England number 10; compare and select Danny Cipriani and/or Owen Farrell?

First topic message reminder :

Surely this can't be a serious question? Well with my eyes wide open and fully considering the other possible fly half options, then yes I would say Cipriani is a serious and genuine contender, and here's the nub, on his form this year his selection would be far more merited than that of Farrell’s. Quite frankly Owen Farrell will never ever be able to offer anything more than the basic standard of 'by the book' back plays. He maybe a flanker in disguise but he is not a naturally gifted International 10.

We all know the weaknesses that astride Danny Cipriani, however if you honestly just compare the abilities and form of the two players, I believe you would have to say Cipriani offers more of a genuine attacking threat, which is obviously what England need.

Perhaps in conclusion you may feel that the differing weaknesses of both players renders their selection for England an unobtainable goal, but of the two right now on form and attacking ability I would take Cipriani.

formerly known as Sam wrote:The majority of Farrell's attacking issues would be solved by him standing flat. The scrum half will struggle to give Farrell quick ball because he is wide and deep, makes for a very long pass which isn't a skill of Youngs and Care, they like pace and quick flat passes. That leaves Dickson who doesn't challenge the fringes and so the opposition drift even quicker across making it even more difficult for England to find space. Farrell's passing skills are very average but he's far from a bad player. On the Lions tour he was forced to play flat and looked twice the player. We need to see that in the 6N, Twelvetrees and Barritt will look far more effective crashing the ball flat.

I think that's the best description of our 9/10 issues here (and not just because it mirrors exactly what i've said before!)

The problem is that those faults aren't necessarily the players but the gameplans, the gameplan that Lancaster, Catt and Farrell have concocted. Even if we did play Youngs AND Cipriani in the same team with all manor of other exciting fast backs around them, who's to say the gameplan would change at all? It hasn't changed when ever Lancaster's started Youngs or Care, and Flood still has to sit back in the pocket when he makes a cameo, meaning we get the least from those players at the moment. And then that's made even worse on the occasions when Flood does attack the gainline as there's no support and he's easily dealt with, because our pack isn't used to backs standing flat and are often on the wings or waiting in other positions.

Exactly yappysnap. I think it's the gameplan that is at fault. From what I have heard Farrell Jr wants to play flatter. He wants to be more attacking but he is instructed not to. I can't divulge my source for obvious reasons but just trust me on this. It's why I am so defensive of Farrell Jr - he is blamed for something I believe is not his fault.

Is it the fault of players if they follow the gameplan of the coaches?

Aw Beshocked....come on ...whos your source   ...we wont tell anyone.

yappysnap wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:The majority of Farrell's attacking issues would be solved by him standing flat. The scrum half will struggle to give Farrell quick ball because he is wide and deep, makes for a very long pass which isn't a skill of Youngs and Care, they like pace and quick flat passes. That leaves Dickson who doesn't challenge the fringes and so the opposition drift even quicker across making it even more difficult for England to find space. Farrell's passing skills are very average but he's far from a bad player. On the Lions tour he was forced to play flat and looked twice the player. We need to see that in the 6N, Twelvetrees and Barritt will look far more effective crashing the ball flat.

I think that's the best description of our 9/10 issues here (and not just because it mirrors exactly what i've said before!)

The problem is that those faults aren't necessarily the players but the gameplans, the gameplan that Lancaster, Catt and Farrell have concocted. Even if we did play Youngs AND Cipriani in the same team with all manor of other exciting fast backs around them, who's to say the gameplan would change at all? It hasn't changed when ever Lancaster's started Youngs or Care, and Flood still has to sit back in the pocket when he makes a cameo, meaning we get the least from those players at the moment. And then that's made even worse on the occasions when Flood does attack the gainline as there's no support and he's easily dealt with, because our pack isn't used to backs standing flat and are often on the wings or waiting in other positions.

Trouble with this theory is that I struggle to remember a time when this criticism hasn't been levelled at England (and I'm pretty old). Managers/coaches/FHs/shirt colours have come and gone and we regularly play this type of game (see Rob A vs Barnes, Cips vs Wilko....). I think this is the 'English way' (apologies for trite phrase). Exciting attacking FHs and game-plans can win games - but they can also lose them. England prefers the middle (and somewhat boring) way.

What I think we really want to see is just some variety, if for no other reason than to keep the other team on their toes. We need a plan B even if its not used that often

Exactly LIW

A bit of variety...running at gaps, running at pace, running at angles, changing the direction of play etc.
Forcing the opposition to think and stretching them.
Using a bit of intelligence.

