George Ford does not kick long enough to be England’s no 10

There has been much debate about Ford v Farrell and indeed Ford v Cipriani. However, for me the big issue with Ford is his kicking. People will quote stats that show his kicking percentages are as good or better than other candidates – but there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

For the 2014/15 Aviva season Ford’s successful percentage was 80%, Farrell’s was 78%, but Alex Goode’s was 92%. So on stats alone Alex Goode should be England’s goalkicker.

However, where for me Ford ‘cheats’ the stats is that you will rarely see him take on a kick over 40 metres. Research shows that the successful percentage of goal kicks diminishes over 40 metres and again over 50 metres – understandably so. So Ford keeps his success percentages high by not taking on the longer kicks, because he simply doesn’t have the range. International teams will know they can afford to give away penalties against England when they are outside the 40m range.

So much of international rugby is about scoreboard pressure and by not having a goalkicker who can kick at range, ala Halfpenny (over 16% of his international goalkicks travel more than 50 metres in the air), Sexton, Carter, Spedding, etc then England are giving away a significant amount. If England want to play an all out running game, or we have a pack who can regularly turn penalty kicks to the corner into tries, then Ford is your man, but without that as we saw against Wales we are at a disadvantage.

He is not going to be able to change his kicking skills to add 10/15 metres so the only alternative would be to employ a second longer range kicker in the team, which would probably mean Farrell, Twelvetrees, or Slade in the centres, Goode at fullback, etc. These options, with the possible exception of Slade, appear to be a compromise to cover up the weakness of another player.

I am afraid for me Ford cannot be first choice 10, unless another longer range kicker can get into the team on merit, so for me it is time to ditch him and go straight for the next great hope in Henry Slade. We can go with the usual England negative safety first approach and go with Farrell at 10, or at 12 as Ford’s safety blanket, or we can be bold and take a chance on someone who may take England forward from the jumbled mess of the 2015 World Cup, where we could neither run nor kick our way to victory.

PS I couldn't find the figures to show Ford's average successful penalty kick length for England versus Farrell, or Halfpenny for Wales, etc. If anybody can find these, I would be very grateful. (And no made up stats please).

England lack a little sparkle without Ford. Given Slade is a likely challenger for midfield not sure it matters too much anyway. Cipriani in a Catt-less England may have a chance also. Given how much Ford's kicking has improved I wouldn't bet against it continuing to improve either.

Its a fair comment. It certainly helps to have a long range kicker, whether its your 10 and main kicker or not. Twelvetrees is one who can fill in for that as a speclialst were he actually capable of holding down the 12 spot, his kicking from range is excellent.

Correct. Have a long range consistent kicker if you can. And he doesn't have to be your blasted 10. I hate that fixation on 10s being the kickers.

But of course the guy who then does do the long rangers, well, he has to be there on merit in his other role... and that's the conundrum.

I've yet to come across a reliable Ford - they seem ok when everything is going fine but when the terrain gets a little bumpy the performance just starts to fall off  

RubyGuby wrote:I've yet to come across a reliable Ford - they seem ok when everything is going fine but when the terrain gets a little bumpy the performance just starts to fall off  

I don't think anyone would argue that a longer rang kicker is very useful in a team. However, England would be foolish to ditch the best fly half in England because 40m is his range. Game management, decision making, kicking from hand, distribution and the ability to create opportunities are way more important.

Thats exactly why England can't go into arm wrestles with other teams. Against Wales, Ireland etc in 50/50 evenly matched games they will lose more than they win with Ford.

Maybe for the long kicks to goal you need a Ford Ranger

fa0019 wrote:Thats exactly why England can't go into arm wrestles with other teams. Against Wales, Ireland etc in 50/50 evenly matched games they will lose more than they win with Ford.

They've just lost 50% of the matches in this WC without him. Damned if you do or don't for England right now.

Ford has a lot of talent but if he's not managed well he'll go the same way as other England players who showed promise before eventually they crashed and ended up on the scrap heap, Morris, Austin Healey and Jonny Bentley are just a few others.

RubyGuby wrote:Maybe for the long kicks to goal you need a Ford Ranger

I think he just needs to get in the gym. Halfpenny, Lambie, Wilkinson are all his size.

RubyGuby wrote:Ford has a lot of talent but if he's not managed well he'll go the same way as other England players who showed promise before eventually they crashed and ended up on the scrap heap, Morris, Austin Healey and Jonny Bentley are just a few others.  

Don't think Austin Healey can be said to have ended up on the scrap head. He had a decent career and only injury stopped him from getting a RWC winners medal.

fa0019 wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Ford has a lot of talent but if he's not managed well he'll go the same way as other England players who showed promise before eventually they crashed and ended up on the scrap heap, Morris, Austin Healey and Jonny Bentley are just a few others.  

Don't think Austin Healey can be said to have ended up on the scrap head. He had a decent career and only injury stopped him from getting a RWC winners medal.

