FORD V FARREL?

Having watched the game i was wondering what your thoughts was on Ford and Farrell at `10-12.

I think it was all right as a tempery  fix but i would not like it to become the norm.

England do have a problem with the 12-13 spot IMO, and i dont think playing Farrell in the 12 shirt is the answer.

Ford played very well at 10 and should be given another chance v Australia. Who should take the 12 shirt? Twelvetrees did well when he came on but the game was all but won by then. What about Luther Burrell is he fit? JJ, will Eastmond be fit by then.

I do think that Barrett is nailed on for the 13 shirt.

Your thoughts?

I don't think any of the starting centres have made a strong case this autumn, so now I'd revert to the successful 6 Nations combo of Twelvetrees and Burrell. Ford at 10 obviously.

There were vague inklings of what they were trying to achieve - but both centres were in unfamiliar positions and they looked a little lost at times. The only way this experiment should continue is if Saracens agree to play them at 12/13 too

I cannot see Barritt being dropped for next week - as there has been so much tinkering already, but Farrell needs a break. If Lancaster and his coaches (especiall Pappa F) cannot see that they are harming his future by playing him - well they should spend 3 days being slapped in the face by a wet haddock.

If Burrell has a good game for Saints today I'd be keen so see him back in the side for some midfield punch.  The Aussie backs have had a lot of energy about them the last few games so I'd put Barritt back to his normal position to help marshall things defensively and try and take the brunt around Ford's channel so that Ford can remain as focused as possible on running the game for his first start against a top side and backing up this weekend's performance.

Come the 6N I'd like to have a look at Ford-Burrell-Tuilagi to see if it has enough variety about it, Burrell can distribute decently enough when asked to.  I still question Twelvetrees decision making, my overriding memory of his cameo yesterday was a poor dribbling kick down the 15m channel around the halfway line when he had 2 backs outside him and an overlap.

Hawalsh

Bit harsh on Twelvetrees I think. He made a try saving tackle, a lovely wrap around pass to Watson and showed up a few other times. Watching head on I didn't think there was much on when he grubber kicked it - the defence could have just drifted across quite comfortably.

I can't see it happening, but other than continuity I can't see any reason to pick Farrell and or Barritt over a Twelvetrees/Burrell combo, who played well together in the Six Nations. That gives Ford more toys to play with, and they're both good defenders as well.

At the moment I'd take Ford over Farrell. Owen looks exhausted and has for much of the season. He needs a break and with a guy as talented as Ford playing well this is as good a time as any to do so.

As for the centres there are lots of options with none of them proven. However the one thing I would say is play them IN POSITION. Barritt for all his attributes hasn't the pace for an international 13.

12.Twelvetrees, Barritt or Eastmond
13.Burrell or Joseph

Pair two of those and I can't realistically see things going much worse in the centres than they have the last 3 games!

The only exception I'd make to that would be for a 12.Burrell 13.Joseph partnership given Burrell excels at inside centre for Northampton. However despite very much liking the look of that, I'd personally go back to the Six Nations pairing of 12.Twelvetrees 13.Burrell for Australia.

9.Youngs
10.Ford
11.May
12.Twelvtrees
13.Burrell
14.Watson
15.Brown

21.Care
22.Farrell
23.Rokoduguni - He deserves another chance to show what he's capable of.

I remember the tackle, don't recall anything notable with ball in hand.  The defence may or may not have drifted across well, but initial conditions were an overlap and one of the players outside him was Watson, you've got to give players like that a chance to beat their man down the line (particularly against a 2nd tier side like Samoa), it's what they're in the side to do and Watson had been showing good footwork in the match.  The defence wasn't up enough for the grubber to stand a good chance of success, and in any case the execution was poor, directionally and strength.

For me it highlighted one of Twelvetrees' main issues, he commits to his standard plays without fully reading what is in front of him and it too often doesn't work or intelligent opposition see it coming.  Until he is showing much better form and fluidity at club I'm not comfortable with him starting big games for England and certainly not against good readers of the game like Australia where players such as Foley, Toomua, AAC, Folau & Beale are all very adept at anticipating backline plays.

Agree if Burrell is back to fitness and showing form...

10 Ford
12 Barritt
13 Burrell

He ran good lines in the 6n and would surely get chances off Fords better vision and creativity.

