Owen Farrell's defense

First topic message reminder :

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.

Collapse2005 wrote:I spelt it that way just to annoy you.

My ego would love to believe I am that important. My id has killed my ego however.

Admittedly my spelling isn't great. One thing that annoys me is when people misuse apostrophes.

For example I see people refer to the All Blacks as the AB's. That bugs me. People I work with constantly make that mistake.

I think Farrell's strength and weakness is his combativeness.

When things are going well, he's making big hits and even if technically he's not the best defender his force means he can shut down opposition and he generally plays in well drilled defences.

A good defence isn't about one player, it's about the collective.

Farrell and Joseph as a centre combo is not the best defensively but if Farrell's game is firing, it doesn't matter as much.

The problem is occasionally Farrell's head just isn't in the right place and makes him more vulnerable.

Unsettle Farrell and it makes it easier to beat the team, he's playing for.

I've seen matches where Farrell's not being in the right frame of mind has cost his team or his team mates have dragged him out of the mire.

Of course more often than not there's been matches where he's really made a big difference but that's because he was in the right frame of mind.

You need sufficient firepower in the team to bail the team out when Farrell has one of his off days mentally.

Against Scotland there wasn't. Scotland wound up Farrell and it had the desired effect.

Hartley doesn't have the force of personality - to make up for this. He's fine when everything is rosy but when England are under pressure, more often than not he's been taken off so he's not particularly good in a crisis.

It is no surprise that Jones' favoured leaders are the likes of Farrell,Hartley and Brown - they have that combativeness he loves but they are not the kind of players who I'd trust to marshall a defence.


I don't think England have a player who I'd say - you are the defence leader - if we are relying on Joseph to do that.... well.... that's not good enough.

I'd say Joseph's place in the team is in doubt. He's not hitting the heights he has in the past.

Farrell's strength as a defender is how vocal he is. He probably organises the defense well and he is clearly a leader and very brave however, for a 12 he isn't a big guy by todays standards so he does aside from missing a lot of tackles tend to get knocked back a lot which isn't ideal because he is also covering for Ford a lot of the time.

I think Ireland will get plenty of yards running at Ford and Farrell.

I think beshocked is right. If you can rattle Farrell he will try and be an enforcer and that's when his tackling goes wrong.
He generally likes to go high, take man and ball, but when he's Angy he will put more into the hit and that's where he risks the high tackle penalty, or the opposing player sees it coming gets a step in and Farrell can't adjust and falls off the tackle or misses

He got man of the match vs wales despite 'missing' more tackles than vs scotland. If we.could get away from that pointless stat it would help. For instance beshocked are yu concerned about the amount of missed tackles saracens have? Personally I'd say they are up with the best defences in Europe. Perhaps it would be better to concentrate on the tactics of defence from England and see if they are used because of the players we have or the players we have are fitting into the system?

That's the wider view of defence as well as england often use an aggressive defence picking up loose balls and using it to attack which Gustard brought from saracens see lawes tackle vs scotland etc.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He got man of the match vs wales despite 'missing' more tackles than vs scotland. If we.could get away from that pointless stat it would help. For instance beshocked are yu concerned about the amount of missed tackles saracens have? Personally I'd say they are up with the best defences in Europe. Perhaps it would be better to concentrate on the tactics of defence from England and see if they are used because of the players we have or the players we have are fitting into the system?

Its only pointless because it doesn't suit your agenda. Its hardly a pointless stat in a conversation as to whether he is a good defender or not though.

carpet baboon exactly. When it works, it can stop an opposition player in it's tracks.

He's got more physicality than someone like Ford who is a bit smaller but Farrell occasionally gets the technique wrong.

no 7 & 1/2 yes but should Farrell get all the credit for the defence? No of course not.

When you have other players contributing more to the defence they are the ones plugging the gaps.

Farrell has his strengths but technically his defence can be suspect at times, especially if not in the right frame of mind.

Farrell didn't get motm vs Wales because of his defence though did he? It was his game control and combatitiveness.

It's not a pointless stat when a Scottish attacks goes through a gap where either Farrell or Hughes should have been plugging.

Not pointless. But not particularly revealing either. 7 missed tackles, 0 tries against.

And Farrell is the leader in defence. So what I'm trying to put across is there is an overall system in place and it doesn't appear missed tackles bother englands coaches that much. Indeed watching he game you can see why. You'd agree beshocked about the saracens point?

And collapse you have to agree that the tactic of the coaches here is about reducing thinking time stopping the ball going wider and attempting to turn the attack back inside? If you can confirm that you'd have to start and think whether Farrell slowing down going lower and completing more tackles benefits the tactics if the ball is getting wider with more quality on it.

