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

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

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

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

If we decide to drop Farrell, and I thought he had a good game yesterday, then surely Flood, Burns, Ford would be ahead of a guy who still hasn't proved he can or wants to tackle? After Cips' last few years he needs to be able to prove he can do this over a season before he's even considered.

Put Farrell at 10 and Cipriani at 12. Go on! Please! I beg of you!

No 7&1/2 wrote:If we decide to drop Farrell, and I thought he had a good game yesterday, then surely Flood, Burns, Ford would be ahead of a guy who still hasn't proved he can or wants to tackle? After Cips' last few years he needs to be able to prove he can do this over a season before he's even considered.

You see I don't think Farrell had a good game yesterday. I actually think he lacked any guile or imagination and did nothing more than his standard lay deep stolid distribution.

I don't think he adds much if any as an attacking threat.

Yes, but would Cipriani seriously be your next in line ahead of Flood, Ford and Burns?

Farrell and Twelvetrees worked really well together in the first half. I do partially agree with you thats Cipriani is better attacking 10. If thats all he had to do as an international 10 then great. Unfortunately in all other aspects of his play Farrell is better.

Flood, Ford, Burns, Cips - a perfect example of England's problems currently (in more than just the FH position) - lots of depth, little strength. It's a concern that with all that 'potential'* Farrell is the shoo-in.

* and I use the term 'potential' quite dubiously

thomh wrote:Yes, but would Cipriani seriously be your next in line ahead of Flood, Ford and Burns?

Seriously, ofcourse not, but I certainly would not have Farrell ahead of Flood or or Burns either. I actually don't think Farrell is even the best 10 at Saracens let alone an ability capable of propelling England to WC glory.

He generally controls the game well and makes his kicks. He needs to add a bit more to his running game which he has shown flashes of. Would feel much more confident with Farrell at 10 than Cips. Of course as with everything rugby related you need to have the balance of the partnerships; players that compliment each other rather than have the same style and strengths.

'He needs to add a bit more to his running game'

Honestly its never going to happen, this is his running game and yer as we can all see its not really a thing of beauty.

Look I don't for one moment believe that Lancaster will drop Farrell, for one thing Daddy tells Lancaster what to do and dropping his meal ticket will never make it onto todays 'to do' list, but everyone needs to understand what an awful mess Lancaster inc. are making and that we do have fit and available alternatives.

Think you do them a big dis service but you made your mind up about lancaster a long time ago.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think you do them a big dis service but you made your mind up about lancaster a long time ago.

Well to be fair you're right I did, but the fact is I have not seen anything to suggest that I was wrong in my judgement. The truth is he is out of depth by his own deeds and comparison with his international contemporaries. Infact I would happily see the Northampton coaching panel dropped into Twickers tomorrow.

Yeah his record is shocking isn't it...

I don't think Farrell is that bad.

Prefer him to Cipriani.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah his record is shocking isn't it...

We have won nothing.

We have a world cup in less than 2 years from now. Yes we do have the players to deliver success, but no we don't have a coaching set up worthy of the task in front of them.

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah his record is shocking isn't it...

We have won nothing.

We have a world cup in less than 2 years from now. Yes we do have the players to deliver success, but no we don't have a coaching set up worthy of the task in front of them.

And yet I would rather have our last 12 months than Wales' who have won something. If you just want to focus on the 6Ns fair enough but I think Lancaster would be expected to win and lay down markers in the rest of his games also. Bar 1 performance in the last 12 months we've completed well and won far more than we've lost while introducing players who we'll need for that WC. We now have a coach who has gained a couple of years international experience yet you would see him sacked for Mallinder/Baxter/Richards who have none. Lancaster isn't going anywhere before the World Cup and we're still moving forward. I don't expect to win next week but under Lancs I do think we're capable.

Biltong wrote:I don't think Farrell is that bad.

Prefer him to Cipriani.

He may not be 'that bad', but he is certainly not good enough. Equally Danny has lots faults.

kingelderfield wrote:

Biltong wrote:I don't think Farrell is that bad.

Prefer him to Cipriani.

He may not be 'that bad', but he is certainly not good enough. Equally Danny has lots faults.

Well if you don't have a "Dan Carter" ariund, then a solid performer even though not a flashy player is more suitable than an error prone player.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah his record is shocking isn't it...

We have won nothing.

We have a world cup in less than 2 years from now. Yes we do have the players to deliver success, but no we don't have a coaching set up worthy of the task in front of them.

