Farrell Jr and Manu Tuilagi - how can they improve?

First topic message reminder :

These are two young players both only 21 who I think both have decent skills in certain areas. Farrell is tough mentally with a decent defense and is a good goal kicker. Manu Tuilagi is a raw attacking talent whose a real handful and has a decent try strike rate at international level. Both players have a lot of potential in my opinion but clear areas to work upon.

Both players in particular have been getting a lot of criticism. Probably deservedly so but the question is two fold - firstly how can they improve their game and how do they do this?

How for example people have said Farrell is too slow. how can he become quicker? Can he?

You can say well Tuilagi needs to learn to pass the ball more and Farrell needs to be more creative but technically how do you think they can do this?

It's easy to criticize but let's get some solutions. What should these players be changing to improve?

How did Nonu for example actually become an all rounder?

Thoughts?

HammerofThunor wrote: It's like saying wingers who don't score tries are Poopie.

So you were a supporter of Mark Cueto in the WC squad?

Saying winger who don't score aren't always bad isn't the same as wingers who don't score are always good

Well he did score 4 at the world cup ...it was a trick question :p

Speed is one of the most important assets in any professional sport.
A fast player can make up for lacking other attributes.
However, pace can be taught.... England should looking at getting Margot Wells (or someone similar - although I'm under the impression that she's about as good as they come) into the international coaching setup to work with some of these players.
That should make them faster, without losing any of their existing attributes.


If Farrell is really seen as too slow, then the sprint coach is the obvious solution.
Personally, I'm amazed that he's on the IRB shortlist for player of the year.
While he seems to be very calm and has a great kicking game, he's not yet convinced me that he can get a team firing properly.


Tuilagi is an interesting one.
He has all the skills that everyone has been wanting from an England Centre for years. He has pace, power, defensive ability, and he can pass when he needs to.
There are issues with his game. It would be ridiculous to suggest that he was the finished article.
However, England have a large number of other bigger issues to deal with before it's worth considering dropping him.
As for his lack of passing, I'd like to know who he is supposed to pass to?
All too often, our attack is obvious, and our wingers are covered, as such, Tuilagi usually has 2 options.... 1) take it himself... 2) pass to the winger and watch him get turned over, or put into touch.


Fly Half is too pivotal a position to wait until other areas are sorted, therefore a decision needs to be made fairly urgently.
Given that SL obviously thinks highly of him (as does Big Farrell), and given that he's been shortlisted for player of the year, I think it's fair to say that he's unlikely to be dropped in the short / medium term.

As such, we need to develop a game plan that works to his strengths.
As said above, that is more likely to be a S.A. type of game plan, rather than a N.Z. one.... but that isn't really a problem as I don't think that we have the players who could actually play like the All Blacks anyway.



As a final note, someone above mentioned again about heads up rugby and attacking skills being coached out of the players by the England coaches.
This notion that players can lose their attacking ability whilst being with England for just a few weeks seems ridiculous to me.
These players play week in, week out for their clubs. They are professional rugby players who presumably study the game and are continually trying to improve.
I find it extremely hard to believe that a player can completely lose their ability in a few weeks.

However, I do believe that they can try too hard, and therefore turn down speculative options that could see the highlighted for the wrong reasons.
(i.e. Cipriani chargedowns... Tait being tackled by Henson etc)
Once a player is highlighted for the wrong reasons, the fans / press pick up on it and there's generally then only a matter of time before they're dropped

Until we get some decent quick ball we will never really know how good the are on the big stage. Unfortunately with McCall I can't see that happening on Saturday although as Dummy Half says get some of the forwards out of the way would be a start!

Reading that article has got me even more annoyed that we missed out on Wayne Smith, the guy would have been the final piece in what would have been a very good coaching team.

Farrell, as has been noted, has the temperament to be an international player but lacks the attacking instinct. Why response to this would be, does he need it? Wilko was constantly criticised of not having any and he did alright for himself! By all accounts it was Greenwood pulling the strings outside him and telling him what was required. Wilkos skill was having the ability and composure to pull off what was asked of. If Farrell does some work on his passing and we find a good 12 (twelvetrees) to pull the strings and add some creativity, then i see no reason why Farrell can't be just as effective.

I agree with most on here that due to the predictability of Englands attack Tuilagi is left with little option other than to shovel the ball onto the wingers to take contact, or just do it himself. The break against SA and his pass to Ashton showed he can pass as well as most centres can. In the Fiji game he was passing and offloading very well, as we had good attacking options and more time on the ball. This wasn't the case against either AUs or SA and subsequently he has gone back to crash ball mode. Faster ball and better attacking options will see us get the most out of him. At present, our attack is slow and predictable and with rush defences flying out at him, he has little choice but to go route 1.

