to one victory over England. He already has another up his sleeve: 2018, which was a showcase for his individuality and very much not the kind of game to get him a Lions shot. The difference was the manner of Saturday’s victory: it wasn’t a maverick genius display. It wasn’t about “me”, it was about “us”. It was about moving the team around the field, about game management and knowing when to pull the trigger. And this from a man who is instinctively trigger-happy.

If you compare him to Owen Farrell, for so long the favourite for the Lions No 10 shirt, Russell had a much better reading of when to play and when not. His vision was faster and clearer; his execution was better too.

The problem is that we see Russell as a danger to his team. Yet if you study the first half on Saturday, the errors he made were almost all when the referee had awarded a penalty, when Scotland were playing the advantage and Russell had free licence to chance his arm. He rarely risked the team.

Of course, too, he got yellow-carded which was sheer folly. There is still a risk for Gatland to assess. He also has to decide if Russell’s comparative inaccuracy from the tee is worth the risk.

However, he cannot now discard Russell because he will not play the game he needs. On Saturday that was exactly the game Russell played.

[JM2K6]

Ask yourself why you want Jones out (as you wanted Lancaster out).........?

Personally, I think Farrell is doing a fine job at FH as is Daley at FB.

Because he's making England play extremely negative rugby and making really bad selection calls out of loyalty and stubbornness?

Farrell is nothing like any of the players we're discussing. And he usually plays 12 (and usually does just fine).

You are side stepping the wider point; namely coaches don't always get it right.

But in answer to your question, I think it's demand > supply across the board (i.e. as much of the reason so many of the journeymen you mention have long and successful careers). FHs are a rare enough commodity than anyone who has anything above ordinary abilities is going to get a shot. Even Billy Burns FFS!

We aren't going to agree on this one. For now Townsend feels that Russell offers more than he costs (or is his best option regardless) but I'll throw in my acid test when I look at opposition. "Am I happier that the player is in than I would be if he were not?". In England's case, every time I see that Randall is not selected, I am happy and every time I see Farrell is selected (at 10) I am happy. I would always want Russell lined up against me because I figure he's more likely to gift me a chance that is taken than create one that does the same and, equally, I cringe every time I see his name on the team sheet for an important Racing game and sit with fingers crossed he has a game where he doesn't f**k up.

PS Farrell has an equal number of caps at FH and centre.

Coaches don't always get it right. But successful coaches get it right more often than not. And these coaches weigh up the pros and cons of every player. Finn Russell is a ridiculously talented player who is having a very successful career. It's simply not true that he's more likely to gift chances than create ones. He's more likely to gift chances than other players in his position, that much is true - but there's a vanishingly small number of 10s who can create chances like he can.

Harry Randall has zero caps and has big weaknesses to his game that get hidden by Bristol's high-octane approach - there's every chance he's *exactly* the kind of flair player who chances his arm once too often that you're railing against so much. It's a bit franch fan to be slagging off England for not starting him just yet.


p.s. Farrell has started at fly-half 17 times in the last 5 years - out of 53 starts in total. Ford's started at fly-half 42 times in the same period. "Farrell usually plays 12" is completely accurate.

p.p.s I'd also suggest that most players would rather face Dan Biggar than Finn Russell. Players don't like getting embarrassed by the opposition.

[ASMO]

Torq, ask yourself why these players continue to get picked by club and national coaches and why they have long and successful careers.

Ask yourself why you want Jones out (as you wanted Lancaster out).........?

Personally, I think Farrell is doing a fine job at FH as is Daley at FB.

Phuck off with the trolling

[laurent]

To be Fair he is right the French really hope Farrell will be at 10 and Dally at fullback, also hoping May is as bad as he was against the Scots.

In the meantime Ireland is next with wobbly Sexton and Ryan are hoping to start (Seriously with the number of issues Sexton has this looks real bad)

[eldanielfire]

Rugby games are often decided by a flash of genius. That's why players like Carter, Robinson, Cullen, Conrad Smith, Israel Dagg, et al are all lauded and highly respected. They were the ones winning matches by doing something special.