And yet I would rather have our last 12 months than Wales' who have won something. If you just want to focus on the 6Ns fair enough but I think Lancaster would be expected to win and lay down markers in the rest of his games also. Bar 1 performance in the last 12 months we've completed well and won far more than we've lost while introducing players who we'll need for that WC. We now have a coach who has gained  a couple of years international experience yet you would see him sacked for Mallinder/Baxter/Richards who have none. Lancaster isn't going anywhere before the World Cup and we're still moving forward. I don't expect to win next week but under Lancs I do think we're capable.

Both Baxter and Malinder like Lancaster have either lead or been a party to England saxons coaching teams.

Ofcourse I would have preferred Gatland to Lancaster, Gatland is a exceptional coach with a record to prove it.

If you're interested, just compare the NZ coaching panel under world cup winning Steve Hansen with Lancaster inc., there is no real comparrison. Next weeks game will be fascinating.

What is really shocking is that England are labouring under Lancaster whilist sides like Ireland and Scotland get there acts together with serious coaches at the helm. It does not make good reading.

So we have won nothing, we're unlikely to win the 6 nations and there is no way on earth we will get past either NZ or RSA as things stand.

England are never going to progress with Farrell at 10 (or Daddy behind the scenes).

Just compare NZ to England and pretend that's an equal footing to rate the coaches? Sorry but Hansen took over a NZ in far better shape than Lancaster had in England. If England had won the 6N by points difference and then lost to Aus this AI you'd be in a right grump calling for Lancaster's head even more. He's doing a good job. No way we would beat NZ or SA? Think that's a realistic possibility but anyway to recap Cips should be nowhere near ENgland at present.

Maybe I was watching a different game but I felt Farrell and Twelvetrees worked really well together in the 1st half. 36 offers far more than Barrett and maybe, just maybe he can be Farrells 'Greenwood'. Granted Farrell may not be a dazzling runner but neither was our lord and saviour St Jonny.

The Farrell & 36 partnership is still in its infancy, lets give it sometime. Stick Manu at 13 and see how we go.

If Farrell goes down, then Im sorry but I dont want Cips anywhere near the team. Flood and Burns next please.

As for Lancaster being pressured by Andy Farrell to pick his lad...well maybe he bullied Gatland to take him to Oz too. He is a scary looking bloke mind.

Lets not forget England have scored 6 tries in the last 2 games and have lost once in the last 12 months to an inspired performance from a good Welsh team who were just waiting to stove someones head in.

Biltong wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

Biltong wrote:I don't think Farrell is that bad.

Prefer him to Cipriani.

He may not be 'that bad', but he is certainly not good enough. Equally Danny has lots faults.

Well if you don't have a "Dan Carter" ariund, then a solid performer even though not a flashy player is more suitable than an error prone player.

To be fair, I am using Cipriani by way of comparrison interms of the limitations and weaknesses in his game. Personally I would have Flood and Burns as the next in line, though it has to be said Cipriani has delived at Sale this season. His all round game management plus his attacking awareness have been concistently to the fore. Now attacking awareness is not a trait I would aim at Farrell - which is a shame when you consider he trains with one of the most naturally gifted halfs this country has produced since the game went professional.

kingelderfield wrote:

Biltong wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:

Biltong wrote:I don't think Farrell is that bad.

Prefer him to Cipriani.

He may not be 'that bad', but he is certainly not good enough. Equally Danny has lots faults.

Well if you don't have a "Dan Carter" ariund, then a solid performer even though not a flashy player is more suitable than an error prone player.

To be fair, I am using Cipriani by way of comparrison interms of the limitations and weaknesses in his game. Personally I would have Flood and Burns as the next in line, though it has to be said Cipriani has delived at Sale this season. His all round game management plus his attacking awareness have been concistently to the fore. Now attacking awareness is not a trait I would aim at Farrell - which is a shame when you consider he trains with one of the most naturally gifted halfs this country has produced since the game went professional.

Look at Morne Steyn, the last thing you would give him credit for is being an attacking flyhalf, he stands too deep and hardly ever runs at the opposition, so you might as well say he is predictable.

Yet over the last season he has been able to execute within his limitations.

Still he got our backline away into space even though he doesn't put the defnesive line under pressure.

The way I see it, when it comes to Half back pairings, if you don't have players like a Joost or Dan, then have players who make less mistakes, are solid and execute distribution quickly and accurately.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just compare NZ to England and pretend that's an equal footing to rate the coaches? Sorry but Hansen took over a NZ in far better shape than Lancaster had in England. If England had won the 6N by points difference and then lost to Aus this AI you'd be in a right grump calling for Lancaster's head even more. He's doing a good job. No way we would beat NZ or SA? Think that's a realistic possibility but anyway to recap Cips should be nowhere near ENgland at present.

