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.

So you would say that you can looked at tackles and say without context if a player is a good defender or not miaow? As I pointed out above which I'm sure you've read Farrell has an easy fix. Slow his line speed aim lower. Wouldn't fit with the game plan and I expect he'd be dropped pretty quick for not obeying team orders. But it would mean he's a better defender right?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you would say that you can looked at tackles and say without context if a player is a good defender or not miaow? As I pointed out above which I'm sure you've read Farrell has an easy fix. Slow his line speed aim lower. Wouldn't fit with the game plan and I expect he'd be dropped pretty quick for not obeying team orders.  But it would mean he's a better defender right?

No he would be a better defender if he didnt miss so many tackles. Blaming his missed tackle rates on tactics is nonsense.

I know ou don't understand he point wondered if miaow did.

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you would say that you can looked at tackles and say without context if a player is a good defender or not miaow? As I pointed out above which I'm sure you've read Farrell has an easy fix. Slow his line speed aim lower. Wouldn't fit with the game plan and I expect he'd be dropped pretty quick for not obeying team orders.  But it would mean he's a better defender right?

No he would be a better defender if he didnt miss so many tackles. Blaming his missed tackle rates on tactics is nonsense.

You're the dumbest person on the forum. Guaranteed.

Again in the hierarchy of really weak arguments personal insults are probably at the top. It tends to mean as a poster you don't have anything intelligent to offer which makes your post quite ironic.

Try putting together a solid argument based on actual examples rather than attacking posters with personal insults or meaningless go to buzz words like "cherry picking" or "without context".

Bookmarking your opinions with words like "guaranteed" or "simple" to me reveals that there is very little thought or research behind what you are blurting out.

Put forward an intelligent argument and Ill take you a little more seriously.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I know ou don't understand he point wondered if miaow did.

I dont think you understand your point either.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:No he would be a better defender if he didn't miss so many tackles. Blaming his missed tackle rates on tactics is nonsense.

I agree with the first point, he would be a better defender if he completed more tackles. I have never doubted that improvements can be made, just the continued assertion that the tackle completion rate in isolation means Farrell is a poor defender.

I largely disagree with the second point. I have explained in depth why the England defensive system places less emphasis on completion rates than other systems do. I have explained in depth why a higher than normal missed tackle rate can be apportioned to the system and tactics used. I agree it would be nonsense to blame all the missed tackles on the system - just as much as it is nonsense to accept none of them are due to the system.

Farrell may be a poor defender, but unless someone is willing to provide a full and in depth analysis of all his defensive interactions, such a view is only ever a matter of opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion, even if there is a chance you are wrong.

It can be difficult when making a superficial statement you think people are going to back you on when people actually challenge you and you suddenly have to put a bit more into it. I think you have suffered from that here. Why do you keep swapping between accounts?

LondonTiger wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:No he would be a better defender if he didn't miss so many tackles. Blaming his missed tackle rates on tactics is nonsense.

I agree with the first point, he would be a better defender if he completed more tackles.  I have never doubted that improvements can be made, just the continued assertion that the tackle completion rate in isolation means Farrell is a poor defender.

I largely disagree with the second point. I have explained in depth why the England defensive system places less emphasis on completion rates than other systems do. I have explained in depth why a higher than normal missed tackle rate can be apportioned to the system and tactics used. I agree it would be nonsense to blame all the missed tackles on the system - just as much as it is nonsense to accept none of them are due to the system.

Farrell may be a poor defender, but unless someone is willing to provide a full and in depth analysis of all his defensive interactions, such a view is only ever a matter of opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion, even if there is a chance you are wrong.

I keep addressing the same point. I haven't presented the tackle rate in isolation, I have given specific examples from the Lions tour and the Scotland match.

Re your point on tactics being the main reason for Farrell's missed tackles. Can you explain why he is the outlier in the team in terms of high missed tackle rates vs his team mates?

No one will be able to put forward a full in depth analysis as the is no such thing of definite proof for anything so all you will find on a rugby forum is opinion.

It's been said countless.times.on this thread and through the england thread. You either don't want to address that point and thus move the discussion on or.don't understand the point and don't watch enough of the player to do so.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It can be difficult when making a superficial statement you think people are going to back you on when people actually challenge you and you suddenly have to put a bit more into it. I think you have suffered from that here. Why do you keep swapping between accounts?