The one crucial missed tackle by Farrell was in the lead up to the Underhill try save IMO. But not a particularly easy one, and lots of cover behind him.

You're joking right?

Barritt is the defensive leader at Saracens. Goode also shares the playmaking abilities with Farrell.

Farrell's missed tackles don't matter as much when he's in the right frame of mind and there's someone to plug the gaps.

England don't have a defensive player like Brad Barritt in the backline.

England don't have particularly strong defenders in the backline as a whole actually.

Also England's forwards like Cole and Hartley don't pick up the slack defensively.

It's important to have players who can bring the defensive workrate up - players like Underhill and George can do that.

A defensive system needs to have sufficient good defenders to work properly.

If Farrell is our defensive leader it's a sign of weakness.


scottrf Farrell was at joint fault with Hughes for one of Scotland's tries.

I think most people including Farrell can be forgiven when they get left for dead by Jones, but Farrell shouldn't be letting someone like McInally through like he did in the build up to Scotland's 5 phase wonder pass harlem globe trotter try.

beshocked wrote:scottrf Farrell was at joint fault with Hughes for one of Scotland's tries.

I agree. My point wasn’t that he never makes errors. Just that missed tackle stats need context.

For defensive leader I was talking of Farrell for England not saracens. I ask again though the initial and one of the ongoing points here is that missed tackles equals bad defender; I'd say that saracens are one of the best defensive sides.in Europe despite a relatively high number of missed tackles. You'd agree? You had an earlier very good point of Hughes coming back into the system and not taking his man...Farrell is then too wide to make the tackle. How much is that down to Farrell? Should you have complete trust in yur inside man or half and eye. You're then talking how good your scramble defence is.

Exactly scott. Without context and understanding stats are limited. Lineout stats for instance. You can see a guy with 100% but it doesn't mean they haven't had to fight for scrappy possession which led to a ruck rather than an attacking play etc. Used t be argument against playing tom youngs as though his percentage was good it was often front of the lineout or challenged ball.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And Farrell is the leader in defence. So what I'm trying to put across is there is an overall system in place and it doesn't appear missed tackles bother englands coaches that much. Indeed  watching he game you can see why. You'd agree beshocked about the saracens point?

And collapse you have to agree that the tactic of the coaches here is about reducing thinking time stopping the ball going wider and attempting to turn the attack back inside? If you can confirm that you'd have to start and think whether Farrell slowing down going lower and completing more tackles benefits the tactics if the ball is getting wider with more quality on it.

Stopping the ball from going wide is a good tactic but you still need to make your tackles otherwise you can end up with a fragmented defence. Farrell does absolutely have a prominent role in England's defense in both organising it and shooting out of the line but he is definitely prone to missing tackles and absolutely prone to giving up big yards in tackles.

In the first Lions test NZ knew he Lions were going to adopt a blitz defense to try to stop the ball from going wide so they just ran everything down Farrell's channel. They made so many yards doing this that Gatland subbed T'eo off and brought Sexton into 10 and Farrell to 12 to plug the hole. They continued to get big yards running at Farrell at 12 in tests 2 and 3.

You cant question his bravery, commitment and will to win but sometimes that isn't enough.

Well if Farrell is defensive leader then he's not doing a good enough job. Simple.

Sometimes missed tackle can equal bad defender yes, depends on the context.

Yes but Saracens being one of the best defensive sides shouldn't be credited to Farrell.

You can be a weaker defender in a good defensive system.

I wouldn't call Ford or Hartley good defenders - they just happen to be in a good defensive system.

Farrell and Hughes should be working together to stop the threat.

Farrell was one of the players at fault.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I think most people including Farrell can be forgiven when they get left for dead by Jones, but Farrell shouldn't be letting someone like McInally through like he did in the build up to Scotland's 5 phase wonder pass harlem globe trotter try.

Exactly, that was blatantly really bad defending for a 12. He gave Scotland so many unnecessary crucial yards in such an attacking position.

So you accept that missed tackles aren't important to the tactic at least guns. Now if we're saying there are bigger buys who could stop players dead fair enough to a point. Burell was a disaster there for England and a smaller guy in lozowski when squared up one on one is better.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you accept that missed tackles aren't important to the tactic at least guns. Now if we're saying there are bigger buys who could stop players dead fair enough to a point. Burell was a disaster there for England and a smaller guy in lozowski when squared up one on one is better.

Where did I say that? I think you will find I said you still need to make your tackles. I think that's fairly obvious.

Missed tackles can matter yes. Shouldn't just be dismissed.