And nor should Farrell.

Could you ever imagine NZ giving the keys to the AB's to a lowly provincial coach with no more than a seasons experience as a director of rugby?

I don't think England would have done so either without the Lancaster excelling in the caretaker role. Glad he did as the RFU are being proved correct in their decision so far.

Agree with Bilts. We do not have a Carter, Evans or even a Cruden. So next best thing is some one with the basics nailed down who will hopefully set the platform for the rest of the backs to run off of.

What this does mean though is that somewhere else in the backline we need an X factor player or two. We don't have that at the moment though but will once Manu is back.

Yappy, we now have Willie le Roux that brings the X factor, and the number of tries he has created this year made a big difference to our attack, even if he had to do so by creating spce inside him and not outside.

Exactly, you have that live wire player and to be honest it's probably safer for the team mechanics that the guys not at 10, means the 10 can be nice and steady and then further out the risk taker can work his magic.

When we have Manu back I think we'll see a whole new dimension to this England team. If not then there's always Trinder and Eastmond.

Cipriani gives another quality performance.....Farrell must/should be worried.

Doing things Farrell could/will never do - instinctive offloads.....passing infront of the player.....the simple and the difficult skills any international should have but Farrell dosn't.

kingelderfield wrote:Cipriani gives another quality performance.....Farrell must/should be worried.

Doing things Farrell could/will never do - instinctive offloads.....passing infront of the player.....the simple and the difficult skills any international should have but Farrell dosn't.

There are also things that Farrell can do that Cips cant - like make a dozen tackles in a match rather than a whole season. All these things in isolation are not the be all and end all of playing at 10, but Farrell has skills too. It would be great if Cipriani could develop to be able to make an unassailable case, but at best the jury is still out.

Its sounding all a bit Henson-ish really, with a pool of people convinced that a given player could somehow be the saviour just because in the dim and distant past he was a real prospect and despite the fact that he has done little since.

lostinwales wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:Cipriani gives another quality performance.....Farrell must/should be worried.

Doing things Farrell could/will never do - instinctive offloads.....passing infront of the player.....the simple and the difficult skills any international should have but Farrell dosn't.

There are also things that Farrell can do that Cips cant - like make a dozen tackles in a match rather than a whole season. All these things in isolation are not the be all and end all of playing at 10, but Farrell has skills too. It would be great if Cipriani could develop to be able to make an unassailable case, but at best the jury is still out.

Its sounding all a bit Henson-ish really, with a pool of people convinced that a given player could somehow be the saviour just because in the dim and distant past he was a real prospect and despite the fact that he has done little since.

You miss the point entirely.......my point is both players have real weaknesses though in opposing parts of the game. The point is by comparison it is obvious that Farrell does not have the 'ball in hand skills' required to play ten at the very highest level, and that his weaknesses are just as detrimental as those possessed by Cipriani that have excluded him from international selection for a few number of years.

Cipriani may yet challenge, his form is improving and consistent and most of all he appears to be maturing. He is and never will be the saviour of English rugby such ‘Inverdale’esk hyperbole is just nonsense.

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

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

4 consecutive chargedowns in 4 matches led to his demise.

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

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

Its a question of Style do you want "wilkolite" ie a steady attacking player with a good defence and a solid kicking game - or do you want a mercurial player who will do great things but also make mistakes and does not have the defence. Its chalk and cheese. I would play Cips every time and wouldn't have Farrell as anything but a closer in the subs. However lancaster clearly prefers a structured predictable low mistake game.

Its not a question of nepotism or ignoring a great player. its about the styles you want to play and the balance of risk and reward

TJ sounds like you enjoy losing matches. Your mentality is a losing one.

Foundation of any good side is a top notch defence and solid basics. You should set the groundwork first.

Substance generally beats style.

A defensive error or mistake in your 22 can cost you 3 or even 7 points.

It's so important to have a 10 who can turn pressure into points even they are not all tries. It's also imperative that they don't make hugely costly errors or miss tackles.

A fly half like Cipriani makes more errors because he takes more risks. In international matches he gave away 4 chargedowns tries in a row - that's 7 automatic points to the opposition per match.

