Cause for concern? England’s options at fly half
When Charlie Hodgson announced his international retirement at the end of June after a bit-part role in England’s tour of South Africa, nobody made too much fuss. Granted, there were some appropriately understated tributes to a man whose talent merited far more than 38 caps, but the prevailing feeling was that Stuart Lancaster had a pair of tried and tested performers at his disposal in Toby Flood and Owen Farrell. A 31 year-old with a history of defensive frailties would, apparently, not be missed.
Nearly three months on, such confidence seems slightly misplaced. Hodgson has found a new lease of life at Saracens, marking his move down from Stockport with some exceptional form. Fizzing passes from almost parallel to the gain-line, the veteran has ignited a new-look backline. Naturally, he has also made his kicks and passed 2,000 Premiership points during the Fez-Heads’ opening day demolition of London Irish at Twickenham.
Then, inexplicably, Hodgson was dropped to the bench for Saturday’s showdown against Leicester. The consequences, if not quite disastrous, were concerning. Frankly, anyone who watched an abject 9-9 draw will have been extremely discouraged with the state of England’s stand-off options. As well as missing four first-half penalties, Farrell was lateral and failed to create anything of a midfield spark. Opposite him, Flood seemed all at sea, sitting very deep at times and pressurising Sam Harrison, his young halfback partner, into managing Tigers’ attacks.
In short, both seemed pedestrian compared to foreign top-tier rivals, namely Stephen Jones of Wasps and Harlequin Nick Evans, both of whom enjoyed exceptional weekends. Only when Hodgson was finally introduced with half an hour to play did Saracens – then six points down – click into gear. Although a straightforward drop-goal chance went awry, the replacement was by far the most assured fly-half on show at Wembley.
Now, as a trio of tough encounters with the Southern Hemisphere giants looms on the autumn horizon – as well as a useful run-out against Fiji the week before – Lancaster could be forgiven for taking a rain check. He has enjoyed a sympathetic bedding-in period so results are essential, but there are exactly three years to go until the next World Cup. That is plenty of time for a different name to assert himself in such a key position.
Speaking very shortly after his permanent appointment last week, newly-instated Mike Catt announced that England were “only 15 or 20 percent towards where we want to go.” Maybe the remaining distance can be made up with someone else. Let’s have a look at the candidates.
Freshen up entirely
The presence of George Ford and Freddie Burns in the Saxons squad named at the beginning of July is undoubtedly heartening. Evidently the ones-in-waiting after eye-catching Under 20 careers, both have taken their baby steps in the Premiership with unflappable poise. In fact, as Flood was floundering with a knee problem at the end of last year, teenager Ford thrived in the pressure-cooker of knockout rugby, while Burns was very nearly handed a ticket to Durban. The Gloucester tyro has started well again this season, and will benefit from being surrounded by an axis of Ben Morgan, Jimmy Cowan and Billy Twelvetrees over the course of the campaign.
Although Ford is far too mild-mannered to say so, the biggest obstacle he faces at the moment is Richard Cockerill. After condemning him to a summer in the weights room – which has yielded a nine-kilogram gain – Leicester’s head coach seems reluctant to deploy his starlet. Tellingly, Ford stayed on the bench this Saturday. With a distinct lack of Saxons fixtures, only overwhelmingly strong Premiership form will promote either member of this precocious duo. Tom Heathcote of Bath could join the club, pending successful rehabilitation from pre-season knee trouble.
Take a chance on an exile
It had to happen. A discussion on potential England number tens would not be the same without uttering the name of Danny Cipriani, especially now that the former (Melbourne) Rebel has relocated closer to home. Unfortunately, despite sky-high expectations in Cheshire, Bryan Redpath has not yet galvanised his Sale charges. During three losses – two of them heavy – Cipriani has hardly shone. He is, however, in the right place. Time is one hell of a healer and the skill that once ripped Ireland apart at Twickenham will still be there somewhere.
For some, Olly Barkley has re-emerged. In my opinion, though, this is just as far-fetched as a Cipriani recall. Though the 30 year-old has 23 caps from way-back-when and is in fine goal-kicking fettle, an unimaginative streak is crippling for his case. Shane Geraghty, back with London Irish following an ill-fated French foray, has also pulled on a white shirt, but don’t hold your breath for a repeat.
