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.

Scottrf wrote: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.

Thats the point of the article, why is no one talking about his defense?

His very weak attempt at a tackle on McInally lead to Scotlands second try. He gave Scotland quite a few yards in that passage and with front foot ball they scored on the next phase. Not good enough for a 12. He was also slightly out of position as he was for the first Scotland try.

You could also argue that for the third Farrell's missed tackle on Jones was responsible for the try.

Because it isn't bad. Simple.

missing 1/3 of his tackles having played what on paper is the 3 weakest teams in the 6N - its poor.

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

I feel so blessed to be graced by such an oracle of rugby knowledge and understanding Scott.

Scottrf wrote:Because it isn't bad. Simple.

When you say simple at the end of your opinion does that mean you win? Its a shame you cant back up any of your opinions with any factual based evidence.

It's a shame you can't watch the matches or read anyone else's posts but there we go.

Scottrf wrote:It's a shame you can't watch the matches or read anyone else's posts but there we go.

Do you have any evidence of that? No as usual you dont. Nothing worthwhile to contribute.

You've dismissed tactics and resins as to why missed tackles stats don't matter to England or saracens without context.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You've dismissed tactics and resins as to why missed tackles stats don't matter to England or saracens without context.

Oh go on tell us all about it. Its England's tactic for Farrell to miss tackles? Was it the Lions' tactics too?

If he is being employed as a shooter it is even more important for him to make his tackles.

You're wumming then. Fair enough. Enjoy.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're wumming then. Fair enough. Enjoy.

Haha you havent a sausage do you? Literally no clue what you just said. Explain the context around why Farrell's consistently high missed tackle numbers mean he is a good defender.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're wumming then. Fair enough. Enjoy.

Must be snowed in and bored.

nathan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're wumming then. Fair enough. Enjoy.

Must be snowed in and bored.

Yep snowed in alright. I fail to see the wumming in anything I said though. All fact based arguments. Yet to see a decent counter argument.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

nathan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're wumming then. Fair enough. Enjoy.

Must be snowed in and bored.

Yep snowed in alright. I fail to see the wumming in anything I said though. All fact based arguments. Yet to see a decent counter argument.

lets be honest here, we already know you've decided you're not going to.

Farrell is deployed in a defensive system whereby his job is too shoot out of the line and break up any momentum from the attacking team. This, to me, is a high risk approach as it leaves the cover defence under pressure. People generally see this as bad defending only when it doesn't work, they do not see the worth of this when it does break up an attacking teams plays.

Farrell has a lot of credit in the bank defensively as he has proven just how good a defender he is in the past, he does not shy away from work. He has not had a great 6N defensively though but I would lay blame more on the tactics than on the player.

As for him getting a free pass defensively, I do not think so. I think what he brings in all other aspects of his game make up for any supposed defensive frailties.

Scotland / Glasgow have played like that and yes you do end up with more missed tackles in the stats.

eirebilly wrote:Farrell is deployed in a defensive system whereby his job is too shoot out of the line and break up any momentum from the attacking team. This, to me, is a high risk approach as it leaves the cover defence under pressure. People generally see this as bad defending only when it doesn't work, they do not see the worth of this when it does break up an attacking teams plays.

Farrell has a lot of credit in the bank defensively as he has proven just how good a defender he is in the past, he does not shy away from work. He has not had a great 6N defensively though but I would lay blame more on the tactics than on the player.

As for him getting a free pass defensively, I do not think so. I think what he brings in all other aspects of his game make up for any supposed defensive frailties.

The tactics arent for him to shoot up and miss the tackle. If you are a shooter its even more important for you to make your tackles because if you dont your defensive line is compromised. He wasn't a shooter for the Lions in the first test in particular and missed more tackles than anyone else. He was targetted by NZ and they gained most of their yards just by running down his channel.

nathan wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

nathan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're wumming then. Fair enough. Enjoy.

Must be snowed in and bored.

