Freddie Burns is better than Owen Farrell....discuss

I am certain the Gloucester fly half is the better player of the two, an absolute rugby natrural who has the all round game and tempremant to deliver at the top table.

England really do have a treasure trove of young nine's and ten's, remember that Ford was selected at 10 with Farrell at 12 in last years U20 World Cup. The previous year it was Burns and and to a lesser degree Clegg who took the U20 10 shirt.

A lot will depend on who will be coaching England and their selection policy, but hopefully whoever it will be will follow the mantra that form alone drives selection.

Kingelderfield's England backline selecection;

Simpson, Burns, Ojo, Twelvetrees, Tuilagi, Sharples, May

ford is better then both his vision and footwork is unbelievable

Burns is smaller and weak defensively. That is where Farrell gets the edge. Burns has a superior kicking game and more flair in attack. But Farrell is more consistent and that suits the international game more.

Burns has serious pace, genuine vision and the ability to distribute to what he see's.

He does tackle well but there is much more to his game.

I agree that Farrell is more suited to international rugby, even though I personally think Burns is better and would be my second choice behind Flood. Having said that, I'd rather his season wasn't disrupted by England call ups.

I prefer to watch Burns and he is certainly the more attacking FH. His defence, place kicking and temperament definitely isn't as good as Farrell though.

I think Ford will trump both of them however, he's got the best reading of the game, is just as adept at attacking rugby as tactical, kicks & defends well (particularly for his size).

A few years down the line I'd start Ford and horses for courses have either Burns or Farrell on the bench depending on whether I anticipated needing a game changer or a ship steadier.

Kingelderfield I am so glad you aren't picking the England side. That backline would be carved to pieces. It shows you favour so called style over substance.

Both Burns and Ford have potential but to say they are better than Farrell currently is just silly. Farrell started against Wales and played well. Neither Burns or Ford have actually done that much to warrant so much hype. Especially Ford who had been 3rd choice fly half at his club till recently.

If Ford and Burns are so incredible why are they not in the England squad?

Ford and Twelvetrees are quite possibly the most overrated players in rugby. Both could develop into great players but till they actually do anything of worth please pipe down.

Would you have thrown either Burns or Ford in at fly half vs Wales? Was Lancaster a fool for not starting either Burns or Ford?

Substance is more important to me than style.

beshocked save your pipe down nonsense for the pub its an opinion not a personal attack.

Burns is just as ready for England now as Farrell and yes infact i would have gone with either Farrell or Burns (one to start the other on the bench) from the begining of the 6N.

The game is about vision and imagination with the ability to execute under pressure. This is true for both players and coaches and though I think Malinder will regret his decision to turn down the opportunity that may not come again, I am begining to think Lancaster may understand the requirement to develop and select a squad when there is strong competition for places. Form is king and nobody has the shirt by anyother reason from one game to the next.

beshocked wrote: If Ford and Burns are so incredible why are they not in the England squad?

Because Mike Ford isn't an England coach any more? Just a thought.

Farrell deserves his place at the moment. We'll see if anyone else improves enough to take his (or Flood's) spot

kingelderfield wrote:Kingelderfield's England backline selecection;

Simpson, Burns, Ojo, Twelvetrees, Tuilagi, Sharples, May

I have to agree with Beshocked regarding this selection, it would get carved to shreds in the international game and I don't think you have considered that the team would have to defend as well as attack.

Simpson can't defend and his passing isn't anywhere near international standard - he struggles to be first choice for his club who are really struggling at the moment. I'm not sure he will ever be good enough for the international game and I think the current coaching set up feels the same otherwise they would use him to replace the woefully out of form Youngs.

Burns is great with ball in hand and put in an excellent display yesterday but needs to work on his defense and although he has great potential I don't think he is ready yet. I would take him to South Africa in the summer for experience and would replace him in the EPS for Hodgson after the 6N.

Ojo has been unlucky with injuries when in form but I'm not convinced he will be anything other than a good club player.

Twelvetrees is another with potential but isn't even first choice for his club and needs to add consistency to his game. For a guy his size doesn't run crash ball as well as I think he should and needs to work on this area of his game.

