Owen Farrell - How good has he actually been for England?

Farrell has kicked well for England, getting us vital 3 points (and 2 points) that have won us games. Away from his kicking however, I don't remember him doing much else except "solid" stuff I would expect of every player e.g. tackling. No line breaks that I remember, no putting others through on line breaks that I recall either, and yet he seems to be getting pretty good reviews in the press.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he has played badly per se, I just don't think he's been that good either (aside from kicking). Anyone care to tell me what makes him so good? I appreciate he has only played two games for England and they weren't great games. What does he do at Saracens that makes him stand out? I'm not slating him, I just would like someone better informed to tell me exactly what he offers.

Ok, against Scotland, its always going to be difficult to play as they close down matches very well.

Italy was just a mess for both teams to be honest so no-one could really stand out.

Both the games were more about forwards battles.

I say give him a chance and i am sure that he will perform, he is a young lad and if you watch his club rugby, he has got the skill required to do well at international level.

I said all this before the first game. He's got a good mentality, is a very good kicker and tackler but just isn't international standard imho. I had only really been impressed with his kicking at Sarries, yet his photo seemed to accompany every "Lancaster's new England" article to the point where it was inevitable he would be picked.

I suppose with both Tuilagi and Trinder injured it makes sense.

Everyone's kicking out of hand has been pretty poor (not sure how often it's been him if ever). Other than goal kicking I haven't really seen anything but I haven't really been looking.

The question is - what do you expect?

England have played two 12s in the centres, one who is unsure whether he is a 10 or 12.

Lancaster's hands were tied with the injuries to Tuilagi,Trinder but also Joseph at 13.

Realistically there weren't any other options.

It hardly helps matters when you have a woefully out of form no 9, an very unbalanced backrow and a whole raft of new caps.


Farrell did the job that was asked of him - make his tackles, kick his goals and make sure he didn't make any howlers.


Farrell gets good reviews from the press because of hype and perspective. Farrell has similar strengths to Sir Jonny Wilkinson. Same flaws too. Not necessarily a bad thing is it?

Farrell has his limitations of course but he's a 20 year old making his debut away from home in two unfamiliar surroundings.

beshocked wrote:The question is - what do you expect?

England have played two 12s in the centres, one who is unsure whether he is a 10 or 12.

Lancaster's hands were tied with the injuries to Tuilagi,Trinder but also Joseph at 13.

Realistically there weren't any other options.

It hardly helps matters when you have a woefully out of form no 9, an very unbalanced backrow and a whole raft of new caps.


Farrell did the job that was asked of him - make his tackles, kick his goals and make sure he didn't make any howlers.


Farrell gets good reviews from the press because of hype and perspective. Farrell has similar strengths to Sir Jonny Wilkinson. Same flaws too. Not necessarily a bad thing is it?

Farrell has his limitations of course but he's a 20 year old making his debut away from home in two unfamiliar surroundings.

I know. You seem to have missed the bit where I said he played in poor games and where I said I am not slating him. What I asked was whether he offered anything more than a good boot, because I don't know because I haven't seen him play much. Should I be expecting him to break the gain line or put others through? Does he do this for Saracens? I have no problem with his selection or with his performance in general (no muck ups and good kicking with most other options injured).

Farrell is too small for his speed/not fast enough for his size.

Unless either of these things change then i'm not sure how he slots into a team with full selection options open.

To be fair to him no one has said and i will now ...

he chases kicks very well. He got a hold of and stopped parisse more than once i think following up on kicks.

This is an under rated skill in rugby.

I was always very good at it (and not so good at other aspects!)

What kind of side will Nick Mallett select for England and how will he get us playing?

I can see Farrell being a solid international 10 one day. He will need a couple of good centres and a running threat at 9 alongside him because he is not the type to unlock defences. But his temprament sets him apart: when was the last time we saw a guy thrown the kicking duties on his debut and come through it so nervlessly? In a properly balanced midfield I can see him shining as a clinical, controlling 10.

BUT he's not a 12 and is there as a stop gap. Having a 10 - in Hodgson - who you can't trust with the goal-kicking duties is the real selectorial headache here, and something you can't afford at international rugby. I would like to see Flood back in the driving seat as soon as possible, with Barritt shifting inside and Tuilagi at 13, then Farrell drops to the bench to hopefully see a bit of gametime at 10 and - if needs be - to cover 12 and 13.