Steady the ship with a familiar face
The thought of tempting Hodgson back out of the club game is pretty depressing, even if he is the form fly half in England. Then again, it was good enough for Sir Alex Ferguson. When Manchester United ran out of options halfway through last season, the Scottish genius compelled Paul Scholes to return to his well-worn spot in midfield.
It is always dangerous and often idiotic to aim comparisons across sports, but Scholes and Hodgson do share some key qualities – brilliant distribution, an inconsistent success ratio on the tackling front. Alright, that’s enough. I promise not to push this idea, at least for another few weeks. The impact that such a drastic u-turn would have on the current crop would be debilitating, for a start. We won’t even mention Jonny Wilkinson.
Keep calm and carry on
A composed, clear thinker and pragmatic man-manager, Lancaster will not actually have been overly worried by the Wembley woes. Besides, it wasn’t long ago that Farrell was lauded by as the place-kicking prodigy to cure the crisis of 2011 after a prominent role in Six Nations victories over Scotland and Italy. Similarly, incumbent stand-off Flood has been good in Leicester’s two enterprising bonus-point wins earlier this month.
The ace that Lancaster does have in the EPS is former fly half Alex Goode, a footballer easily skilful enough to step up from fullback if required. While Farrell could well have been phased out by 2015, in the meantime he can be coaxed through these blips in form, especially with his fellow Saracen alongside him in the match-day 22 to direct attacking patterns, identify opportunities to counter and even take the reins at first-receiver if necessary. Speculation will rage on and on – it always does. For now, though, England will stick to their guns amid the misfire.
What do you think? Who do you think should start at fly-half for England in the Autumn Internationals?
By Charlie Morgan (@Charlie Morgan)
Flood is currently our no.1 option at FH, with Farrell his back up. My problem with this is that after all the caps that Flood has won, to me he’s never looked like an assured international FH. Granted, he has had some brilliant games – but on the whole i think he’s had more bad games than good. The emphasis now is on 2015 and building to the future. With that in mind, I would like to see Burns be given a go in the AI’s, with Flood on the bench (to provide the “experience”). This will also allow Ford to pick up game time at Leicester, and hopefully (if he proves himself) then be involved in the 6N’s next year.
As for Farrell, i think he’s a good player with many strengths and a maturity beyond his age – but his current form and slight “one dimension game” at the moment is not what England need. Also, I feel his best position is in the centre, and I would say there are several others that offer better options in those positions.
If we are to compete with the SH teams, we need to find a FH capable of consistently unleashing a backline. We have a huge amount of talent to pick from – some with experience, some with simply raw talent. Now is about deciding what our “game style” and “identity” are, picking the players that fit the structure, and allow them to form solid, efficient and effective partnerships. Of course, this is just my opinion
Interesting conundrum with Farrell. He has a skill set which could be used at FH or inside centre – tackling, kicking (tactical can be a bit hit and miss) and unflappability, but lacks that cutting edge distribution for FH and attacking flair for inside centre. If he can’t develop these he may get left behind by the next generation.
I still reckon that Burns has started the season better than any other FH but we don’t know how he will take to the speed and intensity of international rugby. Why not try him as a substitute in the AI’s to get a feel for his development. There isn’t anything other than pride to play for unlike the 6N.
Possible team for AI’s. Thoughts?
1. Corbisiero
2. Hartley
3. Cole
4. Botha
5. Parling
6. Johnson
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan
9. Care
10. Burns
11. Abendanon
12. Allen
13. Tuilagi
14. Ashton
15. Brown
16. Youngs
17. Marler
18. Lawes
19. Waldrom
20. Youngs
21. Flood / Farrell
22. Joseph
Going back to the 2010 combination of Lawes and Palmer would solve the physicality issues we had against the Boks, but I think it only works if there is a Wood/Croft lineout option in the backrow. Assuming players recovering from injuries recapture something close to best form I would go for:
1. Corbisiero
2. Hartley
3. Cole
4. Lawes
5. Palmer
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan
9. Care
10. Flood
11. Abendanon
12. Tuilagi
13. Joseph
14. Ashton
15. Brown
16. Youngs
17. Marler
18. Parling
19. Waldrom/Johnson
20. Youngs
21. Burns
22. Goode
I can see Marler coming under pressure from Vunipola (does Vunipola cover both sides as well?).