Tuilagi is class and should be part of the England back line for the next 10 years if he continues his current progress.

Sharples deserves his chance and I would be tempted to bring him in for Strettle and swap him to the left wing with Ashton moving back across to the right. Strettle seems caught in 2 minds every time he gets the ball. Although a Saints fan I can't understand why, if Dowson was picked at 30/31 years old to come into the team then Simpson-Daniel at 30 wasn't considered. Every time I've seen JSD this year he has been a class apart, much better than Sharples and looks totally at home on the left wing. His passing off either hand is class, his reading of the game is second to none and this shows in his brilliant positional play. I know he's 30 years old and unlikely to make 2015 but then neither is Dowson.

I like the look of May with ball in hand but he's yet to be really tested defensively. I would be tempted to have him on the bench as the back 3 replacement as I feel Brown isn't versatile enough for that role. Another important fact is that until he got injured Morgan was the first choice 15 for the Cherries.

The thing with Farrell is he has shown he has brilliant composure at the highest level, something that can't be taught and players either have it or some gain it with experience and for him to have it at such a young age is special. Yesterday I thought he kicked the ball a bit too much early on but that probably came from the game plan he was told to play. My guess is that if he didn't work it out for himself that England looked threatening with ball in hand then one of the other players encouraged him to start carrying and passing more. I think he did enough to start at 10 next game and hope he goes on to be an option there in the future. At least yesterday proved that England have another long term option at 10 other than Flood, something most of thought not possible before the tournament started.

beshocked wrote:
If Ford and Burns are so incredible why are they not in the England squad?

Well Ford is only in his first season of Premiership rugby and not a guaranteed starter for his club yet. Burns still doesn't quite have the consistency and we have a decent depth with Farrell and Flood. I think a lot of this discussion is based upon potential, both the mentioned players are good at their level and it is not impossible to see them challenging Farrell/ Flood in the future.

Personally I think Farrell is very good worth for his starting place at the moment and looking long term. The person that I think should be worried in the long term is the aforementioned Tobias Gerald Albert Lieven Flood. Flood is a good player and should be there or thereabouts but I think he is going to have competition from Owen Farrell, George Ford, Freddie Burns, Tom Heathcote and Danny Cipriani in the next 2-3 years. It's strange, we've gone from only having a couple of potential options to having potentially having four, possibly five.

B91212 wrote:
Although a Saints fan I can't understand why, if Dowson was picked at 30/31 years old to come into the team then Simpson-Daniel at 30 wasn't considered. Every time I've seen JSD this year he has been a class apart, much better than Sharples and looks totally at home on the left wing. His passing off either hand is class, his reading of the game is second to none and this shows in his brilliant positional play. I know he's 30 years old and unlikely to make 2015 but then neither is Dowson.

I didn't realise Dowson was 30+ and that's a very good point. Simpson-Daniel is the best winger in England, his rugby brain is just incredible. He won't just run aimlessly but also offload magnificently; a proper team player. In fact, I'd say Sinbad was up there with the best wingers in Europe.

B91212 wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:Kingelderfield's England backline selecection;

Simpson, Burns, Ojo, Twelvetrees, Tuilagi, Sharples, May

I have to agree with Beshocked regarding this selection, it would get carved to shreds in the international game and I don't think you have considered that the team would have to defend as well as attack.

Simpson can't defend and his passing isn't anywhere near international standard - he struggles to be first choice for his club who are really struggling at the moment. I'm not sure he will ever be good enough for the international game and I think the current coaching set up feels the same otherwise they would use him to replace the woefully out of form Youngs.

Burns is great with ball in hand and put in an excellent display yesterday but needs to work on his defense and although he has great potential I don't think he is ready yet. I would take him to South Africa in the summer for experience and would replace him in the EPS for Hodgson after the 6N.

Ojo has been unlucky with injuries when in form but I'm not convinced he will be anything other than a good club player.

Twelvetrees is another with potential but isn't even first choice for his club and needs to add consistency to his game. For a guy his size doesn't run crash ball as well as I think he should and needs to work on this area of his game.

Tuilagi is class and should be part of the England back line for the next 10 years if he continues his current progress.