I'm in agreeance with beshocked...i see Farrell as a identikit version of Johnny...maybe without the monster hits at the moment.

Thats not a bad thing at all...its jst we havent got a Greenwood at 12 to make up for the lack of creativity....

If Tuilagi is on the bench for the Wales game...i actually would like to see the second half be 10.Farrell, 12.Barritt, 13.Tuilagi,

OK, that kind of answers it then. He is basically a JW style 10 playing at 12. Personally I think that teams are best off with a 10 that can ask questions of the defence himself, but maybe Farrell will develop this aspect of his game.

I just couldn't see what was so great about him with ball in hand. He didn't seem to create much and didn't break the line himself either (but then who did!).

I would say our best centre combination right now though would be Barritt and Tuilagi. Even Roberts would have a hard time running through them, and with probably Flood at 10 (due to Hogson's lack of good place kicking at International level) we then have a varied threat with ball in hand.

Farrell looks like a good bench option in that scenario though, covering 10 and 12.

So far a 5/10 for Farrell. He has made his tackles, he has kicked nicely off the tee but conversely he has offered nothing ball in hand and is not a secondary flyhalf having showed no glimmers of creation.

Lancaster's hands were tied with the injuries to Tuilagi,Trinder but also Joseph at 13.

Realistically there weren't any other options.

Well there were and a range of them at that. I think it's more the case that with a Sarries backs coach and the first choice 13s (Manu and Trinder) unavailable Lancaster and his backs coach opted for the easy option. A midfield that knew each other and has been playing well. Unfortunately they aren't good enough as a unit for the international stage.

Farell could also be a brilliant closer

formerly known as Sam wrote:So far a 5/10 for Farrell. He has made his tackles, he has kicked nicely off the tee but conversely he has offered nothing ball in hand and is not a secondary flyhalf having showed no glimmers of creation.

Lancaster's hands were tied with the injuries to Tuilagi,Trinder but also Joseph at 13.

Realistically there weren't any other options.

Well there were and a range of them at that. I think it's more the case that with a Sarries backs coach and the first choice 13s (Manu and Trinder) unavailable Lancaster and his backs coach opted for the easy option. A midfield that knew each other and has been playing well. Unfortunately they aren't good enough as a unit for the international stage.

I agree with Sam almost entirely on the Farrell point. A 10/10 for composure and some excellent kicking, but overall he needs to offer quite a bit more as a centre. I don't buy the idea that he'll be a great 10 in the style of Jonny either. His pass is not as good as Jonny's was and neither is his tackling anything like it. His kicking from hand is passable, but he's no ROG. He started Union as a 12 and that is seen generally as his best position (having been displaced at Fly Half by George Ford for the U20's - cue Beshocked here for a critique of GF!).

To be fair to the lad he is 20, and his attitude and conduct so far have seemed exemplary. It's not that I don't think he could be international quality, but he's shown little on the skill front so far. If you compare him at FH to Freddie Burns for example there's no contest if you want to play attractive rugby.

Except Burns is flaky and prone to having some real howlers still.

I would take Farrell over him in the England 10 or 12 jersey every day right now.

Burns was a bit flaky a season or two ago, but since he's been starting for Glaws he's not had a full poor game. Perhaps the odd flash that some might consider wayward, but rarely. And frankly, it's pretty rare to find a proper attacking FH that doesn't make the odd mistake in a game!

What he does offer is a great running/passing threat and some superb vision and speed. He's not ready for England yet though I agree, but then neither is Farrell.

I take it you are a Gloucester fan Chjw131???

Don't be ridiculous. Yes I am afraid to admit it, and my undying support for young, exciting English backs will continue. Do you think LI will ever find a FH?!

Probably not. Relevance to this debate?

I would take Farrell over him in the England 10 or 12 jersey every day right now

Dependent on team and tactics, the old horses for courses arguement. With the dull Lancaster/Farrell combo we have at the minute then Burns would be as out of place and as quickly out of form as Youngs. Playing the sort of rugby we tried to play in last years 6N he might have done alright and really stepped up nicely (shame he wasn't ready last year).

Ozzy3213 wrote:Probably not. Relevance to this debate?

It was rhetorical.

How good has Farrell been? Exceptional in my opinion. He has kicked his goals flawlessly and it has been him that has won us the games. Let's be honest, we have not troubled the try line much. Its points that win games not tries.

