Blood & Mud

The Andy Farrell problem is not really about Andy Farrell

Andy Farrell is being pilloried by most supporters of England and laughed at by those from other nations.  But his problems in the union game are more about the system in which players are brought from the northern code, the nature of the two games themselves, and the shocking lack of tactical thought by those who broker such deals, rather than the player himself.

Iestyn Harris is now enjoying a late career in the sun at the decidedly grey place that is Bradford. The Welsh Rugby Union spent £1.5m on Harris in 2001 with a view to making him the lynchpin of a new Wales side.  He was young, skillful and a proven achiever; plus, Jonathon Davies was keen, which helps.

Three years later he was back up north, with a giant question mark hovering over whether he was a succes in rugby union.  He was lucky to be young enough to return to the welcoming bosom of the game that had nurtured his talent, a crutch that he and Farrell do not have in common.  But the problems experienced by the Welshman will be all to familiar to the England man.

Money will always bring expectation from fans and media alike.  What is most baffling about these high-profile moves is that there is no real thought about what the brokers expect from the players.  Harris was a simple like-for-like fit on paper - he played outside half in both codes - plus he had key assets that the likes of Stephen Jones did not, notably the ability to play on the gain line.  Often times in his Wales career he would run the ball nearly into contact, only to spin a flat pass to the turf as his team mates looked mystified, five yards behind.  If Wales wanted a "traditional" number 10 why would they spend so much money for someone with such different attributes?  In the end Harris was moved to 12, where he had mixed performances before taking his semi-shattered reputation back to a game where no-one would question his ability. Ironically, Wales now have such a player in James Hook, and the debate still rages about how this mercurial talent can best be employed.

Farrell's move was even more baffling.  He was 30 years old; a man who had played in every position in the pack in RL, as well as emergency stand-off for both club and country; and nobody had a clue what to do with him beyond pay £1m and send him to Saracens.  Frankly, if you are paying that kind of money for anyone, you should have a plan as to how you are going to build a significant part of your game around him. England and Saracens could not even agree on his best position. 

Farrell is also a man who plays on the gain line: he has the strength and skill to hold the ball up in the tackle and off-load, yet not a single player runs off him.  The weakest point on the rugby field is behind the tackle - that is true in both codes - England have a man to exploit this but they do not have the nous to use it.  However, these arguments are window dressing to the main problem.

While the success rate of players crossing to RU is very low, those taking the bus in the opposite direction have had fared much better; the list reads like a roll-call of league greats: Jonathan Davies, David Watkins, Martin Offiah, John Woods, Inga Tuigamala, Apollo Perellini, Scott Gibbs.  Why are the ratios so markedly different?  The answer is simple: rugby league is simpler game.

The one constant in Rugby league is the exit strategy of taking the tackle.  It does not matter where your support is, you can be tackled and safely retain possession.  This sounds simple, but this one rule means that all the tactical factors so important on RU: avoiding isolation; field position; phased play; tactical kicking, to name but a few, are of lesser importance.  This, alloyed with the the 10-metre rule giving a player far more time to make decisions, means that RU players find themselves in something of an armchair, particularly in the key position of stand-off.

Rugby League is a fast, hard game and indeed a great game, but the chances of a key decision maker from that code making it in union in the future are slim.  Harris and Farrell have been the very expensive guinea pigs that proved the hypothesis. 

Tweet

Why not subscribe to Blood and Mud? You can get all our updates fresh in your inbox via email and add us to your favourite feedreader. You can also follow us on Twitter.

Like this this post? Why not like bloodandmud.com on facebook and tell your friends?

Comments

The Andy Farrell problem is not really about Andy Farrell

Andy Farrell is being pilloried by most supporters of England and laughed at by those from other nations.  But his problems in the union game are more about the system in which players are brought from the northern code, the nature of the two games themselves, and the shocking lack of tactical thought by those who broker such deals, rather than the player himself.

Iestyn Harris is now enjoying a late career in the sun at the decidedly grey place that is Bradford. The Welsh Rugby Union spent £1.5m on Harris in 2001 with a view to making him the lynchpin of a new Wales side.  He was young, skillful and a proven achiever; plus, Jonathon Davies was keen, which helps.

Three years later he was back up north, with a giant question mark hovering over whether he was a succes in rugby union.  He was lucky to be young enough to return to the welcoming bosom of the game that had nurtured his talent, a crutch that he and Farrell do not have in common.  But the problems experienced by the Welshman will be all to familiar to the England man.