Yep snowed in alright. I fail to see the wumming in anything I said though. All fact based arguments. Yet to see a decent counter argument.

lets be honest here, we already know you've decided you're not going to.

If you have nothing to contribute go else where please.

nathan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're wumming then. Fair enough. Enjoy.

Must be snowed in and bored.

I am still stuck in Edinburgh, but not bored enough to argue with someone who has made his mind up before hand and seems unwilling to read anyone elses opinion.

LondonTiger wrote:

nathan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're wumming then. Fair enough. Enjoy.

Must be snowed in and bored.

I am still stuck in Edinburgh, but not bored enough to argue with someone who has made his mind up before hand and seems unwilling to read anyone elses opinion.

Another absolutely pointless contribution. You must be bored alright.

Late to the thread so, without reading through the whole thing, I imagine most points have been made.

I'm in the camp of thinking that Farrell's defence is a problem. If it were simply that he was racking up an unusual missed tackle record by aggressively shooting out of the line and getting beaten in a way that doesn't cause problems, then that would be fine, but I just don't buy that as the whole story. I was in the stadium for the Wales game without the benefit of stats and it was visible to the naked eye that he was getting knocked backwards in contact and costing us ground on a regular basis. The same was true in the second or third Lions test (can't remember which, but probably the third given SBW's absence) when the NZ centres were having a field day running at him.

He's a vital player for us so I'm not trying to bash him as a player generally, but I get the sense that people are trying to justify some genuinely bad defence on vague theoretical grounds rather than using their eyes.

thomh wrote:Late to the thread so, without reading through the whole thing, I imagine most points have been made.

I'm in the camp of thinking that Farrell's defence is a problem. If it were simply that he was racking up an unusual missed tackle record by aggressively shooting out of the line and getting beaten in a way that doesn't cause problems, then that would be fine, but I just don't buy that as the whole story. I was in the stadium for the Wales game without the benefit of stats and it was visible to the naked eye that he was getting knocked backwards in contact and costing us ground on a regular basis. The same was true in the second or third Lions test (can't remember which, but probably the third given SBW's absence) when the NZ centres were having a field day running at him.

He's a vital player for us so I'm not trying to bash him as a player generally, but I get the sense that people are trying to justify some genuinely bad defence on vague theoretical grounds rather than using their eyes.

He was getting knocked back badly in the first test from memory but also tests two and three.

Yes he is a great player, a winner, good leader, great kicker and passer. I think this is why no one talks about the problems with his defense.

Teams are targetting him now and this was most obvious on the Lions tour.

I'm glad all of our Celtic cousins are so concerned that he is a poor defender. Most England fans are very happy with his performances

And I think it's fair to say the majority of us were skeptical of him playing 12.

BamBam wrote:I'm glad all of our Celtic cousins are so concerned that he is a poor defender. Most England fans are very happy with his performances

All? Tighten up on your generalisations there bud

This Scots fan was very happy with Farrells performance. He gave us easy tries by missing tackles and sat so deep that anyone outside him got hit behind the game line.

This article highlights the inherent problem with Farrell. His defence is good for an outside half, he's aggressive, durable, committed etc. and won't really be bullied.

As a test 12, in a backline where George Ford is already hidden and compensated for? He goes from very good to pretty ordinary. Compare him to other nations' first or second choice 12, and as a ball carrier and defender, he's clearly lacking something. This is, of course, mitigated by being the 2nd 5/8th, his goalkicking, self belief and leadership etc. but it's useful for England to be able to bring Te'o on for Ford if they need that ballast.

I still think he's better at 12 than he is at 10 for England, though, but this is just one facet where I don't really understand the full extent of the Farrell hype. He's a very good player, but he's not a top drawer 10 in the same way Biggar never could be. I think the World Player nominations have been as much about who he is than how good his skills are; that's not dismissing the importance of all those difficult-to-quantify qualities, though - he's clearly a vital cog for all the teams he's played in.

