England and the Farrells and agent orange

When Owen came on through the side door last Saturday, any trace of flair went out the back one.

Burt Lancaster now looks primed and ready to welcome daddy Andrew as a defence coach. http://www.espnscrum.com/england/rugby/story/166228.html

Is there a new-age agent orange* that could systemically, humanely eradicate the Farrell threat?

*agent orange http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
(for younger viewers)

I think Andy would be a massive boost to the team. He'd actually instill some grit back in to defence and get some organisation sorted.

Remember that for the 6N's Lancaster was backs coach and for the summer tour Lancaster was defence coach.

Judging by the results he aint no top coach!

yappysnap wrote:I think Andy would be a massive boost to the team. He'd actually instill some grit back in to defence and get some organisation sorted.

Remember that for the 6N's Lancaster was backs coach and for the summer tour Lancaster was defence coach.

Judging by the results he ain't no top coach!

Owen was lauded by Jonny Wilkinson recently.
So that would be one non-flair, tackling, big-booted FH praising another non-flair, usually-tackling, big-booted FH

I thought you meant Henson

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:I thought you meant Henson

Do you think that

a: Owen was an inspired replacement for Flood once he went off (even Charlie would have been better)
b: Andy's positiveness ever exceeds zero

?

I can see why Lancaster wanted just 1 back's coach, one man to build a system that can transition defence into attack when a turnover is made (and vica-versa when a turnover is conceded, although hopefully that would be less used) would be able to imprint his vision on the team, rather than having conflicting ideas from conflicting coaches. However, much like our selection problems on field, we have to question whether that coach is available, especially considering those that have ruled themselves out. And the answer is probably no, in which case a separate attack and defence coach should have a beneficial effect on the fundamental skills and plans (which we appear to be lacking), which in theory would make up for any lack of cohesion in the transition between defence and attack. Farrell has worked with Lancaster and got on with him and the team, as well as installing a fairly solid defence (2 individual errors/lapses against Italy - that weren't down to the defencive set-up - aside, we only conceded 2 tried in 4 matches). Andy Farrell can have a positive impact on this England side.

Owen Farrell didn't have a great game on Saturday in my opinion. Too much aimless kicking especially in the second half (possibly encouraged by the one he got absolutely spot on which ended with Aplon getting the ball 0.01 seconds before getting smashed by Ashton). I'm not sure if that was the gameplan, but if it was it wasn't executed very well. But Farrell wouldn't have been on that early (or perhaps at all - see Lee Dickson) if Flood hadn't have got injured, so England were forced into a re-think. I'd say Owen isn't quite ready to take such a pivotal position in a test match like South Africa away, but the kid is still young, still learning and will hopefully be better for the experience. Whether Hodgson would have been a better bet for this match is a debatable point, but Farrell is definitely one to keep an eye on. I wouldn't complain too much if Hodgson was elevated above Farrell to the bench (and I would recommend it if Flood was injured before a game - Hodgson starting with Farrell on the bench), but I would keep Farrell in and around the squad for the experience he is getting. Although he hasn't won us games, he hasn't seriously let us down either.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:I thought you meant Henson

Brilliant!

10 is a pivotal position.

While Farrell is young and promising, he is also inexperienced. For as long as he is the second choice for his club at 10, behind another EQP, I am not happy with him playing there for England.

Fair play portnoy that i'm not overly impressed with Owen Farrell as he seems a bit limited at the moment, but im not impressed with your comment and helpful link to agent orange and the fact you want to "eridicate" the farrells. Agent Orange and what it has done is horrendous, im sure your comment is meant to be funny but its not.

I thought you meant Henson too


*leaves thread*

munkian wrote:I thought you meant Henson too


*leaves thread*

+ 1

I claim that it's justifiable verbicide.

the defence, tackling technique and application was the FIRST thing that caught my eye in the new England setup. it has noticeably got more sporadic since Faz snr left. With a decent attack/backs coach in Catty, SL could now have a set-up to lead the charge to 2015 and beyond (I wanted Kirwan and though that would've been brilliant and an inspired choice).

Do you rate Catt as a attack/backs coach? I thought we were short on ideas in the 3 tests. How did L Irish backs play under him??

