I don't think Farrell is the kind of player who gives anything less than his best. Asking him to be more "aggressive" really means he doesn't have the size and Wane is seeking to compensate. Can be difficult if "aggression" isn't in a player's nature.

I seem to remember Madge apparently had a similar issue with him. Whilst nothing was said in public (that wasn't the Maguire way) there was 'talk' about Farrell being put on an individual training plan to develop his wrestling skills as more often than not he'd come off 2nd best in the tackle.

Going away from the point slightly but modern RL has become very black and white. We now live in an RL world where there's a set mould/criteria/standards for players and if your a little out on something then it's bad news.

Interesting that guys like Hampshire apparently don't get game time because of what happens or doesn't happen in training. It appears that what you do in the week counts more than what you do in the field.

I'd say the same for someone like Sam Hopkins who by all accounts isn't a good trainer. You would have thought we would have at least seen what he's like on the park right? The fact we offered him a contract means someone must have, over a period of time, watched him play and been somewhat impressed by what he can do.

Whilst i'm not stupid and i know there's a coloration between training and performance i do find it ironic that Shaun Wane can comment about anyones effort in training.

I think that is an excellent point and to be honest I had not looked at it that way. It does seem players are being selected on training rather than form.

Some of the best ever were notoriously poor trainers it would seem people like Brett Kenny wouldn't get a run because they were not too sharp off the field.

For what it's worth I know for a fact you will not find a lad that trains harder or is more committed to making it off the field than Rocky. If his wrestle is not as good as Powell or Williams and he doesn't hit as hard in defence as them, I don't care. Halves should not be judged on that, it is not their job.

By nature I think we tend to look at player "performance" almost exclusively as an individual metric and very much at the expense of emergent properties which are entirely the product of interactions with one or more teammates.

If a player did well it was because he is that much better than his opponents. If a player didn't do well it was because he is completely inferior.

Few fans seem willing to take that extra mental leap of questioning whether a player's form might be in part functionally dependent on the availability of a teammate. Even though everybody knows by heart the timeless maxim "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts".

Take a player like Jon Wilkin at Saints. That lad has had a dog's abuse since he arrived at the club. The rationale is that because he isn't equal to or better than one of the greatest loose forwards this country has produced in decades - he must be a flop.

Truth be told, Wilkin has proven to be a remarkably versatile, loyal, hard-working and - yes - talented player. Unfortunately, whereas Sculthorpe's genes originated somewhere on Mount Olympus, Wilkin's were everyday Joe's from the outset.

Like most "versatile" players he is too slow to be a back and, very much like Farrell, too lightweight to make any position in the forwards his own.

Whenever Saints have demanded that Wilkin function as a yardage-earner (or - when our front row has been seriously understrength) not just he but the team itself has suffered. He just doesn't have the brute force traction. What's more, it's a dead tackle for few if any yards each time he makes a carry.

But squeeze Jon Wilkin into a pack full of giants (Walmsley, Masoe, Amor, Greenwood, Vea, Savelio etc.) and he's suddenly transformed into a completely different player. Or at least - he seems to be. The real truth is his form and abilities have probably remained constant throughout his time at the club. But for him to realise his full potential he must do so in relation to the performances of others (if that makes sense). Some might think he is a lesser player because he requires the presence of others to play well. But a good performance is a good performance, as they say.

I suspect Farrell is somewhat akin to Wilkin. Differen't styles and roles, sure. But both would dearly love to have a couple of extra inches and a dozen pounds. To be fair to Farrell, he did play very well as the pitches dried out. He's clearly very dangerous as a wide-runner and one daren't take your eye off him during planned moves near the line. But I noticed the Aussies very quickly spiked Farrell's guns in the tests. The gaps his speed and footwork take advantage of in SL just weren't there. What's more, I watched them actively tracking his movements across the pitch whenever England were close to the line. The moment he injected himself he was getting absolutely hammered.

This does not mean I think Farrell is for the scrap-heap. But like Saints did with Wilkin I think Wane needs to realise that Farrell cannot keep being asked to run into brick walls or get "aggressive" with forwards like Peacock or Walmsley who could currently use him as a toothpick. If he's happy with the benefits that Farrell is *capable* of delivering then he must commit to the guy, stop questioning his effort and then - most importantly - find players who can take Farrell's share of the hard yardage burden in exchange for the manifold benefits a confident and happy Farrell is likely to give.

I agree with this as you can't play the style of rugby we are trying to do and have Bateman and Farrell in the secondrow.

The problem with Faz is he isn't a creative player, Wilkin can and does play in the halves fairly well, Faz could never do that. Faz's main attribute was his footwork at the line in attack and his work ethic.

Surround him with a big pack and a strong 6 and he becomes a very useful player in our current guise we don't have that and he is suffering.

I really hope when Thornely is fit we move Gelling to secondrow giving us a rotation of 2 big lads and Faz to mix it up with Bateman at 13. When Locky plays it becomes a straight shot out between Faz and Bateman for a place in the 17.

My main issue with Faz is and always has been his lack of brains. Whilst it is being amplified this year he has always been prone to come up with a daft penalty late in the tackle count.

I'm not convinced of you put Faz into a traditional lower placed team he would stand out, whereas I think Bateman would and has.

It's basically about balance and tactics. If Locky is fit I don't think you can have a successful pack with 2 smaller secondrow forwards out of 3 in the 17.

I would just like to say what a great series of posts there have been in the last couple of pages of this thread, they have highlighted far more eloquently (it took a few attempts to spell that) than I could ,that there is a place in a team for a couple of players who may not be the best trainers, super aggressive monster yard makers but who have a certain something that others don't.
This is why I think if Faz was to be given a go at loose forward he may surprise people, he may not come across as the most creative but if he had a standoff with the pace who could run across the face, Faz with the lines he can run coupled with his engine could be very good.