The point someone made previously about comparing our backs with the ABs is interesting, but I think it's not even about creativity, it's about who has the better natural footballers (may be the same). The absolute basics - pass, kick, catch, run - of our current backs I'd say Goode is the only one who can kick, pass and see space well.

Outside of that I'd include JJ. Who I really think is far too talented a player to not be an international in some form at some stage.

Farrell, I don't see him as a starting international 10. His decision making will improve, so might his distribution, but his lack of pace means he is effectively unmarked. How much will this improve? He is good enough to be a back up, and perhaps keeping him in the environment will work for him, but I think Flood and Burns are way out ahead of him.

Tuilagi. He's scoring and doing just fine at the moment, but we have to work out which position to commit him to and how he can get better. I'm not confident there are enough decent coaches in the entire English game to bring his distribution up to Nonu levels, but maybe we can improve him in other ways.

I'm a bit torn at the moment, but I'm tempted to say let's just play the footballers, the guys you can tell probably excelled at all sports - people like Burns, JJ, Goode, 36(?)...ah, that's it.

Wasps Cipriani is a interesting situation. In my opinion he used to have the mental capability to cut it at international level. He put in a very strong performance at FB in the HC final vs Leicester which Wasps won. He showed his potential in that superb man of the match performance vs Ireland.

Unfortunately two things happened to him - one was a bad injury, the other was his mental state of mind shattering.

belovedfrosties it depends how England develop.

Let's not forget Wilkinson,Greenwood etc were ably supported by probably the best England pack ever - especially the backrow.

When you have that kind of platform you should be able to make something from it.

Unsurprisingly most of the backs picked by England are used to having their packs on top of the opposition. Consequently they aren't used to the situation where they are getting poor/slow ball.

Hood83 you said Flood is way out ahead of Farrell. Do you genuinely feel that Flood has shown that in the AIs?

Burns I could understand. He's one of the form fly halves in the AP.

beshocked wrote:Wasps Cipriani is a interesting situation. In my opinion he used to have the mental capability to cut it at international level. He put in a very strong performance at FB in the HC final vs Leicester which Wasps won. He showed his potential in that superb man of the match performance vs Ireland.

Unfortunately two things happened to him - one was a bad injury, the other was his mental state of mind shattering.

belovedfrosties it depends how England develop.

Let's not forget Wilkinson,Greenwood etc were ably supported by probably the best England pack ever - especially the backrow.

When you have that kind of platform you should be able to make something from it.

Unsurprisingly most of the backs picked by England are used to having their packs on top of the opposition. Consequently they aren't used to the situation where they are getting poor/slow ball.

Hood83 you said Flood is way out ahead of Farrell. Do you genuinely feel that Flood has shown that in the AIs?
Burns I could understand. He's one of the form fly halves in the AP.

I would say that generally, Flood is ahead of Farrell, although its debateable whether he's done much noteworthy this time out. On the other hand, Farrell has only come on as a sub and hardly impressed either. Farrell is not international class unfortunately, Flood 'can' be right up there but isn't consistent.

Personally, i'm hugely dissappointed that Farrell starts on Saturday, the AB are rubbing their hands and every English supporter is holding their heads in their hands because now they KNOW that England have no chance.

Beshocked
Not trying to answer for Hood83, but I agree in one sense that Flood offers much more of a running and handling game than Farrell does at the moment, and if we allowed the pairing of Youngs and Flood to play with the same freedom as they do for Leicester, our attacking game would be much more effective.

The good news from the AIs is that our pack seems to be starting to come together in that we now have a starting 8 that can match or better the power of teams like the Springboks. There are still issues to work on as to how to get the best out of them (e.g. getting the ball carriers coming on to the ball at pace rather than being static), but at least it suggests our backs should start to see some front foot ball.

The next issue is getting the right player in at 12 - we simply need a time machine to bring Will Greenwood from about a dozen years ago, then we're sorted...

Jimpy when has Flood shown it though? You can say he's ahead but where's the evidence? Sure he's run the Leicester backline well at club level in most games but in the biggest matches has he stepped up? No the jury is still out.

You could argue the jury is out on a few players though to be fair.

Flood can be right up there? When has he ever shown that?

dummy half when did Flood offer this running game against Australia and South Africa? Don't tell me you're going to go down the whole blame the centres route? No wait it's the coaches' fault right?