He's now incredibly experienced at the top level and his goalkicking makes him crucial for England. But based on his footballing skills and consistency with the basics? I don't think he's as good as the aura surrounding him, and these stats - which are surprising on the face of it - perhaps support this.

He got bumped off quite convincingly by Navidi and Moriarty against Wales as the ball went a bit wider. Farrell got back up and tacked his heart out, and that's his best quality, I think, but he's not a brilliant defender at 12.

The real questions is: "does he need to be?" In an England team that is physically massive, and with all the other qualities he brings, I honestly don't think it really matters, but it only takes one moment to exploit a slight weakness in a RWC for everything to end in tears...

His Goalkicking has not been that great the last couple of years either. IIRC 70% last year in the 6N

I'd still say he's a very good goalkicker, and a good open play kicker as well. Hasn't reached Halfpenny heights of consistency, but kicked them for the Lions when it mattered. Again, though, if you listen to Sky you'd think he nails every kick, Stuart Barnes declaring him the "ice man" and "already written this down as 3 points" when, inevitably, he misses a relatively 'easy' kick every once in a while.

More and more I feel like the difference between the North and South Hemispheres isn't really in ability, but consistency. Can talk about why that might be another time, but by and large, the margin of error (where an up and under/box kick lands is a great example) without being punished is a lot smaller.

That means you simply have to be able to produce 'accurately' time and again. Farrell has all the tricks and skills - and I'd say all of them; good passer; very good kicker; good defender; good decision maker etc. - but he doesn't try to utilise those skills as often as someone like Bernard Foley (for various reasons) and nor does he succeed/get within that 'golden spot', where they can create points from nothing, with them as often as someone like Foley.

Case in point; he makes a great kick into space for May's first try against Wales. Did he see it? Perhaps; he certainly saw the space, took the risk, and it resulted in a try. How many of his subsequent in-field kicks were as threatening? Some were useful - forcing Steff Evans etc. to field high balls, turning them, forcing them into a game they didn't want to play. Within those kicks, though, there were far too many that were loose or uncontested that could, on another day, have been punished by the opposition. England won because of the whole team's performance and dedication to a tactical game of containment; I'm not knocking that, EJ might win the RWC playing that way, but take Farrell out from behind a pack with Launchbury, Lawes, Robshaw etc. - physically powerful grafters who wear down the opposition - and those marginal inaccuracies become a problem. Part of Farrell's strength is precisely because he doesn't take those risks as often as SH 10s; England don't really need to, they don't want to, and when he does, typically it's a good decision where the margin for 'profit' is large enough due to the pack's work that it reduces the risk.

That lack of risk is not just a Farrell thing, of course, it's a NH thing - someone like Patchell, say, who does run the ball a bit like a SH 10, is nowhere near consistent nor accurate enough for Wales yet, let alone when facing a SH team. It'll be interesting to see how Russell continues to grow in that regard, too.

Honestly, if Foley played club rugby in the NH, or for one of the 6Ns, everyone would be raving about him. He doesn't have a complete game, per se, but he runs a backline beautifully. Farrell is good, but he's better placed at 12...where other factors come into play, like defence. The same problem with accuracy and effectiveness comes into play there, too, but I'll reiterate - I don't think Farrell is a poor defender, even at 12, and it's not really costing England very much, if at all.

Good point on consistency . How many wins out how many for jones england?

I do think a lot of England players are maddeningly inconsistent, which can't just be explained away by other teams finding them out.

I don't mean inconsistent in the space of one match, in the way Carlos Spencer could go from the sublime to the ridiculous. Or even inconsistent like Finn Russell, when it's still early enough in his career that we don't know whether we are more likely to see him be a match-winner, or a flake.

I mean inconsistent like Ben Youngs and Danny Care, who seem to have waxed and waned a lot during their careers. I know Will Genia went through a horrible patch a couple of years ago, but he's generally been at the top of his game throughout his career in a way the two Englishmen haven't.