EDIT- I dont actually want to see Australia style fireworks from the backs. Im not sure we're capable of it. I want to see efficiency and the ability to take the chances we get.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:The majority of Farrell's attacking issues would be solved by him standing flat. The scrum half will struggle to give Farrell quick ball because he is wide and deep, makes for a very long pass which isn't a skill of Youngs and Care, they like pace and quick flat passes. That leaves Dickson who doesn't challenge the fringes and so the opposition drift even quicker across making it even more difficult for England to find space. Farrell's passing skills are very average but he's far from a bad player. On the Lions tour he was forced to play flat and looked twice the player. We need to see that in the 6N, Twelvetrees and Barritt will look far more effective crashing the ball flat.

I think that's the best description of our 9/10 issues here (and not just because it mirrors exactly what i've said before!)

The problem is that those faults aren't necessarily the players but the gameplans, the gameplan that Lancaster, Catt and Farrell have concocted. Even if we did play Youngs AND Cipriani in the same team with all manor of other exciting fast backs around them, who's to say the gameplan would change at all? It hasn't changed when ever Lancaster's started Youngs or Care, and Flood still has to sit back in the pocket when he makes a cameo, meaning we get the least from those players at the moment. And then that's made even worse on the occasions when Flood does attack the gainline as there's no support and he's easily dealt with, because our pack isn't used to backs standing flat and are often on the wings or waiting in other positions.

Trouble with this theory is that I struggle to remember a time when this criticism hasn't been levelled at England (and I'm pretty old). Managers/coaches/FHs/shirt colours have come and gone and we regularly play this type of game (see Rob A vs Barnes, Cips vs Wilko....). I think this is the 'English way' (apologies for trite phrase). Exciting attacking FHs and game-plans can win games - but they can also lose them. England prefers the middle (and somewhat boring) way.

Barney Mcgrew it

The thing is the "exciting" fly halves haven't really proved their superiority over the likes of Wilkinson and Farrell style just yet for England.

England don't have a Dan Carter esque player or even a Jonathan Sexton.

Cipriani had one very good game for England but that's about it. Flood whose probably middle of the road in terms of style has had plenty of caps but has never really well and truly nailed down that England shirt with Wilkinson again ousting him.


I suppose there's the whole thing about English players not being good enough but even players maligned for their poor attacking play like Noon, Barritt and Farrell have done good things.

I think as England fans we like to criticise our players and say how "£$% when in reality even the so called "£$% ones aren't actually that bad.

E.g. I remember when Noon was on a rampage vs Ireland I think in 2008.

As England fans we have very high expectations.

Beshocked, as i falcon i will defend Noon to the end, he was brilliant for us...but that Ireland game was the day Cipriani was outstanding and put Noon through holes left right and centre.

Geordiefalcon I agree Cipriani was excellent that day but Noon played his part well. I think it would be unfair on Noon to say all his good work was down to Cipriani.

Anyway my point is we have even seen Farrell utilise his centres well like vs NZ and Scotland.

I believe England are capable of stringing together a decent attack but it's consistency that seems to elude England.

beshocked / GF

I was one of Noon's critics for England, but he certainly shone that day. To be fair to JN, it wasn't that he was a bad player, but he was a slightly less good version of Tindall with all that meant in terms of qualities and limitations (i.e. would tackle everything and truck the ball up into contact all day, but wasn't a great passer). The biggest problem was when he was paired with Tindall, giving us probably the most predictable pair of centres ever to grace a rugby field.

Anyway, back to fly halfs - the one issue with Farrell recently has been the lack of players running off him. His passing and running game is little worse than Wilkinson's during the 1999-2003 period, but the backline play is stodgy in part because of the lack of targets for him to pass to. Wilko would always have Greenwood offering an angle outside and frequently the blindside winger on his inside shoulder, plus options wider out, while Dawson's ability to snipe the fringes and Larry Dayglo's ability to pick and drive round the corner kept the inside defence honest. Put Farrell into the same setting and he would look a lot better.

Of course another issue that has hardly been touched on is that the back division that only shone very intermittently in the AIs (basically, a good half v Argentina) was rather cobbled together - the midfield of Dickson, Farrell, 12Trees and Tomkins having played precisely no time together before the Aus match. Generally, they performed a bit better as the series went on, although Tomkins's limitations were rather shown up.

If we are as stodgy with a back line of Youngs - Farrell - 12trees - Manu - Yarde - Wade - Brown, then maybe we do have to conclude Farrell is the problem, but as it stands he's done pretty well so far.