Burrell was disaster but it wasn't solely down to defence, he just played badly.

So where are england going wrong in defence over say the last ten games beshocked? Where is Gustard going wrong and does it need a change of player somewhere? The point re saracens is not to single out Farrell as the reason for good defense but to point out that saracens are great there despite missing a relatively high amount of tackles. Context is important.

Well there's a pretty easy fix for Farrell then collapse. Slow his.line speed and go lower. Not sure jones or Gustard would like that at all. For all the reasons stated above.

England's lack of dynamism, being caught out wide. Having to protect Ford.

Perhaps it does need a change of player. Certainly I think England need to play a proper backrow.

Outwide perhaps put in Nowell. Take out Hartley who offers less defensively.

I feel like you are dismissing missed tackles as unimportant.

I think a lot of the missed tackles and tackle stats are unimportant without context yes. I don't believe that assisted tackles are counted in stats for instance and scott made points on the england thread of bounced off tackles then rejoining. So I assume you'd look to Farrell at 10 te'o at 12 gig forward? Any change to tactics on the wider defending?

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you accept that missed tackles aren't important to the tactic at least guns. Now if we're saying there are bigger buys who could stop players dead fair enough to a point. Burell was a disaster there for England and a smaller guy in lozowski when squared up one on one is better.

Where did I say that? I think you will find I said you still need to make your tackles. I think that's fairly obvious.

What has the better impact:

Flying up in the Fly Halves face, missing the tackle but making him throw it inaccurately, leading to a knock on, or

Making a tackle after drifting back for 5 metres and giving up 5 metres in the tackle?

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you accept that missed tackles aren't important to the tactic at least guns. Now if we're saying there are bigger buys who could stop players dead fair enough to a point. Burell was a disaster there for England and a smaller guy in lozowski when squared up one on one is better.

Where did I say that? I think you will find I said you still need to make your tackles. I think that's fairly obvious.

What has the better impact:

Flying up in the Fly Halves face, missing the tackle but making him throw it inaccurately, leading to a knock on, or

Making a tackle after drifting back for 5 metres and giving up 5 metres in the tackle?

Why would it count as a missed tackle if a pass has been made before any contact has been made? That seems to be the scenario you are giving.

Even if contact has been made why would a fly half pass it if you missed the tackle? Surely he would just run through the hole created by the missed tackle.

I doubt the majority of Farrell's missed tackle stats are down to him shooting up which you seem to be implying. If that is the case do you have any evidence of that?

A lot of holes in your argument.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you accept that missed tackles aren't important to the tactic at least guns. Now if we're saying there are bigger buys who could stop players dead fair enough to a point. Burell was a disaster there for England and a smaller guy in lozowski when squared up one on one is better.

Where did I say that? I think you will find I said you still need to make your tackles. I think that's fairly obvious.

What has the better impact:

Flying up in the Fly Halves face, missing the tackle but making him throw it inaccurately, leading to a knock on, or

Making a tackle after drifting back for 5 metres and giving up 5 metres in the tackle?

Why would it count as a missed tackle if a pass has been made before any contact has been made? That seems to be the scenario you are giving.

Even if contact has been made why would a fly half pass it if you missed the tackle? Surely he would just run through the hole created by the missed tackle.

I doubt the majority of Farrell's missed tackle stats are down to him shooting up which you seem to be implying. If that is the case do you have any evidence of that?

A lot of holes in your argument.

So he pressures him, but falls off, you know the point.

I know his missed tackle stats are due to that, because I've seen him play a hundred odd games. I think you're the one who needs to prove otherwise because he plays for two of the best defensive teams in the world.

If it was such an issue, England wouldn't miss 24 tackles and concede 6 points, no tries.

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you accept that missed tackles aren't important to the tactic at least guns. Now if we're saying there are bigger buys who could stop players dead fair enough to a point. Burell was a disaster there for England and a smaller guy in lozowski when squared up one on one is better.

Where did I say that? I think you will find I said you still need to make your tackles. I think that's fairly obvious.

What has the better impact:

Flying up in the Fly Halves face, missing the tackle but making him throw it inaccurately, leading to a knock on, or

Making a tackle after drifting back for 5 metres and giving up 5 metres in the tackle?

Why would it count as a missed tackle if a pass has been made before any contact has been made? That seems to be the scenario you are giving.

Even if contact has been made why would a fly half pass it if you missed the tackle? Surely he would just run through the hole created by the missed tackle.

I doubt the majority of Farrell's missed tackle stats are down to him shooting up which you seem to be implying. If that is the case do you have any evidence of that?