I think a long term flaw with Eddie Jones is he believes he can control everything, somehow. He has spoken about the players being decision makers and he having no influence on the game once it's gone, but his actions, coaching and style seems to betray the opposite. At least to me.

He is a control freak, an egotistical dwarf who refuses to admit when he is wrong, even when he is wrong.

He was the right man post the catastrophic Lancaster era when teams were coached using powerpoint slides, but he has served his purpose, has nothing more or new to add and now needs to move on to another struggling side. He is the equivalant of a fireman, comes along, puts the fire out, but then when the flames are gone has fuck all else to do except maybe start more fires to make himself work.

He won a 6 Nations 5 years after he started and got to a RWC final smashing the All Blacks along the way. I wouldn't just say he puts fires out. We went though this in 2018 as Jones started to get terrible results, but then in 2019 he got some of the finest England performances I've seen since the Johnson-Wilkinson era.

The issue with Eddie Jones he is both brilliant as a coach and flawed. He both raises teams up in ways other coaches can't and creates the potential for them to crash as well. The 2019 World Cup was Jones at his best and then come the final all Jones flaws (No in team creativity, Farrell being useless and never dropped, Youngs being shite, no back-up tighthead of quality developed, Daly at 15, unable to come from behind and a dependence on physical dominance up against a more physically dominate team).

[eldanielfire]

Rugby games are often decided by a flash of genius. That's why players like Carter, Robinson, Cullen, Conrad Smith, Israel Dagg, et al are all lauded and highly respected. They were the ones winning matches by doing something special.

I think a long term flaw with Eddie Jones is he believes he can control everything, somehow. He has spoken about the players being decision makers and he having no influence on the game once it's gone, but his actions, coaching and style seems to betray the opposite. At least to me.

Same here. He's popped up a lot in the coach ed network I have on Twitter over the last few years. It all sounds like bollocks now when you watch what happens (or doesn't!) on the pitch. I seem to recall him talking about player lack of decision-making ability from when he first started, saying he wanted to make himself 'redundant' by giving the players the tools/freedom to direct a game, but what's changed if that was true?

https://trainingground.guru/articles/ed ... themselves

https://trainingground.guru/articles/ed ... n-sessions

Indeed. You can add "depth in every position" while he has never dropped some players to develop (3, 8, 9, Farrell, 15 all had no credible back-ups), a dependence on Farrell who can't can't make decisions and has no vision except exploit really bloody obvious spaces when his forwards are on top, a game plan with no plan B, the playing Robshaw at 7 for a year after he said he wasn't a seven when Lancaster was in charge, etc.

[eldanielfire]

Torq, ask yourself why these players continue to get picked by club and national coaches and why they have long and successful careers.

Ask yourself why you want Jones out (as you wanted Lancaster out).........?

Personally, I think Farrell is doing a fine job at FH as is Daley at FB.

Bloody trolls

[eldanielfire]

Because he's making England play extremely negative rugby and making really bad selection calls out of loyalty and stubbornness?

Farrell is nothing like any of the players we're discussing. And he usually plays 12 (and usually does just fine).

You are side stepping the wider point; namely coaches don't always get it right.

But in answer to your question, I think it's demand > supply across the board (i.e. as much of the reason so many of the journeymen you mention have long and successful careers). FHs are a rare enough commodity than anyone who has anything above ordinary abilities is going to get a shot. Even Billy Burns FFS!

We aren't going to agree on this one. For now Townsend feels that Russell offers more than he costs (or is his best option regardless) but I'll throw in my acid test when I look at opposition. "Am I happier that the player is in than I would be if he were not?". In England's case, every time I see that Randall is not selected, I am happy and every time I see Farrell is selected (at 10) I am happy. I would always want Russell lined up against me because I figure he's more likely to gift me a chance that is taken than create one that does the same and, equally, I cringe every time I see his name on the team sheet for an important Racing game and sit with fingers crossed he has a game where he doesn't f**k up.

PS Farrell has an equal number of caps at FH and centre.