I'd like us to send Ford and Burns to NZ next summer. Burns offers the flashes of brilliance we need but needs to show consistency. He can turn a game on it's head and that's behind a weak tight five. Ford was the superior flyhalf for England under 20s and whilst younger than Farrell forced the Sarries man to the 12 shirt. Ford needs to show he can kick well off the tee and hold hos nerve as he is a brilliant player. Has the best all round player skill set of any English 10 (that's excluding goal kicking) he really can go tactical and attacking with equal ease and really could be the closest we will get to Carter.

We need to know whether these guys can cut the mustard at international level.

Problem is though that Ford is truly terrible at kicking. And Eng do not have any other kicking options. It's just not done in the Prem where only the 10's kick.

Add to it Ford still looks too small as well. You look at the big hits Farrell routinely puts in and try to imagine Ford doing that... Or even just making those tackles full stop. At the moment we'd have to hide him or hope Mile Brown and Twelvetrees wanted to double their work load.

Ford has been kicking well enough for Bath, lovely drop goal vs Wasps today from 30 metres plus. Remember Farrell has hardly been infallible for England off the tee so that shouldn't be too big an issue. Every team has tried to run over Ford for Bath or Tigers, he stood in the line and made his tackles. If Cruden and Lambie can survive on the international stage so can Ford. Remember Ford adds exceptional vision, a tactical kicking game more in line with a veteran and exactly the kind of passing and running game we desperately need.

Ahead of the RWC we need to access our options and blood some players. Currently we have the incredibly limited but reliable and physical Farrell. The creative, all rounder who has never quite been at his best for England in Flood. Neither are quite doing the business so let's see what else we've got.

Yes Sam England U20s - something that you seem to love repeating again and again. Also perhaps you want two of your best players on the pitch?

There is a significant difference between England U20s and full blooded internationals.

Ford is still far behind Farrell in terms of experience and mentally. Ford still has a lot to prove.

Of course he has and the best chance to find out if he can step up is on the summer tour whilst the Lions tourists are rested preRWC. Hence why I suggested we send him down to NZ with Burns and not shove him into the 6N. He's still very young at 20 and 2015 might be too early for him but he's doing very good things in the league with Bath and has been the most eye catching flyhalf so far this season.

Cips might play himself into contention but It's unlikely and at 26 the likes of Burns, Farrell and Ford are all younger and in equal or better form. We need to move the young guns on, NZ have managed to ensure that all of Cruden, Carter and Barritt have been capped over the last year. Giving the great options going forward. We have played Farrell in all meaningful games with Flood coming on at the death. That's not really helping us going forward. Argentina did give us the chance to look at other options but not meaningful opposition to test the against. We'll get that in NZ.

Let me be clear I don't expect Lancaster to ever select Cipriani.

kingelderfield wrote:Let me be clear I don't expect Lancaster to ever select Cipriani.

Mate, I think you cleared that up pretty well.  I agree, the point about our best 10s and their strengths and weaknesses is a good discussion.  Farrell is the starting 10 for the first place and top scoring team in the Premiership, so something good is happening there.  By that logic is Stevie Myler the next choice because he is the starting 10 for the second place and second top scoring team in the Premiership?  And Ford is 10 for the third place and third top scoring team.  It is a meaty subject.  None of these guys have a perfect game and it is OK to discuss.  

Though I agree Lancaster seems to have made his decision and only injury or a truly poor run of form will change anything.  And we do need to see the other contenders with the top team to see what happens in that case.

Cipriani will not get a look in while Lancaster is in charge. He has had a very good run of games for Sale and has shown some sublime skills. His defence is much better too.

I've not seen a better attacking 10 in England since

But he doesn't fit into Lancaster's 'corporate' happy clappy, world.

A shame really, because if he was a Kiwi, club and country would have ironed out those early flaws.

All our FH's have strengths and weaknesses.

Burns, Cips, Ford - Supposed defensively
Farrell - Offensively

I'd rather give Burns a run out than Cipriani. In fact it will be interesting to watch Burns if Glos can slowly improve their pack. OF all the 10's he's probably playing behind the worst pack so he's hardly going to be setting the world alight.

Or even better Farrell stand flat and show that he can move the ball and make a backline attack.

Serious question, what is the problem people have with Farrell?

Is it that he is messing up attacking plays?
Misses exploiting obvious running opportunities?

or is it that he is the playmaker of England's attack strategy... which is only in part his fault.

I don't think he is obviously flawed nor that he is obtuse in seeing gaps as all the moves in attack look pre planned.

