Owen Farrell - I must be in a minority

Personally I felt it was an OK performance by Farrell, but people on here and in the press are raving about his performance.

For me England were let down by Farrell's first instict to kick the ball. On several occassions the forwards (usually the front row) had secured turnover and with men over Farrell kicked the ball instead of putting it through the hands. When he could be bothered to pass, Tuilagi looked a constant threat. Farrell also failed to actually complete a tackle, at times he was an effective roadblack, but he never actually downed his man.

As I said I must however be in a minority.

tiger, one thing I noticed was the fact that england had a specific plan.

When in their 22 they had the scrumhalf (can't remember his name now) take forver to get his forwards organised to safemark the area from where he would kick the ball, there were some kicks from both teams going up and deep, but Farrel did get his back line moving nicely and defensively there wasn't much wrong either.

I tend to agree LT, said something similar last night.

The media are getting excited because here's a no.10 who seems to be a handy shot at goal. Cue JW comparisons and lack of perspective on whether what we really want is another JW style 10.

I though some of OF's work was good, in that his kicking game eventually slowed the Welsh rush defense. But the point of doing that is to make them hesitant and put doubt in the minds across the defensive line to enable the running attack to be more effective. If you're going to kick it every single time, then it's as bad as running it every single time.

Some of his kicking was really good, but constantly kicking away turnover ball is not a good idea.

While kicking off England possession was clearly the gameplan - allied to the Manu/Barritt bosh - turnover ball tends to require people to react by instinct. Farrell made it clear that his instinct is to kick - irrespective of the overlap.

For a 20 year old, who has spent the whole season playing 12 for his club, that was an excellent performance. Yes he kicked a lot, but he also got the backline moving with a variety of long and short passing, and you could hardly call him a defensive liability.

With Burns playing the best game I've seen him play last night I'd be happy to see Flood drop out of the matchday squad.

I think we need to remember his age, and that this was his first ever test at 10.
He has, got huge potential and he did play well.
His decision making will develop and let's not forget that he plays the Sarries gameplan week in week out too.

He's certainly not the finished product, but there's something there to work with. He's the best option England have at 10 in my opinion (including Flood).

I think you are in a minority. I thought it was an exceptional performance from a guy just getting his 3rd cap, at age 20. Not the best of the best, but he can get better.

I remember he chipped the ball over our defence, regathered then got smashed by North. He did well to recycle the ball and do a job of not looking hurt. He did the exact same thing again when he got his hands back on the ball about 20 seconds later but he didn't need to as Halfpenny was right under it. Farrell should have passed.

Morgannwg wrote:I think you are in a minority. I thought it was an exceptional performance from a guy just getting his 3rd cap, at age 20. Not the best of the best, but he can get better.

But was it worthy of the Sunday times giving him man of the match?

I remember he chipped the ball over our defence, regathered then got smashed by North. He did well to recycle the ball and do a job of not looking hurt. He did the exact same thing again when he got his hands back on the ball about 20 seconds later but he didn't need to as Halfpenny was right under it. Farrell should have passed.

Exactly - his first instinct was to kick.

Farrell is very inexperienced at 10, not playing there this year for club, and not having represented England at 10 at U18s or U20s level. I felt this showed in his performance - but hey why not learn the position at the highest level?

No, BTW, that was the sunday times. Warburton was official MOTM, although that probaly should have gone to Halfpenny. Stick with this backline for a while and allow him to learn with Englands best. I think the only change you need to make is on the wing (dropping Ashton).

I think he outplayed his opposite number and if England had managed to win he would probably have got MoM. Whilst his first instinct is to kick it seems he did pass 23 times compared to kicking only 8 times. The issue with England attack is in the midfield where there is no creativity or distribution which is making proven strike runners like Ashton and Foden look poor. Admittedly Ashton looks like he wants to be somewhere else at the moment but not getting the offloads or pass in space must be really frustrating him. England are naive in attack but I dont think thats Farrells fault completly.