Sharples deserves his chance and I would be tempted to bring him in for Strettle and swap him to the left wing with Ashton moving back across to the right. Strettle seems caught in 2 minds every time he gets the ball. Although a Saints fan I can't understand why, if Dowson was picked at 30/31 years old to come into the team then Simpson-Daniel at 30 wasn't considered. Every time I've seen JSD this year he has been a class apart, much better than Sharples and looks totally at home on the left wing. His passing off either hand is class, his reading of the game is second to none and this shows in his brilliant positional play. I know he's 30 years old and unlikely to make 2015 but then neither is Dowson.

I like the look of May with ball in hand but he's yet to be really tested defensively. I would be tempted to have him on the bench as the back 3 replacement as I feel Brown isn't versatile enough for that role. Another important fact is that until he got injured Morgan was the first choice 15 for the Cherries.

The thing with Farrell is he has shown he has brilliant composure at the highest level, something that can't be taught and players either have it or some gain it with experience and for him to have it at such a young age is special. Yesterday I thought he kicked the ball a bit too much early on but that probably came from the game plan he was told to play. My guess is that if he didn't work it out for himself that England looked threatening with ball in hand then one of the other players encouraged him to start carrying and passing more. I think he did enough to start at 10 next game and hope he goes on to be an option there in the future. At least yesterday proved that England have another long term option at 10 other than Flood, something most of thought not possible before the tournament started.

Agree with pretty much all that.

Cumbrian I agree Burns and Ford do have excellent potential but in my opinion they need to do more to warrant being in the England squad.

Kingelderfield you can't make a statement like Burns is ready for England - where's the proof? Maybe he is but personally I think he needs to do more. We can speculate about how amazing Burns and Ford will be but it's just speculation.

Mallinder is a good coach but made the smart choice to not go for the England job yet. He needs to win some decent silverware in my opinion. The small fry like the Amlin and LV=cup are okay but it's the big ones like the HC and AP which he needs in his CV to be a real contender IMO.

Beshocked dont overegg Ford, he was only 4th choice at Tigers till recently.

Right now Farrell suits Englands simple gameplan more and has proven he can step up and has a big game head. If England want to develop that further into a more threatening running backs game then in the future Burns may have more potential.

Right now though Farrell Flood should and will be persisted with.

If Ford and Burns are so incredible why are they not in the England squad?

I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting that Ford should be in the England team. He may have played well at the weekend in a 6 try demolition of Newcastle but that was Newcastle. More imposing challenges will need to be faced first. He is a natural but just as Farrell is still developing Ford needs to as well. Another year and then Ford should maybe be brought into the Saxons (dependent on form).

Burns should be training with the EPS and included on the summer tour. England don't have a long list of available 10s and should be looking to cultivate some options. Farrell is doing a passable Wilko impersonation (needs to work on the drop goals) but other than him and Flood England realistically only have Hodgson (who isn't getting any younger).

Twelvetrees is another with potential but isn't even first choice for his club and needs to add consistency to his game. For a guy his size doesn't run crash ball as well as I think he should and needs to work on this area of his game.

Actually his carrying is very good and probably the strongest area of his play. His positioning and concentration need work but he's coming along nicely and is being kept out by Allen mainly on the basis that Allen runs the Tigers defensive line. Twelvetrees game management is improving and he has shown the better form this year but now he's annouced he's leaving there's no chance he'll be first choice.

Saturday is looking quite interesting.....question is will we have the dog to put down these black shirts?

So the debate continues. I'm going to keep picking at this one - not only because of the vulgar contrast between Farrells and Burns abilities, but because I believe it represents a micro-focus on the future direction of the England team. Do you want an all court 15 man winning game or a stunted repressed 9 man disaster?

I have to add that right now I am really glad to be backing the Burns side of the debate, which is perhaps strange given it is Farrell who has been selected for the Lions. Actually Farrells selection for the Lions is a real croc of nepotism and is surely the Lions most acute pitch point.

How are you feeling about your selection of Simpson, Ojo, Sharples and referring to yourself in the third?

