Owen Farrell's defense

He consistently shows up on the world player of the year nomination lists and is often considered one of England's prize assets. What surprises me about this is that he seems to also consistently receive a pass for fairly weak defending.

Statistically he was the weakest test player on the Lions tour and he is also England's weakest defender in terms of missed tackles in the six nations.

In two of the matches so far just like the Lions tour he has missed most tackles for England:

Italy game he missed 2, Care missed 3.
Scotland game he missed 4 tackles, England's next highest is 2.
In the Wales match he missed 7 tackles. Itoje missed 3 tackles, the second highest for England.

It seemed pretty obvious on the Lions tour that NZ were intentionally targetting him and it looks like Scotland did too last Saturday as two of Scotland's three tries involved fairly weak defending from Farrell.

For Scotland's second try Farrell missed a very easy tackle on Scotland's McInally in the phase before the try putting the Scots on the front foot.

For the third try Jones found a gap through Hughes and Farrell. Technically it was Hughes man but Jones was probably closer to Farrell.

All in all I reckon his defense is a really weak point for England that teams are now exploiting so surprised England fans dont seem too concerned about it.

His defence was fantastic against Wales. Stats don't mean a thing. Saracens had the most missed tackles in the league when their defence was the best.

Even worse when yo look at %. Against Scotland he attempted 9 tackles and missed 4 IIRC. thats a 45% failure rate

Its one thing to miss 4 tackles if you attempt 20, another if you only attempt 9

all attacks against England will run at the 10/12 axis when you have these two in there. Easy yards. Compare him to Peter Horne who played opposite him - attempted 10 tackles missed two - and we think Horne a poor defender

Scottrf wrote:His defence was fantastic against Wales. Stats don't mean a thing. Saracens had the most missed tackles in the league when their defence was the best.

If they dont mean anything why do all teams' players wear tracking devices and use statistics in their video review sessions after every game? Of course it matters if one player is consistently missing more tackles than everyone else.

How can you have the best defense and miss most tackles, that doesnt make much sense.

Missing 7 out of 20 attempts against Wales - 35% failure rate - that is not a fantastic defensive effort.

TJ wrote:Even worse when yo look at %.  Against Scotland he attempted 9 tackles and missed 4 IIRC.  thats a 45% failure rate

Its one thing to miss 4 tackles if you attempt 20, another if you only attempt 9

all attacks against England will run at the 10/12 axis when you have these two in there.  Easy yards.  Compare him to Peter Horne who played opposite him - attempted 10 tackles missed two - and we think Horne a poor defender

I know. In the Wales game he attempted 13 and missed 7, thats quite bad.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:His defence was fantastic against Wales. Stats don't mean a thing. Saracens had the most missed tackles in the league when their defence was the best.

If they dont mean anything why do all teams' players wear tracking devices and use statistics in their video review sessions after every game? Of course it matters if one player is consistently missing more tackles than everyone else.

How can you have the best defense and miss most tackles, that doesnt make much sense.

Umm pretty obvious. You don't win a game by having the highest differential in missed tackles.

I believe Saracens used to return very high missed tackle statistics, despite being widely praised for having a good defence and in actuality conceding fewer points and tries than their rivals.

I can't say I have done an in-depth analysis of Farrell's missed tackles, but a lot of the time he does shoot out the line, which isolates him and might contribute to his missed tackle stat. But if the tackle is still made over the gainline, he has done his job in that defensive system.

Rugby is obviously a team game, and isn't about individual stats, so in that way the missed tackle statistic needs to be taken in context.

What is more of a worry would be if he was missing one-on-one tackles while in the line which are leading to line breaks or gainline successes, which it sounds like the McInally one may have been. I don't remember the exact incident however.

The Jones one is an interesting one, and it depends how England are defending. If it's in-to-out, which it looked like, then it's Hughes' man. If it is in-to-out and Farrell turns in, then he's stitched up his defence out wide. If he turns in and Jones passes it, Farrell probably won't have a missed tackle stat but Scotland might be away down the wing. You have to trust your teammates to do their job within the defensive system, and if it was Hughes' man then Farrell is right (to a point) to leave him.