It was about as un-superficial a statement as you will find on a forum backed up with stats and examples. The challenges to the OP are quite superficial particularly from Scott.

It depends where I log on. You know the two accounts are the same person as I have never pretended otherwise, why do you care?

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's been said countless.times.on this thread and through the england thread. You either don't want to address that point and thus move the discussion on or.don't understand the point and don't watch enough of the player to do so.

No it hasnt. If it was England's tactics to not worry about missed tackles why is Farrell's missed tackle rate consistently higher than his team mates? I think you realise you dont have anything remotely resembling a reason for his poor tackle rate and thats why you keep skirting around the question and moving off topic.

Just wondered. Anyhow you've had enough explanations of the reasoning for high.missed tackles including.how stats are counted and reasons for it. If you don't agree fair enough but england will continue to be a team based on their aggressive defence by the looks of it which has worked for us for the last 2 years or so.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

You're the dumbest person on the forum. Guaranteed.

Again in the hierarchy of really weak arguments personal insults are probably at the top. It tends to mean as a poster you don't have anything intelligent to offer which makes your post quite ironic.

Could not let this go. Have you even read your own posts on this thread alone? People counter your posts and when you have nothing to offer in return you resort to personal insults. Do you hold yourself to the same benchmark of counter argument formulation?

What myself and many other posters have put forward regarding Farrell's defensive capabilities/deficiencies have been very clear and very well explained.

Quite comprehensively answered collapse. If you don't get it now you never will.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just wondered. Anyhow you've had enough explanations of the reasoning for high.missed tackles including.how stats are counted and reasons for it. If you don't agree fair enough but england will continue to be a team based on their aggressive defence by the looks of it which has worked for us for the last 2 years or so.

You literally havent a sausage have you? You cant tell me why Farrell's missed tackle rate is consistently higher than his team mates for England and the Lions.

You are not addressing the question.

You haven't addressed any points yet. And so it becomes really hard to have a discussion. The point about Farrell has been covered well. You have just dismissed it. No one can offer more than they already have. So you.go.on.thinking.he's a poor defender but you now know that people don't turn a blind eye but simply don't agree with you.

Actually I may be persuaded to agree that he is a poor defender - but only if there is sufficient evidence provided, rather than reliance on a single, potentially misleading statistic. I woudl certainly not describe him as a really good defender - but would agree that he is fulfilling the requirements set by the English defensive system.

Like all players he has things he coudl improve on, but the perfect player has yet to exist.

eirebilly wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

You're the dumbest person on the forum. Guaranteed.

Again in the hierarchy of really weak arguments personal insults are probably at the top. It tends to mean as a poster you don't have anything intelligent to offer which makes your post quite ironic.

Could not let this go. Have you even read your own posts on this thread alone? People counter your posts and when you have nothing to offer in return you resort to personal insults. Do you hold yourself to the same benchmark of counter argument formulation?

What myself and many other posters have put forward regarding Farrell's defensive capabilities/deficiencies have been very clear and very well explained.

I said you were acting like a baby, which you were, other than that not one personal insult.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You haven't addressed any points yet. And so it becomes really hard to have a discussion. The point about Farrell has been covered well. You have just dismissed it. No one can offer more than they already have. So you.go.on.thinking.he's a poor defender but you now know that people don't turn a blind eye but simply don't agree with you.

You cant answer the question can you? Why does Farrell miss more tackles than his team mates and how do the England tactics mean that he is particularly vulnerable to missing tackles?

You could say that people have said that his missed tackle rate is down to tactics but yet to see any logical explanation of that.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

You're the dumbest person on the forum. Guaranteed.

Again in the hierarchy of really weak arguments personal insults are probably at the top. It tends to mean as a poster you don't have anything intelligent to offer which makes your post quite ironic.

Could not let this go. Have you even read your own posts on this thread alone? People counter your posts and when you have nothing to offer in return you resort to personal insults. Do you hold yourself to the same benchmark of counter argument formulation?

What myself and many other posters have put forward regarding Farrell's defensive capabilities/deficiencies have been very clear and very well explained.

