Tuilagi on the wing...Catt/Lancaster mentalists?

http://www.espnscrum.com/england-tour-2012/rugby/story/165632.html

Or just playing games with SA to keep to them guessing and disrupt their planning?

Maybe it's partly because he doesn't pass and partly because they want Joseph in the team at 13?

I think it's a sensible option to be honest.

9. Youngs
10. Flood
11. Tuilagi
12. Farrell
13. Joseph
14. Ashton
15. Foden

is the backline I would select.

Manu can still be used coming off the wing to punch holes in midfield, and I think this is a backline that will ask more questions of South Africa than we did last week.

I really hope Lancaster doesn't pick Farrell ... anywhere. He has no attacking ability, no pace and no step. He also isn't a crash ball runner. The only good thing is that he can defend.

oh yesss Farrell and Joseph to contain De villiers and Steyn both 100+ kilo of unforgiving springboks . Plus we will find out if Tuilagi has good hands when the bombs start raining on him .Although if he does he could be the Boks undoing because he will most definately bump of the chaser and with the defensive line in disarray he could coz massive damage .

Why do people have this obsession with weight?

Farrell is an excellent defender and has no trouble downing far bigger opponents than himself. Likewise JJ is a surprisingly good defender. I would have no concerns about them defensively as a pairing.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Why do people have this obsession with weight?

Farrell is an excellent defender and has no trouble downing far bigger opponents than himself. Likewise JJ is a surprisingly good defender. I would have no concerns about them defensively as a pairing.

its not an obsession with weight its just fact. De Villiers is an excellent defender but look wat Tuilagi did to him last week. Bear in mind JDV is a big bloke himself . were it not for the even bigger Frans Steyn in the 12 jersey Tuilagi would have eventually broken through because of his size. It will be the same with JJ and Farrell. How long do you think it will be before they cant contain Steyn and JDV , two much bigger men?

It wouldn't be a good option with the current alternatives at centre in my opinion. As Bullsbok points out, Joseph's defence will be tested hugely and while Farrell is brave he isn't going to cope with those two running at him all day.

I will go so far as to say that if Lancaster picks Farrell to start at either 10 or 12 we'll get a good old pasting. My line-up would be:

9. B Youngs
10. T Flood
11. B Foden
12. MTuilagi
13. J Joseph
14. C Ashton
15. A Goode

20. D Care 21. C Hodgson 22. G Lowe

That looks a decent 'cover your options' line-up to me with Goode there to help arieally and offer an excellent attacking game. If Goode gets a start I think he could be excellent for England going forward, he's not an a-typical Saracens player.

Goode does not have the pace to be an effective international back three player, which is a shame as every other aspect of his game is very good.

I would wager he's as quick as Brown who also had that label thrust upon him prior to his Margot Wells work.

He's not as quick as Brown.

Brown has improved his speed through working with Margot Wells, Goode has not.

Better option for tuilagi as wing i agree. Gives him more crash options and less predictability. Will keep SA guessing more. Id expected lancaster to come up with something fresh. Expect a lot more of it. He doesnt look like one to sit on his laurels and try more of the same.

Ozzy, i'm sure you're aware that simply because Goode hasn't been to MW that doesn't mean he's not as quick as Brown. How you can possibly say either way is beyond me. Have you time trialled the pair of them?

I have the evidence of my own eyes mate, and Goode is not as quick from what I have seen. I do not think he has the pace, or even the change of pace required to be an effective attacking threat in the back three at international level.

SL's mentalism is more about his obsession with keeping Farrell in the starting lineup. He definitely sees Farrell as the future of english rugby - wish he'd let the rest of us in on the secret. The fact that he sees having a specialist fast finisher on the wing as optional just increases his mentalism a notch or two.

Ozzy3213 wrote:I have the evidence of my own eyes mate, and Goode is not as quick from what I have seen. I do not think he has the pace, or even the change of pace required to be an effective attacking threat in the back three at international level.

I would love to see the stats, but I have to agree with Ozzy - Brown looks far faster to me. Brown's pace used to be his weakness, but you have to give him so much credit for really working on it as he is so much faster than he used to me. Goode is deceptively fast and no slouch, but I can't imagine he'd be faster than Brown.