Can't argue with that - Healey was a classic after all

I think it's just about balance.

England could go with a backline of

9.Youngs or Care
10.Ford
11.Nowell
12.Slade
13.Tuilagi/Burrell
14.Watson
15.Brown

Perhaps harsh on Joseph but I think England need to have someone in the centres who does direct running but certainly not Farrell and Barritt who aren't threatening enough.

Tuilagi and Burrell have been very effective for England at 13.

There was a lot of focus on how we missed Stefon Armitage. For my money, though, a bigger loss to the England squad was Delon Armitage. He was one of our best performers at the 2011 World Cup. Managed well - and boy, does he need managing - he would have given us a quality full back, who can also cover wing and centre, with the ability to take on long range goal kicks.

George Ford may not have a long range boot on him, but England play a lot better when he is at 10 than Owen Farrell.

So give me Ford at 10 any time over Farrell.

Rugby Fan wrote:There was a lot of focus on how we missed Stefon Armitage. For my money, though, a bigger loss to the England squad was Delon Armitage. He was one of our best performers at the 2011 World Cup. Managed well - and boy, does he need managing - he would have given us a quality full back, who can also cover wing and centre, with the ability to take on long range goal kicks.

I agree in principle, and he was one of the very few reliable guys last time out, but where would you put him? Of the numerous problems we have with England wing is not one of them and Brown at full back is consistantly one of our best performers

Ford is quality, Farrell to be fair only got into the team because of his kicking (and his father) and is not a quality 10 in my mind.

majesticimperialman

Have they? Ford came on vs Wales, he didn't exactly turn the tide did he?

Granted against Australia, he started a fightback but the game was effectively lost at half time anyway.

Comes back to my point about balance.

Playing a plodding centre partnership of Burgess-Barritt isn't going to help anyone.

Farrell can function fine in a balanced backline, same with Ford.

The backline in the RWC was horribly imbalanced.

Farrell is not a centre. He should never play there for club or country.

They do have slightly different strengths though.

beshocked wrote:majesticimperialman

Have they? Ford came on vs Wales, he didn't exactly turn the tide did he?

Granted against Australia, he started a fightback but the game was effectively lost at half time anyway.

Comes back to my point about balance.

Playing a plodding centre partnership of Burgess-Barritt isn't going to help anyone.

Farrell can function fine in a balanced backline, same with Ford.

The backline in the RWC was horribly imbalanced.

Farrell is not a centre. He should never play there for club or country.

Agree on Farrell not being a centre and not ever playing there again.

Which is why its unfair to say that Ford failed to turn the tide against Wales when he ended up with a Farrell-Barritt partnership outside him. Even Dan Carter couldn't conjure up an attack through midfield with that pair

Generally speaking, England have looked a lot more threatening with Ford at 10 than Farrell, I don't think thats an unreasonable assertion

Farrell does have other qualities as a fly half though, and should definitely be an option there

Elliot Daly regularly kicks goals from inside his own half and has been around the EPS/Saxons, he could come in at any position in the backline really and is a very good player as well a good kicker.

Fords a good kicker maybe its just an issue with the timing, pretty easy to rectify - I thought he'd lost some spark though

Bambam perhaps not but majesticimperialman was suggesting Ford has done a better job than Farrell. Quite clearly he didn't vs Wales. Yes was hamstrung with that centre partnership but so was Farrell.

I think both 10s have been competent but neither have been outstanding.

England have been threatening with Farrell at 10 with a better balance E.g. vs NZ and in the 2014 6 nations.

I don't think the issue is necessarily Ford or Farrell. It's about adapting to their situation and getting the right balance.

Ford-Farrell was a disaster though.

Well cant Slade kick? If he moves in to 12...no issues.

Nowell can kick.

Daly has a massive boot.

For me Ford is a better creative player than Farrell at 10. His range of passing and timing of the pass is just that bit better, which is not to say Farrell is poor at those skills. It of course helps when you have Joseph at 13, who can make something of nothing.

Beshocked is exactly right about Farrell at 12. That should never happen again. Never ever. Each and every time I think good things about Lancaster, I consider that decision. Complete nonsense.

I would personally see Ford as England's starting 10, with Farrell on the bench. Farrell is a better tackler, a better kicker both from hand and from the tee and more aggressive taking contact if he needs to. It's actually a really nice contrast having them both in the 23, just not playing at the same time.

Regarding the kicking point made in the OP, I don't think it's the be all and end all. I certainly wouldn't shift the shape of the backline and the playing style just to accommodate a hoofer. It's something for Ford to work on, but so is his goal kicking more generally. The comparison with Wales is difficult - Biggar and Halfpenny are two of the best goal kickers in the world, and I suspect it's no coincidence that Neil Jenkins is the kicking coach. I wonder whether Jonny would consider working with Ford in that regard.