WHEN we attacked with the ball in hand there were signs of some stucture, but like posters have pointed out before, the players need to learn how to draw and offload first. I think we'll see some good improvements during the AIs, particularly as the pack is more than capable of fronting up and getting involved in the loose.

A good indication of this theory is how much did we see of JJ and Manu working as a center pair...?

nowt, but their individual abilities should ensure they be given more time to gel at this level (manu CAN offload and JJ shows some great attacking lines)

we have plenty of players with ability, they need to be coached in options and improved in some skills with a loose structure, cos if its too tight we stiffle the youth/creative talent that they are picked for

damn... every time I comment I seem to kill off the thread or it goes off on tangent.

I hardly every get responses, but I refuse to do a Hersh (unless its funny)

damage, I think Tuilagi is more suited to 13 than 12 as he works better in more space.

I can see Tuilagi and Joseph being a potential centre partnership however I think a better option would be to put Twelvetrees in at 12 with Tuilagi at 13. They both seem to complement eachother's play and I feel they could work well together and become a very strong defending and attacking centre partnership.

Let's wait and see how Twelvetrees gets on at Gloucester before we decide.

yeah a bit more waiting for some players to show form. at least we can say there are plenty of enticing prospects now (even though quite a few will fail to step up to international level or not be the right sort to fit into the team)

The number of players England have coming through at 13 is unbelieveable, Trinder, Lowe, Daly all yet to have a cap and we already have Tuilagi and Joseph with caps.

If Twelvetrees falls short there is always Sam Hill at Exeter Chiefs and Ryan Mills at Gloucester so England have a few options at 12 but they are a few years away from their first caps.

Catts performance at Lon Irish!
I would say most of the creativity at Exiles came from Mappasua - since he has left so has that unpredictability.

Pick a team with real cutting edge attack and then thats the man that we need.

You see, if I'd suggested that we erradicate the Farrells with Agent Orange (or similar) for the good of the game, the usual suspects would have cried 'WUM', got their knickers in a twist and run crying to the Moderators...

How do you spell Hip-O-crit-I-kal again?

Do you rate Catt as a attack/backs coach? I thought we were short on ideas in the 3 tests.

Breadvan I think the structure evolved over the three tests. It will take some time for the team to change their style of attacking plan wholesale so we may have to be patient for now. Certainly England used the big boys Manu and Barritt more inteligently in the third test and I think more would have come had Flood managed more than 13 minutes.

LI were pretty unimpressive, they could score in wide open matches but struggled to break down defences and relied a lot on Homers kicking rather then the try scoring bananza we saw under Smith.

Equo Troiano wrote:You see, if I'd suggested that we erradicate the Farrells with Agent Orange (or similar) for the good of the game, the usual suspects would have cried 'WUM', got their knickers in a twist and run crying to the Moderators...

How do you spell Hip-O-crit-I-kal again?

That's because this has turned into a thread about:

The coaching set up, was it right or wrong in SA

The centers, are we putting the right players in the right positions

Yes the OP was bang out of order blaming everything on Owen and Andy after all we lost the second test with Flood at fly half. And Andy not even part of the set up. Might as well blame the tigers after all they were the 9 10 & 12

As for the agent orange Im surprised the mods didn't pull that on their own? Having been sent to Iraq and going through all the chemical and bio training including watching videos of the affects, how Port was allowed to post that is suprising.

According to the BBC

"Farrell's contract will see him take charge of England's backs and defence through to January 2016, taking in the World Cup on home soil in three years' time."

So it looks like Catt is gone and Farrell will be the backs coach, as he was in the 6 nations.

Killer, previous reports and interviews with Lancaster were saying Catt would be retained in a 4 man set up.

In the article it says he is still be considered but the last time they were in this position they kept it just Farrell but we will see.

Knackeredknees wrote:

Equo Troiano wrote:You see, if I'd suggested that we erradicate the Farrells with Agent Orange (or similar) for the good of the game, the usual suspects would have cried 'WUM', got their knickers in a twist and run crying to the Moderators...

How do you spell Hip-O-crit-I-kal again?