LondonTiger wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:I think you are in a minority. I thought it was an exceptional performance from a guy just getting his 3rd cap, at age 20. Not the best of the best, but he can get better.

But was it worthy of the Sunday times giving him man of the match?

I remember he chipped the ball over our defence, regathered then got smashed by North. He did well to recycle the ball and do a job of not looking hurt. He did the exact same thing again when he got his hands back on the ball about 20 seconds later but he didn't need to as Halfpenny was right under it. Farrell should have passed.

Exactly - his first instinct was to kick.

Farrell is very inexperienced at 10, not playing there this year for club, and not having represented England at 10 at U18s or U20s level. I felt this showed in his performance - but hey why not learn the position at the highest level?

Don't forget that Daniel Carter was a 12, so inexperienced he sat in the stands in the RWC 2003 as NZ were knocked out by Australia. He was then thrust into the starting 10 role against the Lions, facing a man one hemisphere called the greatest 10 of all time.

Prietland himself was a late call up replacement for Wales, who came on and played a blinder.

The ability to play with composure and assurance at the top level isn't necessarily something you can train into someone, some are born with the extra awareness and temperament to play this position at this level. Farrell has proven that he too can join that list of greats. That is enough of a positive for us to live with this narrow defeat. I just wish it had been less controversial, I fear the multiple pro-Welsh refereeing gaffs are taking away from Wales' achievement and clouding the English positives too.

As a one eyed Taff it almost pains me to say that I thought young Farrell was England's best player, and one of the best players on the field. A couple more players with his enthusiasm and willingness to go forward and the result might have been different.

Farrell was more exciting than your average English 10 so it was a breath of fresh air.

I think that for a young man playing 10 on his debut at twicker. Farrell did very well. I also thought that he was very solid in defence and his distribution was good.

He had his own idea, some good some not so but at least he was chancing his arm. I have to admire that in a 10.

LondonTiger wrote:Farrell is very inexperienced at 10, not playing there this year for club, and not having represented England at 10 at U18s or U20s level.

Incorrect on both counts.

LondonTiger wrote:But was it worthy of the Sunday times giving him man of the match?

Why would you pay any attention to what Stephen Jones has to say about rugby?



Farrell wouldn't be my first choice 10 for the long term future, but I would certainly want him in the EPS. For his first game at FH he did exceptionally well and gave the best performance by any 10 that took the Twickenham pitch yesterday. Lancaster's decision to start him over Flood was correct, and short of Flood having a staggeringly exceptional game for Tigers next week, Farrell should start against France in a fortnight.

Tigers fan criticises Farrell what a surprise. Sorry LondonTiger I think it's just your bias talking. You wanted to see Flood on the pitch.

Can't blame you though. I am biased myself as you know.

Also you are not in the minority. Some other armchair pundits think Burns and Ford should be starting for England at 10 instead.

Seriously what should have Farrell done to win your approval? He made very few errors, kicked well - both place kicking and territory. Mixed up his play. His chip in particular was excellent. He was calm and assured.

He's never going to be flashy but then again he doesn't make many errors either. Farrell is compared to JW because he has similar strengths.

Also Farrell is hyped up because he has actually achieved a lot for only a 20 year old. He outplayed Flood in the AP final to win his team the English championship for the first ever time. He plays for one of the best clubs in England, the only one left in the HC.

He has 3 caps for his country - 2 at 12 and 1 at 10 and has not looked out of place at international level.

Also putting it into perspective he completely outplayed his opposite number Priestland.

I personally think you and others hate Farrell because he isn't flashy.

I thought he was quality.

He needs to start the next game at 10 for Eng, as stated his temprament is amazing. Surprisingly good attacking game too.

Will he play at 10 more often now for Saracens?

Instinct or instruction?