Other Test match sides find players who become virtually automatic selections, and who deliver consistent performances. in 2010, Courtney Lawes, Ben Foden, Ben Youngs & Chris Ashton all looked capable of establishing lengthy careers. Between them, they have a lot of caps, but none were automatic selections all the way through. Not because much better players came along, but because they had poor showings in losing sides. Certainly, injury plays a a part but not a major one in all cases.

Is Dan Cole the rock in our front row? Alex Corbisiero can't speak highly enough of his technical ability as a scrummager but he hasn't been part of a dominant England scrum for a while. At the same time, his breakdown work has disappeared, and his penalty count is maddening.

In the context of this thread, I'd say Owen Farrell is probably one of our most consistent performers. Over the last few years, Robshaw, Billy Vunipola and Launchbury have delivered regularly too. Itoje is getting flack right now but he's not been bad, so I'd include him too. On the other hand, Kruis went from being almost first pick to outside the squad. What's happened there?

It's all very well having competition for places, but that's only worth something if the players are pushing each other to be better, rather than getting selected because another guy has slipped off form again.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Good point on consistency . How many wins out how many for jones england?

Not sure what you mean? Do you mean how many games have England won since Eddie Jones took over? Not sure but I think it's around 23 out of 25, or something similar to that? 24 out of 26 perhaps? Why?

Just like to remind myself how good we are considering all the negatives of the side.

Yup - england are a very good side and deserving of their place in the rankings. That does not mean they are without flaws or could not be improved.

miaow wrote:More and more I feel like the difference between the North and South Hemispheres isn't really in ability, but consistency. Can talk about why that might be another time, but by and large, the margin of error (where an up and under/box kick lands is a great example) without being punished is a lot smaller.

That means you simply have to be able to produce 'accurately' time and again. Farrell has all the tricks and skills - and I'd say all of them; good passer; very good kicker; good defender; good decision maker etc. - but he doesn't try to utilise those skills as often as someone like Bernard Foley (for various reasons) and nor does he succeed/get within that 'golden spot', where they can create points from nothing, with them as often as someone like Foley.

Case in point; he makes a great kick into space for May's first try against Wales. Did he see it? Perhaps; he certainly saw the space, took the risk, and it resulted in a try. How many of his subsequent in-field kicks were as threatening? Some were useful - forcing Steff Evans etc. to field high balls, turning them, forcing them into a game they didn't want to play. Within those kicks, though, there were far too many that were loose or uncontested that could, on another day, have been punished by the opposition. England won because of the whole team's performance and dedication to a tactical game of containment; I'm not knocking that, EJ might win the RWC playing that way, but take Farrell out from behind a pack with Launchbury, Lawes, Robshaw etc. - physically powerful grafters who wear down the opposition - and those marginal inaccuracies become a problem. Part of Farrell's strength is precisely because he doesn't take those risks as often as SH 10s; England don't really need to, they don't want to, and when he does, typically it's a good decision where the margin for 'profit' is large enough due to the pack's work that it reduces the risk.

That lack of risk is not just a Farrell thing, of course, it's a NH thing - someone like Patchell, say, who does run the ball a bit like a SH 10, is nowhere near consistent nor accurate enough for Wales yet, let alone when facing a SH team. It'll be interesting to see how Russell continues to grow in that regard, too.

Honestly, if Foley played club rugby in the NH, or for one of the 6Ns, everyone would be raving about him. He doesn't have a complete game, per se, but he runs a backline beautifully. Farrell is good, but he's better placed at 12...where other factors come into play, like defence. The same problem with accuracy and effectiveness comes into play there, too, but I'll reiterate - I don't think Farrell is a poor defender, even at 12, and it's not really costing England very much, if at all.

This is so true, I love watching Foley, he's so consistently poor for the wallabies its impressive to see that level of pants maintained over so many games as the players around him weep. If only Farrel would stop playing really well and then only fairly well and get on with being crap every game eh?