To be fair, Freddie did a better job against the BaaBaas but conditions were more manageable and he had better players around him

nth I have to admit Simpson has found form fitness and progression difficult - was there talk of him moving to Bath? - though he's still young and therefore has time on his side. I would have him over wiggy all day long.
Ojo's time has now past, but for me will always be remembered for scoring that brace on debut against the AB's - obviously a better choice that not playing a winger in a wing position - can't imagine which English coach would be so foolish as to do that.
Sharples is obviously still very much in contention and will replace little dizzy strettle in the next eps.

My problem is playing both Farrell and Barritt....with those two we ain't gonna trouble any decent side...one of them possibly...

Farrell has always had his detractors. The counter to his obvious limitations was that he offers very good basics AND amazing composure for such a young player. I think to an extent those claims were true once but no longer. These last few months have seen him get a rep for needless needle and petulance, often off the ball. His basics have not improved as many hoped/expected and currently the only thing he still offers is a good kicking % from the tee and an aggressive defence. For some that seems to be enough. For me it really isn't and I want and expect far more from England's no.1 f/h.

I truly hope the Burns/Ford/whomsoever really kick on as we desperately need players that can control a game and exploit opposition weaknesses through a good passing, running and kicking game. Whilst i'd love them to be great in defence, I'd be happy enough with merely ok, as long as they bring those other qualities. I haven't given up on Faz but I think he needs a break from the limelight, a return to Sarries to work on and improve himself as a player (and also sort his head out).

Interestingly, Flood seems to be the forgotten man in many of these discussions. I still think he is a decent player and deserves to be in and around the first team. That said, I accept that he hasn't looked great the last year or so for England.

kingelderfield wrote:I am certain the Gloucester fly half is the better player of the two, an absolute rugby natrural who has the all round game and tempremant to deliver at the top table.

England really do have a treasure trove of young nine's and ten's, remember that Ford was selected at 10 with Farrell at 12 in last years U20 World Cup. The previous year it was Burns and and to a lesser degree Clegg who took the U20 10 shirt.

A lot will depend on who will be coaching England and their selection policy, but hopefully whoever it will be will follow the mantra that form alone drives selection.

Kingelderfield's England backline selecection;

Simpson, Burns, Ojo, Twelvetrees, Tuilagi, Sharples, May

Nothing to discuss, my 9 year old daughter is better than Farrell. Fair play though he can take a punch

It is currently popular to slag of Farrell. He is not the finished article, but then neither is Burns. The two offer different things - with Burns being the more mercurial, but also the more erratic.

I have no idea who will be the best, but it saddens me that yet again we have a discussion where people heap unwarranted bile on the player who is depriving their favourite a place in the team. Anonymous forums bring out the worst in human nature.

+1

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Discussion of player a versus player b is not only fair game but in the context of significant importance. The selection of OF says so much on so many levels; theres the immediate fact that his form is poor, but the real unspoken issue surrounds the position of his father within the coaching set up and his influence on selection - if you don't realise how controversal this is then just try putting yourself in the place of one of his team mates. SL selection policy is now at a defining cross roads, and the choice of half is crucial to how this team develops. To my thinking he burdened himself with his Sarris's selections; OF, BB, DS, AG & DS and let what was an understandable short term stratergy develop beyond its natral and useful purpose. Personally I am glad his (SL) hand has been forced and other options are being considered, however ultimately I don't think SL is the man to lead England and would happily see one of Malinder, Baxter or O'Shea take the lead tomorrow.

Very well said LT.

Yes Farrell has weak points to his game but he's also achieved a hell of a lot in a short career. It annoys me that when people talk about natural ability they tend to only focus on the attacking side of the game - handling, vision, etc.

It's common place to pass over the huge skill it takes to tackle or kick as well as some players do because it can be viewed as the 'boring' side of the game....

kingelderfield wrote:I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Discussion of player a versus player b is not only fair game but in the context of significant importance. The selection of OF says so much on so many levels; theres the immediate fact that his form is poor, but the real unspoken issue surrounds the position of his father within the coaching set up and his influence on selection - if you don't realise how controversal this is then just try putting yourself in the place of one of his team mates. SL selection policy is now at a defining cross roads, and the choice of half is crucial to how this team develops. To my thinking he burdened himself with his Sarris's selections; OF, BB, DS, AG & DS and let what was an understandable short term stratergy develop beyond its natral and useful purpose. Personally I am glad his (SL) hand has been forced and other options are being considered, however ultimately I don't think SL is the man to lead England and would happily see one of Malinder, Baxter or O'Shea take the lead tomorrow.