Early days for Ford but he showed enough promise to say to me he must start in the last game next week.

It makes it so much harder for a defence when you have a 10 who can run or pass like Ford. With Farrell in there its a lot easier to prepare for.

Make the Aussies think for a change.

England definitely should pick Ford against the Aussies to see how he handles that kind of test environment and pressure.

Tbh, I've never seen the point of Farrell at centre whatsoever. For an international 10 he is quite uncreative and predictable with ball in hand and he doesn't have pace or power or size to make up for that. In other words, he has very little going for him as a 12/13 in attack and England does not need centres who have nothing to offer ball in hand. You have way better options at 12 with a view to starting and I think the only point of selecting Farrell in the centre is to see how he handles it if he comes off the bench at centre or has to move there during a game.

Aussies thinking is their strong point...mid move of every move!

They're so inventive in off-the-cuff stuff that if England engage too much in an attack orientated game against them, they (England) could get fried, as an open running counter-attacking game just gets the Aussie juices flowing, as we nearly found to our cost until we tightened up again in the second half.

What does Barritt do other than tackle and run into people

Burrell limped off against Sarries today. Seemed to have a pretty good game up until then though.

rosbif wrote:What does Barritt do other than tackle and run into people

Barritt does nothing special apart from his defensive organisation, but he will offer himself up for you all day, not making smashing runs, but he does usually get over the gainline and he will hold (sometimes illegally) the defence creating space for others.  Despite how some like to portray him he can pass decently enough and he passes more often than he carries, it just won't be flashy.  He can also kick when needed, see the grubber he put through for Pennell's try against the Crusaders, very similar to the one Twelvetrees was heralded for in Burrell's try against Wales.  He's the sort of player that rarely stands out but he's the grease and structure that sides often need for other players to focus on the bells & whistles.  Saracens certainly always seem to lack when he's not in the side.  He wouldn't be my first choice, but he's a very useful player to have in and around the squad, one his teammates always comment on the value of.

pledgeX wrote:Burrell limped off against Sarries today. Seemed to have a pretty good game up until then though.

I'm watching the game now and a few minutes in Burrell has just produced a great flat twenty metre pass out wide to the wing in wet conditions at full pace after a line break.  Again, exactly the sort of thing that Twelvetrees usually gets praised for as a playmaker.

I'd like to see Ford with a Burrell & Tuilagi centre partnership when it becomes available.  When you've got a quality FH who can create and control the game well you want to give him as many strong running options as possible to orchestrate and play with, not a 10 like backup.

Burrell is back and in form unluckily for Sarries, went over on his ankle late on n=but Malinder thinks he will be OK for Saturday.

Ford Barritt Burrell sounds good to me and for cover on the bench, Myler again had a standout performance, he offers more than a severely out of form Farrell.

I suspect Spencer wishes Wiggy had been playing and Dickson had been on the England bench, he was given a lesson today in awful weather.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:,,,Ford Barritt Burrell sounds good to me and for cover on the bench, Myler again had a standout performance, he offers more than a severely out of form Farrell....

With that line-up, if Myler is the reserve fly half, then you'll need someone on the bench who can cover centre and either wing or full-back. No-one in the squad fits that bill.

Rugby Fan wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:,,,Ford Barritt Burrell sounds good to me and for cover on the bench, Myler again had a standout performance, he offers more than a severely out of form Farrell....

With that line-up, if Myler is the reserve fly half, then you'll need someone on the bench who can cover centre and either wing or full-back. No-one in the squad fits that bill.

12 x 3 ?????
May covers wing and fullback and I believe has played a bit in the centre

If anyone actually thinks Farrell will not be in the match day squad next weekend they are severely deluded.

GeordieFalcon wrote:If anyone actually thinks Farrell will not be in the match day squad next weekend they are severely deluded.

If that is the case, they can join the England management team, because if they pick him, they are also severely deluded (where is Dave, he iis another one)

He shouldnt be anywhere near the squad on fitness or form...but id put my mortgage on it, he'll be there next week.

It's annoying because Burrell should have been playing against Samoa not Saracens.

Ford,Barritt,Burrell should start vs Australia as it should have vs Samoa.

