Page 2 of 5

Re: Faz

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:12 pm
by Matthew
DaveO posted:
You answered your own question and given it is an area of weakness in the side would you rather have Faz back there or Ward?
There are a lot of players that I would prefer to seeing playing prop for us in front of Ward! However Faz (if he were to come back to RL) isn't going to be cheap, the RFU is going to want and try and recoup some of the money it spent on him. If our new owner baulked at the prospect of parting with 100K for Walker there is no way he will pay even more for 32 year old Farrell.

DaveO posted:
Mind you regardless of Farrell we could do with a loose forward at 13 because Lockers isn't one by a long way. He plays as a second row and tackles himself into the ground but he is not a loose forward.

Dave
Is it me; or do loose forwards seem to increasingly be turning into an extra second row? The games at the moment seem to be run by the half backs and hooker, with the 13 playing a larger role defensively than offensively.

Re: Faz

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:46 pm
by bikerharry
Farrell is out of contract with Sarracens at the end of this season, and with Mike Ford admitting that even he thinks it's too late in Farrells career to develop as a union player (although he has back-tracked a little on this now), the RFU might consider letting him go now while they can still get something out of it. Personaly, I think he would be a welcome adition to any rugby league side, however I agree, the price would have to be right. But that's only from the point of view of his age, and the recent unfortunate spate of injuries he's endured.

Re: Faz

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:59 pm
by mike binder
isnt he playing centre at yawnion ,dont we need a centre lol a cheap 1

Re: Faz

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:46 pm
by the grinch
we had the best years out of andy farrell. i dont think it would be wise for him to try and re-start his career in super league due to his age and the time away from the sport.

Re: Faz

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:51 am
by Cruncher
bikerharry posted:
Farrell is out of contract with Sarracens at the end of this season, and with Mike Ford admitting that even he thinks it's too late in Farrells career to develop as a union player (although he has back-tracked a little on this now), the RFU might consider letting him go now while they can still get something out of it. Personaly, I think he would be a welcome adition to any rugby league side, however I agree, the price would have to be right. But that's only from the point of view of his age, and the recent unfortunate spate of injuries he's endured.
This is the bottom line. No way must Wigan contemplate re-signing Farrell unless it's for a very reasonable price.

First of all, in this case they should say 'no' to a transfer fee (as stated above, a transfer fee may not be required anyway, but even if it was, tough - the RU have messed around with Faz for 3 years and it isn't our fault if they haven't got full satisfaction from him). Secondly, Faz himself would have to be very realistic in his wage expectations. We should never have sold him in the first place, but we did, years have passed and it's now plain that he's a shadow of the player we knew - his price must reflect this or it's an absolute farce.

As for Mike Ford backtracking on his comments, that doesn't surprise me at all. Mike Ford was never the brightest button in the box. I'd imagine a good couple of days passed after his initial outburst before it slowly dawned on him that he'd appeared to be dissing RL in general and had probably ensured there'd be no berth for him here if he ever decided to come back.


Re: Faz

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:47 am
by Doveoverdave
bikerharry posted:
Farrell is out of contract with Sarracens at the end of this season, and with Mike Ford admitting that even he thinks it's too late in Farrells career to develop as a union player (although he has back-tracked a little on this now), the RFU might consider letting him go now while they can still get something out of it. Personaly, I think he would be a welcome adition to any rugby league side, however I agree, the price would have to be right. But that's only from the point of view of his age, and the recent unfortunate spate of injuries he's endured.
I think Farrell stated (during one of his injury periods) that he would continue to play at Sarries for 6 months for free as a repayment of the faith they had shown in him.

Re: Faz

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:43 pm
by GeoffN
From Phil Clarke's sky column:

Phil, I know it's not really your sport, but I just wondered what your thoughts were on two men who have made the 'switch' and fared very differently this weekend. I couldn't help but wonder what Andy Farrell was thinking as he trudged off for England to see Wigan back in the play-offs, but then was delighted - but not surprised - to see Lesley Vainikolo do so well on debut. Do you think Faz is regretting his move? And does it bother you that rugby league has lost two of its star turns to the 'dark side'? Jay Norris


PHIL SAYS: I might be biased because I know Andrew Farrell a little bit, but I watched England's game against South Africa and thought that he played quite well. There seems to be an in-built dislike for him from so many pundits and experts in rugby union. In my opinion, many of them are not watching the game and his involvement in a neutral manner, but have preconceived ideas. He is without doubt the best passer of the ball in England's back-line and his field kicking was as good as anybody on the field. I have checked the Opta stats for the rugby union World Cup which shows clearly that Farrell is one of their better players.


Farrell has had some good luck in his life and it seems as though he's now having some bad luck. But it will just make him a stronger, tougher and mentally more resilient individual for whatever he chooses to do next. I don't think Faz will be regretting his move at all.

http://www.skysports.com/experts/expert ... 58,00.html

Re: Faz

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:15 pm
by gpartin
Thanks for that Geoff, that was a good assessment from Clarky. Typical Rah Rah bigotry. It must really annoy Jeremy Gasket that his sport is so inferior they have to resort to buying 30 year old props from us to inject a bit of life into an otherwise dire spectacle. And what the chuff is a television match official?

Re: Faz

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:07 pm
by Matthew
gpartin posted:
And what the chuff is a television match official?
Video Ref

Re: Faz

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:12 pm
by gpartin
Matthew posted:
gpartin posted:
And what the chuff is a television match official?
Video Ref
novel idea