I said you were acting like a baby, which you were, other than that not one personal insult.

Read on the first page of this article where I directly quoted your original post about Farrell getting a 'free pass' and why 'he is constantly in the world player of the year nominations'. I offered up reasons as to why and you had no counter and claimed I was trolling.

You have dismissed several other posters counter arguments with comments with personal insults as well.

Its all there to see...

LondonTiger wrote:Actually I may be persuaded to agree that he is a poor defender - but only if there is sufficient evidence provided, rather than reliance on a single, potentially misleading statistic. I woudl certainly not describe him as a really good defender - but would agree that he is fulfilling the requirements set by the English defensive system.

Like all players he has things he coudl improve on, but the perfect player has yet to exist.

There is a point about his defensive deficiencies to be made, he has not been as strong a defender in the last year or so as he once was. When he started, especially when playing at 10, he was considered to be one of the best midfield defenders. Even Johnny Wilkinson said he was up there with the best.

I do believe his deficiencies have arisen with the way he has been deployed in the defensive set up, especially at 12. Its one of those situations when it works, it looks good but when it doesn't it looks very average.

Answered already collapse. As I said we just differ and look at different things.

eirebilly wrote:
Read on the first page of this article where I directly quoted your original post about Farrell getting a 'free pass' and why 'he is constantly in the world player of the year nominations'. I offered up reasons as to why and you had no counter and claimed I was trolling.

You have dismissed several other posters counter arguments with comments with personal insults as well.

Its all there to see...

Now you are just making things up.

You were trolling. You tried to derail the debate very early on rather than address the actual point of the article. I asked you to keep it on point and it wasnt the first time I asked you. If you see that as a personal insult then the internet is not for you Billy.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Answered already collapse. As I said we just differ and look at different things.

Admit it you haven't a clue do you? Nothing you have said remotely offers a reason for his high missed tackles rates relative to his team mates.

Answered already collapse.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Answered already collapse.

haha you realise that you havent dont you? Its quite funny that you said to another poster in this article "No one owes me answers to my questions but it normally means you have no answer." Does that apply to you too?

I have read all your points, your key point that you have repeated a few times throughout the course of your posting is that his missed tackle rates don't have an overall negative effect on England because of the system/tactics they employ while consistently completely ignoring the question as to whether he is good defender or not and why if his missed tackle rates are down to the system England uses do them seem to have an effect on him more than his team mates.

Answered already collapse.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Answered already collapse.

"No one owes me answers to my questions but it normally means you have no answer."

Sound familiar? You said that. Can you see the irony?

eirebilly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Actually I may be persuaded to agree that he is a poor defender - but only if there is sufficient evidence provided, rather than reliance on a single, potentially misleading statistic. I woudl certainly not describe him as a really good defender - but would agree that he is fulfilling the requirements set by the English defensive system.

Like all players he has things he coudl improve on, but the perfect player has yet to exist.

There is a point about his defensive deficiencies to be made, he has not been as strong a defender in the last year or so as he once was. When he started, especially when playing at 10, he was considered to be one of the best midfield defenders. Even Johnny Wilkinson said he was up there with the best.

I do believe his deficiencies have arisen with the way he has been deployed in the defensive set up, especially at 12. Its one of those situations when it works, it looks good but when it doesn't it looks very average.

I do believe he is a much better defender at 10 than at 12. In general England are praised for the strength of their defence, with the biggest failing usually that it gets caught too narrow. Despite the headline number of missed tackles the midfield defence has been strong and doing what the coaches ask.


I think we are probably in agreement

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:
Read on the first page of this article where I directly quoted your original post about Farrell getting a 'free pass' and why 'he is constantly in the world player of the year nominations'. I offered up reasons as to why and you had no counter and claimed I was trolling.

You have dismissed several other posters counter arguments with comments with personal insults as well.

Its all there to see...

Now you are just making things up.

You were trolling. You tried to derail the debate very early on rather than address the actual point of the article. I asked you to keep it on point and it wasnt the first time I asked you. If you see that as a personal insult then the internet is not for you Billy.

I fail to see how directly quoting your original post and responding to it can be seen as trolling?

Just because you had no response, you claim trolling. Very typical of you it has to be said.