Chjw131 you say Farrell is not ready for England yet he has had two games there and has looked as much at home there as anyone else in the side.

George Ford needs to prove himself at club level first let alone HC,Saxons or international level.

If George Ford is so bloody amazing why aren't England picking him?


The reality is that Farrell is physically and mentally stronger than many of his rivals. He is unaffected by any challenge thrown at him.

I would rather have a mentally stronger hard worker than a flashy but mentally weak player.

Consistency is better than being erratic.

englandglory4ever

might just have a point...

lets pick farrell at 10, the biggest pack we can, brick wall centre pairing, 3 full backs, kick the leather off it and win 3 points at a time.

Now now Beshocked, no where have I said GF should be playing for England seniors yet. Although he did win MOM in the England U20 v Scotland U20 50+ point thrashing, without so much as scoring a try himself.

Anyway I haven't suggested it so let's not get into that debate again. I think Farrell deserves a lot of credit for his superb mental resilience and very good kicking. The lad has done extremely well.

Given the choice though, and as Triangulation alludes to I think, i'd like him to offer a bit more in terms of game play and creativity from 12. And in terms of other's who've had the shirt, no he hasn't looked out of place but those occupying the England 12 shirt in recent years have been a pretty dire bunch (with the exception of Flutey when he was vaguely in form).

And as an aside if SCW was selecting for England instead of Lancaster George Ford would be in the England side, as he made abundantly clear in the Sunday Times article!

Consistency is better than being erratic

But consistently uninspiring is not a good trait for a play maker. It certainly doesn't look effected by the step up to international level but there is massive flaw in his game that he needs to address if he is to shine at this level. At Sarries he has got away with kicking the leather off the ball and working hard in defence but at international level you just can't a) surrender that level of possession and not concede tries as well as b) expect to win every kicking duel.

We've played Sarries tactics badly (Sarries offer more than England do) against the two weakest teams and scraped wins.

Triangulation wrote:englandglory4ever

might just have a point...

lets pick farrell at 10, the biggest pack we can, brick wall centre pairing, 3 full backs, kick the leather off it and win 3 points at a time.

If thats what it takes to be the best in the world then so be it

It doesn't, but picking Farrell at 10 to come on for Flood off the bench is a good way of giving him the experience in that position, hell, if we are having problems getting the points it migh just well encourage creativity (like Sir Jonny Wilkinsons dummy run and offload to Manu in the RWC warmup Vs Wales).

So far, the best you can say about Farrell is he's kicked whis goals well and otherwise not made any big mistakes. Defence and particluarly defensive positioning has been solid for the system we have played, but I would like to see him offer more as a threat with the ball in hand - as commented earlier, he isn't (yet) quick enough for his size or big and strong enough for his pace (Barritt may be no quicker, but is bigger and stronger) to play at centre, and he hasn't shown much to suggest he'll be a great play-making 10 in the foreseeable future.

I want to see Flood and Tuillagi back in the side next week, and if they play then BArritt can move into 12 and Farrell drop to the bench.

Fair enough chjw131

I agree with you. GF looks good at U20s level.

GF is of course a good player. Just not ready yet.

Farrell is further down the road. Is Farrell the perfect solution to England's 10 and 12 problems yet? No, not yet. He could in the future though.

He's simply a bright young prospect with strengths and limitations.

beshocked wrote:Fair enough chjw131

I agree with you. GF looks good at U20s level.

GF is of course a good player. Just not ready yet.

Farrell is further down the road. Is Farrell the perfect solution to England's 10 and 12 problems yet? No, not yet. He could in the future though.

He's simply a bright young prospect with strengths and limitations.

Now guys....whilst im quite an awesome 13...i passed the u20's some time ago, and im not sure my powerhouse, Caucau esque running would suit the current England tactics....

GF is of course a good player. Just not ready yet.

Looks set to be on the bench again against Sarries. Hopefully he'll come on and get some game time. There's an interesting article in the local wrag where Geordan is commenting on Ford and says that skill wise Ford is good enough, it's merely taking time for him to grow up physically. The article says he's put half a stone on this season and Geordie praises the improvements in his tackling so hopefully we'll see more of him soon. Cockers has now decided he's the second best 10 at the club so that's a helpful start.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Geordan-Murphy-salutes-young-George-Ford/story-15242582-detail/story.html

"He's simply a bright young prospect with strengths and limitations."