Coaches don't always get it right. But successful coaches get it right more often than not. And these coaches weigh up the pros and cons of every player. Finn Russell is a ridiculously talented player who is having a very successful career. It's simply not true that he's more likely to gift chances than create ones. He's more likely to gift chances than other players in his position, that much is true - but there's a vanishingly small number of 10s who can create chances like he can.

I agree. Also Russell can create chances that others can not. Some of passing is exceptional. And yes he will on occasion (not rarely but not commonly either) screw it up. Farrell on the other hand literally the ball to the first Scottish player in front of him when England had a rare phase of possession.

[Torquemada 1420]

Coaches don't always get it right. But successful coaches get it right more often than not. And these coaches weigh up the pros and cons of every player. Finn Russell is a ridiculously talented player who is having a very successful career. It's simply not true that he's more likely to gift chances than create ones. He's more likely to gift chances than other players in his position, that much is true - but there's a vanishingly small number of 10s who can create chances like he can.

Harry Randall has zero caps and has big weaknesses to his game that get hidden by Bristol's high-octane approach - there's every chance he's *exactly* the kind of flair player who chances his arm once too often that you're railing against so much. It's a bit franch fan to be slagging off England for not starting him just yet.


p.s. Farrell has started at fly-half 17 times in the last 5 years - out of 53 starts in total. Ford's started at fly-half 42 times in the same period. "Farrell usually plays 12" is completely accurate.

p.p.s I'd also suggest that most players would rather face Dan Biggar than Finn Russell. Players don't like getting embarrassed by the opposition.

How not often is often enough for you? Jones? Are you suggesting Jones isn't a successful coach?

Errr.. what has Russell won? Unless by successful you are talking about the cheque book in which case I give you Burgess and Farrell snr.

Yup. Randall has zero caps. You sound like a compliance auditor:
- you can't employ x in that position because he has no experience?
- how does he get experience?
So, you are happy to see Youngs continue without trying out Randall when is "doesn't matter"? There's the rub: Jones hates losing and so blooding in new players is less likely.

We can dick around with samples of Farrell all you like to find a trend that suits. Of his last 30 caps, 14 have been at FH. Like it or no, Jones currently sees Farrell as his 10.

[dpedin]

Keen readers may recognise the following words, some of which appeared under a headline in The Times twhich hailed Scotland and a “True masterclass of precision and control”. “Patience and self-assurance” were words used to describe it, and “a display of outstanding maturity and control” and also: “real conviction, maturity and good sense, pushing on the accelerator when the time was right but rarely inclined to force things.”

How were such words ever assembled to describe a team with Finn Russell at its helm?

In rugby, indeed across the sport pages, we tend to stereotype our heroes. Russell has also been labelled as a maverick. He contributed wholeheartedly to that conviction this time a year ago when he walked out on the Scotland squad following a row over an out-of-hours appearance at the bar. Patience, good sense and outstanding maturity were not Russell. He was therefore not much of a Warren Gatland-type player and certainly not the type to lead an attack against South Africa. Which is why, a year ago, you would never have imagined him as the starting No 10 on a British & Irish Lions tour.

However, Russell can now be considered a strong contender and that is not just due to one victory over England. He already has another up his sleeve: 2018, which was a showcase for his individuality and very much not the kind of game to get him a Lions shot. The difference was the manner of Saturday’s victory: it wasn’t a maverick genius display. It wasn’t about “me”, it was about “us”. It was about moving the team around the field, about game management and knowing when to pull the trigger. And this from a man who is instinctively trigger-happy.

If you compare him to Owen Farrell, for so long the favourite for the Lions No 10 shirt, Russell had a much better reading of when to play and when not. His vision was faster and clearer; his execution was better too.

The problem is that we see Russell as a danger to his team. Yet if you study the first half on Saturday, the errors he made were almost all when the referee had awarded a penalty, when Scotland were playing the advantage and Russell had free licence to chance his arm. He rarely risked the team.

Of course, too, he got yellow-carded which was sheer folly. There is still a risk for Gatland to assess. He also has to decide if Russell’s comparative inaccuracy from the tee is worth the risk.