Rugby Fan wrote:I do think a lot of England players are maddeningly inconsistent, which can't just be explained away by other teams finding them out.

I don't mean inconsistent in the space of one match, in the way Carlos Spencer could go from the sublime to the ridiculous. Or even inconsistent like Finn Russell, when it's still early enough in his career that we don't know whether we are more likely to see him be a match-winner, or a flake.

I mean inconsistent like Ben Youngs and Danny Care, who seem to have waxed and waned a lot during their careers. I know Will Genia went through a horrible patch a couple of years ago, but he's generally been at the top of his game throughout his career in a way the two Englishmen haven't.

Other Test match sides find players who become virtually automatic selections, and who deliver consistent performances. in 2010, Courtney Lawes, Ben Foden, Ben Youngs & Chris Ashton all looked capable of establishing lengthy careers. Between them, they have a lot of caps, but none were automatic selections all the way through. Not because much better players came along, but because they had poor showings in losing sides. Certainly, injury plays a a part but not a major one in all cases.

Is Dan Cole the rock in our front row? Alex Corbisiero can't speak highly enough of his technical ability as a scrummager but he hasn't been part of a dominant England scrum for a while. At the same time, his breakdown work has disappeared, and his penalty count is maddening.

In the context of this thread, I'd say Owen Farrell is probably one of our most consistent performers. Over the last few years, Robshaw, Billy Vunipola and Launchbury have delivered regularly too. Itoje is getting flack right now but he's not been bad, so I'd include him too. On the other hand, Kruis went from being almost first pick to outside the squad. What's happened there?

It's all very well having competition for places, but that's only worth something if the players are pushing each other to be better, rather than getting selected because another guy has slipped off form again.

It's probably over simplified but I think almost every other country has their hands tied through lack of options, so they have to stick with a lot of players and try to get them to work in the team.

England have the luxury of chopping and changing, couple that with genuinely poor coaches like Johnson, with his pretty poor support team of Wells etc, and then Lancaster who was better but still out of his depth, and it causes a merry go round of players.

Also worth pointing out that all these other teams that have more settled players aren't doing any better for it, so yes they're settled but they're settling for average players at times.

Yeah I don't really get it. If you want consistency, watch the southern hemisphere, agreed. Consistently poor defending. And we are bashing Farrell for defence?

Foley really? Got the backline moving brilliantly to score 6 points vs England last time out.

England, with Farrell at 10/12 have been one of the most consistent sides in the last couple of years. I am sure that if his defence was such a concern then Jones would have done something about it. Sure he has not had a great 6N defensively but what he brings in all other aspects of the game makes him pretty much the first name on the team sheet for England.

If Farrell truly is a worry defensively then its a worry I would not mind having in my team.

Scottrf wrote:Yeah I don't really get it. If you want consistency, watch the southern hemisphere, agreed. Consistently poor defending. And we are bashing Farrell for defence?

Foley really? Got the backline moving brilliantly to score 6 points vs England last time out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWwQ--LJ9kY

My point about consistency seems to have been comprehenseively misunderstood by a few of you. NH/British approach is, broadly speaking, to be about minimising errors - so we're consistent in that sense, and England and Ireland are two excellent examples of how playing the percentages and keeping things tight can pay off if you have the players to play that sort of game, which they both do.

More attacking teams, i.e. SH, seem to prioritise consistently maximising attacking opportunities - effectively, if you get a sniff, take advantage of the chance. If the opposition are going to hang a kick up aimlessly in the hope you'll return a similarly poor kick, make them pay for it. I wouldn't use Super Rugby's approach to defence as an example; it's a very different style of rugby compared to what NZ, SA, Argentina and to a lesser extent Australia play at test level.

Disappointing to still read some flimsy and insecure posts from English posters on these boards, part of the reason I stayed away and not something I want to return to. Address the point at hand - reframing and moving the goalposts just highlights an inability to accept the information put in front of you, let alone discuss it. If you can't do that, why bother commenting?