Burrell should get some credit sure but he was playing against a pretty poor centre partnership on paper - Wyles-Tompkins - one player who clearly is not a centre and I think the other making his AP debut? (Only 20 too), very inexperienced... two players who have never played in the centres together either.

beshocked wrote:It's annoying because Burrell should have been playing against Samoa not Saracens.

Ford,Barritt,Burrell should start vs Australia as it should have vs Samoa.

Burrell should get some credit sure but he was playing against a pretty poor centre partnership on paper - Wyles-Tompkins - one player who clearly is not a centre and I think the other making his AP debut? (Only 20 too), very inexperienced... two players who have never played in the centres together either.

You can only play what is in front of you, but I agree not an ideal partnership for Sarries.

What is it with both Sarries and England management that they both insist on playing someone that obviously needs a break from the mental if not the physical side of the game

Id like to know that aswell WPI.

What is it that is so appealing about Owen Farrell that he has to be involved. Is it mental strength, is it his personality around squad??

I think we saw today brief glimpses that you need an attacking player at 10 to dictate the play.
Farrell for me is a squad player now...covering 10 and centre.

well-past-it

I agree you can only play what is front of you but looking good against that centre partnership is much easier. Regardless I would play Burrell for England.

Both Saracens and England obviously think that the player in question is god's gift to the world....I think the player himself and the player's family believe it too! That's my explanation. Plus they have invested so much time and energy in him that they feel necessary to continually back him no matter how irrational it is.

Personality around the squad? He's not exactly seen as the life and soul of the party at Saracens. That would be someone like Brits. Brits and Farrell notably clashed - couldn't be any different in personality.

Hard worker - sure. Charismatic? No, I wouldn't ever put Farrell Jr in that category.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:,,,Ford Barritt Burrell sounds good to me and for cover on the bench, Myler again had a standout performance, he offers more than a severely out of form Farrell....

With that line-up, if Myler is the reserve fly half, then you'll need someone on the bench who can cover centre and either wing or full-back. No-one in the squad fits that bill.

12 x 3 ?????
May covers wing and fullback and I believe has played a bit in the centre

With your starting line-up, if Twelvetrees is on the bench, and one of our back three players needs to be replaced, then we'll end up with Danny Care on the wing or Myler at full-back. Don't really want that kind of makeshift approach against an Australian back line.

Rugby Fan wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:,,,Ford Barritt Burrell sounds good to me and for cover on the bench, Myler again had a standout performance, he offers more than a severely out of form Farrell....

With that line-up, if Myler is the reserve fly half, then you'll need someone on the bench who can cover centre and either wing or full-back. No-one in the squad fits that bill.

12 x 3 ?????
May covers wing and fullback and I believe has played a bit in the centre

With your starting line-up, if Twelvetrees is on the bench, and one of our back three players needs to be replaced, then we'll end up with Danny Care on the wing or Myler at full-back. Don't really want that kind of makeshift approach against an Australian back line.

I was thinking more of 36 as a centre replacement covering 12 and 15, a utility back that can cover wing 15 and centres is a rare player, the only one I can think of is a Kiwi James Wilson who plays across the whole of Saints backline. If you are going to pick specialists for your halfback replacements, you are always going to have that problem. If you put a wing/fb on the bench you are knackered in the centres if one gets injured.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:,,,Ford Barritt Burrell sounds good to me and for cover on the bench, Myler again had a standout performance, he offers more than a severely out of form Farrell....

With that line-up, if Myler is the reserve fly half, then you'll need someone on the bench who can cover centre and either wing or full-back. No-one in the squad fits that bill.

12 x 3 ?????
May covers wing and fullback and I believe has played a bit in the centre

With your starting line-up, if Twelvetrees is on the bench, and one of our back three players needs to be replaced, then we'll end up with Danny Care on the wing or Myler at full-back. Don't really want that kind of makeshift approach against an Australian back line.

I was thinking more of 36 as a centre replacement covering 12 and 15, a utility back that can cover wing 15 and centres is a rare player, the only one I can think of is a Kiwi James Wilson who plays across the whole of Saints backline. If you are going to pick specialists for your halfback replacements, you are always going to have that problem.  If you put a wing/fb on the bench you are knackered in the centres if one gets injured.

You aren't looking for one supersub to cover all eventualities. You are looking instead for a combination of starting back line and your bench which can do that.

Look at other sides. If Wales have an injury in the centre, George North can come off his wing, so there's already a centre option in the starting XV.