At least Farrell does the basics of his game well and hasnt lost his head. He looked a bit out of his depth ion the scotland game but has grown since then, and fair play to him he didnt wilt against Wales when thrown in at the deep end. his goal kicking has been more than adequate.

But if England are actually going to be a decent side they need all the half backs to start thinking about offering a running threat as well as passing and kicking.

beshocked wrote:Tigers fan criticises Farrell what a surprise. Sorry LondonTiger I think it's just your bias talking. You wanted to see Flood on the pitch.

Nope, I wanted to see England win - kicking away turnover ball when you have a 4 on 2 is not a good way to achieve that.

Some other armchair pundits think Burns and Ford should be starting for England at 10 instead..

God no. Ford will probably be first choice at leicester by the end of next season (when he will still be eligible for the U20s). at that point we will see.

Seriously what should have Farrell done to win your approval? He made very few errors, kicked well - both place kicking and territory. Mixed up his play. His chip in particular was excellent. He was calm and assured..

For someone who was making his first start at 10, he played well. Not brilliant, but a decent show. I just do not buy into all the hype that he is the "Messiah".

He's never going to be flashy but then again he doesn't make many errors either. Farrell is compared to JW because he has similar strengths..

A reasonable comparison. However I have never been JWs biggest fan. Sadly, perhaps due to the injuries, he never developed and did not have that instinctive feel of teh game you would like.

I personally think you and others hate Farrell because he isn't flashy.

Nope. Firstly the only person in the world that I hate is Margaret thatcher. Secondly i am a gnarly old back row forward. I like my 10s to be reliable first and foremost. But if we have worked our butts off to win the ball - please do not kick it away.


Farrell was good but not great. That is just my opinion as an ex player and avid watcher, and my club affinity has no bearing on this. There are too many tigers players in te squad on past glories as it is.

LondonTiger wrote:

beshocked wrote:Tigers fan criticises Farrell what a surprise. Sorry LondonTiger I think it's just your bias talking. You wanted to see Flood on the pitch.

Nope, I wanted to see England win - kicking away turnover ball when you have a 4 on 2 is not a good way to achieve that.

Some other armchair pundits think Burns and Ford should be starting for England at 10 instead..

God no. Ford will probably be first choice at leicester by the end of next season (when he will still be eligible for the U20s). at that point we will see.

Seriously what should have Farrell done to win your approval? He made very few errors, kicked well - both place kicking and territory. Mixed up his play. His chip in particular was excellent. He was calm and assured..

For someone who was making his first start at 10, he played well. Not brilliant, but a decent show. I just do not buy into all the hype that he is the "Messiah".

He's never going to be flashy but then again he doesn't make many errors either. Farrell is compared to JW because he has similar strengths..

A reasonable comparison. However I have never been JWs biggest fan. Sadly, perhaps due to the injuries, he never developed and did not have that instinctive feel of teh game you would like.

I personally think you and others hate Farrell because he isn't flashy.

Nope. Firstly the only person in the world that I hate is Margaret thatcher. Secondly i am a gnarly old back row forward. I like my 10s to be reliable first and foremost. But if we have worked our butts off to win the ball - please do not kick it away.


Farrell was good but not great. That is just my opinion as an ex player and avid watcher, and my club affinity has no bearing on this. There are too many tigers players in te squad on past glories as it is.

It's easy for us the armchair pundits to criticise players when they miss the overlap. It's a lot harder for them.

You think the mighty Ford will supplant the legendary Flood?

Who has said Farrell is the next Messiah? I just think he's a young player who showed he can cut it at international level. He has ice in his veins.

I thought Farrell was very good. Was he perfect? No but it was an excellent debut at no 10 against a good side like Wales. Could he have done more? Probably but he comprehensively outplayed his opposite number and put in a good shift.

Would I start him vs France? Yes.

I just think some people have very high expectations.

What's wrong with Margaret Thatcher?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
But if England are actually going to be a decent side they need all the half backs to start thinking about offering a running threat as well as passing and kicking.