The fact that I knew you'd reference the England game from the World Cup kind of speaks to his consistency...

By the way, the recent England vs Australia game kind of points to England being pretty good at maximising our chances.

miaow wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Yeah I don't really get it. If you want consistency, watch the southern hemisphere, agreed. Consistently poor defending. And we are bashing Farrell for defence?

Foley really? Got the backline moving brilliantly to score 6 points vs England last time out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWwQ--LJ9kY

My point about consistency seems to have been comprehenseively misunderstood by a few of you. NH/British approach is, broadly speaking, to be about minimising errors - so we're consistent in that sense, and England and Ireland are two excellent examples of how playing the percentages and keeping things tight can pay off if you have the players to play that sort of game, which they both do.

More attacking teams, i.e. SH, seem to prioritise consistently maximising attacking opportunities - effectively, if you get a sniff, take advantage of the chance. If the opposition are going to hang a kick up aimlessly in the hope you'll return a similarly poor kick, make them pay for it. I wouldn't use Super Rugby's approach to defence as an example; it's a very different style of rugby compared to what NZ, SA, Argentina and to a lesser extent Australia play at test level.

Disappointing to still read some flimsy and insecure posts from English posters on these boards, part of the reason I stayed away and not something I want to return to. Address the point at hand - reframing and moving the goalposts just highlights an inability to accept the information put in front of you, let alone discuss it. If you can't do that, why bother commenting?

Ok

The SH are really consistent.

England are obviously not.

How do we get up the world rankings and close to the SH?

I don't really get your argument Miaow, stop taking offence at imaginary slights and lay it out simply in a few points

He's simply saying that Farrell ad Joseph are both so so defenders. In addition england aren't set up take attacking chances. I think we all recognise that from jones games don't we?

No 7&1/2 wrote:He's simply saying that Farrell ad Joseph are both so so defenders. In addition england aren't set up take attacking chances. I think we all recognise that from jones games don't we?

The former for an international 12? Yes, to an extent. Ireland and Wales' 12s are certainly better defenders. Joseph in the context of the Lions facing NZ in a Gatland gameplan when you have Jonathan Davies? Also yes, to an extent. I'm somewhat amazed you can be so brazenly confident and mocking after my predictions - which got hammered on here - were proved so emphatically correct?

In any case, I have no desire to come back on bicker with anyone on here, especially not if it means someone dredging up 12 month old insecurities!

miaow wrote: I'll reiterate - I don't think Farrell is a poor defender, even at 12, and it's not really costing England very much, if at all.

Erm no. They weren't. Still chuckle when you declined to explain yourself. But I'll take our bad defenders in midfield.and inability to maximise our attack.

"Jonathan Davies will be picked at 13 for the Lions ahead of Joseph". Davies went on to be man of the series, Joseph was pretty poor in the midweek games. A prediction that I was houunded for at the time was absolutely spot on - how on earth can you suggest otherwise? It literally happened! Jonathan Davies was selected at 13 over Joseph!? "Errm no" - what!? Complete cognitive dissonance from you; I know we're living in the era of fake news, but come on...

Also, I have explained myself, you've misinterpreted my words - that's your failing of comprehension, not mine. I'm not sure why you think you're still the lawyer of these boards? No-one owes you an answer to repetitive and inane questions because you disagree with the opinion that has already been adequately explained. Distorting and reframing that opinion into something it is not - "you said England are bad defenders and attackers" - is, again, your failing, not mine.

Dear me. Talk about twisting things. The discussion oh so long ago was on joselh defence and hence the follow up here. Given you felt he was weak and so is Farrell it doesn't really follow as to to why england are so good. Especially as you now question the attack. No one owes me answers to my questions but it normally means you have no answer.

Am I the only one who shudders whenever they see the title of this thread?

The Americanisation of the English language may not be a major global issue, but still one that annoys Luddites like me.

I spelt it that way just to annoy you.