There are dozens of internationals players who can handle fly half/centre or wing/centre or full back/centre. If you add in a wing/full back - which is a very common combination - then you've got most options covered. James O'Connor, James Hook, Keith Earls, Kurtley Beale, Gavin Henson, Adam Ashley Cooper - it's really not rare. England had Mat Tait, Delon Armitage and even Matt Banahan to call on at one stage.

None of England's first choice back line players are currently realistic options in the centre. None of our first choice centres are likely to be comfortable on the wing. Only one of our fly half options (Farrell) is even a half decent option in the centre.

We can't just muddle through this issue. Brian O'Driscoll was out of the first Lions Test in 2005 in less than two minutes. In the 2013 first Lions Test, Australia lost their inside centre Lealiifano in less than a minute. England lost May to a broken nose early against France in the last Six Nations.

If one of our centres, or one of the back three goes down, we need a combination of starting backline and reserve backs which can cover that loss in a way which doesn't look desperate.

Rugby Fan, you are sort of proving my point, winger/fullbacks are common, May and Watson for example. Brown can cover wing at a push, but a 11/14/15 that can cover centre is much rarer. James Hook, Keith Earls, Kurtley Beale, Gavin Henson covered centre and 15, some 10. with the exception of Earls I would not want to see them on the wing.

So you have a conundrum, do you pick a weaker side with a utility back in it to allow for the possibility that you may have to move people about, or do you go with your best starting 15 and do what you can on the bench to cover 7 positions with three players, 2 of which are very specialist. so realistically 5 players with 1 and a 10 that can move outside to 12 or 15

I would prefer the later as we don't have an Austin Healey on tap at the moment.

As a last point, I can actually think of worse decisions made by SL than having to bring Myler on at 12. He would offer more variety than OF have just a little less defensive capability. Most good well rounded 10s can move to 12 when necessary. I would also be interested to see what would happen with Brown covering that position, if he could start catching the ball anyway.

Not quite the focus of the topic, but if you played a back three of May, Brown & Watson.  Both wingers can also cover fullback (though Watson much better than May).  Brown can also cover wing, though not a great choice.

In theory May could play outside centre, and I would be very surprised if Watson could not make some sort of fist of playing there in an emergency.

Likewise potentially the FH and two centres could cover for each other (with an additional player coming on).

However the other side of the bench apart from covering for injuries is IMPACT, and that may require a different selection.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:,,,Ford Barritt Burrell sounds good to me and for cover on the bench, Myler again had a standout performance, he offers more than a severely out of form Farrell....

With that line-up, if Myler is the reserve fly half, then you'll need someone on the bench who can cover centre and either wing or full-back. No-one in the squad fits that bill.

12 x 3 ?????
May covers wing and fullback and I believe has played a bit in the centre

With your starting line-up, if Twelvetrees is on the bench, and one of our back three players needs to be replaced, then we'll end up with Danny Care on the wing or Myler at full-back. Don't really want that kind of makeshift approach against an Australian back line.

I was thinking more of 36 as a centre replacement covering 12 and 15, a utility back that can cover wing 15 and centres is a rare player, the only one I can think of is a Kiwi James Wilson who plays across the whole of Saints backline. If you are going to pick specialists for your halfback replacements, you are always going to have that problem.  If you put a wing/fb on the bench you are knackered in the centres if one gets injured.

Interesting point about James Wilson, critically important for Saints. The only international who I can recall playing across the back line is Adam Ashley-Cooper, playing for Australia. Beale has played 12 and 15, not sure about 13. Certainly gives more options in case of injury or poor form. Not sure if we have anyone in or close to the England side with that kind of flexibility.

cb, impact is great if you don't get injuries, think of Wales a couple of years ago, we ended up with forwards in the centres as we had run out of backs. If you have someone like Burrell on the bench with say 36 and Manu playing, great, you get cover for injury and impact.We don't have that option with the current squad. Cover for injuries has to the first priority, impact comes second, in the backs anyway.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:...James Hook, Keith Earls, Kurtley Beale, Gavin Henson covered centre and 15, some 10. with the exception of Earls I would not want to see them on the wing...

You don't need them to. As I said, you aren't looking for someone who covers midfield, wing and fullback. You need a combination of players, with two or three who double-up and can complement each other.