I have no issue with discussing merits of players, and I am not sure you said anything I object to - though I strongly disagree with your chosen England backline. (May at FB nope, Ojo not the best winger at his club, ditto Sharples, Simpson needs to sort out his game). Fatuous posters saying their 9 yo niece (or whatever it was) is better than Farrell is however ridiculous, obnoxious and pathetic. That and the other bilious stuff heaped on Farrell is what I object to.

Personally i do not feel he is a good enough player to be on the Lions, but then the quality of the people in contention was not great. In a fledgling career Farrell has lead his team to the premierhip title, winning MoTM, and steered his country to a win over NZ. A lot of good players will not manage bothe in their entire career.

Will be really interesting viewing, comparing their respective representative performances over next couple of weeks or so, and I imagine over the next few years.

Planet Rugby summed up the Farrell/Lions situation pretty well for me:

http://www.planetrugby.com/lions/story/0,25883,16993_8695995,00.html

Meanwhile, the choice to take only two fly-halves - and not one of the centres in the squad could possibly be considered fly-half cover, even at a pinch - is indicative of only one thing for us: that one Mr. J. Wilkinson will complete his tour de force with Toulon and then jet off to Australia.

But we are truly mystified as to the inclusion of Owen Farrell. The Six Nations was the measure of form according to Gatland. In which case, we have a fly-half in Jonathan Sexton who is only now rediscovering pre-injury form,and another who singularly failed ever to ignite England's backs with anything beyond a kick.

If ever there was an illustration of Farrell's shortcomings it had to be the butchered overlap in the Heineken Cup semi-final where an accomplished fly-half of the ilk of Carter, Wilkinson or Cooper would have found the pass to be of second nature. Instead, Farrell delivered a wonky, soggy balloon of a pass, which cost his side their last real opportunity of winning.

He kicks well. Very well. He tackles. But he is indisciplined, has a lot of skills to learn, and just does not have the variety of game a complete fly-half should have. The Lions are short in the ten department - until Jonny flies out anyway.

That was written before the Barbarians game, but summed up Farrell's performance pretty well.

Timo Sweil might be better than both!

http://www.inattheside.com/henry-fraser-column-timo-swiel-keeping-international-options-open/

Well said LondonTiger

As a Gloucester fan kingelderfield I can understand you favouring style over substance. Attack over defence.

kingelderfield you are of course correct. Lancaster is a mad man for picking players from one of the best sides in England - the side who topped the AP league this season and made a HC semi final.

Farrell Jr is in poor form. I don't think anyone can deny that but does that make him a bad player?

Farrell Jr was only in the England side because of nepotism. Not because he's actually not a bad player whose achieved a lot for his age.

Burns is far from the finished article. In the tackling stakes he makes Hodgson look like a backrow forward whereas he more resembles a revolving door.

Plus at international level he's largely unproven.

Even when Farrell was "on form" he was a limited player. The criticism levelled against him is largely justified as it comes with the territory. His performance against Wales and the Baa Baas has been distinctly average. He has time to turn it round but he is lacking so much composure at the moment and is in danger of going into a Priestlandesque downward spiral if he doesn't start concentrating on the basics, which he's very good at.

As for "achieving a lot" it is the team that achieves that

king_carlos wrote:Very well said LT.

Yes Farrell has weak points to his game but he's also achieved a hell of a lot in a short career. It annoys me that when people talk about natural ability they tend to only focus on the attacking side of the game - handling, vision, etc.

It's common place to pass over the huge skill it takes to tackle or kick as well as some players do because it can be viewed as the 'boring' side of the game....

The problem is though, that England we seem so obsessed with a player who tackles well and is physcial. Defence is a big thing...but that for me is the basics a rugby player needs...top international 10's NEED vision, creativity, risk taking..etc....and IMO you can improve a players physical aspects...but natural ability cant be taught. Hence why so many people are talking up Burns...he has that extra ability that England fans have been looking for.