I think Flood's capabilities are being over hyped a bit. I can think of only two matches in the last two years against top 10 opposition where he has actually run the England backline decently - Italy and Wales who at the time were on a long losing run.

Remember Wilkinson took the fly half shirt off Flood before the RWC because Flood was poor.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy when has Flood shown it though? You can say he's ahead but where's the evidence? Sure he's run the Leicester backline well at club level in most games but in the biggest matches has he stepped up? No the jury is still out.

You could argue the jury is out on a few players though to be fair.

Flood can be right up there? When has he ever shown that?

dummy half when did Flood offer this running game against Australia and South Africa? Don't tell me you're going to go down the whole blame the centres route? No wait it's the coaches' fault right?

I think Flood's capabilities are being over hyped a bit. I can think of only two matches in the last two years against top 10 opposition where he has actually run the England backline decently - Italy and Wales who at the time were on a long losing run.

Remember Wilkinson took the fly half shirt off Flood before the RWC because Flood was poor.

Well, his continued selection to start over Farrell when fit by SL might give you a clue?

You are like a politician - dodging questions left right and centre.

Yes Flood has been selected over Farrell because of club form but when he's played at 10 he has flattered to deceive.

When has Flood shown he can still cut it at international level?

Were you satisfied with his performance in the Australia and SA games?

beshocked wrote:You are like a politician - dodging questions left right and centre.


Yes Flood has been selected over Farrell because of club form but when he's played at 10 he has flattered to deceive.

When has Flood shown he can still cut it at international level?

Were you satisfied with his performance in the Australia and SA games?

And i'm not going to write what I think you are.... why do you persist in labelling other posters left right and centre?

And, no, not at all. But that doesn't mean to say I think he's a bad option at 10, i'd certainly pick him over that dobbin Farrell everytime - that is, unless Farrell can demonstrate he knows how to do anything other then kick posession away. Flood every time, but i'd give Burns a go ahead of either of them at this moment in time.

beshocked wrote:You are like a politician - dodging questions left right and centre.

Yes Flood has been selected over Farrell because of club form but when he's played at 10 he has flattered to deceive.

When has Flood shown he can still cut it at international level?

Were you satisfied with his performance in the Australia and SA games?

Flood is the man in possession. As such, it is Farrell (or anyone else) that must do something exceptional to break in to the team. Flood hasn't set the world alight, but he hasn't been poor either. With no one really challenging (maybe Burns will now) he has therefore kept the shirt.

screamingaddabs wrote:

beshocked wrote:You are like a politician - dodging questions left right and centre.

Yes Flood has been selected over Farrell because of club form but when he's played at 10 he has flattered to deceive.

When has Flood shown he can still cut it at international level?

Were you satisfied with his performance in the Australia and SA games?

Flood is the man in possession. As such, it is Farrell (or anyone else) that must do something exceptional to break in to the team. Flood hasn't set the world alight, but he hasn't been poor either. With no one really challenging (maybe Burns will now) he has therefore kept the shirt.

+1

And I thought it was just me who wasn't struggling with this rather basic logic.

Flood plays consistently well for Eng, he doesn't tear it up or do a lot for highlight reels but he can be relied to to attack the line, pass well and play with some vision.

He did this against Oz and SA to varying degrees but was at least trying.

He also did immensely well Against Australia the last few times we've played them and was key for a lot of the good attacking rugby played over the summer and last year.

He isn't a Carter or cooper but he is Englands best by a long way, even when off form like he was this AI's and when we had zero options around him and the pack was getting duffed up. (those aren't excuses they're the facts).

Farrell has shown he can kick goals (but not drop goals) in international games. Andy Goode could do that. Except Goode also creates shed loads of tries using his boot (in 2009 6N with us as top try scorer).

Flood has in the past shown he can play international at a decent level. No one else in England has done that (except Goode and Hodgson (at least he got us chargedown tries)). If you want specific games...tough. I, and I imagine others, don't keep little black books of particular players' good games or bad games. I know that I have seen Flood perform to a level that I am satisfied with. In the SA and Australia games the whole team was the problem (mainly Barritt ). It depends whether you think if a player who HAS done it should be dropped when he isn't lighting the world up and then who do you replace him with? A shining light at club level? If so that would be Burns 100% over Farrell.

Back slightly to the main topic, I've had a thought. Maybe Tuilagi should train at 10 every now and then. Not to make him a 10 (he wouldn't be very well suited to it!) but to force him into playing slightly more heads up and to use others. Just in training of course, and not all the time. If he did it for maybe a total of 30 minutes a week in training I reckon he would start to really improve.