It's not hard. You have a starting backline and three backs on the bench. One of the reserves is a scrum half, and the other is usually a fly half. That leaves one spot

If you have a fly half who can also cover centre - Flood, Farrell, Henson, Hook, Giteau, O'Connor, Beale, Lealiifano - then your other reserve can be back three cover.

If you have winger or full back who can cover centre - Jared Payne, North, Ashley Cooper, Muliaina, Earls, Tait, Armitage - then your other reserve can be back three cover.

If no-one else on the pitch, and neither of your flyhalves, can cover centre, then your reserve spot needs to go to someone who plays centre. If that same player cannot also cover a back three spot, then someone else in the group needs to be capable of doing so.

Ford was never going to bad-mouth his centres in public even if he hated playing with them, but he wouldn't have made comments like this either.  If he's giving similar feedback in private it'll most certainly filter into next week's selection.

"I was nervous because it was my first start for England but I think it was good nerves.

"I just went out there and tried to play my own game and I got some really good information from Owen Farrell and Brad Barritt outside me.

"And at least two of the tries came from what they were telling me and all I had to do was execute what they were telling me."

johnpartle wrote:Ford was never going to bad-mouth his centres in public even if he hated playing with them, but he wouldn't have made comments like this either.  If he's giving similar feedback in private it'll most certainly filter into next week's selection.

"I was nervous because it was my first start for England but I think it was good nerves.

"I just went out there and tried to play my own game and I got some really good information from Owen Farrell and Brad Barritt outside me.

"And at least two of the tries came from what they were telling me and all I had to do was execute what they were telling me."

NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!
I refuse to belive this! this is lies made up on the internet. Gorgous George Ford had no help from anyone, his god like ability were the reason those two tries happened. in fact he was so good Dan Carter woke with a semi after dreaming about being as good as the Gorgous one!! in fact i refuse to even contemplate that OF(cant even mention his name it makes me physicaly sick) contributed anything of a possitive note to the game. If he is not dropped by England forever and banned for life will be to good for him....

Lots of Love

Stuart Barnes

Knackered,

do you believe that OF is fit enough and in good enough form to be playing for England atm? Personally I think the management have done him no favours by selecting him in New Zealand and now here when he has in all likelihood not recovered fully from injury nor yet match fit.

Similarly should he be moved to an unfamiliar position when his confidence is low, fitness is debatable and form negligible? He is a fine player, but looks like one in need of a holiday.

LondonTiger wrote:Knackered,

do you believe that OF is fit enough and in good enough form to be playing for England atm? Personally I think the management have done him no favours by selecting him in New Zealand and now here when he has in all likelihood not recovered fully from injury nor yet match fit.

Similarly should he be moved to an unfamiliar position when his confidence is low, fitness is debatable and form negligible? He is a fine player, but looks like one in need of a holiday.

LT
No i dont think he should have been playing this series, he should have stayed at Sarries and regained form and fitness. This is probabaly a two way street as i doubt OF would have siad that he is not fit to play, and hearing that the management would always pick him.

However the OTT sucking off of GF as the saviour of English rugby by Sky is nausiating, as well as the hate/blame/scapegoat that OF is currently recieving, as many of Englands faults have nothing to do with him (dropped passes, players over-running, poor and slow service, scrum pens etc) hell even the stupid notion that the opposition were somehow better!!

Farrell went as no.2 to Sexton on the Lions tour for good reason.It would be stupid to write him off, or to blame him for all of England's woes when he has also been responsible for a lot of good stuff too.

For whatever reason he isnt in the right place now, and he shouldnt be immune to being dropped. I think what we all wanted is for him to be dropped now with a view of getting his form back for he future

Knackeredknees wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Knackered,

do you believe that OF is fit enough and in good enough form to be playing for England atm? Personally I think the management have done him no favours by selecting him in New Zealand and now here when he has in all likelihood not recovered fully from injury nor yet match fit.

Similarly should he be moved to an unfamiliar position when his confidence is low, fitness is debatable and form negligible? He is a fine player, but looks like one in need of a holiday.

LT
No i dont think he should have been playing this series, he should have stayed at Sarries and regained form and fitness. This is probabaly a two way street as i doubt OF would have siad that he is not fit to play, and hearing that the management would always pick him.