The Margot Wells factor is well known. Tom Voyce used to train with her and since he stopped his pace dropped notably (yet he still remained 3rd fasted at Glaws behind May & Sharples).

If Lancaster wanted a utility back, he could've just done the obvious thing and brought Jonny May.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Why do people have this obsession with weight?

Farrell is an excellent defender and has no trouble downing far bigger opponents than himself. Likewise JJ is a surprisingly good defender. I would have no concerns about them defensively as a pairing.

He can pull people down but does get driven back for the most part. Youngs Flood Farrell Joseph will make an inviting target for the Boks runners.
Tuilagi seems wasted on the wing to me and it will only encourage his headless chicken activities, and he doesnt have the out and out pace. Plus that line up (Aston and Tuilagi on the wing) means Farrell having to constantly drop back out of 12 to help cover the fullback role which is sub optimal.
I dunno it all smacks of messiness. Bearing in mind how much Johnson got slaughtered for picking Flood at 12 (who had spent more than half his career there including a number of caps) is Farrel at 12 ( a guy who has never had an extended run there for his club) any more sensible? Are 12's no longer expected to run holding the ball? Are wings no longer expected to be faster than their opposite number? Will the problem of players failing to be on hand to exploit Tuilagis drives be solved by isolating him on the wing?

Im not sold on this at all.

Who in the Oz backline usually drives the Boks back?

Tuilagi could go really well at 11, he impressed when he played there for Tigers and it'll give a bit more space which could be very handy for him. Like AAC who covers wing and 13 very well I think Tuilagi should not be ruled out of a move.

I can't imagine the midfield will have too many issues if the gameplan's right, if we stop kicking long kicks for the Boks to run back and play the ball alot more ourselves we could go alright.

Having actually seen Manu play wing (he's never started a first team game there for tigers) I can assure you It's a massive waste of his talents. England simply don't have the wide game to get him involved enough and he offers certain yards with every carry. Farrell offers none of that and Joseph offers a lot of great potential running lines if we have quick ball but nothing off slow ball. Added to that neither bring any defensive organisational ability with Farrell in particular prone to flying out the line both are good young players but they need a stronger defender alongside them in that regard Barritt is a massive loss.

Got to say I disagree with Ozzy I think Alex Goode is a bigger prospect than Brown and Foden. He's comfortably quick enough and has a far better all round game than any other English 15 the only problem I can see is that he is a tad lightweight in defence.

Farrell is a very strong tackler. I'd have no worries about him defensively at 12, he could cope with Steyn/JdV fine. He smashed Harinordoquy back a fair few times during the 6N, and he's a bigger carrier than either of the SA centres. I agree he is nowhere near good enough going forward to play in the centre at international level.

I'd still be tempted to play him at 10 ahead of Flood. I am not a fan of Flood. I accept the attacking shape he would provide, but we would lose a lot in defence and his kicking from hand and off the tee is average. He also doesn't seem to have the mental strength to succeed internationally, while he has never performed behind a pack that isn't completely dominant. It seems like everyone is assuming that if Flood plays he will play like he does for Leicester, but I doubt this will be the case. I feel there is an element of remembering him being a lot better than he ever was. He has nearly 50 caps now and he has consistently flattered to deceive. There have been good games but they have only been when the pack have been dominant and Youngs, Ashton and Foden have been sharp, giving him a lot of time and picking dangerous lines off him. At international level, Flood is a second rate flyhalf, while Farrell has the potential to be a lot better. Hodgson is not the answer and there are no other options, so Farrell it is for me. I wish one of the other young 10s had toured instead of Hodgson so they could have had a run now that Farrell is struggling. Burns would have been the best of the bunch, but Ford could also have done a job. As it is, play Farrell and just tell him to pass it more.

jeffwinger wrote:Farrell is a very strong tackler. I'd have no worries about him defensively at 12, he could cope with Steyn/JdV fine. He smashed Harinordoquy back a fair few times during the 6N, and he's a bigger carrier than either of the SA centres. I agree he is nowhere near good enough going forward to play in the centre at international level.