At the same time someone should teach him to kick (clearance kicks and grubbers/chips - not positional so much). This is just technique for him to learn, which shouldn't be too hard.

Give him a year of all that and I reckon he would show real improvement in the areas he is lacking in atm.

screamingaddabs wrote:

beshocked wrote:You are like a politician - dodging questions left right and centre.

Yes Flood has been selected over Farrell because of club form but when he's played at 10 he has flattered to deceive.

When has Flood shown he can still cut it at international level?

Were you satisfied with his performance in the Australia and SA games?

Flood is the man in possession. As such, it is Farrell (or anyone else) that must do something exceptional to break in to the team. Flood hasn't set the world alight, but he hasn't been poor either. With no one really challenging (maybe Burns will now) he has therefore kept the shirt.

Surely the man in possession of the shirt is the one playing?

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:You are like a politician - dodging questions left right and centre.


Yes Flood has been selected over Farrell because of club form but when he's played at 10 he has flattered to deceive.

When has Flood shown he can still cut it at international level?

Were you satisfied with his performance in the Australia and SA games?

And i'm not going to write what I think you are.... why do you persist in labelling other posters left right and centre?

And, no, not at all. But that doesn't mean to say I think he's a bad option at 10, i'd certainly pick him over that dobbin Farrell everytime - that is, unless Farrell can demonstrate he knows how to do anything other then kick posession away. Flood every time, but i'd give Burns a go ahead of either of them at this moment in time.

At least Farrell can actually kick his goals. If Flood hadn't missed 2 shots at goal England would have won.

beshocked wrote:Wasps Cipriani is a interesting situation. In my opinion he used to have the mental capability to cut it at international level. He put in a very strong performance at FB in the HC final vs Leicester which Wasps won. He showed his potential in that superb man of the match performance vs Ireland.

Unfortunately two things happened to him - one was a bad injury, the other was his mental state of mind shattering.

belovedfrosties it depends how England develop.

Let's not forget Wilkinson,Greenwood etc were ably supported by probably the best England pack ever - especially the backrow.

When you have that kind of platform you should be able to make something from it.

Unsurprisingly most of the backs picked by England are used to having their packs on top of the opposition. Consequently they aren't used to the situation where they are getting poor/slow ball.

Hood83 you said Flood is way out ahead of Farrell. Do you genuinely feel that Flood has shown that in the AIs?Burns I could understand. He's one of the form fly halves in the AP.

If i'm honest, no, and that's a fair point. I think his distribution has been better, quicker and flatter and his positioning and running threat have shown, but not half as much as I've thought they had in the past.

Your points on playing behind a strong pack are absolutely right. I can concede that it's early days for Farrell but I don't think his basic skills are as good as Flood's. In these AIs the gap hasn't been as obvious, but i think it exists.

HammerofThunor wrote:Farrell has shown he can kick goals (but not drop goals) in international games. Andy Goode could do that. Except Goode also creates shed loads of tries using his boot (in 2009 6N with us as top try scorer).

Flood has in the past shown he can play international at a decent level. No one else in England has done that (except Goode and Hodgson (at least he got us chargedown tries)). If you want specific games...tough. I, and I imagine others, don't keep little black books of particular players' good games or bad games. I know that I have seen Flood perform to a level that I am satisfied with. In the SA and Australia games the whole team was the problem (mainly Barritt ). It depends whether you think if a player who HAS done it should be dropped when he isn't lighting the world up and then who do you replace him with? A shining light at club level? If so that would be Burns 100% over Farrell.

You say Flood has in the past shown he can play international at a decent level. When? When did he last do it? Maybe you need a little black book to mark down when he last put in a decent performance that's why! Perhaps invest in one?

Yappysnap sigh this is the problem. You're happy with a mediocre player who hasn't done anything at international of note for some time. Reminds of a few other England players too.

Look it's like comparing Care and Youngs - neither have had good Ais.

I don't think there's really been that much between Flood and Farrell in the Ais except Farrell kicked his penalties vs SA and Flood didn't. Both have been ineffectual in attack. Ask yourself - when did Flood last put in a good performance against a country in the top 10?

Burns should be replacing Flood. Farrell has been maligned but he has good core skills and he is much younger than Flood.

Farrell,Burns and Ford should be the ones fighting for the England 10 shirt.

beshocked wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Farrell has shown he can kick goals (but not drop goals) in international games. Andy Goode could do that. Except Goode also creates shed loads of tries using his boot (in 2009 6N with us as top try scorer).