That's because this has turned into a thread about:

The coaching set up, was it right or wrong in SA

The centers, are we putting the right players in the right positions

Yes the OP was bang out of order blaming everything on Owen and Andy after all we lost the second test with Flood at fly half. And Andy not even part of the set up. Might as well blame the tigers after all they were the 9 10 & 12

As for the agent orange Im surprised the mods didn't pull that on their own? Having been sent to Iraq and going through all the chemical and bio training including watching videos of the affects, how Port was allowed to post that is suprising.

Why would they send 50% of SAracens home supporters away? It just doesn't make sense.

Agent Orange is hardly controversial in the context of modern NBC warfare, it's more metaphorical I would suggest. Perhaps it would have been better if he'd suggested 'Raid' instead.

It's not an inspiring appointment. When you think of the names that were touted previously it's at best very green.

Think I'll have a customary sulk about this.

Equo Troiano wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:

Equo Troiano wrote:You see, if I'd suggested that we erradicate the Farrells with Agent Orange (or similar) for the good of the game, the usual suspects would have cried 'WUM', got their knickers in a twist and run crying to the Moderators...

How do you spell Hip-O-crit-I-kal again?

That's because this has turned into a thread about:

The coaching set up, was it right or wrong in SA

The centers, are we putting the right players in the right positions

Yes the OP was bang out of order blaming everything on Owen and Andy after all we lost the second test with Flood at fly half. And Andy not even part of the set up. Might as well blame the tigers after all they were the 9 10 & 12

As for the agent orange Im surprised the mods didn't pull that on their own? Having been sent to Iraq and going through all the chemical and bio training including watching videos of the affects, how Port was allowed to post that is suprising.

Why would they send 50% of SAracens home supporters away? It just doesn't make sense.

Agent Orange is hardly controversial in the context of modern NBC warfare, it's more metaphorical I would suggest. Perhaps it would have been better if he'd suggested 'Raid' instead.

No but unless you have had to deal with the fact that you are in a conflict zone where chemical and biological agents are a daily threat, the idea of using it as a joke because you don't like a coach and player

I've been in that situation plenty thanks and the reference to Agent Orange doesn't bother me, or seemingly anyone else, but you...

Really? REALLY? Are we seriously having a problem with the rather jovial reference to Agent Orange here?

Do me a favour for the love of God!

haha.. lol , gotta laugh

actually i take it back- its not that funny after reading up on it

mystiroakey wrote:actually i take it back- its not that funny after reading up on it

Yes, I maintain that a reference to some kind of bug killer, like 'Raid' would have been more appropriate.

Chjw131 wrote:Really? REALLY? Are we seriously having a problem with the rather jovial reference to Agent Orange here?

Do me a favour for the love of God!

Yep very funny haha, maybe we should all have a laugh about something that has caused the death of thousands, after all the holocaust was a right giggle wasn't it.

While in Iraq I had to patrol areas that sadam had used to "test" his chemical weapons, surprisingly enough I wasnt rolling around in fits of laughter

Chjw131 wrote:Really? REALLY? Are we seriously having a problem with the rather jovial reference to Agent Orange here?

Do me a favour for the love of God!

Btw Portnoy doesn't mean Gavin Henson just to clarify.

Knackeredknees wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:Really? REALLY? Are we seriously having a problem with the rather jovial reference to Agent Orange here?

Do me a favour for the love of God!

Yep very funny haha, maybe we should all have a laugh about something that has caused the death of thousands, after all the holocaust was a right giggle wasn't it.

While in Iraq I had to patrol areas that sadam had used to "test" his chemical weapons, surprisingly enough I wasnt rolling around in fits of laughter

Thats funny, because when I was out there (and the first time was 1991), all use of such weapons by Saddam's Army had ceased years previously. Areas that had been subjected to the use of chemical weapons were strictly out of bounds, and certainly I don't know of any other Coalition soldiers who were tasked to patrol such areas either. Years later, UN inspectors were sent to find WMD, of course, they didn't find any - which I suppose meant they weren't rolling around in fits of laughter either.

Come come Knackered, I won't have you impugning my genuine high regard for all service personnel the world over. Nor my compassion for victims of war.