I'd still be tempted to play him at 10 ahead of Flood. I am not a fan of Flood. I accept the attacking shape he would provide, but we would lose a lot in defence and his kicking from hand and off the tee is average. He also doesn't seem to have the mental strength to succeed internationally, while he has never performed behind a pack that isn't completely dominant. It seems like everyone is assuming that if Flood plays he will play like he does for Leicester, but I doubt this will be the case. I feel there is an element of remembering him being a lot better than he ever was. He has nearly 50 caps now and he has consistently flattered to deceive. There have been good games but they have only been when the pack have been dominant and Youngs, Ashton and Foden have been sharp, giving him a lot of time and picking dangerous lines off him. At international level, Flood is a second rate flyhalf, while Farrell has the potential to be a lot better. Hodgson is not the answer and there are no other options, so Farrell it is for me. I wish one of the other young 10s had toured instead of Hodgson so they could have had a run now that Farrell is struggling. Burns would have been the best of the bunch, but Ford could also have done a job. As it is, play Farrell and just tell him to pass it more.

I have not seen a single shred of evidence to back this up - in fact Farrell appears to have got worse. Whereas when Flood comes on - we score. I know where my money is.

He is 20 years old, he will undoubtedly improve his weak areas. If he can learn to run an attack and make the decisions for himself on the field then he can be a top international flyhalf. Physically and mentally he has all the attributes. He plays a boring game because he is told to do so. You cannot deny his potential though.

Farrell cannot start...he's just not good enough. Let him develope his attacking play with Sarries... actually that doesnt sound right...

Tuilagi needs to be doing what he did on Sat,..,.causing the boks issues,,,,but he needs help. Where was Morgan smashing holes for Tuilagi and Ashton to run through...where was Farrell popping nice little flat passes putting these backs in to holes...

We dont need to change a huge amount...a few players need to step up,...in the pack particularly...but i would bring Flood in.

jeffwinger wrote:He is 20 years old, he will undoubtedly improve his weak areas. If he can learn to run an attack and make the decisions for himself on the field then he can be a top international flyhalf. Physically and mentally he has all the attributes. He plays a boring game because he is told to do so. You cannot deny his potential though.

BUt Jeff..

Internationals v SA is not a training ground. We need the best player in there...not a half ready kid....thus Flood...who i might add i have never been 100% satisfied with either must start.

In a few years time we'll have George Ford and then hopefully everything will be ok.

This is the one tackle that Farrels reputation is built on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDtIapCDnBE
Blindsides Hairy Donkey when hes turned and landing fro taking a bad pass, pushing him back. Whilst it was hugely effective it was the equivalent of tackling a gay koala.
Theres a world of difference when it comes to tackling runners who are balanced and targeting you. You will not see Farrell putting in the kind of hits Tuillagi or Wilko would. He is efficient at bringing players down, but the notion he regularly drives back forwards is utter bunk.



Funnily enough yesterday I wrote a stirring defence of the notion of playing Farrell at 12, I did feel dirty afterwards though.

Zander wrote:In a few years time we'll have George Ford and then hopefully everything will be ok.

Till Lancatser picks him on the wing just to p1ss Monye off even more

Morgan clearly has a problem. During the 6N he had about 60 mins in him - at best. On Sat he had 40 mins - if that. Is he injured? He is so far off test fitness that I wouldn't start him until he gets this sorted. Haskell to start at 8, Morgan to come on in the last 20.

A big thanks to Farrell for standing in for Flood when he was injured. This is SA - we need quality ... now. When he's proven himself as a top club 10 then we could look at him again.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Zander wrote:In a few years time we'll have George Ford and then hopefully everything will be ok.

Till Lancatser picks him on the wing just to p1ss Monye off even more

It's been mentioned several times in the past that Morgan does not have a 80 min game in him, I'm sure his club and country have done all they can to try and improve his fitness.

A big thanks to Farrell for standing in for Flood when he was injured. This is SA - we need quality ... now. When he's proven himself as a top club 10 then we could look at him again.[/quote]

I do appreciate that this isn't a training ground. I accept it is now a very close call given Farrell's deterioration in form. But to me it is an inadequate 10 who has failed to perform over 5 years vs. a currently poor but potentially very good 10.