It's not something I'd particularly noticed because I don't think he's regularly being bounced or missing tackles that are leading to linebreaks. The stats alone do cause concern though, it's probably something I'll look out for in the France game.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:His defence was fantastic against Wales. Stats don't mean a thing. Saracens had the most missed tackles in the league when their defence was the best.

If they dont mean anything why do all teams' players wear tracking devices and use statistics in their video review sessions after every game? Of course it matters if one player is consistently missing more tackles than everyone else.

How can you have the best defense and miss most tackles, that doesnt make much sense.

Tracking devices record the distance a player travels during a game or training session, and is very accurate. Stats like tackle count can become somewhat subjective, as there can be difference in interpretation to things like who gets the credit for a tackle, when the the tackle involves more then one defender etc etc.

Often a team can have the best defence yet have a high missed tackle count.

Guns - he made 13 and missed 7. 20 attempts Slate him by all means - but get the stats right

Its one of the reasons I don't rate him.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:His defence was fantastic against Wales. Stats don't mean a thing. Saracens had the most missed tackles in the league when their defence was the best.

If they dont mean anything why do all teams' players wear tracking devices and use statistics in their video review sessions after every game? Of course it matters if one player is consistently missing more tackles than everyone else.

How can you have the best defense and miss most tackles, that doesnt make much sense.

Tracking devices record the distance a player travels during a game or training session, and is very accurate. Stats like tackle count can become somewhat subjective, as there can be difference in interpretation to things like who gets the credit for a tackle, when the the tackle involves more then one defender etc etc.

So what are you saying even thought Farrell missed the most tackles for England and the Lions he is a good defender?

It was pretty obvious in the first Lions test that the ABs were targetting him. Even the tackles he made in that game he nearly always gave up significant yards.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:His defence was fantastic against Wales. Stats don't mean a thing. Saracens had the most missed tackles in the league when their defence was the best.

If they dont mean anything why do all teams' players wear tracking devices and use statistics in their video review sessions after every game? Of course it matters if one player is consistently missing more tackles than everyone else.

How can you have the best defense and miss most tackles, that doesnt make much sense.

Tracking devices record the distance a player travels during a game or training session, and is very accurate. Stats like tackle count can become somewhat subjective, as there can be difference in interpretation to things like who gets the credit for a tackle, when the the tackle involves more then one defender etc etc.

So what are you saying even thought Farrell missed the most tackles for England and the Lions he is a good defender?

It was pretty obvious in the first Lions test that the ABs were targetting him. Even the tackles he made in that game he nearly always gave up significant yards.

 I have always found that it is dangerous to just criticise the player who gets the highest missed tackle stat, it often pays to also look at the player insider him in the defensive line. On the All Black issue have you considered that it might have been what the All Blacks can get out of a breakdown commenced with a Farrell tackle? - nothing to do with missing the tackle.

I, personally, have never really thought that Farrell's defence was that bad. The big one against Scotland was when he actually backed off against Jones, it looked very bad but it was not his tackle to make.

If you want to look at stats, then analyse his whole game. He has a rather large percentage of line breaking, a large percentage of setting up try's, has a pretty good try scoring record himself and is very accurate with the boot.

A few missed tackles does not make him a bad player. He is certainly one of the best in the world.

eirebilly wrote:I, personally, have never really thought that Farrell's defence was that bad. The big one against Scotland was when he actually backed off against Jones, it looked very bad but it was not his tackle to make.

If you want to look at stats, then analyse his whole game. He has a rather large percentage of line breaking, a large percentage of setting up try's, has a pretty good try scoring record himself and is very accurate with the boot.

A few missed tackles does not make him a bad player. He is certainly one of the best in the world.

I'd say it was his man. Hughes was on Russell, Farrell should have been on Jones. Granted Jones' line was amazing and there is a case to be made about him being the best attacking 13 in the world right now, but Farrell should have nailed him or at least slowed him down.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I, personally, have never really thought that Farrell's defence was that bad. The big one against Scotland was when he actually backed off against Jones, it looked very bad but it was not his tackle to make.