However, he cannot now discard Russell because he will not play the game he needs. On Saturday that was exactly the game Russell played.

What he says!

[Torquemada 1420]

Keen readers may recognise the following words, some of which appeared under a headline in The Times twhich hailed Scotland and a “True masterclass of precision and control”. “Patience and self-assurance” were words used to describe it, and “a display of outstanding maturity and control” and also: “real conviction, maturity and good sense, pushing on the accelerator when the time was right but rarely inclined to force things.”

How were such words ever assembled to describe a team with Finn Russell at its helm?

In rugby, indeed across the sport pages, we tend to stereotype our heroes. Russell has also been labelled as a maverick. He contributed wholeheartedly to that conviction this time a year ago when he walked out on the Scotland squad following a row over an out-of-hours appearance at the bar. Patience, good sense and outstanding maturity were not Russell. He was therefore not much of a Warren Gatland-type player and certainly not the type to lead an attack against South Africa. Which is why, a year ago, you would never have imagined him as the starting No 10 on a British & Irish Lions tour.

However, Russell can now be considered a strong contender and that is not just due to one victory over England. He already has another up his sleeve: 2018, which was a showcase for his individuality and very much not the kind of game to get him a Lions shot. The difference was the manner of Saturday’s victory: it wasn’t a maverick genius display. It wasn’t about “me”, it was about “us”. It was about moving the team around the field, about game management and knowing when to pull the trigger. And this from a man who is instinctively trigger-happy.

If you compare him to Owen Farrell, for so long the favourite for the Lions No 10 shirt, Russell had a much better reading of when to play and when not. His vision was faster and clearer; his execution was better too.

The problem is that we see Russell as a danger to his team. Yet if you study the first half on Saturday, the errors he made were almost all when the referee had awarded a penalty, when Scotland were playing the advantage and Russell had free licence to chance his arm. He rarely risked the team.

Of course, too, he got yellow-carded which was sheer folly. There is still a risk for Gatland to assess. He also has to decide if Russell’s comparative inaccuracy from the tee is worth the risk.

However, he cannot now discard Russell because he will not play the game he needs. On Saturday that was exactly the game Russell played.

What he says!

And from another Sweatie
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/18 ... cup-final/

[Slick]

From your article:

It was not careless, it was pushing the boundaries, which is what the Scotsman has been instructed to do as part of Racing’s all-star line-up.

There was, in fact, much more to Russell’s performance on Saturday than just the three flashpoints outlined above. His constant probing, through taking the ball to the line before releasing undefendable late passes, and through his varied kicking game, meant Exeter’s defence was stretched in a way they are not used to, and it unsettled them enough for their Director of Rugby Rob Baxter to concede afterwards that it had been an untypical performance by his charges. Racing needed to unsettle the best drilled side in Europe, and Russell was instrumental in doing that.

You could make the argument that Racing could have won the game had Russell been a bit more clinical at key moments, but also make just as strong a case that they would not have been anywhere near Exeter without his influence.

And my one was from an English geezer.

[JM2K6]

Coaches don't always get it right. But successful coaches get it right more often than not. And these coaches weigh up the pros and cons of every player. Finn Russell is a ridiculously talented player who is having a very successful career. It's simply not true that he's more likely to gift chances than create ones. He's more likely to gift chances than other players in his position, that much is true - but there's a vanishingly small number of 10s who can create chances like he can.

Harry Randall has zero caps and has big weaknesses to his game that get hidden by Bristol's high-octane approach - there's every chance he's *exactly* the kind of flair player who chances his arm once too often that you're railing against so much. It's a bit franch fan to be slagging off England for not starting him just yet.


p.s. Farrell has started at fly-half 17 times in the last 5 years - out of 53 starts in total. Ford's started at fly-half 42 times in the same period. "Farrell usually plays 12" is completely accurate.

p.p.s I'd also suggest that most players would rather face Dan Biggar than Finn Russell. Players don't like getting embarrassed by the opposition.

How not often is often enough for you? Jones? Are you suggesting Jones isn't a successful coach?