Farrell can be a good international player...i have no doubt about that, but he simply MUST improve his passing, his vision, playmaking skills etc.
Likewise burns needs to improve his defence and consistency...

But if we can get both playing well and developed we will have two contrasting 10's that could take us far...

What Geordie is saying is that at the moment your best outside half would be Freddie Farrell

Rubyguby the criticism is justified is it? Not many players have been getting the criticism he does. You would think without the amount of criticism he gets- in his spare time Farrell Jr eats babies, runs over pensioners in a supercar and is a banker.

Yes it's a team thing but he has contributed. He was there.

Limited in what sense? Every player is limited in their own way. Some people thinking not being able to tackle is okay.

This 'better than' is a bit hard to quantify isnt it?

Farrell doesn't deserve as much flak as he gets, he has been very successful for a 20/1 year old and has been at the helm for England in some very good victories, ( away in Paris, away in Dublin and at home to NZ spring to mind).

Burns clearly has more flair than Farrell, but there are a lot of FH's who burst onto the scene with a bit of flair but then lack the game management to go with it. Gerharty, Cipriani and Lamb are all players in the last few years who have lacked that something.

On the subject of who is 'better', 10 years ago you could have asked the same of Wilkinson vs Spencer. For me Spencer was a far better natural player and could do things Wilkinson could only dream of, but who has more caps/points? And who would you rather have on a wet and windy night in Wellington?

For me, both Burns and Farrell have a lot to offer England in the coming years, the are both still learning, so if Burns shores up his defence and Farrell works on his footwork, I think England will have 2 different but good choices at 10.

Cumbrian wrote:Timo Sweil might be better than both!

http://www.inattheside.com/henry-fraser-column-timo-swiel-keeping-international-options-open/

I'm sure I've seen this lad playing before, he looks like a very good young player. With Grant and Janties out, he should get some game time too.

Farrell is limited - 99% of rugby followers know this and I don't need to explain (read above) - If you have put yourself up there then you need to back it up his performances in his last 3 international games have been woeful and he has looked out of his depth with no creativity, no composure and the game awareness of Tuilangi. His kicking from hand (one of his strengths has been dreadful) - Why can't you accept it. When Priestland has been shoite we all tend to say, Priestland has been shoite - when Farrell is playing pretty poorly you seem to want to protect him. It's only a game and he's being found out and his temperament alone is suspect. It's warranted, he's petulant and under pressure; let's see how he responds.

I am not saying Farrell is great.

I feel the hyperbole being thrown his way in 2012 was crazy - IRB Player of the Year contender for instance. Or the comments by Andy Irvine, or the rubbish after England beat NZ. When people were praising him to the heavens I was a doubter and expressed my doubts on here.

Equally the crap being thrown at him now is crazy. People need to to be fair in their criticism or they look just as bad as those who were praising looked.

Mind you this is the internet where we can with anonymity slag anyone off. the same deluded people who blame ROG for the Lions not winning in 2009, will no doubt blame Farrell this time.

That he was selected for this tour says a hell of a lot about how Gatland, Howley (and yes papa Farrell) view the other options that were available. IE they don't.

Game awareness of Tuilagi - you didn't watch the NZ game then! Tuilagi was absolutely class in that game.

I defend Farrell because very few people do. There is no balance - the verdict from you is Farrell = rubbish. This is not right.

To be fair, at times Manu has shown a real lack of game awareness.

He has had great games this season, and some poor ones. There are signs that his weaknesses are becoming less weak, but whether he will ever gain the game awareness of BOD is unlikely.

Lack of game awareness has not hindered Jamie Roberts of course

beshocked wrote:Game awareness of Tuilagi - you didn't watch the NZ game then! Tuilagi was absolutely class in that game.

I defend Farrell because no one else does. There is no balance - the verdict from you is Farrell = rubbish. This is not right.

I was going to say - for a guy with 'no game awareness' he scores a lot of interception tries. But you cant stop the hate. I wish I could remember who it was but someone suggested that Farrell would be one of the least popular lions in the squad - based on what exactly?