Remember he is still settling into international rugby and has always had a 12 with no attacking threat outside him in Barritt, and a 9 with little attacking threat inside (Dickson) for 3 of his 4 games at flyhalf. With Youngs inside and an attacking pair of centres, along with a better game plan, Farrell could go very well.

What has Flood ever done to convince anyone he is a good international player? He has staggered through 5 years at this level putting in poor performance after poor performance but remaining in contention through the lack of alternatives. When he has played well it is when others have offered serious support, and this has been extremely inconsistent. There is also this myth of his brilliant passing game. His passing blows hot and cold, for all the good ones he still loves a loopy 50/50 and a crabby hospital ball. If you want a pure passing flyhalf then pick someone like Ryan Lamb!

I'm not saying Farrell is anywhere near a world class 10 yet, I'm just saying he has more about him than Flood.

I hope over the next year or so young players like Burns and Ford will come on strong, and the returning Cipriani and Geraghty also add a bit of competition for Farrell. Then we can move on from the repeated failures of Hodgson and Flood and have a group of strong young 10s.

Scarlet fans told us that before his England debut...so we shouldnt be shocked...the question is how fit can he get?
At the moment though he's making Waldrom look like a Marathon runner!

Why will Farrell ever develop these gaping flaws in his game? I see people keep suggesting it but maybe this is Farrell. Not every player can have the full skill set, I dare say it's much harder to gain an attacking instinct than it is to learn to kick goals and defend (Cips aside).

We need to go with our best option now and that is Flood I'm afraid.

On Goode, I watched an interview with one of the Saracens management where he stated Goode was carrying out extended speed work towards the end of the season.

I always thought he lacked a bit of gas but I recall seeing him strip Brady at Sale who's very rapid.

"What has Flood ever done to convince anyone he is a good international player? He has staggered through 5 years at this level putting in poor performance after poor performance but remaining in contention through the lack of alternatives."

I'm guessing you slept through last years 6N and wins against Aus

jeffwinger wrote:I do appreciate that this isn't a training ground. I accept it is now a very close call given Farrell's deterioration in form. But to me it is an inadequate 10 who has failed to perform over 5 years vs. a currently poor but potentially very good 10.

Remember he is still settling into international rugby and has always had a 12 with no attacking threat outside him in Barritt, and a 9 with little attacking threat inside (Dickson) for 3 of his 4 games at flyhalf. With Youngs inside and an attacking pair of centres, along with a better game plan, Farrell could go very well.

What has Flood ever done to convince anyone he is a good international player? He has staggered through 5 years at this level putting in poor performance after poor performance but remaining in contention through the lack of alternatives. When he has played well it is when others have offered serious support, and this has been extremely inconsistent. There is also this myth of his brilliant passing game. His passing blows hot and cold, for all the good ones he still loves a loopy 50/50 and a crabby hospital ball. If you want a pure passing flyhalf then pick someone like Ryan Lamb!

I'm not saying Farrell is anywhere near a world class 10 yet, I'm just saying he has more about him than Flood.

I hope over the next year or so young players like Burns and Ford will come on strong, and the returning Cipriani and Geraghty also add a bit of competition for Farrell. Then we can move on from the repeated failures of Hodgson and Flood and have a group of strong young 10s.

I would say most England fans appreicate that he does have his moments...but the guy can get a backline moving...he can put players in the gaps, which is what we need.

Ive seen no evidence full stop that Farrell can do that. And playing for England is not the place to learn those skills.

It wont matter whose on the wing if the forwards don't man up

At the moment we have a FH who 'has potential' but is currently barely test quality.
We have a carrying no 8 who can last 40 mins (during which he makes 2 decent carries) but is being left on for 60 or more.
A wing position reserved for non-wingers.
And a bench that comprises has-beens and light-weights (or both).
And a gameplan that forces Youngs to constantly kick - poorly, with no intention of a chase.

I always thought we'd struggle to win a test - but SL's seems to be making it a certainty that we'll lose all 3.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"What has Flood ever done to convince anyone he is a good international player? He has staggered through 5 years at this level putting in poor performance after poor performance but remaining in contention through the lack of alternatives."

I'm guessing you slept through last years 6N and wins against Aus

Against Australia the whole team were exceptional and Youngs inside him was MOTM. He had an armchair ride and a sharp incisive set of backs. Similar story against Wales in 2011 6N, then a demolition of an awful Italy side, and 3 poor games. What does that prove? That he can have the odd good game when the rest of the team are making it easy for him. Great.