If you want to look at stats, then analyse his whole game. He has a rather large percentage of line breaking, a large percentage of setting up try's, has a pretty good try scoring record himself and is very accurate with the boot.

A few missed tackles does not make him a bad player. He is certainly one of the best in the world.

I'd say it was his man. Hughes was on Russell, Farrell should have been on Jones. Granted Jones' line was amazing and there is a case to be made about him being the best attacking 13 in the world right now, but Farrell should have nailed him or at least slowed him down.

I got to agree. I dont think Hughes was ever gonna get him, like you said it was a great line but Farrell should have nailed him.

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:His defence was fantastic against Wales. Stats don't mean a thing. Saracens had the most missed tackles in the league when their defence was the best.

If they dont mean anything why do all teams' players wear tracking devices and use statistics in their video review sessions after every game? Of course it matters if one player is consistently missing more tackles than everyone else.

How can you have the best defense and miss most tackles, that doesnt make much sense.

Umm pretty obvious. You don't win a game by having the highest differential in missed tackles.

Its obvious that a team that misses most tackles has the best defense? Hmm ok, thanks for another worth while contribution Scott.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I, personally, have never really thought that Farrell's defence was that bad. The big one against Scotland was when he actually backed off against Jones, it looked very bad but it was not his tackle to make.

If you want to look at stats, then analyse his whole game. He has a rather large percentage of line breaking, a large percentage of setting up try's, has a pretty good try scoring record himself and is very accurate with the boot.

A few missed tackles does not make him a bad player. He is certainly one of the best in the world.

I'd say it was his man. Hughes was on Russell, Farrell should have been on Jones. Granted Jones' line was amazing and there is a case to be made about him being the best attacking 13 in the world right now, but Farrell should have nailed him or at least slowed him down.

I got to agree. I dont think Hughes was ever gonna get him, like you said it was a great line but Farrell should have nailed him.

This is where Hogg doesn't get enough credit. He was lurking really deep there behind that pod of forwards and he kept Farrell occupied with his positioning. He's creating a lot of space for Jones by simply lurking in the right places.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I, personally, have never really thought that Farrell's defence was that bad. The big one against Scotland was when he actually backed off against Jones, it looked very bad but it was not his tackle to make.

If you want to look at stats, then analyse his whole game. He has a rather large percentage of line breaking, a large percentage of setting up try's, has a pretty good try scoring record himself and is very accurate with the boot.

A few missed tackles does not make him a bad player. He is certainly one of the best in the world.

I'd say it was his man. Hughes was on Russell, Farrell should have been on Jones. Granted Jones' line was amazing and there is a case to be made about him being the best attacking 13 in the world right now, but Farrell should have nailed him or at least slowed him down.

To me, it looked like Jones was Hughes' man to tackle, I will take another look.

Jones' line was absolutely amazing and sometimes ye just have to put your hand up and say that you have been completely beaten by a brilliant piece of play.

eirebilly wrote:I, personally, have never really thought that Farrell's defence was that bad. The big one against Scotland was when he actually backed off against Jones, it looked very bad but it was not his tackle to make.

If you want to look at stats, then analyse his whole game. He has a rather large percentage of line breaking, a large percentage of setting up try's, has a pretty good try scoring record himself and is very accurate with the boot.

A few missed tackles does not make him a bad player. He is certainly one of the best in the world.

Its an article about Farrell's defense. Feel free to do a separate article on the A to Z of his strengths and weaknesses if you wish.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I, personally, have never really thought that Farrell's defence was that bad. The big one against Scotland was when he actually backed off against Jones, it looked very bad but it was not his tackle to make.

If you want to look at stats, then analyse his whole game. He has a rather large percentage of line breaking, a large percentage of setting up try's, has a pretty good try scoring record himself and is very accurate with the boot.

A few missed tackles does not make him a bad player. He is certainly one of the best in the world.

Its an article about Farrell's defense. Feel free to do a separate article on the A to Z of his strengths and weaknesses if you wish.

The first point in your original post...

GunsGermsV2 wrote:He consistently shows up on the world player of the year nomination lists and is often considered one of England's prize assets. What surprises me about this is that he seems to also consistently receive a pass for fairly weak defending.