Against NZ it was obvious England did not want to get into a open match as they saw how they took SA apart in the same manner weeks before. I would say however they kick far too much and don't develop plays to create space like Sexton, Carter does but thats mainly down to coaching and the backs strategy rather than individual brilliance.

A world class flyhalf isn't necessary to reach and win the RWC. Butch James was good but nothing special, half decent defender, half decent attacker... nothing more.

Who is more attacking Morne or Lambie? Lambie every day of the week. Its a similar strategy to England. Morne is no worse then Farrell and in fact they are nearly exactly the same bar Morne being a slighltly more reliable place kicker and Farrell being a complete rock in defence.

FA,

I think its the perceived image of the position. Many people seem to view that position as the all singing all dancing king of rugby. England fans want to see a FH tearing it up...which is why Burns, Ford and Cipriani are always pushed forward. They all have their strengths aswell though. Im fan of Burns.

Now personally im on the fence with Farrell...my reasons being.

1) I like his physciality and size. His defence is rock solid. I like his aggression. People say he's the "iceman". I dont see that at all. I see him as an aggressive lad who gets stuck in to his opponents unsettling them...i like that in players.

2) I like his goalkicking and out of hand kicking, generally top class, though he does have moments of carelessness, and more critically is too keen to go to the boot option even when passes are on.

3) He is a winner. He's only 21 (or 22) and he has played in numerous big games, winning most of them. He obviously has that big game mentality that you cant teach.

4) I believe he DOES have the skills required, and has shown for both Sarries, England and the lions that he is capable of making big plays and creating things.

The problem is and this relates to number 2 also is that he's not naturally attack minded. He needs to show us more consistancy ball in hand dare i say risk, and try to refrain from his natural instincts to kick, which at times is SO frustrating.
If he can do this...he might change a number of England fans opinions.

Geordie

I completely agree. I think what he lacks is not something that can't be coached/developed. They need to develop the relationship between 36 & Farrell... let 36 take more responsibility and trust their fellow backs more.

Take Morne Steyn for instance.. most people will be surprised to here that when he started out he was an attacking flyhalf with average kicking skills. The bulls worked it out of him as thats their philiosphy... 3 SR titles doesn't suggest it was a bad return either.

I hope he does it FA, as if he can consistantly control the game correctly...kick when required but more importantly pass at the right times...take a risk, then he could be a very impressive all round 10.

Him and Twelvetrees could be a very nice combo, add in a fit Tuilagi and then you have an interesting 10-13 combo. And even if Tuilagi is not fit, someone like Elliott Daly more of a playmaker at 13 still keeps it interesting and imcreases your chances of bring your wingers and Brown into play.

We shall wait and see.

GeordieFalcon wrote:FA,

I think its the perceived image of the position. Many people seem to view that position as the all singing all dancing king of rugby. England fans want to see a FH tearing it up...which is why Burns, Ford and Cipriani are always pushed forward. They all have their strengths aswell though. Im fan of Burns.

Now personally im on the fence with Farrell...my reasons being.

1) I like his physciality and size. His defence is rock solid. I like his aggression. People say he's the "iceman". I dont see that at all. I see him as an aggressive lad who gets stuck in to his opponents unsettling them...i like that in players.

2) I like his goalkicking and out of hand kicking, generally top class, though he does have moments of carelessness, and more critically is too keen to go to the boot option even when passes are on.

3) He is a winner. He's only 21 (or 22) and he has played in numerous big games, winning most of them. He obviously has that big game mentality that you cant teach.

4) I believe he DOES have the skills required, and has shown for both Sarries, England and the lions that he is capable of making big plays and creating things.

The problem is and this relates to number 2 also is that he's not naturally attack minded. He needs to show us more consistancy ball in hand dare i say risk, and try to refrain from his natural instincts to kick, which at times is SO frustrating.
If he can do this...he might change a number of England fans opinions.

Funny reading some of that (ok not the tackling and physicality /aggression side) but I cant help think a little of Rob Andrew. The stupid thing about him was that when he did run rather than apply the default boot he could look pretty decent. It was just a very rare occurrence.

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

Re Ford, Burns etc. If Farrell does his ACL pre RWC at the minute we'd be left with only Flood as an alternative. Given rumours are linking Flood with big moves to Japan or France we could be up a creek without a paddle and playing a 10 with next to no caps and no experience of full blooded tests. Options must be explored to cover our backs. The ABs have utilised three 10s quite heavily this year in Carter, Barritt and Cruden. SA have ensured both Steyn and Lambie have had game time. Those are the teams to beat and they aren't putting all their eggs in one fly half basket like we are currently.