What's unusual about Farrell is that his strengths and limitations are the exact opposite from what you usually see in a bright young 10/12 prospect: i.e he's consistent, got a big match temprament and doesn't make mistakes.....it's usually "he does some brilliant things, but still makes too many mistakes" etc....or "he'll win you games, but he'll also lose you games" (Geraghty, Cipriani, Lamb all come to mind).

This is merely an observation, but maybe why people seem confused by this lad.

In my view, it's probably better that way round: will - say - Geraghty (amittedly not at the same stage of his development) ever develop a big match temprament to go with his undoubted skill? Probably not. It's probably more faesible that Farrell will develop some subtlety to his game to offer a more complete package at 10 which will complement the great temprament he clearly already has.

Excellent news for the young lad, and I hope he does well for Tigers with the conditions starting to improve for running rugby.

Geordie, i'm sure we'd all love to see you turn out at 13 for the 606v2 representative side! Now there's an idea...

But Adam and Damage, why do you see him as playing at 10? Why not keep refining him at 12, if you feel he can improve the relative areas of his game?

What we do have at the moment is some bright young prospects at 10 and 13 but perhaps 12 is not quite as well catered for. If Farrell settles there, then with the legendary 36 to accompany him that could give us some strength in depth.

Anyone see Tom Casson playing at 12 for Quins? What's he looked like?

SL and coaches have selected the squad they believed were on form and playing well. I, like many, supported his initial selection almost 100% with the exception of the conundrum which is ickle Lee Mears. (Is someone in the RFU sleeping with his mum).

They are stiil the best England currently has to offer. SL has a big call to make regarding those returning from injury. He has to be certain they are back to their best before selecting any of them. eg, Manu now has a titanium plate in his face after suffering a shattered cheek and eye socket. Is he back to his best mentally?

If they are not then stick with what we have with maybe just Morgan and Dickson getting a chance to start.

I think Farrell has done all that has been asked of him, kept his composure during 2 tight games and kicked his goals when it counts.

However, the issue will be that his current role at 12/13 is a stop gap.
With Tuilagi/ Joesph returning from injury and possibly a call up, who should they replace?

With Hodgson in the team, Farrell is needed to kick the goals, so that would either mean removing Barritt (who I think has been Englands best back so far), or playing Farrell at 10, which I think would be a step too far for him at the moment against a Welsh side on the up.

I wonder if bringing Flood back in with Barritt and Tuilagi would be the best combination, very harsh on Farrell, but surely the midfield will have to change against Wales?

I hope he plays against Wales based on what I have seen in the 6N's.He seems like Jonny Wilkinson Lite.

How Good as Owen Farrel been for England?

A dmasite better than Reyst Preistland as for Wales. thats for sure.

I like a sense of humour.Nice one!

If Farrell starts for England in the centres against Wales I have a feeling Roberts and Davies will relish the opportunity to run at him. So far he has defended well against Scotland and Italy, however the Welsh centres and wings such as North and Cuthbert are a complete different kettle of fish. He may look an accomplished goal kicker at international level. But I feel he would be exploited in defence against better international sides, whilst he hasn't shown any creativity or ball carrying ability at 12.

Therefore I would play Barritt and Tuilagi in the centres against Wales no matter what. Both are tough as nails in defence and strong ball carriers, whilst Tuilagi really contains the X-factor and is a luxury England must use if we are to stand any chance against the Welsh.

Therefore this leaves the choice of who plays 10. Hodgson or Flood - Hodgson has tackled extremely well against both Italy and Scotland and without his charge down tries I doubt we would have won both games. However Hodgson has shown little attacking flair whilst with Barritt and Tuilagi in midfield it means he would have to be the goal kicker and he hasn't even kicked for Saracens this season. Flood may be coming back from injury, however he is an accomplished international goal kicker, a good passer and solid in defence, he was also very consistent for England in their six nations championship win last season.

Therefore I am edging towards a backline of 10.Flood 12.Barritt 13.Tuilagi, harsh on Hodgson and Farrell, however this is a huge match and a decision which may be the making or undoing of Stuart Lancaster as an international coach.

This would be my team against Wales...