I think that it is ok to talk about his other assets since you opened with this... I am commentating on why he is a prize asset and on the world player of the year nomination lists.

eirebilly wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I, personally, have never really thought that Farrell's defence was that bad. The big one against Scotland was when he actually backed off against Jones, it looked very bad but it was not his tackle to make.

If you want to look at stats, then analyse his whole game. He has a rather large percentage of line breaking, a large percentage of setting up try's, has a pretty good try scoring record himself and is very accurate with the boot.

A few missed tackles does not make him a bad player. He is certainly one of the best in the world.

I'd say it was his man. Hughes was on Russell, Farrell should have been on Jones. Granted Jones' line was amazing and there is a case to be made about him being the best attacking 13 in the world right now, but Farrell should have nailed him or at least slowed him down.

To me, it looked like Jones was Hughes' man to tackle, I will take another look.

Jones' line was absolutely amazing and sometimes ye just have to put your hand up and say that you have been completely beaten by a brilliant piece of play.

It's all down to interpretation mate, and to be honest my expertise I'm defending the 12 channel on a rugby pitch is comparing to my knowledge Peruvian cuisine or Belarusian cossack dancing.

But what I did recognise is that the Scottish attack was tying the English defence up on knots, I just hope we can do the same to you guys in a weeks time...

eirebilly wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I, personally, have never really thought that Farrell's defence was that bad. The big one against Scotland was when he actually backed off against Jones, it looked very bad but it was not his tackle to make.

If you want to look at stats, then analyse his whole game. He has a rather large percentage of line breaking, a large percentage of setting up try's, has a pretty good try scoring record himself and is very accurate with the boot.

A few missed tackles does not make him a bad player. He is certainly one of the best in the world.

Its an article about Farrell's defense. Feel free to do a separate article on the A to Z of his strengths and weaknesses if you wish.

The first point in your original post...

GunsGermsV2 wrote:He consistently shows up on the world player of the year nomination lists and is often considered one of England's prize assets. What surprises me about this is that he seems to also consistently receive a pass for fairly weak defending.

I think that it is ok to talk about his other assets since you opened with this... I am commentating on why he is a prize asset and on the world player of the year nomination lists.

Can you keep your comments on topic please. Its a discussion about Farrell's defense.

Feel free to troll another article if you wish.

Isn't it a by product of their defensive pattern which is very similar to Sarries (for obvious reasons) in that Farrell is usually the one that jumps out of the line and then the defensive line then tries to wrap around.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:His defence was fantastic against Wales. Stats don't mean a thing. Saracens had the most missed tackles in the league when their defence was the best.

If they dont mean anything why do all teams' players wear tracking devices and use statistics in their video review sessions after every game? Of course it matters if one player is consistently missing more tackles than everyone else.

How can you have the best defense and miss most tackles, that doesnt make much sense.

Umm pretty obvious. You don't win a game by having the highest differential in missed tackles.

Its obvious that a team that misses most tackles has the best defense? Hmm ok, thanks for another worth while contribution Scott.

It's obvious that points conceded is a more important defensive metric.

But then again looking at the stats Farrell (Chris) was man of the match for Ireland against Wales even though he missed most tackles.

So it a case of that Owen Farrell's defending isn't what you are making out to be and it's just that's where oppositions like to attack England?

Chris Farrell only missed 3 tackles on his six nations debut. He isnt being talked about as the best player in the world (yet).

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Chris Farrell only missed 3 tackles on his six nations debut. He isnt being talked about as the best player in the world (yet).

No, but he was man of the match and still missed the most tackles which leads to the conclusion that you can still be a great player despite missing tackles.

% is important - miss 3 make 17 - decent performance but not great. miss 3 make 1 - poor performance

Remember ickle jonny has only missed 30 tackles in his entire pro career out of more than a thousand.

TJ wrote:% is important - miss 3 make 17 - decent performance but not great.  miss 3 make 1 - poor performance

Remember ickle jonny has only missed 30 tackles in his entire pro career out of more than a thousand.