Dummy,

Hopefully with Morgan and Billy offering a big carrying option now, Twelvetrees looking livelier game by game and other options coming through, given gametime they could start to progress a little.
Add in Daly, Eastmond or someone outside him with skills and suddenly a little bit of optimism kicks in.

dummy half yes I suppose that's a fair assessment of Noon. True - pairing Noon and Tindall together does lead to a predictable affair.

The centre dilemma has plagued England since Greenwood-Tindall in their peak but everyone knows that. Unfortunately we are no closer to an answer.

Don't know why there seems to be an inability to effectively use the back three.

Geordiefalcon I like your optimism but Eastmond isn't getting gametime for Bath's 1st team at the moment, Daly is being played at full back. Yet these are seen as two prime candidates for the 13 shirt.
Henry Trinder wasn't even warming the bench for Gloucester when they took on Quins yet he's another on people's lips.

Bit worrying in my opinion.

I certainly don't want Tindall to be recalled!

Your right, Dalys experiement with 15 should be ended now. But he has great skills for a 13.
Eastmond, Joseph, Trinder...all expected to push on, havent really done so as you have mentioned...

Where else do we look? i dont like this over reliance on Tuilagi, who by all accounts wont feature in the 6n anyway.

What are the genuine options?

Do we give what was a rediculously inexperienced and unfamiliar backline (Farrell, Twelvetrees, Tomkins) more gametime to gel? This would make sense and be fair on the players. It would also follow Lancs policy to generally give players a chance.

or do we look at a Twelvetrees, Barritt midfield.

I think Tomkins is out for a while:thumbsup: 

Ruby,

Im not buying into all this Tomkins hatred. The lad didnt have much chance to show what he can do...and considering two of his first 3 games for England were against Australia and New Zealand, thats a big ask.

Also add in that this was the first 3 games the entire 10-13 axis had played together we shouldnt be expecting fireworks really.

But if he is injured also then we are up the creek.

It means we have to focus on one of Daly, Eastmond, Trinder or Joseph...unless Banahan is recalled at 13.

Cipriani has the potential to be better than Farrell I think. There seems to be more flair and vision, and I remember the first time I saw him play he appeared to have that extra moment to decide what to do that the great players have. That was my impression anyway.

BUT

He is - or at least was - desperately stupid, selfish and immature. Aside from his defensive weakness he doesn't (didn't maybe) seem to understand responsibility to his team and appears to have been an appallingly divisive person to have around. You can be as talented as you like, but one player doesn't win games (eg, Hugo Porta). I wouldn't have had him anywhere near any team I was interested in over the last few years if I had any say in the matter.

HOWEVER

There have been signs this year that maybe he IS growing up a bit. If he is beginning to show a bit of maturity at Sale then I would be keeping a close eye if I were Lancaster. But I would also want to see him maintain his more mature approach for a season or maybe two before I trusted it to be real and likely to last. Cipriani working hard on his defence would also be a positive sign.

IN CONTRAST

Farrell is very solid. He seems about as opposite to Cipriani as it's possible to be and still share a species. At the moment I want him rather than Cipriani because I'd rather have limited and reliable than a complete flake who might have one moment of brilliance. I think I've noticed Farrell showing a bit more flair recently, but that may be wishful thinking.

IDEALLY

I want a grown up Cipriani and Farrell in the squad. Between them they would cover just about everything you could hope for from your fly halfs.

Tomkins is injured. I've read somewhere that Trinder was planned to start for the AIs but picked up a niggle so perhaps he is in pole position. Is it Burrell and 36 for IC or will he be tempted to move Burrell outside? Will Eastmond have his mind back on the job from whatever is troubling him at the moment?

For me it's 12: Twelvetress 13: Eastmond/Trinder/Burrell.

Wheres all this Cipriani flavour of the month come from?

He is indeed rubyguby. Out for 3 months.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/25071807

Geordiefalcon I suppose there is Barritt and Burrell but they are both 12s. We need 13 options.

Talking about genuine options - looking bleak at the moment.

Oh yes there is Joseph - at least he's starting for Bath at 13.

In my case, noticing what may be signs that his pair have finally dropped and thinking him to be the most naturally talented fly half qualified for us. Read an interview somewhere not so long ago where he was saying a lot of the right things... If he can get over his personality issues I think he has a lot to offer. But that's a big if.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ruby,

Im not buying into all this Tomkins hatred. The lad didnt have much chance to show what he can do...and considering two of his first 3 games for England were against Australia and New Zealand, thats a big ask.

Also add in that this was the first 3 games the entire 10-13 axis had played together we should be expecting fireworks really.

But if he is injured also then we are up the creek.

It means we have to focus on one of Daly, Eastmond, Trinder or Joseph...unless Banahan is recalled at 13.