Farrell showed he has a running game. Not on a par with Burns, but enough to keep the opposition honest.

DaveM wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
But if England are actually going to be a decent side they need all the half backs to start thinking about offering a running threat as well as passing and kicking.

Farrell showed he has a running game. Not on a par with Burns, but enough to keep the opposition honest

3 runs for 10 metres from 34 possessions in this game, 2 from 13 ran for 2 metres in the previous and is not a running game. 3 for 7 yards against Scotland.

Thats an average of about 2 meters a carry and less than 3 carries a game. Hodgson was running more and more effectively, but the simple fact is that none of Englands fullbacks have been running the ball. Dickson made one good break from a quick penalty in the Wales game, thats about the only significant gain weve seen form a scrum half so far. Compared to Youngs Flood when they were functional is a almost non existant threat, and a problem.
If the one botched try scoring chance is enough to show he has a running game then he needs to start using it more.

He made mistakes He did a lot of good things too.

Everyone makes makes mistakes just you hope they learn and dont remake them

He never seemed phased at all despite taking an absolute beauty of a tackle. Priestland got smashed too and it took him most of the game to get himself back together.

He could turn into something special and if he doesnt then at least he will force the next guy to raise their game big time. I think a fit and on form Flood would still be my first choice but Farrell was good - much much better than many on here would ever had expected.

I thought Farrell looked good. His first international start at 10? a decent display

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/sixnations/9107086/Owen-Farrell-wins-Andy-Irvines-vote-for-a-place-on-next-years-Lions-tour-of-Australia.html

The manager of the next Lions Tour doesn't agree.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
3 runs for 10 metres from 34 possessions in this game, 2 from 13 ran for 2 metres in the previous and is not a running game. 3 for 7 yards against Scotland.

Thats an average of about 2 meters a carry and less than 3 carries a game. Hodgson was running more and more effectively, but the simple fact is that none of Englands fullbacks have been running the ball. Dickson made one good break from a quick penalty in the Wales game, thats about the only significant gain weve seen form a scrum half so far. Compared to Youngs Flood when they were functional is a almost non existant threat, and a problem.
If the one botched try scoring chance is enough to show he has a running game then he needs to start using it more.

Peter when you look at a running game you don't just look at the meters carried by the flyhalf, a very good indicator is to look at his midfield and see how often they got the ball, and what they did with it.

Against Wales the midfield of england (with Farrel) gained 70 odd meters with 22 runs

Against Italy Hodgson's midfield only gained 38 meters in 12 runs.

Against Scotland Hodgson's midfield gained 7 meters from 4 runs.

From this it is clear that Farrel was more effective in getting hs backline away.

Builtong, thats his passing game, and Barrits running game ( even more so Tuilagi).
In the Wales game England did create more opportunities for the centers, and they had two running centers in their correct positions. Prior to that you had Farrell who simply wasnt running or running effectively when he did. In this game he was at 10, and ran less and less effectively than even Hodgson ( who isnt exactly famed as a ball carrier).
So yes he did well in one aspect, buit none of Englands half backs have been running with the ball. Hence why I say Farrell hasnt been using his running game...since he has hardly carried the ball whether at center of fly half.
It makes life a lot harder for the defence when they have to watch for the 9/10 making breaks. Flood at Youngs USED to be very effective at this. Under Lancaster England very rarely try, its an aspect of their game thats missing.
Id be surprised if any team in the 6 nations had less carries from their half backs. Whether thas England not creating oportunties, the individuals being incapable, or the coach telling them not top is another question.

If he can add that threat to his game he will be a fine all round 10.

Beshocked. I never accused yopu of hailing Farrell as the messiah. Sunday Times, BBC, Sunday Telegraph, Sky Sports all did.

I understand what you are saying, but I did see farrel attempt a few runs, there was one specific run he made inside the french half during the first half where he almost got through the two tacklers. France' defence on him was very well organised.