However the OTT sucking off of GF as the saviour of English rugby by Sky is nausiating, as well as the hate/blame/scapegoat that OF is currently recieving, as many of Englands faults have nothing to do with him (dropped passes, players over-running, poor and slow service, scrum pens etc) hell even the stupid notion that the opposition were somehow better!!

Excuse me..??

Knackeredknees wrote:

However the OTT sucking off of GF as the saviour of English rugby by Sky is nausiating

Exactly as it was a few years back with Farrell. As it will be in a couple of years with Slade. As it will be a couple of years after that with A. N. Other.

The constant hyping of players by the English media is boring at best, but it's nothing new with Ford. If anything it's not even close to reaching the levels of the OF love-in. Well, for now at least. If he guides England to a win over Aus this weekend it'll no doubt be cranked up to 11.

Knackeredknees you could argue that it has been Farrell Jr that has been treated as a deity - both by Saracens and England. It must stop now.

You are right Farrell Jr is too proud/stubborn - he would not acknowledge that he's not match fit. It's up to the management of Saracens and England to manage him properly.

I would say both have done a very poor job managing Farrell Jr for the last 6 months. He's a young man - it's likely he will bounce back but he needs to build a bit of fitness and confidence.

He's not the same player now compared to the 6 nations. He showed in the 6 nations he can play and play well. It's up to England and Saracens to help Farrell Jr get back to his best.

Ford is not the messiah - I still feel that he's too small and might be thrown around like a rag doll but he deserves a chance at 10. Simply because Farrell Jr is mentally and physically not right at the moment.

On the subject of mismanagement and 10s - I would fit Burns into that category - messed around by Gloucester and Leicester last season with the will he won't he? You generally see that situation in sitcoms - not a professional rugby environment! Now I am sure I will be criticised - but I think it would have been better for all involved for Burns to just announce he was leaving Gloucester officially. Would have put a line in the sand.

beshocked wrote:Knackeredknees you could argue that it has been Farrell Jr that has been treated as a deity - both by Saracens and England. It must stop now.

You are right Farrell Jr is too proud/stubborn - he would not acknowledge that he's not match fit. It's up to the management of Saracens and England to manage him properly.

I would say both have done a very poor job managing Farrell Jr for the last 6 months. He's a young man - it's likely he will bounce back but he needs to build a bit of fitness and confidence.

He's not the same player now compared to the 6 nations. He showed in the 6 nations he can play and play well. It's up to England and Saracens to help Farrell Jr get back to his best.

Ford is not the messiah - I still feel that he's too small and might be thrown around like a rag doll but he deserves a chance at 10. Simply because Farrell Jr is mentally and physically not right at the moment.

On the subject of mismanagement and 10s - I would fit Burns into that category - messed around by Gloucester and Leicester last season with the will he won't he? You generally see that situation in sitcoms - not a professional rugby environment! Now I am sure I will be criticised - but I think it would have been better for all involved for Burns to just announce he was leaving Gloucester officially. Would have put a line in the sand.

The only person who handled the Burns situation badly was Burns. He treated Gloucester who were still paying his salary very shabbily.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Knackered,

do you believe that OF is fit enough and in good enough form to be playing for England atm? Personally I think the management have done him no favours by selecting him in New Zealand and now here when he has in all likelihood not recovered fully from injury nor yet match fit.

Similarly should he be moved to an unfamiliar position when his confidence is low, fitness is debatable and form negligible? He is a fine player, but looks like one in need of a holiday.

LT
No i dont think he should have been playing this series, he should have stayed at Sarries and regained form and fitness. This is probabaly a two way street as i doubt OF would have siad that he is not fit to play, and hearing that the management would always pick him.

However the OTT sucking off of GF as the saviour of English rugby by Sky is nausiating, as well as the hate/blame/scapegoat that OF is currently recieving, as many of Englands faults have nothing to do with him (dropped passes, players over-running, poor and slow service, scrum pens etc) hell even the stupid notion that the opposition were somehow better!!

Excuse me..??

listen if you dare to the Sky commenrty team!
im sure you could hear stuart barnes banging one out everytime ford caught and passed the ball

You missed the joke

Yes as insightful as your posts are, I wouldn't say you're the saviour of English rugby just yet.

GeordieFalcon wrote:You missed the joke

I saw that, too. In a way THAT was funny in its own right.