Huh? Jones is a successful coach. One who has done things like stuck with Elliot Daly at fullback despite his weaknesses, because of the magic he can produce. One who's stuck with Henry Slade at 13 despite his defensive problems, because of the magic he can produce. He hasn't yet handed the reins to Marcus Smith at 10, but Eddie's selection decisions are pretty weird and often complex to begin with. It's impossible to say that Eddie hasn't gotten it right more often than not. He clearly has. Whether he's doing the right thing now is up for debate, and most of us would say he's not. That has absolutely nothing to do with players who have long glorious careers doing something a bit different and who get a free pass for their other weaknesses.

Errr.. what has Russell won? Unless by successful you are talking about the cheque book in which case I give you Burgess and Farrell snr.

He's the outstanding 10 for his country. He's been the catalyst for some of Scotland's finest performances in decades. He's one of the best 10s in the world. He is currently picking up mega-bucks as a nailed-on starter for one of the best club sides in the world, producing magic on a regular basis, and has appeared in an epic champions cup final. He's in the process of having an excellent career. He doesn't need to win cups for that to be true.

Yup. Randall has zero caps. You sound like a compliance auditor:
- you can't employ x in that position because he has no experience?
- how does he get experience?
So, you are happy to see Youngs continue without trying out Randall when is "doesn't matter"? There's the rub: Jones hates losing and so blooding in new players is less likely.

I'm saying you're making a judgement call on a player who is far closer to the sort of player you're decrying as a flake than you realise. You've not seen what he's like under pressure. I have, and what I've seen makes me think he's not the second coming. That doesn't mean I want Youngs to continue - we have Dan Robson and Ben Spencer who've been producing for longer than Randall, and have (IMO) better all-round games than Randall.

I don't think Randall is shit, but it's a weird thing to bring up by someone who's shit scared of flair players who chance their arm a lot.

We can dick around with samples of Farrell all you like to find a trend that suits. Of his last 30 caps, 14 have been at FH. Like it or no, Jones currently sees Farrell as his 10.

No. You can dick around all you like, but ignoring periods where Ford is injured, or picking deliberately mixed-up WC warmup matches doesn't help your case at all. When available, Ford starts the vast majority of matches at 10 and Farrell at 12. Farrell's had one proper run at 10 a few years ago, and it didn't go well. Since then it's been the George Ford show (as it was before).

Maybe he's changed all that and Farrell's horror-show at 10 at the weekend - after putting Ford back in at 10 as soon as he was fit during the autumn tournament that we won - has convinced Eddie that Farrell "is his 10". I'd be surprised, but stranger things have happened.

[dpedin]

Torq - I think you are in a minority of one here? We will just have to agree to disagree. For me Russell is the main man, even his presence in the team on Sat forced the poisoned dwarf Eddie to adjust his team selection and tactics to try and counter his threat and for me even that was sufficient to have Russell in the team. The focus England had on trying to stop him play meant there was tons more space for Redpath and our back 3 and for Hogg to kick into. He takes risks but he wins games and I would pay money to watch him every week whereas I dont think I would get out of bed to watch Farrell.

[JM2K6]

Basically it boils down to this: Russell gives you the chance of winning matches against high quality teams and doesn't significantly increase the likelihood of losing to them, either. For a side like Scotland, which rarely matches up equal or better on a man-for-man basis across the squad when it comes to playing the big boys, having someone like Russell who frequently scares the shit out of defences and unlocks even the toughest ones on a pretty regular basis is worth its weight in gold. Without him, they're far less likely to actually create and score the points they need to win, even if his replacement might be 10% less likely to do something chancy that doesn't pay off.

You wouldn't want a team of Finn Russells. But you'd take a few of them.

[Flockwitt]

It's like sabermetrics in baseball - where you're measuring effective performance objectively. Russel gets you wins you wouldn't otherwise, everything else becomes secondary.

[charltom]

I wasn't aware Finn Russell had ever pulled on an England shirt, but agree he shouldn't pull one on "again".