I think when a 10 is getting his back line away it suggests that he has vision and ability to execute. sure you may want him to make more runs, but I don't see Hodgson doing that.

Give him a few more matches and he very well might improve that aspect.

Defensively he was good, tactically he was decent, he distributed well, and his goal kicking was good.

Reading some of the stuff thats been written in the press today youd think it was Cipriani in 2008. I can see why the Celts start to get a bit annoyed about the hype every time a young english player ( doubly so fly half) has a good game.

England and Farrell were improved, and encouraging, but not anything amazing. Wales and Preistland put in better performances in the last year. Yes its a positive step forward and yes Farrell has proven some of the worries to be unfounded but lets not mytholigise this game as the reinvention of England as a world class attacking force.

From this it is clear that Farrel was more effective in getting hs backline away..

He had one hell of a backline to get away. He did well and far better than the stuttering rubbish his passing game resembled last summer with the under 20s. He is developing nicely. His passing game is still a tad one dimensional he only looks to the outside and never used an inside runner. That made is very easy for the Welsh defence to drift but in the centres he did have England's best pairing for a very long time.

He reminded me very much of Wilkinson, both stand deep and like to look down the field rather than at the opposition defence. They both heavilly use the centres as a source of creation and both play the percentages. It's no bad thing but it is also a telling reason why we didn't get over the try line. When Flood came on England lost the deep tactical aspect of play that Farrell was using to limit the Welsh territory but what they gained was a lot more attacking impetus. Flood showed more threat to the Welsh try line in his cameo then Farrell did all game and that's because he played flat and varied his play. Farrell will hopefully learn that. In the mean time the competition for the 10 shirt is on.

but I did see farrel attempt a few runs, there was one specific run he made inside the french half during the first half where he almost got through the two tacklers. France' defence on him was very well organised.

France? Farrell's games as a centre were pretty much a flop he offered little other than a boot. How much of that was due to some rather terrible tactics I don't know. The change in the tactics came and England were unlucky at the weekend a competent ref and we could have won that.

sorry man, Wales.

He had a decent game, nothing more nothing less - People now need to wait and see - Cipriani had a far better billing than Farrell and we know what happened there - Farrell looks solid enough and a reliable player that's a decent basis to go from -

It's great to see that you English can have a reasonable debate on the strengths of your number 10, just like us Irish

For a first cap at 10, I thought Farrell did very well. Overall England are an improving side and I'm looking forward to St. Patrick's day already.

I said all week that from my point of view I was glad that Flood wasn't starting, well I take my hat off to Farrell for a 20yr old in only his 3rd game at that level at 1st start at No10 I thought he had a top notch game.

I questioned whether the added pressure of being play maker and kicking goals would affect him, well it didn't seem to.

For me thats the most attck minded I have seen England play for a very long time soI think they heading in right direction and Tuliagi will cause any team problems, question will be now is it Lancaster doesn't get the job ( Iwould give him the summer tour as well) will the knew man want to change things and put his 'stamp' on it.

I don't think the English press have done anything surprising. The "we woz robbed" stuff was predicable, much like most nations press.

Farrell played well but is a long way from a complete 10. Yes this was the best England have played for a while but IMO there are more pressing concerns that fly half. The strike runners aren't striking, the back row isn't balanced, the loose head got stuffed, and quick ball is non existent.

The encouraging this is that both England and Wales have young developing teams that could go on to be great teams.

The loosehead (Alex Corbisiero) got beaten in the scrums by arguably the best tighthead in world rugby. He was second best but hardly got stuffed, but even if he had it is hardly a disaster. He is young in prop terms and is improving. He also got though a lot of work in the loose.

Overall there were more positives than negatives for England on Saturday, with Farrell being one of the major positives.

There are issues. Second and back row balance is wrong, and our back three did not provide enough threat. It is easy to suggest wholesale changes in those positions, but it would be the wrong thing to do. Evolution not revolution from here is the correct path forward.