But what if missed tackles didn't lead to points? If you have a great scramble defense, would it be so important then?

Different tactics. Comes back to looking at stats alone. You need to watch the games and understand. For instance the lions tests the main aim of the midfield was to rush up and stop the outside pass from getting to deadly wingers.it doesn't matter if Farrell then 'misses' the tackle as long as he slows the ball outside or forces the defender back inside and back towards the pack.

So is guns collapse or not?

Exactly. The aim may just be to reduce the decision time of the first receiver. If it's part of a system there's no chance of a line break.

Since when do we emphasise numbers over watching a game? Do we really think Jones is keeping him on the pitch if he missed 7 tackles he needs to make?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So is guns collapse or not?

Yes its not a secret. I have confirmed it lot of times.

Saw both users posting so was unsure.

Scottrf wrote:Exactly. The aim may just be to reduce the decision time of the first receiver. If it's part of a system there's no chance of a line break.

Since when do we emphasise numbers over watching a game? Do we really think Jones is keeping him on the pitch if he missed 7 tackles he needs to make?

This. It is so easy to bring a game numbers and stats but I think you get a much better perception from watching the game fully. I have never had the impression that Farrell's defence was poor nor do I feel he gets a free pass for his supposed defensive frailties. Farrell is part of a defensive system. I cannot see an issue with his defence myself.

His "defense" in the calcutta cup match was woeful and lead directly to 2 of the three tries.

One game doesn't make him a bad defender.

You're not including the tackle jump to feet receive a high tackle for one of them are you tj?

Statistics can be used to prove pretty much anything, especially when used in isolation and taken out of context.

So if tackles missed is the only measure - then Owen Farrell is a bloomin awful defender. The flip side though is that perhaps metres made is an indication of a good attacker? If so Mike Brown has over his career been a great attacker.

Oh if rugby were so simple (well thank god it is not). Farrell has learnt to play the Sarries defence, which is used now by England. The prime requisite is whether tackles are aggressive or passive. An aggressive challenge that stops a man behind the gain line but is finished off by a team mate counts as a missed tackle, but is deemed a success by the England and Sarries defence coaches. A tackle that permits the man to pass or get over the gain line and set the ball back is a completed tackle, yet deemed a failure by the previousley mentioned defence coaches.

In the right set-up Farrell is a good defender, in the wrong one he is not.

"Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" - Benjamin Disraeli

LondonTiger wrote:Statistics can be used to prove pretty much anything, especially when used in isolation and taken out of context.

So if tackles missed is the only measure - then Owen Farrell is a bloomin awful defender. The flip side though is that perhaps metres made is an indication of a good attacker? If so Mike Brown has over his career been a great attacker.

Oh if rugby were so simple (well thank god it is not). Farrell has learnt to play the Sarries defence, which is used now by England. The prime requisite is whether tackles are aggressive or passive. An aggressive challenge that stops a man behind the gain line but is finished off by a team mate counts as a missed tackle, but is deemed a success by the England and Sarries defence coaches. A tackle that permits the man to pass or get over the gain line and set the ball back is a completed tackle, yet deemed a failure by the previousley mentioned defence coaches.

In the right set-up Farrell is a good defender, in the wrong one he is not.

"Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" - Benjamin Disraeli

Well yes that's how proof works. You put together a theory based on evidence or facts. There is no such thing as definitive proof but statistics are more reliable than opinions formed from the hunch you have based on nothing really.

When you combine stats with examples you have a reasonably strong argument.

Would just be better if you could supplement the statistics with an understanding of rugby.

Wales missed 18 tackles, England 23.

Better defence, more tries and points conceded. Hmm.

I agree with the point about if you send a player rushing up you will get more missed tackles in the stats.  However in the 3 games so far Farrell has missed 13 tackles and made 27  thats one in 3 tackles missed.  thats just not good enough

This site is ok with users posting with more than one account now? For shame!

TJ wrote:I agree with the point about if you send a player rushing up you will get more missed tackles in the stats.  However in the 3 games so far Farrell has missed 13 tackles and made 27  thats one in 3 tackles missed.  thats just not good enough

Ever consider that that might be due to his role? That's like blaming him for being the only one in the team to miss kicks.