A lot of holes in your argument.

So he pressures him, but falls off, you know the point.

I know his missed tackle stats are due to that, because I've seen him play a hundred odd games. I think you're the one who needs to prove otherwise because he plays for two of the best defensive teams in the world.

You made the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Anecdotal "I've seen him play 100 times" evidence isn't as strong an argument as his actual missed tackle numbers.

I fail to see how it would be considered a missed tackle if the player passes the ball at the same time the tackle is made. That makes no sense.

You've made the claim his defense is bad, based just on missed tackles.

Two of the best defensive teams in the world have among the highest missed tackle stats.

Therefore, your point is invalid.

England vs Australia November 2017

England Missed tackles 22 vs 16 Australia Missed Tackles.
Actual score 30 vs 6.

Scottrf wrote:You've made the claim his defense is bad, based just on missed tackles.

Two of the best defensive teams in the world have among the highest missed tackle stats.

Therefore, your point is invalid.

Nope, I have provided a number of examples from games to support my belief that he is a defensive liability.

New Zealand vs Samoa June 2017

New Zealand Missed tackles 12 vs 15 Samoa Missed Tackles.
Score 78-0

You really think this is relevant defensive information?

Scottrf wrote:England vs Australia November 2017

England Missed tackles 22 vs 16 Australia Missed Tackles.
Actual score 30 vs 6.

Farrell is not a one man team. In the hierarchy of poor arguments you are coming up trumps every time. This time not for the first time you are ignoring the central point of the article.

Is Farrell a poor defender?

If the question posed was can a team win a game by defending poorly they you would be right or if it was can England win with Farrell defending poorly they you might be right but you are consistently ignoring the question.

Is Farrell a poor defender?

Also that match the scoreboard definitely flattered England.

78-0 with 12 missed tackles vs 15!!

Farrell is not a bad defender, no. He has the odd bad game, as does everyone.

No Farrell isn't a poor defender then.

Scottrf wrote:New Zealand vs Samoa June 2017

New Zealand Missed tackles 12 vs 15 Samoa Missed Tackles.
Score 78-0

You really think this is relevant defensive information?

It hilarious that you are usually the first person to accuse people of cherry picking stats. That's your go to argument and then you do it yourself. Do an analysis of all test matches and the correlation of wins to losses and missed tackles.

I don't see how it relates specifically to the question is Farrell a bad defender but it would be an interesting article.

Literally the first two games I thought of looking up. Regardless, the NZ vs Samoa game alone shows that it says almost nothing about a defensive performance by itself.

He's a very good defender for a fly half. At 12, he's adequate, and performs a role well in the England system

I don't understand what outcome you would like from this debate Guns. Do you think England should drop him?

Scottrf wrote:Literally the first two games I thought of looking up. Regardless, the NZ vs Samoa game alone shows that it says almost nothing about a defensive performance by itself.

Haha what a coincidence. NZ v Samoa is the 1st ranked team in the world vs the 16th ranked team in the world.

Obviously there are lots of things that a team needs to do to win a game and a good defense is just one of them so of course you will find games that the losing side will have missed less tackles. All good sides will obviously aspire to do everything well but even good teams have weaknesses.

England's at the moment is Farrell's defense and their backrow IMO.

But as we've pointed out missed tackles are sometimes the outcome for specific tactics in defence. As I said it's easy for Farrell to increase his completed tackle stats. Would not benefit the overall tactics though and would weaken the English defence.

BamBam wrote:He's a very good defender for a fly half. At 12, he's adequate, and performs a role well in the England system

I don't understand what outcome you would like from this debate Guns. Do you think England should drop him?

Same outcome of all forum debates to talk about rugby. To understand why he gets a free pass on his poor defending from his biggest fans etc.

In a similar vein I was very surprised the first time Beauden Barrett won world player of the year when statistically his goal kicking was easily the worst out of all top 10 nations.

It means very little to me if he gets dropped or not.

The free pass argument again. Farrell would not get a free pass for defensive errors, neither would any player. As explained so many times, Farrell is one part of a defensive set up and he has a specific role, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It does not make Farrell a bad defender or a defensive liability.




................

You know what, guns is right, Farrell is a defensive liability, forget what else he brings to the team and just drop him

eirebilly wrote:The free pass argument again. Farrell would not get a free pass for defensive errors, neither would any player. As explained so many times, Farrell is one part of a defensive set up and he has a specific role, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It does not make Farrell a bad defender or a defensive liability.

Billy, its almost if you aren't able to think for yourself but rather repeat what other people have said.

eirebilly wrote:
................