For the period of time he was fit and on the pitch Flood looked good on the summer tour. Being outside the Tigers No 3 SH at the weekend, one position the Tigers lack quality in depth, didn’t do him any favours. The combination just didn’t work. So I think this one abomination should be disregarded (for now) and he stays our number one.
Farrell needs a run of games at 10 and, now that Sarries aren’t playing so much anti-Rugby, to develop his game. I wouldn’t put him near an England shirt again until he is playing well again and, more importantly for me, allowing others to play well around him. The contribution has to be more than tackles, place kicks and hoofs in the air.
Charlie has never managed to replicate his super passing club game on the international stage, so I don’t see we should be looking back there.
Whilst Ford may be the long term solution I don’t think we can put him in frame for AIs unless he starts playing for Tigers.
I would go for Flood and Burns (giving Burns a minimum of 30 mins against Fiji) on current form. If Flood’s form does go to pot then I wouldn’t mind seeing one last hurrah from Wilko!
I completely agree with everything Matt says, Flood with Burns as back up.
AI Team:
1. Corbisiero
2. Hartley
3. Cole
4. Lawes
5. Botha
6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan
9. Care
10. Flood
11. Wade
12. Barritt
13. Tuilagi
14. Ashton
15. Brown
16. Youngs
17. Marler (although my opinion may change if someone tells me Vunipola can play both sides)
18. Palmer
19. Johnson
20. Simpson
21. Burns
22. Joseph
This team works on the assumption that both Youngs and Foden are out injured. Otherwise that is all of our injury worries over, am I right?
Jeez Flood has one bad game and its the end of his career. He’s first choice end of (though agree he plays better with Youngs and vice versa). The real battle is who is back up. Surely it has has to be Burns based on the first few round ( no and don’t call me Shirley).
Agreed
I agree that Flood has never really convinced as an international FH.He can be good,very good at times but falls short of real class and command at that level.The upcoming AI’s should be used to test other options because I can’t see Flood at the next WC.The two obvious candidates are Burns and Ford.Amid all the calls for Burns to get his chance I have yet to hear any concern over his size,as was the case with Ford who is now the bulkier of the pair.Any opinions on this?
My England team from the last three weeks form would be:
1. J. Marler
2. D. Hartley
3. D. Cole
4. G. Robson
5. G. Parling
6. T. Johnson
7. C. Robshaw
8. B. Morgan
9. J. Simpson
10. F. Burns
11. C. Wade
12. B. Barritt
13. M. Tuilagi
14. C. Ashton
15. M. Brown
16. M. Vunipola
17. T. Youngs
18. C. Lawes
19. T. Waldrom
20. D. Care
21. T. Flood
22. A. Goode
I think the only one I would swap would be Care for Simpson. Apart from that I totally agree.
Given the paucity of choice I guess that Lancaster has to decide whether he wants a tackling goal kicking uninventive FH, or one with more flair but smaller and therefore considered more suspect tackling wise.
Interesting question – Is size or technique more important when tackling? (and both is not a possible answer in this limited poll!)
I believe if your technique is right, the size doesn’t make much difference. What does is your willingness to complete the tackle. Flood is lacking the aggression in this department, as I believe Burns is as well. Farrell has no lack of aggression, but does lack the ability to move the backline like Flood or Burns can.
Start with Flood or Burns (with Barritt at 12), run the ball as much as possession allows. Then bring on Farrell after 50 mins or so, and keep the opposition in their own half with good tactical kicking.
Whilst technique and commitment can help the smaller player tackle effectively, it is ludicrous to suggest “the size doesn’t make much difference”. Why are all the best tacklers in the game big? Why do they hit the gym?
Point taken, but in the case of Flood and Farrell, they are the same height, and Farrell is listed at 5kg’s heavier. I would say that Farrell is a far more effective tackler than Flood, but is it because of his technique or his willingness to tackle? It’s certainly not because he’s big!
I’ve seen many smaller players bring down “big” players by using their weight and momentum. Their is more than one way to tackle bigger players effectively, no matter how big you are. Anyone who has studied martial arts could tell you that. (Though I’m not suggesting you drop kick them!)
I know size does make a difference but was interested to know what people thought in the size v technique debate, although bearing in mind the comments it probably should have been size v tackling aptitude!
It’ll be an 8 man bench now I believe.