The only chanes that I would consider making for the France game is Lawes in for Botha, and Sharples in for Ashton.

Farrell must be given a run in the 10 shirt now, as he has looked very at home in the international arena.

Ozzy I think Corbs struggled because Hartley kept standing up and buckling at the scrums. Made it very difficult for Corbs to stay bound in.

Lawes looked a bit rusty and that was Botha's best game for England I'd actually leave the pack alone. Robshaw wasn't at his best and Morgan faded but that was expected. What wasn't expected was another shocker from Ashton and Foden. I'd be tempted to drop the pair of them and bring in Brown and Sharples with Foden on the bench.

Ashton has lost form. He should make way for Sharples.

As for OF. The kid played a blinder for his first top level game at 10. He will get better. Flood looked useless in comparison.

Maybe we said that about Youngs who also looked very poor when he came on. SL made an excellent choice with Dickson and Morgan. We could have been smashed with Youngs, Flood and Dowson starting.

No too unhappy. We very nearly sneaked it. I thought England finished the 80 mins very well and looked on top. Good omens for the future.

Flood looked useless in comparison.

In what way? The cross field and long miss pass to Strettle were our best chances of scoring other than the Corbs vs Priestland incident. They were both created by Flood. England had the luxuary of the two best 10s on the day one played well tactically and one played well in attack both showed obvious flaws. Agree about Youngs, he should be released back to Tigers to refind his form and confidence as he's just not on the same wave length as the players around him and his enthusiasm isn't there.

There was a bit too much said before and after the game about him. He's being talked about as the saviour of English rugby.

On Saturday he played well for a first start at 10 and for a 20 year old. He seemed to act as the captain and controlled 'his' team very well. Kicking was good in the most but he made a few mistakes as he seemed to think it was down to him to force something.

For a first game he played excellently but as an international 10 he did pretty well. With enough time there for club and country he could turn out to be a very good international 10.

Looking towards the Lions next year, Sexton seems to be the only option with consistancy and experience. I'm assuming ROG and Jones are out of the running. The other options being Farrel, Hook, Priestland, Flood, Jackson and Laidlaw none of which can claim consistant experience at international level so it'll be a race for at least 6 players to prove themselves. After Saturday, i think Farrell has the talent and mindset to make the year count and get on the plane and possibly push for the test shirt, I just hope club and country do the right thing.

LondonTiger wrote:Beshocked. I never accused yopu of hailing Farrell as the messiah. Sunday Times, BBC, Sunday Telegraph, Sky Sports all did.

Yes it's typical media hype. Just ignore it. The media just love having darlings that they can build up them knock down mercilessly. Perfect examples are Youngs,Cipriani,Ashton etc.

If Farrell has a rough patch which at some point he is likely to the media will be over him like a rash ready to rip him to pieces.

Farrell fits the perfect mould for the media because they can compare him to JW (similar strengths), he's in the pivotal position of fly half and he's a high profile youngster who has made waves in the rugby world in the last year or so.

There is no doubting that Farrell is far from the finished article but it's great to have a proper contender appear for the No 10 fly half spot to challenge Flood.

You can't deny that it is fairly impressive on his debut that he comprehensively outplayed Priestland who was before this match the cast iron no 10 of Wales.

Now Priestland is getting ripped to pieces by the Welsh even though in general he's been decent for Wales. Just tells you how fickle everyone is. Priestland is in my opinion still an excellent player who simply had an off day. I believe England's plan was to fluster him and it worked.

If Farrell had a bad game I wouldn't have wanted to see the amount of criticism Farrell and SL would have got! SL showed that his selection of Farrell of FH wasn't a bad call at all!

Owen wasnt mesmeric thats for sure.

But i think it was a mature performance by a young lad. He managed the game well...territory, defensively etc.

Yes he has to improve his offensive game...but that will come.