Your range is your range! Ok, a few metres can be gained by improving your technique, but you can't suddenly turn a Ford into a Halfpenny! It's generally agreed that Ford is the better starting 10 for England so agree with the OP that a longer range kicker should be in the side. It's hard to fathom why Slade only got his 2nd cap against Uruguay! Penalties are so important in today's game, not just via the points but also the mindset of the opposition anywhere near the halfway line. Paranoid defenders makes for quicker ball makes for more space for Ford n Joseph to weave their magic! I'm thinking This is one of the many tricks England missed in this WC.

Ford has increased his effective range from 40m to 45m in the last year, but yes he will not bang them over from the halfway line. Neither does Farrell however.

LondonTiger wrote:Ford has increased his effective range from 40m to 45m in the last year, but yes he will not bang them over from the halfway line. Neither does Farrell however.

To be fair are there many 10's that can? most teams have another player who attempts the long range kicks.

nathan wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Ford has increased his effective range from 40m to 45m in the last year, but yes he will not bang them over from the halfway line. Neither does Farrell however.

To be fair are there many 10's that can? most teams have another player who attempts the long range kicks.

That's where Armitage might have come in - he still steps into that role occasionally with Toulon. If Daly can do that now for us, then that's another reason to get him involved.

In some ways, this is a microcosm of how we've argued about England as a whole. If selecting a particular player leaves you short in another area, then you can compensate through selecting someone else who can cover it. It doesn't matter if you end up with people who wouldn't otherwise be first choice; you are trying to build a team which works together.

My beef with Lancaster's matchday squads is that they were frequently short on leadership, back row variation, proper backline cover, and goalkicking depth. Apart from that, they were fine. Now, England had enough wins along the way that these deficiencies weren't often exposed. When we did lose, however, the reasons were almost always traceable to the same issues.

It's not as if Lancaster wasn't prepared to think along those lines. He decided Barritt wasn't the answer in midfield but brought him back when he decided he wanted a defensive leader. He selected Parling when he wanted a lineout. Burgess was included for his temperament and line breaking threat.

The trade-offs you find yourself making ought to tell you something about your team. I don't like it when Billy Vunipola and Ben Morgan are in the same matchday squad. Billy might be able to cover six, but both are basically the same kind of number eight. I suspect Lancaster wanted them both, because losing one removed a key ball carrier. We ended up sacrificing back row options on the bench because we didn't have enough decent ball carriers elsewhere in the starting XV. We should have tried to solve the ball carrier problem another way.

If Ford is our best bet at fly half, then we should make sure there's another goalkicker in our starting XV. Not simply to give us extra range, but also someone to take over from Ford when he's having a bad kicking day yet doing well enough elsewhere not to be substituted just so we can bring on another kicker.

fa0019 wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Maybe for the long kicks to goal you need a Ford Ranger

I think he just needs to get in the gym. Halfpenny, Lambie, Wilkinson are all his size.

maybe he could spend a bit longer and become a hooker?

Did anyone get the Ford, Morris, Bentley and Austin Healey references earlier or am I on my own here?

You're more subtle than a Welsh backline, Ruby......

SecretFly wrote:You're more subtle than a Welsh backline, Ruby......

North Roberts Cuthbert et Al are anything but subtle but I get your drift Mr Fly

fa0019 wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:Ford has a lot of talent but if he's not managed well he'll go the same way as other England players who showed promise before eventually they crashed and ended up on the scrap heap, Morris, Austin Healey and Jonny Bentley are just a few others.  

Don't think Austin Healey can be said to have ended up on the scrap head. He had a decent career and only injury stopped him from getting a RWC winners medal.

Ruby was referring to horse power, the boot, engine department, breakdowns, accidents, repairs, insurance, and all the other factors you have to worry about with old classics of this type.

PS....always liked the Austin Healey 3000 myself.

Laidlaw has the same critism levelled at him. What we do is have Hogg taking the long kicks if we want a shot at goal or simply play down the touchlines for the territory. Its nice to have a reliable 50m kicker - but a 10 who can unlock defenses is far more valuable. Ford appears to be the best attacking 10 England have - so play him. Its not 2003 anymore. Top teams score tries

Slade can kick from the half way line no problem

RubyGuby wrote:Did anyone get the Ford, Morris, Bentley and Austin Healey references earlier or am I on my own here?

Just saw your post. It's still a wee bit early for me over here on a Saturday morn. Not too bad. Not too bad at all. Very creative.

gregortree wrote:PS....always liked the Austin Healey 3000 myself.

I have a 1960 MK 2 Jag Greg dark blue same car as Morse

RubyGuby wrote:

gregortree wrote:PS....always liked the Austin Healey 3000 myself.

I have a 1960 MK 2 Jag Greg dark blue same car as Morse

cowpat ! When did he play for England then ?

Farrell is a MK 2 but he's no classic