Is the criticism of Owen Farrell justified?

From reading some of the comments on here and other websites as well as the papers, the comments that Owen Farrell has been attracting seems to be very unfair in my opinion.

Maybe there is a thought that he is conservative compared to the likes of Toby Flood, and that is granted. However, he's a superb defender, a 80% goalkicker and can play a looser game when the tempo needs to be raised (against Wales, for example). On top of this, his kicking out of hand is also top notch.

The fascination with 'fifteen man running rugby' is nice, but I'd always prefer to see a side who wins rugby games (and trophies) rather than win fans for playing aesthetically pleasing Rugby but without substance. If they win trophies by playing great looking rugby then even better!

Thoughts?

Well what are the criticisms?

Only that he is conservative?

He doesnt seem to send the pulses racing with searing breaks - but then the types of players who do that are rarely capable of the kind of hard grunt that Farrel does. He'll do very nicely for now thank you very much- but it will be interesting to see how he develops.

Primarily biltong that he doesn't set the field ablaze with a clean set of heels. Indeed, Matt O'Connor (the Tigers coach) said that with his inclusion that it suggests England are merely trying not to lose instead of going out to win matches - although the dropping of Toby Flood may have something to do with that.

He has done amazingly well so far, but the back line as a whole needs to create a bit more. The combination of Farrell, Barritt, Tuilagi has not looked threatening to date but defensively is awesome. They either need more time or a different player is required to add something different. Tuilagi seems a fixture so either Barritt or Farrell need to be replaced if no imrovement is delivered.

However, I believe they should be retained with Flood on the bench to change things if required.

I don think its specifically criticism...but he does divide opinions.

He is very much the mould of JOhnny. Controls the game, tackles and kicks very well. BUt he doesnt set the world alight offensively. Johnny was lucky to have greenwood,robinson etc outside him.

Now Owen is only 20, and will be a big player for England and it is a young team...learning ...but down the line we need to score tries...and this is something we need to look at.

What would Ford or Burns bring...attacking flare maybe...but would they be as composed, game controlling...it can only be good for England....

I don't think anyone on here dislikes Farell or doesn't rate i'm, I just think non English fans are sick to death with Johnny Wilkinson comparisons. You can't watch him play for England without some idiot making comparisons and it's very annoying.

Englands backline was pretty awfull this championship. Not all Farrells fault, Barritt and tuilagi struggled to time runs into the line, they aren't passers either they are physical lads who want to take on the defenders. Foden Ashton and Strettle hardly ever got into the game.

Farrells kicking from hand is great, his defence is superb, he has a nice pass and is an incredibly talented goal kicker.

Is he the man ?

NO, unequivocally no. He lacks inspiration can't play off the cuff struggles to make decisions and isn't confident enough to run the game. Best thing would be to bring back Flood and bench Farrell. In three seasons he will be a superb flyhalf, but for now Flood is twice the player.

England got critisized for being too conservative when they won the world cup,is it unfair on farrell he gets the same treatment when they came second in the 6 nations?

He is widely praised for what he does well ( slightly OTT on his tackling which is efficient, not the destructive hits we saw from early career Wilko). Its not unfair to point of his, and the sides limitations too.
It was brutally effective in this game, its not unfair to suggest it may not always be that easy and that the opposition wont always roll over and take it. Its a fabulous building block, and what Johnson got roundly critisized for trying to put in place.

Imagine if the half backs did what Youngs did more often. The 9/10s between them averaged just over 1 run each per game. Im some games there were wingers who saw the ball less than 5 times, including fielding kicks. Its not unfair to tar England as a limited side....but it is unfair to lay that solely at Farrells door.
The frustration with floods omission is that Hodgson on the bench doesnt offer a plan B, just more of the same without the goal kicking. Thats not a criticism of Farrell to want him in the 22.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:slightly OTT on his tackling which is efficient, not the destructive hits we saw from early career Wilko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDtIapCDnBE

I'd say that hit on Harinordoquy is a shade above efficient.

His kicking out of hand is exquisite. He's not the perfect package but he is capable of moving a backline, if not as well as Flood yet. He'll get better at it, we can't hope for a Dan Carter just yet

GeordieFalcon wrote:I don think its specifically criticism...but he does divide opinions.

He is very much the mould of JOhnny. Controls the game, tackles and kicks very well. BUt he doesnt set the world alight offensively. Johnny was lucky to have greenwood,robinson etc outside him.