You know what, guns is right, Farrell is a defensive liability, forget what else he brings to the team and just drop him

Now you are just being a baby.

Collapse2005 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:The free pass argument again. Farrell would not get a free pass for defensive errors, neither would any player. As explained so many times, Farrell is one part of a defensive set up and he has a specific role, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It does not make Farrell a bad defender or a defensive liability.

Billy, its almost if you aren't able to think for yourself but rather repeat what other people have said.

eirebilly wrote:
................

You know what, guns is right, Farrell is a defensive liability, forget what else he brings to the team and just drop him

Now you are just being a baby.

Excellent forum defensive capabilities shown again by you Guns, maybe you should be dropped until your forum defence improves

At least try to develop a sense of humour...

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I think most people including Farrell can be forgiven when they get left for dead by Jones, but Farrell shouldn't be letting someone like McInally through like he did in the build up to Scotland's 5 phase wonder pass harlem globe trotter try.

It wasn't his finest defensive moment by any stretch, but he was scrambling to get back into position after a 60-odd metre break. He should have at that stage gone for a low tackle to try to stop the momentum rather than attacking the ball, but a break like that definitely strains your ability to think clearly.

However, neither this, nor the Jones break for his second try, will be credited as missed tackles for Farrell. He tackled McInally (about 5m behind the gainline) and he didn't attempt to tackle Jones. No-one is going to say Farrell's defence was exemplary for either of the tries, but he's come away from the two incidents with 1 tackle attempted, 1 tackle made.

Similarly, just because he might miss a tackle, doesn't mean his defence has been poor. In general phase-play, I think we need to clarify that Farrell shooting up isn't unexpected and leaving a hole. Farrell will start slightly narrower and try to get just outside the man. For example, if he's rushing the 10, he'll want to get just outside his man and up quickly. An early pass could be picked off for an intercept, the outside break isn't on because that would run straight into Farrell, so the options are cut down to stepping back in or passing inside. At this stage, Farrell will step in as well and attempt a tackle, because getting a tackle there is obviously the ideal result. But he has taken himself out the defensive line, thus making it a harder tackle for himself. But if the 10 steps inside, he's got forwards also pressing up, ready to tackle him within a second.

Joseph is also important in this set-up, because he and the winger can start narrower and get out with their pace. Italy picked us off down the sides after this because Te'o didn't have Joseph's pace, and therefore the drift behind Farrell when they do get outside wasn't as effective.

Diagrammatically, if England set up as below:

Ford....................................Farrell....................................Joseph....................................Watson

Farrell shooting up would leave lots of space in between Ford and Joseph.

Instead England set up as below:

Ford.............Farrell.............Joseph....................................Watson

Farrell shooting up therefore leaves a standard space in between Ford and Joseph. The space is out wide now and if Farrell doesn't shut his man down effectively, it leaves Joseph and Watson with a lot more to do.

I'm not saying 100% of Farrell's missed tackles are instances of good defending and actually there's no concern. I wouldn't even be able to give you a % estimate of how many are this and how many are not this. But this is how England defend and it does mean that Farrell will miss a few more tackles than he otherwise would. I'm sure Gustard will do a proper analysis of his defensive impact, and if he was concerned we'd probably see something change.

My personal belief is that he isn't a world class tackle, but neither is he a liability in defence. Watching the games I haven't noticed him falling off tackles to such an extent it would cause me concern, despite the ugly stats in hindsight.

eirebilly wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:The free pass argument again. Farrell would not get a free pass for defensive errors, neither would any player. As explained so many times, Farrell is one part of a defensive set up and he has a specific role, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It does not make Farrell a bad defender or a defensive liability.

Billy, its almost if you aren't able to think for yourself but rather repeat what other people have said.

eirebilly wrote:
................

You know what, guns is right, Farrell is a defensive liability, forget what else he brings to the team and just drop him

Now you are just being a baby.

Excellent forum defensive capabilities shown again by you Guns, maybe you should be dropped until your forum defence improves

At least try to develop a sense of humour...

Haha, that was you trying to be funny? That was a hospital pass attempt at humour Billy.

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:He got man of the match vs wales despite 'missing' more tackles than vs scotland. If we.could get away from that pointless stat it would help. For instance beshocked are yu concerned about the amount of missed tackles saracens have? Personally I'd say they are up with the best defences in Europe. Perhaps it would be better to concentrate on the tactics of defence from England and see if they are used because of the players we have or the players we have are fitting into the system?

Its only pointless because it doesn't suit your agenda. Its hardly a pointless stat in a conversation as to whether he is a good defender or not though.

Nailed it. Cognitive dissonance at its best.