In this instance, if Flood can get the talented outside backs moving then I'd be prepared to accept it against SA, but I really don't see him as anything like a long term option. He isn't even that young any more. My general point is that I honestly don't think Flood will make much difference in the short term. We are just waiting for Farrell to improve or Ford/Burns to force their way into the squad.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:At the moment we have a FH who 'has potential' but is currently barely test quality.
We have a carrying no 8 who can last 40 mins (during which he makes 2 decent carries) but is being left on for 60 or more.
A wing position reserved for non-wingers.
And a bench that comprises has-beens and light-weights (or both).
And a gameplan that forces Youngs to constantly kick - poorly, with no intention of a chase.

I always thought we'd struggle to win a test - but SL's seems to be making it a certainty that we'll lose all 3.

Agree with pretty much all of that, and add an underpowered second row that cannot stand up to the opposition no matter how hard they try.

Lancaster is working hard to enhance Nick Mallet's chances of getting the job after all.

Of course when we win the next test at altitude...Farrell will be a genuis, Morgan the best 8 in the world and Lancaster the mastermind....

So when Flood plays well he has an "arm chair ride" or we had an incisive set of backs?

I know he's had some poor games, usually when the majority of the team has tbh (not always) but he's had some bloody good ones and on form is right up there with getting a backline going.

He offers a broad skillset, has no major weaknesses and can attack the line which is something Farrell cannot. He might not be the future but he's by far the best we have currently.

jeffwinger wrote:I do appreciate that this isn't a training ground. I accept it is now a very close call given Farrell's deterioration in form. But to me it is an inadequate 10 who has failed to perform over 5 years vs. a currently poor but potentially very good 10.

Remember he is still settling into international rugby and has always had a 12 with no attacking threat outside him in Barritt, and a 9 with little attacking threat inside (Dickson) for 3 of his 4 games at flyhalf. With Youngs inside and an attacking pair of centres, along with a better game plan, Farrell could go very well.

What has Flood ever done to convince anyone he is a good international player? He has staggered through 5 years at this level putting in poor performance after poor performance but remaining in contention through the lack of alternatives. When he has played well it is when others have offered serious support, and this has been extremely inconsistent. There is also this myth of his brilliant passing game. His passing blows hot and cold, for all the good ones he still loves a loopy 50/50 and a crabby hospital ball. If you want a pure passing flyhalf then pick someone like Ryan Lamb!

I'm not saying Farrell is anywhere near a world class 10 yet, I'm just saying he has more about him than Flood.

I hope over the next year or so young players like Burns and Ford will come on strong, and the returning Cipriani and Geraghty also add a bit of competition for Farrell. Then we can move on from the repeated failures of Hodgson and Flood and have a group of strong young 10s.

For 4 of those 5 years Flood has had to contend with the enigma that is Jonny Wilkinson, who kept coming back from injury with no form and taking back the starting 10 shirt. Also when Flood started his international carear he was played at 12 a lot to accomodate Jonny. Flood began to make his mark in the 2009 Six Nations, when England actually were joint top points scorers and top try scorers, but was subsequently dropped as soon as Jonny was back up to fitness and didn't really get a shot again until Australia 2010. From then England picked up in form and attackign ability, although its well documented that they were hindered by the gameplan and some suspect selections. Through last years 6 Nations Toby Flood played very well, alongside Young's and were definetly considered the best attacking pairing we had, but come World Cup time was dropped again for good old Jonny.

I don't think Flood has failed to delivery, I think its more a case of Flood was treated pretty poorly by the previous regime, but then so were many up and coming talents with the old guard favoured over the more impressive younger players.

Flood is Englands best all round fly half at the moment and certainly offers a considerable amount more to a side than Farrell ever will at 10. Why? Because Farrell was never a fly half, couldn't get game time there at age grade because of a certain Ford Jr, and even now can't get game time at his club because Hodgson is seen as the better option. Flood is still only 26 so is coming up to the prime of his carear. If George Ford has the potential to be as good as England, his club and everyone else thinks he will be then I honestly think that next season we should introduce him as Floods understudy in the Elite setup over Farrell.