Now Owen is only 20, and will be a big player for England and it is a young team...learning ...but down the line we need to score tries...and this is something we need to look at.

What would Ford or Burns bring...attacking flare maybe...but would they be as composed, game controlling...it can only be good for England....

My ideal thing to do would be to have Farrell and then a very attacking FH in the 22. Who starts would depend on the game

niwatts wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:slightly OTT on his tackling which is efficient, not the destructive hits we saw from early career Wilko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDtIapCDnBE

I'd say that hit on Harinordoquy is a shade above efficient.

Made to look better than it was because the player was static, not prepared for the hit, and off balance from taking a terrible pass. Had Farrell tried that on Hardon when he had a head of steam up and was crash through him I think we know what wouldve happened.
Reading papers comparing it to Wilko on Ntamck is just ridiculous. Farrell doenst often tackle in that way, as a result he probably wont have half the shoulder problems Wilko did.

Farrell was the best FH in the 6Ns by a distance.

Given the circumstances he and the rest of the team were in that is quite a remarkable feat.
The groundwork has been laid for the future and the fireworks can be added to what has been achieved in a very short space of time.
A young Farrell was a significant part of these foundations.

He is only young and this is surely the best time to throw in the younger players, after the World Cup, and see how they go.

The Six Nations games gives the coaches a proper chance to see these players over a number of games and the England players have grow in stature throughout the tournament.

Not all Farrells fault, Barritt and tuilagi struggled to time runs into the line, they aren't passers either they are physical lads who want to take on the defenders. Foden Ashton and Strettle hardly ever got into the game.

This is mainly due to the depth with which England were playing and the time it took Farrell to make the pass. His passing game is extremely slow and very predictable. Most of the time Barritt and Manu get the ball with little option but to smash it up. Earles panicky defence at the weekend allowed Manu to ship it onto the wing for some extra metres but the backline is just to deep to threaten an international defence. There is too much time for the opposition to drift across and Farrell struggles to think on his feet often kicking turnover ball away.

I think Farrell is a touch overrated and this is helped by some of the other 6N fly halfs being really quite poor. Farrell is playing exactly the same style as Johnno from a few years ago and is getting only a small percentage of the criticism that was levelled at Wilko. If Farrell wants to avoid being tarred with the Wilko brush he needs to work on his passing speed, get confident calling moves and stand flatter to the gainline. The rest of his game is pretty sharp it's only this one, rather key, area that is letting him down.

Well, I am coming to fancy that the comparison should not be with JW rather than Neil Jenkins.

A great goal kicker, but pretty mediocre as a mid-field general.

There is increasing evidence that he doesn't maximise the potential outside him. But Barritt, whilst a good defensive 12, isn't much better creatively.

SB well said.

My perspective: Farrell was playing his first ever matches for England. Many of these boards were wondering whether Farrell could cut it at international level. The answer is yes he can. For a young debutant he had a very good tournament. This is a 20 year old who could have let the occasion get the better of him. He didn't.

Farrell has his flaws but let's appreciate his strengths too. He has put England in good positions, allowing pressure to be heaped on the opposition and it must be heartening to the forwards to have a kicker who is likely to make their efforts into points.

We know what Farrell offers and what he doesn't. Personally I am pleased with what he does offer.

Sam maybe the other fly halves have been poor they are supposedly meant to be the best in their respective countries. Farrell has outperformed them all. Wilkinson is still liked by many and it's no surprise that Farrell who has similar qualities is equally praised.

OP: Only in the positive sense, if you also acknowledge that as a young player / new cap he is still in development. The critisms are essentially the flip side of his future potential.
I feel confident he will develop from the 'criticisms' such as they are.

3 of England's games were played in terrible conditions...not conducive to attacking rugby with ball in hand. I'm sure Farrell will develop into the play-maker role given time. England's 10,12 and 13 are only a handful of games into their international careers together. It's crazy to think they are going to create amazing backs moves from a set piece at this stage.

Sam maybe the other fly halves have been poor they are supposedly meant to be the best in their respective countries. Farrell has outperformed them all. Wilkinson is still liked by many and it's no surprise that Farrell who has similar qualities is equally praised.