I can't see any irony collapse as I've answered the point. On this thread and several england threads. Like I say you view him as a below average defensive player citing missed tackles. I don't citing tactics. Also touched upon how he could.easily improve that stat. You've read all the points if you don't agree.or understand the points there's not.much more I can do. No point repeating those points but if you have specific questions from those responses happy to add.more.

LondonTiger wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Actually I may be persuaded to agree that he is a poor defender - but only if there is sufficient evidence provided, rather than reliance on a single, potentially misleading statistic. I woudl certainly not describe him as a really good defender - but would agree that he is fulfilling the requirements set by the English defensive system.

Like all players he has things he coudl improve on, but the perfect player has yet to exist.

There is a point about his defensive deficiencies to be made, he has not been as strong a defender in the last year or so as he once was. When he started, especially when playing at 10, he was considered to be one of the best midfield defenders. Even Johnny Wilkinson said he was up there with the best.

I do believe his deficiencies have arisen with the way he has been deployed in the defensive set up, especially at 12. Its one of those situations when it works, it looks good but when it doesn't it looks very average.

I do believe he is a much better defender at 10 than at 12. In general England are praised for the strength of their defence, with the biggest failing usually that it gets caught too narrow. Despite the headline number of missed tackles the midfield defence has been strong and doing what the coaches ask.


I think we are probably in agreement

Very much in agreement, it is for these reasons that I do not see Farrell as a defensive liability. He is not as strong defensively at 12 as at 10 and that is down to team set up and tactics more than it has to do with Farrell being a bad defender.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's been said countless.times.on this thread and through the england thread. You either don't want to address that point and thus move the discussion on or.don't understand the point and don't watch enough of the player to do so.

No it hasnt. If it was England's tactics to not worry about missed tackles why is Farrell's missed tackle rate consistently higher than his team mates? I think you realise you dont have anything remotely resembling a reason for his poor tackle rate and thats why you keep skirting around the question and moving off topic.

You don't understand why it would be more of a concern were it a fullback missing tackles? Or why a prop wouldn't be picked to shut down the first receiver? Or why a hooker has an easier job to complete tackles?

That sounds like a failing in rugby knowledge/understanding.

eirebilly wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:
Read on the first page of this article where I directly quoted your original post about Farrell getting a 'free pass' and why 'he is constantly in the world player of the year nominations'. I offered up reasons as to why and you had no counter and claimed I was trolling.

You have dismissed several other posters counter arguments with comments with personal insults as well.

Its all there to see...

Now you are just making things up.

You were trolling. You tried to derail the debate very early on rather than address the actual point of the article. I asked you to keep it on point and it wasnt the first time I asked you. If you see that as a personal insult then the internet is not for you Billy.

I fail to see how directly quoting your original post and responding to it can be seen as trolling?

Just because you had no response, you claim trolling. Very typical of you it has to be said.

because I had already asked you to address the question posed in the article and you continued to go off topic.

I didnt respond because it was off topic and therefore I asked you to if you were interested in alternative topics to set up a separate thread. Not unreasonable.

You do seem much more interested even now in discussing anything other than the OP.

Scottrff wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's been said countless.times.on this thread and through the england thread. You either don't want to address that point and thus move the discussion on or.don't understand the point and don't watch enough of the player to do so.

No it hasnt. If it was England's tactics to not worry about missed tackles why is Farrell's missed tackle rate consistently higher than his team mates? I think you realise you dont have anything remotely resembling a reason for his poor tackle rate and thats why you keep skirting around the question and moving off topic.

You don't understand why it would be more of a concern were it a fullback missing tackles? Or why a prop wouldn't be picked to shut down the first receiver? Or why a hooker has an easier job to complete tackles?

That sounds like a failing in rugby knowledge/understanding.

So you are saying that by and large all 12s tend to have the highest missed tackle rates for their teams? Fair enough if true but do you have anything to back that up other that your claim that failure to understand that is

"a failing in rugby knowledge"

I dont have any stats on it but I would be surprised if any other teams 12 has as consistently high missed tackle rates as Farrell.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:
Read on the first page of this article where I directly quoted your original post about Farrell getting a 'free pass' and why 'he is constantly in the world player of the year nominations'. I offered up reasons as to why and you had no counter and claimed I was trolling.