Like Cam Redpath. He shouldn't either

[Kawazaki]

These threads are pointless.
Nothing will change while Jones is still in charge.
And Jones will stay in charge for as long as he likes because his greatest skill is managing up.
Bill Sweeney hasn't got a clue on the rugby side of things and besides, he's still busy trying to clean up the massive turd that Steve Brown left behind.

Nobody at the the RFU wants to look for another England coach.

[SaintK]

These threads are pointless.
Nothing will change while Jones is still in charge.
And Jones will stay in charge for as long as he likes because his greatest skill is managing up.
Bill Sweeney hasn't got a clue on the rugby side of things and besides, he's still busy trying to clean up the massive turd that Steve Brown left behind.

Nobody at the the RFU wants to look for another England coach.

Spot on!!!

[Glaston]

These threads are pointless.
Nothing will change while Jones is still in charge.
And Jones will stay in charge for as long as he likes because his greatest skill is managing up.
Bill Sweeney hasn't got a clue on the rugby side of things and besides, he's still busy trying to clean up the massive turd that Steve Brown left behind.

Nobody at the the RFU wants to look for another England coach.

They can't afford a new England coach.

[Ovals]

These threads are pointless.
Nothing will change while Jones is still in charge.
And Jones will stay in charge for as long as he likes because his greatest skill is managing up.
Bill Sweeney hasn't got a clue on the rugby side of things and besides, he's still busy trying to clean up the massive turd that Steve Brown left behind.

Nobody at the the RFU wants to look for another England coach.

Spot on!!!

Yep - and it looks like he's going to waste the best playing talent we've had in two decades. Not sure that the next generation have the same potential.

[Torquemada 1420]

Maybe he's changed all that and Farrell's horror-show at 10 at the weekend - after putting Ford back in at 10 as soon as he was fit during the autumn tournament that we won - has convinced Eddie that Farrell "is his 10". I'd be surprised, but stranger things have happened.

https://www.planetrugby.com/england-hea ... nst-italy/

[SaintK]

Maybe he's changed all that and Farrell's horror-show at 10 at the weekend - after putting Ford back in at 10 as soon as he was fit during the autumn tournament that we won - has convinced Eddie that Farrell "is his 10". I'd be surprised, but stranger things have happened.

https://www.planetrugby.com/england-hea ... nst-italy/

You'd never have guessed!
I'm a fan of Hartley, but how many matches did he get when George should have been starting? Looks like he's going the same way with Farrell

[Slick]

Maybe he's changed all that and Farrell's horror-show at 10 at the weekend - after putting Ford back in at 10 as soon as he was fit during the autumn tournament that we won - has convinced Eddie that Farrell "is his 10". I'd be surprised, but stranger things have happened.

https://www.planetrugby.com/england-hea ... nst-italy/

That sounds like Eddie is saying he is definitely dropping him in Eddie language

[Hal Jordan]

Maybe he's changed all that and Farrell's horror-show at 10 at the weekend - after putting Ford back in at 10 as soon as he was fit during the autumn tournament that we won - has convinced Eddie that Farrell "is his 10". I'd be surprised, but stranger things have happened.

https://www.planetrugby.com/england-hea ... nst-italy/

You'd never have guessed!
I'm a fan of Hartley, but how many matches did he get when George should have been starting?

I'm not sure it's that many. Although George always had the eye-catching skills which made him great coming on as a sub to blitz a tired opposition, Hartley had better fundamental hooker skills for most of the time the two were in contention.

Now George is the undisputed first choice although he desperately needs fitness, which is an argument for benching him in favour of LCD who isn't much of a step down, and at present is probably a step up given that he's match fit.

[SaintK]

https://www.planetrugby.com/england-hea ... nst-italy/

You'd never have guessed!
I'm a fan of Hartley, but how many matches did he get when George should have been starting?

I'm not sure it's that many. Although George always had the eye-catching skills which made him great coming on as a sub to blitz a tired opposition, Hartley had better fundamental hooker skills for most of the time the two were in contention.

Now George is the undisputed first choice although he desperately needs fitness, which is an argument for benching him in favour of LCD who isn't much of a step down, and at present is probably a step up given that he's match fit.