I wouldn't say he out performed them all but he was certainly not shown up. He does have many Wilkinson esque (or Jenkins esque) qualities but there is no hiding away from the major flaw in his game. He's getting praise now as Wilko did during his emergence but Farrell needs to kick on in terms of attack otherwise he will fall to the same criticisms that dogged Wilko's career. The good thing for him is that he is young and those things can be improved upon. The bad thing for him is that there are number of young fly halfs with much better attacking games also playing in the Prem (though they all have their own weaknesses).

To be honest if he stood flat in attack (the key is knowing when to stand flat and when to go deeper) and England bring in a better (hopefully Mauger) backs coach then he'd look better much quicker. It's his depth and the only option is to go out to his backs that is stifling the attack, he brings it up flatter in the opposition 22 and has the confidence to call some moves (I'm not sure the coaching as helped in the moves regard) and force the backs to run off him then his attacking game would be passable at international level. Wilko never go the hang off that (hence why England needed Greenwood). Not sure Farrell will ever set the world alight in attack but then again Morne Steyn never has either and he is gaining plenty of caps for SA.

Maybe the microscope should less be on young Owen - and more on his dad?

Maybe the microscope should less be on young Owen - and more on his dad?

Fair point. The backs don't seem to have much of an attacking game plan and that is really what is expected from a backs coach. I suppose he's hiding behind the fact that the backs defence is working. I'd like to see Mauger brought in to replace Farrell Snr. The improvements made by Flood, Allen and Twelvetrees in terms of vision and passing whilst Mauger was part time coach/part time player was exciting to see and he is rumoured to want to come back to coach in England. Give him the likes of Flood, Burns, Farrell and Ford (Barritt and Twelvetrees as well) and I think we'd see a much more fluent passing game.

Overall there was no discernible plan of attack. Forwards seemed unsure whether they were trying to drive it up round the fringes or wider out.

My biggest criticism of us in attack is that the ball receiver was always very static - not necessarily their fault, but a definite lack of attacking plan and cohesion.

We did however react pretty well off the cuff (still too much turnover kicked away but that improved) which suggests the talent and willing may be there.

For a young and inexperienced FH, Farrell has done really well. His composure has always shone through but his attacking game saw him relegated to 2nd choice at Sarries this season and in the past had seen him playing more at 12 for England age group teams.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Maybe the microscope should less be on young Owen - and more on his dad?

Fair point. The backs don't seem to have much of an attacking game plan and that is really what is expected from a backs coach. I suppose he's hiding behind the fact that the backs defence is working. I'd like to see Mauger brought in to replace Farrell Snr. The improvements made by Flood, Allen and Twelvetrees in terms of vision and passing whilst Mauger was part time coach/part time player was exciting to see and he is rumoured to want to come back to coach in England. Give him the likes of Flood, Burns, Farrell and Ford (Barritt and Twelvetrees as well) and I think we'd see a much more fluent passing game.

What's Pat Howard doing these days?

Mind you this is Tigers Mafia talk.

I think AF has earnt a role with England as much as Lancaster has. I dont thiunk the side wouldve played this way had Lancatser not had him, and in all probablity lost more games. It wouldve been Andys vote that got his son the chance, a huge gamble that payed off. Whilst LAnbcatse rtakes the plaudits as the man at the top this teams overall play has Farrell stamped all over it. For its limitations it has been successful, since Lancaster is being judged on results (rather than his teams limitations) than so should AF.

He isnt the guy to develop Englands game beyond the kicking/crashball style though. Cahnge his roile and get an attack coach in yes. Hes done a much better job of organising the defence. Thats an aspect that noticebaly improved through each game, its not just about tackling but about getting players in the right places quickly and knowing whos resposnbile for what).
Im assuming he was heavily involved in that. Attack on the other hand they still look disorgnised even when trying to move the ball in structured play. The chances they took from turnovers and broken lay show they ahve polayers with the pace and skills to hurt teams when they have opportuniteies, but it would be nice to see an England who create more of their own when the opposition arent gifting them to them.
England could get away with that in conditions not condusive to slick play. But come summer and Autumn when they are playing in better conditions against sides with better basic skills the pressure game is less likely to be effective in attack.
Thats also where Oween Farrells limitations will be tested.

I also still have a slight concern over his fitness ( somthing that can and will be improved over time). His tactical kicking again started to slip as the game wore on although he avoided cramping up this time he does start to look increasingly ragged past 60 minutes in these tests.