You have dismissed several other posters counter arguments with comments with personal insults as well.

Its all there to see...

Now you are just making things up.

You were trolling. You tried to derail the debate very early on rather than address the actual point of the article. I asked you to keep it on point and it wasnt the first time I asked you. If you see that as a personal insult then the internet is not for you Billy.

I fail to see how directly quoting your original post and responding to it can be seen as trolling?

Just because you had no response, you claim trolling. Very typical of you it has to be said.

because I had already asked you to address the question posed in the article and you continued to go off topic.

No, I directly quoted a piece from YOUR article so I did not go off topic. You simply did not have the answers to my counter so resorted to calling it trolling...

eirebilly wrote:

No, I directly quoted a piece from YOUR article so I did not go off topic. You simply did not have the answers to my counter so resorted to calling it trolling...

No you consistently ignored the core argument/question of the article. Therefore it isn't unreasonable to ask you to not go off topic. You seem determined to do that even now. Do you realise you are still derailing the debate?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

No, I directly quoted a piece from YOUR article so I did not go off topic. You simply did not have the answers to my counter so resorted to calling it trolling...

No you consistently ignored the core argument/question of the article. Therefore it isn't unreasonable to ask you to not go off topic. You seem determined to do that even now.

I did not ignore it, I responded to it as well as the other question raised in the original article. You raised more than one question in your article...

Goal post changing to suit your agenda again...

Some examples of Farrell's poor defense in the 2nd lions test. In this game SBW was sent off early so the majority of their attacks were one out passes where the pack or Murray/Sexton took the tackle. By and large the defending was excellent by all except Farrell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt40rhIT0UM

He made 6 tackles and missed 1. Two of the tackles he joined as a second tackler so he wasn't the main tackler. Here is a summary of the remaining 4 efforts. All but one were quite poor.

15:18 - attempts tackle on Kaino, gets knocked back and lets Kaino slip out of the tackle to concede lots of yards.

1:21:36 - attempts an upright tackle on Laumape gets knocked back about 10 yards in the tackle. Quite similar to his effort on McInally in England's loss to Scotland.

1:36:58 - Chasing down Barrett again attempts upright tackle, easily handed off by Barrett to concede a lot of yards.

1:37:28 - Farrell's only good tackle in the match at close range on the side of a ruck. He still gets knocked back to concede minor yards.

In the first test and third tests his defense was worst. First test he started at 10 and was targeted by the ABs consistently gave up yards. Third test he made 8 tackles and missed 5.

He tends to try upright tackles quite a lot a bit like Sexton however, with comparatively much less success and as a result concedes a lot of yards for his teams.

This trial has been going long enough. Was he found guilty or innocent?

Remove the man eating popcorn please or I'll hold him in contempt is he attempts another mouthful.

I got to the first point guns on 15 18. Is that match or video time? Video time it was sexton with the tackle.

More like 15.28 video time. Poor tackle on Kaino.

I'll look.forward to going back to rewatch he match. Ironically I did prefer watching the first match even though we lost. Watch the england nz match from 2012 and you'll see how poor their 10 and 7s defence was though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I got to the first point guns on 15 18. Is that match or video time? Video time it was sexton with the tackle.

The sequence begins around 15:18 but the tackle is a little later. I started the sequence earlier to show the contrast in tackles by Farrell and his team mates inside him.

Ah yeah. Lions lose years in achieving of the tackles but its Farrells fault.

The 2nd 1 was a joint tackle with jd. Who miaow tells me is amazing where they go for a choke tackle. I would argue that that's tactics to an extent as well.

3rd yeah after a chase down gets handed off. Not a big deal for me from that position you'd expect most people running back will step the chase.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah yeah. Lions lose years in achieving of the tackles but its Farrells fault.

The 2nd 1 was a joint tackle with jd. Who miaow tells me is amazing where they go for a choke tackle. I would argue that that's tactics to an extent as well.

Farrell was the initial and main tackler. Cant blame JD on that the damage was already done thought poor technique from Farrell in the initial tackle.

If you think that's poor defence fair enough. You have a high standard. Watch the england nz game as stated mccaw couldn't even see off a back!