Trying to turn this into some absurdly justified rant about how dreadful things happen in theatres of war is frankly ridiculous. The manner in which the OP was written is a humorous take on an opinion about rugby. No one has even made mention of atrocities such as the holocaust and neither should you.

If for a moment we can take your argument to it's logical conclusion, perhaps we should be banning the likes of Captain Pugwash (or whatever the kids watch these days) or Family Guy. Where 'weapons' are used in a comic setting. Indeed any form of violence or potential violence via the medium of weaponry.

How far do we go with this? Do you stop Waldrom from giving the Thomas The Tank sign because many people have been killed in horrific train accidents?

You are taking deliberate offence at something which was plainly never intended to cause offence. I'm afraid it signals a lot of what is wrong in society today, the tempering of so much in the fear that someone somewhere may take offence. What if, as in this instance that offence is wholly unjustified?

Chjw131 wrote:Come come Knackered, I won't have you impugning my genuine high regard for all service personnel the world over. Nor my compassion for victims of war.

Trying to turn this into some absurdly justified rant about how dreadful things happen in theatres of war is frankly ridiculous. The manner in which the OP was written is a humorous take on an opinion about rugby. No one has even made mention of atrocities such as the holocaust and neither should you.

If for a moment we can take your argument to it's logical conclusion, perhaps we should be banning the likes of Captain Pugwash (or whatever the kids watch these days) or Family Guy. Where 'weapons' are used in a comic setting. Indeed any form of violence or potential violence via the medium of weaponry.

How far do we go with this? Do you stop Waldrom from giving the Thomas The Tank sign because many people have been killed in horrific train accidents?

You are taking deliberate offence at something which was plainly never intended to cause offence. I'm afraid it signals a lot of what is wrong in society today, the tempering of so much in the fear that someone somewhere may take offence. What if, as in this instance that offence is wholly unjustified?

Its a natural reaction to someone impugning palyers and coaches from your favourite team, don't you know.

Chjw131
Fair enough I may have gone ott a bit, but to jokingly refer to something that has killed thousands of innocent civilians is as bad as jokes about the holocaust/ genocide in other places,

Equo had it better when he suggested "raid" or even "weed all " maybe?

And equo it was patrolling areas for potential FOB that we entered an at the time nknown testing area

Knackeredknees just ignore the Leicester trolls. I know it can be difficult but this is how they amuse themselves.

Knackeredknees wrote:Chjw131
Fair enough I may have gone ott a bit, but to jokingly refer to something that has killed thousands of innocent civilians is as bad as jokes about the holocaust/ genocide in other places,

Equo had it better when he suggested "raid" or even "weed all " maybe?

And equo it was patrolling areas for potential FOB that we entered an at the time nknown testing area

Of course you did.

beshocked wrote:Knackeredknees just ignore the Leicester trolls. I know it can be difficult but this is how they amuse themselves.

I suppose all the SAracens supporters on here could get together and amuse themselves with - well any game that only requires two participants really.

Equo Troiano wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:Chjw131
Fair enough I may have gone ott a bit, but to jokingly refer to something that has killed thousands of innocent civilians is as bad as jokes about the holocaust/ genocide in other places,

Equo had it better when he suggested "raid" or even "weed all " maybe?

And equo it was patrolling areas for potential FOB that we entered an at the time nknown testing area

Of course you did.

Yes I did, I have no reason to lie to you or anyone on here. If you do not wish to believe me that is upto you, I will believe you when you say you were in Kuwait in 91, as there is no reason not to

beshocked wrote:Knackeredknees just ignore the Leicester trolls. I know it can be difficult but this is how they amuse themselves.

Come come Beshocked you know me to be nothing of the sort. I support Glaws.

Chjw131 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Knackeredknees just ignore the Leicester trolls. I know it can be difficult but this is how they amuse themselves.

Come come Beshocked you know me to be nothing of the sort. I support Glaws.

I wasn't referring to you. I meant Portnoy and Equo Troiano.

I thought Henson too.

From now on whenever Henson is mentioned, can we call him Agent Orange?

Agent Orange?

Wont somebody think of the children?

Free-Agent Orange ?