I said I agree that rushing up / shooting out of the line but to miss 1 in 3 tackles at 12 is IMO just unnaceptable

Okay but he missed 7 in the Wales game and I haven't read a single negative comment about his defence in that game until looking at the stats. What were the scenarios? Obviously none lead to a try.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Statistics can be used to prove pretty much anything, especially when used in isolation and taken out of context.

So if tackles missed is the only measure - then Owen Farrell is a bloomin awful defender. The flip side though is that perhaps metres made is an indication of a good attacker? If so Mike Brown has over his career been a great attacker.

Oh if rugby were so simple (well thank god it is not). Farrell has learnt to play the Sarries defence, which is used now by England. The prime requisite is whether tackles are aggressive or passive. An aggressive challenge that stops a man behind the gain line but is finished off by a team mate counts as a missed tackle, but is deemed a success by the England and Sarries defence coaches. A tackle that permits the man to pass or get over the gain line and set the ball back is a completed tackle, yet deemed a failure by the previousley mentioned defence coaches.

In the right set-up Farrell is a good defender, in the wrong one he is not.

"Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" - Benjamin Disraeli

Well yes that's how proof works. You put together a theory based on evidence or facts. There is no such thing as definitive proof but statistics are more reliable than opinions formed from the hunch you have based on nothing really.

When you combine stats with examples you have a reasonably strong argument.

Thank you for completely ignoring the point being made. Taking just a small part of a quote out of context is really not dissimilar to using only a single stat out of context and ignoring everything else.

The statistic(s) you have provided demonstrate that Farrell misses tackles. I would agree if your assertion was Farrell has a poor tackle completion rate in this six nations. To then turn this into stating he is a bad defender is to make a value call on this single measure and ignore all others. That is a common trait amount g people who seek to prove a hypothesis rather than approaching the subject with an open mind.

nathan wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Chris Farrell only missed 3 tackles on his six nations debut. He isnt being talked about as the best player in the world (yet).

No, but he was man of the match and still missed the most tackles which leads to the conclusion that you can still be a great player despite missing tackles.

Does it really? He missed one tackle more than others. These are Owen Farrell numbers of consistent missed tackles over multiple games for both the Lions and England.

LondonTiger wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Statistics can be used to prove pretty much anything, especially when used in isolation and taken out of context.

So if tackles missed is the only measure - then Owen Farrell is a bloomin awful defender. The flip side though is that perhaps metres made is an indication of a good attacker? If so Mike Brown has over his career been a great attacker.

Oh if rugby were so simple (well thank god it is not). Farrell has learnt to play the Sarries defence, which is used now by England. The prime requisite is whether tackles are aggressive or passive. An aggressive challenge that stops a man behind the gain line but is finished off by a team mate counts as a missed tackle, but is deemed a success by the England and Sarries defence coaches. A tackle that permits the man to pass or get over the gain line and set the ball back is a completed tackle, yet deemed a failure by the previousley mentioned defence coaches.

In the right set-up Farrell is a good defender, in the wrong one he is not.

"Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" - Benjamin Disraeli

Well yes that's how proof works. You put together a theory based on evidence or facts. There is no such thing as definitive proof but statistics are more reliable than opinions formed from the hunch you have based on nothing really.

When you combine stats with examples you have a reasonably strong argument.

Thank you for completely ignoring the point being made. Taking just a small part of a quote out of context is really not dissimilar to using only a single stat out of context and ignoring everything else.

The statistic(s) you have provided demonstrate that Farrell misses tackles. I would agree if your assertion was Farrell has a poor tackle completion rate in this six nations. To then turn this into stating he is a bad defender is to make a value call on this single measure and ignore all others. That is a common trait amount g people who seek to prove a hypothesis rather than approaching the subject with an open mind.

Its not a single measurement. His stats for England in this years six nations and the Lions tour and multiple examples of how bad his defense was against Scotland were all given. Three different metrics to show he is a bad defender.

Feel free to provide examples of how he is a good defender as so far you have added nothing but a few buzz words, flowery language and fairly meaningless quotes.