I think the lad has shown up well. I'm not quite sure if the personnel need changing or the actual style of play - A more creative approach for me would work as good as if not better than a creative player. The style just remains mechanical and predictable. It's the style rather than individual players for me (Barritt aside who is as Ronseal as they come)  

It would indeed appear that much of the play is a result of management instructions...which makes sense when you have Farrell, Barritt and Tomkins all playing for the top side scoring plenty of tries / points.

But we can talk all we want i guess.

We need the young 13's playing week in week out for their club, and putting in great performances.

On the plus side Cipriani offers more of an attacking threat, on the negative his father isn't the coach.

GeordieFalcon wrote:It would indeed appear that much of the play is a result of management instructions...which makes sense when you have Farrell, Barritt and Tomkins all playing for the top side scoring plenty of tries / points.

But we can talk all we want i guess.

We need the young 13's playing week in week out for their club, and putting in great performances.

Ah hah! So you agree that we should also play a 9, 10, 12 axis of Dickson, Myler, Burrell?

I'm not suere that Myler as an option (not first choice) for England is a bad shout. Our pack generally competed pretty well in all tests bar Wales in 2013 and if they can compete with Wales and South Africa, then that's the kind of pack that Myler plays behind at Saints, and if he is behind a good pack we now know he can do all the basics rather well, include game manage, and he is more of a passing threat than Farrell right now.

Myler is average when playing at his very best. Why waste s place on a guy who's never going to make it at Int level?

yappysnap wrote:Myler is average when playing at his very best. Why waste s place on a guy who's never going to make it at Int level?

+5 - For Myler read Andy (Not so) Goode

-5
Myler is not fat, his backs move, and he has hair. Me no understand your comment.

I'm only half-joking about Myler, just pumping up my Saints. But his team scores a lot and plays good defense, as does Farrell's. Is the 10 not a critical link in that chain? And, therefore, is Myler a lesser link in Saints chain than Farrell at Sarries?

Grey - Leicester also seemed to do well with Pork Pie Goode at OH. These players need class around them to be able to have the arm chair to do what they do well. Without the arm chair their deficiencies are exposed. No joking  

OR

Is it that all these flamboyant players need a calm level headed coordinator / pivot who just controls the tempo and when to make use of the talented backs.

Myler, Farrell and Goode are those type of players. Not massively skilled but great controllers.

How anyone can have a go about Andy Goode...he must have a fair few trophies at home...

Andy Goode was the epitome of the Fat Controller - Unfortunately his deficiencies are being exposed at Wasps where he is definitely more British Rail than Eurostar. Lots of trophies though and a very good player but not what you want as an international 10.

Doesn't he play for Wasps or have I invented that?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Doesn't he play for Wasps or have I invented that?

Yep, he's at Wasps. I've no idea what Ruby is on about

RubyGuby wrote:Grey - Leicester also  seemed to do well with Pork Pie Goode at OH. These players need class around them to be able to have the arm chair to do what they do well. Without the arm chair their deficiencies are exposed. No joking  

OK joking aside,  I see England as having only two tested and proven 10s in or around the squad, Farrell and Flood.  We really don't know how Burns will get on despite his cameo against the ABs last year.  Ford?  We know even less.  We really don't know what happens if Farrell gets hurt.  Is it Alex Goode (thin and with hair?).  This is something we need to see.    

Regarding Stevie, he came to Rugby from League with very little experience.  Each year he has gotten better.  Finally, after 200 club appearances, I have to tell you I see a player here, a different bloke entirely.  He manages the game very well and doesn't come unglued.   His passes are flat, slick and on target.  Kicking has improved dramatically.  Plays fine against the top clubs.  Not sure what else would qualify him for a shot with the top team.  Same as the other contenders.  Not more, nor less. If he gets his shot and fails, then that is that.

But I think the die is cast for now.

beshocked wrote:Kingelderfield Danny boy will have an opportunity to put his point across next weekend when he faces Farrell at 10.

Did you ever watch Danny boy for England? He put in an all round excellent 10 performance vs Ireland at Twickenham but after that he failed to deliver.

4 consecutive chargedowns in 4 matches led to his demise.

1 good game and that's about it. If Danny boy can show for a season that he's a better player than the one horrifically exposed in internationals then he might well get a call up.

I know you like to say how hopeless Farrell is etc but generally he racks up the points and wins.

Hi Beshocked,

If you were there today, could you let me know what you thought? I know Farrell was at 12, with Hodgson at 10, so there wasn't the opportunity of a direct comparison (which is a shame), but yer I am very interested to know what you thought of Cipriani's form etc.?