All in all..encouraging.

Some context... No ones really mentioned Scott Williams. If it was Sella or BoD who'd scored that try the whole world would be raving about it.

Instead the discussions are about a no try and Johnny's heir - who's ok.

Now Priestland is getting ripped to pieces by the Welsh even though in general he's been decent for Wales. Just tells you how fickle everyone is. Priestland is in my opinion still an excellent player who simply had an off day. I believe England's plan was to fluster him and it worked.

England just shut down his midfield. Barritt in particular was excellent in scything down Roberts and poor Jon Davies was anonymous up against Manu. If Priestland didn't have the option to go wide to the wing then he didn't have a backline option. If he tried to go himself Farrell Jnr was more than happy to put him down.

If Farrell had a bad game I wouldn't have wanted to see the amount of criticism Farrell and SL would have got! SL showed that his selection of Farrell of FH wasn't a bad call at all!

The young lad did alright. I agree completely with what you say about the media they are fickle and like easy headlines. I'm not sure about the balance of Flood/Farrell. England benefitted from having both and both of them showing up Priestland's bad day at the office was nice. I would have rather seen Flood play the first 50 mins and use his attacking skills to get England over the white wash and then for the last 30 mins use Farrell to control the game and keep the score board ticking over. 60mins of control was okay but a lucky Welsh try and then all of a sudden we were giving Flood less than 20 mins to chase the game.

slartibartfast if you want to hype up Scott Williams then write an article on how great you think he is.

Unsurprisingly this thread is about Owen Farrell!

Also Scott Williams butchered an overlap.

I think I get part of what LT is getting at; the hype aspect to things. I watched the game and thought he did pretty well, certainly not flawless but he was better than Preistland, but that wasn't all to difficult. He is young and will learn and clearly followed the coaches' directives about what the game plan was in certain areas of the field.

However, he did not make me think i was watching a future great of the game or the Lions 10 next summer. Not by a long shot.

To get back to the hype thing, there is a certain eel the the media (AGAIN) are building up a young ten ala Cipriani, to be JW's replacement.

Newsflash for the Media, the game has passed JW by. Otherwise he'd still be playing, you know, given he has had 2 years of basically not being injured after 5 or 6 of almost being constantly injured. I dont think Farrell is that tpe of player btw, I think he can be a better runner and distributor, but he ain't ever going to be a Dan Carter or his ilk.

Thats kind of disrepectful to Flood as well, who already was Wilkos replacement. Hodgson was Floods replacement, Farrell is Hodgsons. Hes yet to provide the same try scoring threat

beshocked wrote:slartibartfast if you want to hype up Scott Williams then write an article on how great you think he is.

Unsurprisingly this thread is about Owen Farrell!

Also Scott Williams butchered an overlap.

I'm not hyping up scot Williams - although he did have a bigger baring on the result than Farrell. My point is that I'm agreeing with the OP and trying to put it in perspective.

Do any of us really take much notice of the media anymore? I don't whether it's praise or damnation. The truth, I think, is that this is a young man with enormous potential, a natural temperament for the big stage and a support setup to be envied. He stepped up to the mark on Saturday and did more than enough to justify his selection. In team lacking maturity and experience he turned in a pretty solid performance and deserves a bit of praise but not adulation. JW entered the scene at a significantly younger age but into a side with outstanding players around him who guided and shielded him in equal measure as he found his feet. Farrell doesn't have that luxury but he is that bit older and has a pedigree in his Dad that I am sure is a great asset. Andy changed codes a couple of years too late in my opinion otherwise he might have had a similar impact that Jason Robinson had. However, he has had the chance to help steer this talent and I can see the results. I hope we persevere with him at 10 and that it results in a similar situation to Ireland in the transition years when Humphreys and OGara played foil to each other to the good of the team, alternating starts and appearances from the bench. The future for Farrell is not yet written, he's got a long way to go but it looks pretty good to me at the moment.