Farrell just doesn't have the vison to make it as a 10, and vision isn't really something that is easy to impart on someone, even those with all the necessary skills required to be a top fly half can't make it because they lack the vision. You've either got it or you haven't.

Playing well in those games is certainly to his credit, but it doesn't prove a lot.

I think to be a good international player you have to occasionally transcend the performance of your team and really stand out. At flyhalf this is especially noticeable. Flood has never done this, despite countless opportunities.

Cipriani and Geraghty have also had some storming games for England but they didn't last long because the consistency wasn't there. I think Flood has been lucky to have survived as an England player this long. His negatives may not be as spectacular as Cipriani's, but nor are his positives.

Anthony Allen has never had another chance (until now maybe) after throwing an interception to Joe Rokocoko vs NZ, but in the same series Flood threw an even worse one vs Argentina and survived. Countless others have come and gone but Flood has survived some shocking performances.

James I agree Ford should come into serious contention next season, and I expect he will.

As for the nonsense about Flood being poorly treated, he was unjustifiably retained a lot of the time! Read above. Wilkinson was by far the best option at the time because Flood is an average defender, average kicker and doesn't have the mental fortitude for test match rugby. A lot of the time Flood was chosen ahead of Wilkinson which was just plain wrong. I'll accept someone picking him over Farrell at the moment, but not over Wilkinson when he was still playing well for Toulon. The fact Johnson did pick Flood a lot of the time was a problem, not that he didn't always pick him.

Hmm, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. It's you against the rest . You might have to have a re-think when Gats picks Flood as 1st choice Lions FH - I know B&I don't do FHs at the moment but still - will be amusing (or is it ironic?).

I think your a little off the mark there Jeff im afraid...

I'm with Barney, can't agree with hardly any of that Jeff. We obviously have very different views, 606 would be boring if we all agreed though

I know I'm in the minority when it comes to opinions on Flood. He is just one of those players I have never been convinced by. We've all got the ones we love or hate, be it for rational reasons or otherwise. Like you say it would be dull if we all agreed on everything.

jeffwinger wrote:Playing well in those games is certainly to his credit, but it doesn't prove a lot.

I think to be a good international player you have to occasionally transcend the performance of your team and really stand out. At flyhalf this is especially noticeable. Flood has never done this, despite countless opportunities.

For most cases I could see your point, however for a fly half its bloody hard to stand out when the rest of the team aren't performing and because they're the fly half and should be controlling things they will get the blame (not the same in Farrell's case before anyones says I've contradicted myself because other parts of the team were performing on saturday).

If you're constantly on the back foot, recieving only slow ball or poor ball off first phase, have limited options outside you to attack effectively other than crash ball (i.e. via Tindall, Hape, Banahan, Erinle, etc) and have an out dated game plan then you're bound to have a pretty torrid time of things. Would most tens find it difficult? Bloody right they would. You mention Cipriani having a stormer for England, but that day the pack destroyed Ireland up front and gave him one hell of an arm chair ride. Yes its easier when the ten has a solid platform to work off, but consider this, in the Ireland match in this years six nations Farrell had the the same sort of platform that cipriani had (and at roughly the same age too), now did he effect the game in the same way Cipriani did? Did he create a multitude of chances for his outside backs to expoilt? And finally would Flood have played as impotently in attack that day as Farrell did that day?

So it sounds like two options:

9. Youngs
10. Flood
11. Tuilagi
12. Farrell
13. Joseph
14. Ashton
15. Foden

or:

9. B Youngs
10. T Flood
11. B Foden
12. MTuilagi
13. J Joseph
14. C Ashton
15. A Goode

I'd go with the second as I'd like to see Goode get an opportunity as he's a fairly unique talent in English rugby (and he breaks the line a lot, and that's a step, and acceleration rather than out and out pace) and because I'd try Tuilagi at 12 before I tried him at 11 (I'm coming to the view he isn't what England needs at 13).

However, side one lets SL have his cake and eat it by accommodating Flood, Farrell, JJ and Tuilagi. I think it is a riskier selection though.

All this assumes he just doesn't replace Barritt with JTH, but I'd prefer either of the sides above to that option.