Don't disagree with any of that!
I think George got about 20 caps off the bench and possibly should have started the last 6 of those when Hartley was being subbed after 50 minutes

[eldanielfire]

Maybe he's changed all that and Farrell's horror-show at 10 at the weekend - after putting Ford back in at 10 as soon as he was fit during the autumn tournament that we won - has convinced Eddie that Farrell "is his 10". I'd be surprised, but stranger things have happened.

https://www.planetrugby.com/england-hea ... nst-italy/

That sounds like Eddie is saying he is definitely dropping him in Eddie language

At worst moving him to 12. Eddie always seems determined to prove doubters wrong even over results.

[Kawazaki]

These threads are pointless.
Nothing will change while Jones is still in charge.
And Jones will stay in charge for as long as he likes because his greatest skill is managing up.
Bill Sweeney hasn't got a clue on the rugby side of things and besides, he's still busy trying to clean up the massive turd that Steve Brown left behind.

Nobody at the the RFU wants to look for another England coach.

They can't afford a new England coach.

Given Shithouse Eddie (I'm going to stop calling him Crazy Eddie as that implies there might be a hint of genius in there) is the highest paid coach in the world then they could afford a new coach as long as they can shift Shithouse off the payroll first.

[SaintK]

These threads are pointless.
Nothing will change while Jones is still in charge.
And Jones will stay in charge for as long as he likes because his greatest skill is managing up.
Bill Sweeney hasn't got a clue on the rugby side of things and besides, he's still busy trying to clean up the massive turd that Steve Brown left behind.

Nobody at the the RFU wants to look for another England coach.

They can't afford a new England coach.

Given Shithouse Eddie (I'm going to stop calling him Crazy Eddie as that implies there might be a hint of genius in there) is the highest paid coach in the world then they could afford a new coach as long as they can shift Shithouse off the payroll first.

And that would mean another £2m cut from the Community Game budget. You know it won't come from the Professional Game side of things

[Kawazaki]

They can't afford a new England coach.

Given Shithouse Eddie (I'm going to stop calling him Crazy Eddie as that implies there might be a hint of genius in there) is the highest paid coach in the world then they could afford a new coach as long as they can shift Shithouse off the payroll first.

And that would mean another £2m cut from the Community Game budget. You know it won't come from the Professional Game side of things

Can't they just sack him based on piss poor productivity?

[JM2K6]

Maybe he's changed all that and Farrell's horror-show at 10 at the weekend - after putting Ford back in at 10 as soon as he was fit during the autumn tournament that we won - has convinced Eddie that Farrell "is his 10". I'd be surprised, but stranger things have happened.

https://www.planetrugby.com/england-hea ... nst-italy/

Again, we'll see if he continues to line up at 10. Eddie is a stubborn old bastard who hates doing anything the media and general opinion think is a good idea.

[Ovals]

Maybe he's changed all that and Farrell's horror-show at 10 at the weekend - after putting Ford back in at 10 as soon as he was fit during the autumn tournament that we won - has convinced Eddie that Farrell "is his 10". I'd be surprised, but stranger things have happened.

https://www.planetrugby.com/england-hea ... nst-italy/

Again, we'll see if he continues to line up at 10. Eddie is a stubborn old bastard who hates doing anything the media and general opinion think is a good idea.

We need the media to keep putting lists of players that Eddie simply won't drop, no matter what. Maybe he'll then have to prove them wrong.

[eldanielfire]

These threads are pointless.
Nothing will change while Jones is still in charge.
And Jones will stay in charge for as long as he likes because his greatest skill is managing up.
Bill Sweeney hasn't got a clue on the rugby side of things and besides, he's still busy trying to clean up the massive turd that Steve Brown left behind.

Nobody at the the RFU wants to look for another England coach.

They can't afford a new England coach.

Given Shithouse Eddie (I'm going to stop calling him Crazy Eddie as that implies there might be a hint of genius in there) is the highest paid coach in the world then they could afford a new coach as long as they can shift Shithouse off the payroll first.

Isn't the highest paid coach in Rugby Pat Lam?