The siren song of Quade Cooper, Elton Jantjies and George Ford

The myth of the great distributor simply wont die. There is a reason these chaps are great distributors, they don't do well in contact. But they need more than a pass, so they usually have a little step as well.

And it can work as we saw with Ford against the ABs last week. But as we have seen often in the past, it doesn't work when the defence is fast enough to make the pass a hazard. As it was yesterday.

The trouble with the great distributors, is when they can't distribute their whole game, the team's whole game is gone. South African fans who have lived with Jantjies have seen this....and want no part of it. Many Poms still believe in Ford and died with him yesterday.

Some former English player speculated that Jones would return to his Oz combo with Farrell at 10 and Tuilagi at 12....he should have listened. It was his fatal mistake.

Very true Moz. Hence the effectiveness of these players when there is a bit more space and time with the ball , and their total ineffectiveness in pressure games like finals and tight tests. 

I think there is a place for players of this sort, like pool matches and in the case of Super Rugby-like competitions, in the normal seasonal matches. In fact, in such matches an argument can be made that they are the better option, but when it comes to tight tests, knockout rugby and finals, the recipe for success almost always includes a conservative and less flashy flyhalf. 

Fords ineffectiveness had a lot to do with the Bok forward domination. 

What flyhalf would have thrived in those conditions?

Against those odds Pollard wouldn't have thrived, but he would have been functional. Ford was lost. Bloo puts his finger on the issue.....these guys can look like match winners much of the time ,

BB

That is very true.   The squad has to be usable players in  WC squad that could give the top players  ample resting time in the series.  There will always be second stringer flyhalfs in such squads.

The problem in 2015 were that at least 8 of the second-stringers was not usable/playable  and some players had to play in virtually every game in that series - which badly affect performances in the play-off games.  This year the number of playing hours were severely limited compare to 2015 and the players who made up the second string was good enough to win the two to three games they did play.    So give Jantjies credit for that and accept it is likely the test against Canada is the last test he will ever play.

Quade Cooper has been out of test rugby for at least a  year and it is not clear why he is part of the topic.   Ford remains a good flyhalf and he is not out of the game at all - he will play test rugby in future as well.   Ford made mistakes yesterday - but Farrell had his own mistakes and  there is no real motivation to blame Ford only for  the loss of England yesterday.     

Hahaha....a fool remains a fool.

Sure I enjoy being called an fool by an idiot like you.   LMAO

I wonder if there will ever be a day when Lügnerin can post without harkening back to 2012, 2015 and Meyer. 

Farrell is their best 10. I didn't agree with the makeup of their midfield for the final. I pointed out in one of the pre-game threads that their midfield can be bullied when they opt for Ford and Slade. So it was they couldn't impose themselves on the game. I am still very surprised that Eddie Jones would opt for that personnel and the opening they tried to nail down.

You can afford to play these types more than in the pre-ELV days. Defences are softer now than they used to be as well. I don't necessarily like this trend, or these kinds of 10s though. Everyone plays behind screens, so that affords these kinds of 10s more time and space then they'd have had back in the day. If you can't get going up front, however, then the attack becomes static and lateral without some directness. That's the advantage of a Pollard. He can burst through you and then get runners away behind your fragmented line. What we'd usually see from static ball, though, is 9 feed punch runners coming around the corner until they have momentum again. That's what Cooper used to do, call for the ball when he felt they have momentum and numbers to attack. There's that, or kick. In my opinion, the 9 is more influential than 10 in the modern game. Distribution is important, especially from the midfield, but that's a poor excuse for justifying a flyweight. It's been repeatedly shown that flyweights struggle in competitive physical tests. If you can't arm a weak 10 with a monster 12 it really is an accident waiting to happen. It becomes hilarious when teams try the "play making" 10 and 12 duo. The Wallabies in particular keep getting bitten by this.