Limitations or no Farrell has been an important part of a lot of England victories over the last couple of seasons. Farrell on form would be an asset to the Lions. He isnt - and we have no way of knowing if he will recover form over the tour, but despite the varied claims around here the choices for Sexton's back up were always limited

All of England's options at 10 are limited to some degree, and I suspect England will tend to go with the player who fits the system best. If England want a 10 who is strong defensively, and will make his kicks, then Farrell is your man, if they want a more expansive game , they'll go with Burns or Ford.

Farrell, to me, represents the conservative, ten man, defensive style of rugby that England have been playing recently under Johnson and Lancaster. I suspect that most of the people who slag him off are people who want that to change, and for a more open game plan to emerge.

dan biggar earned a lions place, much better season, especially 6ns than farrell.

sean edwards said last week he couldnt understand why biggar wasnt picked ' but i wasnt good enough to go either' quote edwards. mmmmm?

gavstar wrote:dan biggar earned a lions place, much better season, especially 6ns than farrell.

sean edwards said last week he couldnt understand why biggar wasnt picked ' but i wasnt good enough to go either' quote edwards. mmmmm?

Based on Gatland and Howleys choices for Wales, they rated an out of form Priestland ahead of Biggar. for whatever reason they do not seem to like the Ospreys man.

As to Farrell v Biggar in the 6Ns - well things were not as clear cut as people like to make out.

Farrell was pretty good against Scotland, very good against Ireland, OK against France and poor against Wales (Flood started in the dire English performance against Italy).

Biggar started quietly and was largely anonymous against Ireland and France. He improved as the tournament progressed and clearly outplayed Farrell against England.

Personally I am not sure either is yet good enough or ready to be starting for the Lions - but Gatland, Howley and Papa Farrell decided that Jr fitted what they wanted better than anyone else.

If we're honest outside of the kiwis there are currently a lack of top class 10's around the world who you can claim have a complete skill set.

NZ - Carter, Cruden, Evans - It's not really surprising that their backs are so well organised looking at that.

Aus - Cooper, O'Connor, Barnes

SA - Goosen, Steyn, Lambie

Argentina - Hernandez, Contepomi, Mieres, etc - lot's tried recently but with Contepomi getting on and Hernandez struggling with injury they've not yet settled with someone

England - Farrell, Flood, Burns

France - Michalak, Trinh-Duc - Inconsistent to say the least, Tales/Lopez now being tried

Wales - Biggar, Priestland, Hook

Scotland - ermm Weir, Jackson

Ireland - Sexton, Madigan, Jackson - relative strength compared to others

Italy - Orquera

Fiji, Tonga and Somoa are often switching/trying out many players at FH, often converted sevens players or centres with very good natural skill sets in some places but often lacking the game control of quality International 10.

Carter, Cruden, Evans and Sexton I'd say are consistent players with strong all round games. Other than those four however I'd say pretty much all those listed have flaws to their game, have shown considerable inconsistency etc.

Let's face it though if we want to rate every player on their last International game Dan Carter had a pretty poor showing against England in Novemeber....

Ireland - Sexton, Madigan, Jackson - relative strength compared to others

RubyGuby wrote:Ireland - Sexton, Madigan, Jackson - relative potential strength compared to others

Better?


For NZ I'd leave Evans out as (a) he's unavailable and (b) this season it looked like age was catching up
so Carter/Cruden/Barrett with a lot of "potential" about Barrett

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Ireland - Sexton, Madigan, Jackson - relative potential strength compared to others

Better?


For NZ I'd leave Evans out as (a) he's unavailable and (b) this season it looked like age was catching up
so Carter/Cruden/Barrett with a lot of "potential" about Barrett

I'd say that given Sexton is up there with the best internationally at the moment then Madigan has shown himself to be a very good player in a succesful Heineken and Rabo side they are a more solid options than a lot of others have currently. Jackson and Madigan both have plenty of developing to do it's fair to say though.

With regards to Evans he hasn't be as strong this season but still organises his side very well in attack and has a strong kicking game. Barrett is a big talent no doubt though, with Cruden and him coming through and DC still hanging around you're certainly not short of cover at 10!