1. Corbisiero
2. Hartley
3. Cole
4. Botha
5. Palmer
6. Croft
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan
9. Dickson
10. Flood
11. Strettle
12. Barritt
13. Tuilagi
14. Ashton
15. Foden

Robshaw

I understand your train of thought but I just think your being a little negative.

Barritt and Tuilagi will be very solid defensively, given that the Welsh backline are not scoring tries from trick plays or intricate passing (well not too much anyway) but from brute force! The damage is done before the try is scored, the bludgen of Cuthbert and Roberts mixed with the guile of Preistland and Davies, not to mention the pure power and class of North. But do you really want to play a game based on what Wales will throw at you, or what you will throw at Wales? Ipersonally don't think Barritt or Farrell are up to international rugby quite yet, but I would definately play both V Wales, they are good but together they are very good, they are a unit and the Hodgson kicking game on 1/2p may unlock some success!

I think Tuilagi will be too much of a risk defensively, but all this said I think it's the back row where England have to really step it up, Robshaw, Dowsan and Croft are looking vulnerable at the minute, the tight 5 really have to dominate the set peice if the back row aren't going to have a very hard day at the office!

I agree with Robshaw that Flood Barritt Tuilagi would be England's best midfield option against us. But I can't see Lancaster going for it. I just don't think he'll drop farrell. He may drop barritt for tuilagi but think tuilagi on the wing for strettle may be more likely.

Now that would be a mistake, don't you think Cadair?

thebluesmancometh wrote:Now that would be a mistake, don't you think Cadair?

Yes - they need barritt's very strong defence and tuilagi is easily their best 13. Though North running at Strettle could be messy to be fair.

Maybe but you so rarely get 1 on 1's in the modern game, I think Davies doesn't get the credit he deserves sometimes, he can do some damage if Tuilagi is mentally is off the pace by even 2%!

O wouldn't want to be an English back 3 player, well if the Welsh team get a platform from the set peice!!

Mmmm alot of critisism here for a young lad starting his first England games and basically winning them for us.....sure he hasn't set the world alight but he's done nothing wrong and been 100 times better than antony allen, shane gegarhty and matthew tait...if chargedown charlie had been kicking i doubt we would be 2 from 2.

Now that said we have had very little go forward ball which i blame alot on dowson and youngs...how is farrell meant to do anything more than he has when the forwards struggle to get over the gain line and Youngs either kicks, looks at the ball for 30 secs or crabs sideways before passing it !! Now we saw a glimpse of what the england back line could do when morgan and dickson came on...very quick ball off the base, and breaking the gain line giving the backline a chance to create something without a full defense lined up ! you can't blame faz yet when he's just had rubbish shipped on, on the back foot....you also cant drop him, he's young hes done well if we drop him we'll shatter his confidence and halt another promising young england career

sirtidychris wrote:Mmmm alot of critisism here for a young lad starting his first England games and basically winning them for us.....sure he hasn't set the world alight but he's done nothing wrong and been 100 times better than antony allen, shane gegarhty and matthew tait...if chargedown charlie had been kicking i doubt we would be 2 from 2.

Now that said we have had very little go forward ball which i blame alot on dowson and youngs...how is farrell meant to do anything more than he has when the forwards struggle to get over the gain line and Youngs either kicks, looks at the ball for 30 secs or crabs sideways before passing it !! Now we saw a glimpse of what the england back line could do when morgan and dickson came on...very quick ball off the base, and breaking the gain line giving the backline a chance to create something without a full defense lined up ! you can't blame faz yet when he's just had rubbish shipped on, on the back foot....you also cant drop him, he's young hes done well if we drop him we'll shatter his confidence and halt another promising young england career

I think that a perfectly valid long term view I just think personally that you'd be better off with barritt and tuilagi in the centre for this particular game, with flood at 10. I can definitely see Farrell being a long term fixture in the team - unlike Barritt who I suspect will get a few caps until a centre with a better all round game comes along.

sirtidy,would Farrell be more damaged by "tweaking a calf in training" or having a Matthew Tait moment or two?If Lancaster has any sense he will go with Flood,Barritt and Tuilagi.

He hasnt been good at all.

It shows the state of English rugby when we get all excited about a player because he can kick goals. Farrell should be nowhere near an International jersey, especially at centre.

I struggle to recall a 10/12 combo with such little line threat ever turning out for England (somebody help me here?!?!) opposition defences must have the week off prior to playing us.