Flood has in the past shown he can play international at a decent level. No one else in England has done that (except Goode and Hodgson (at least he got us chargedown tries)). If you want specific games...tough. I, and I imagine others, don't keep little black books of particular players' good games or bad games. I know that I have seen Flood perform to a level that I am satisfied with. In the SA and Australia games the whole team was the problem (mainly Barritt ). It depends whether you think if a player who HAS done it should be dropped when he isn't lighting the world up and then who do you replace him with? A shining light at club level? If so that would be Burns 100% over Farrell.

You say Flood has in the past shown he can play international at a decent level. When? When did he last do it? Maybe you need a little black book to mark down when he last put in a decent performance that's why! Perhaps invest in one?

Yappysnap sigh this is the problem. You're happy with a mediocre player who hasn't done anything at international of note for some time. Reminds of a few other England players too.

You're putting words in peoples' mouths here BeShocked. Most people appear to be saying that Flood is doing OK and they wouldn't replace him because there is no-one else who has shown any real likelyhood of doing any better.

I can see what you're saying - but instead of phrasing so agressively as you are why not phrase it more like this:

"I think that Flood has been playing pretty averagely recently and feel that we should change the 10 in the England team to see if someone else can give us some spark. I would suggest PLAYER X for REASONS."

beshocked wrote:Jimpy when has Flood shown it though? You can say he's ahead but where's the evidence? Sure he's run the Leicester backline well at club level in most games but in the biggest matches has he stepped up? No the jury is still out.

You could argue the jury is out on a few players though to be fair.

Flood can be right up there? When has he ever shown that?

dummy half when did Flood offer this running game against Australia and South Africa? Don't tell me you're going to go down the whole blame the centres route? No wait it's the coaches' fault right?

I think Flood's capabilities are being over hyped a bit. I can think of only two matches in the last two years against top 10 opposition where he has actually run the England backline decently - Italy and Wales who at the time were on a long losing run.

Remember Wilkinson took the fly half shirt off Flood before the RWC because Flood was poor.

He's been very decent in wins over Australia I believe. I'm sure linked up well with Youngs (whose form is sadly awful now) during our last win at Twickenham.

You may see something different, but I've seen Farrell play twice as well as on the box and it just feels like his default is to kick even when we have quick ball, and that his pass is horribly loopy. It's just my personal perception. Maybe we can compare stats on kicking and passing? Might shed a bit of light on it.

screamingaddabs wrote:

beshocked wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Farrell has shown he can kick goals (but not drop goals) in international games. Andy Goode could do that. Except Goode also creates shed loads of tries using his boot (in 2009 6N with us as top try scorer).

Flood has in the past shown he can play international at a decent level. No one else in England has done that (except Goode and Hodgson (at least he got us chargedown tries)). If you want specific games...tough. I, and I imagine others, don't keep little black books of particular players' good games or bad games. I know that I have seen Flood perform to a level that I am satisfied with. In the SA and Australia games the whole team was the problem (mainly Barritt ). It depends whether you think if a player who HAS done it should be dropped when he isn't lighting the world up and then who do you replace him with? A shining light at club level? If so that would be Burns 100% over Farrell.

You say Flood has in the past shown he can play international at a decent level. When? When did he last do it? Maybe you need a little black book to mark down when he last put in a decent performance that's why! Perhaps invest in one?

Yappysnap sigh this is the problem. You're happy with a mediocre player who hasn't done anything at international of note for some time. Reminds of a few other England players too.

You're putting words in peoples' mouths here BeShocked. Most people appear to be saying that Flood is doing OK and they wouldn't replace him because there is no-one else who has shown any real likelyhood of doing any better.

I can see what you're saying - but instead of phrasing so agressively as you are why not phrase it more like this:

"I think that Flood has been playing pretty averagely recently and feel that we should change the 10 in the England team to see if someone else can give us some spark. I would suggest PLAYER X for REASONS."

How about Burns?

Tries/Assists, Points, Kick/Pass/Run, Metres Run, Clean Breaks, Defenders Beaten, OffLoads, Turnovers, Tackles, LineOuts, PenConceded, Yellow/Red,

FH Farrell 0/1, 12, 5/18/3, 5, 0, 0, 0, 1, 8/0, 0/0, 1, 0/0,
FH Flood 0/0, 6, 4/9/1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 3/1, 0/0, 0, 0/0,
FH Flood 0/0, 9, 7/27/5, 14, 0, 0, 1, 1, 9/0, 0/0, 0, 0/0,

Stats for Farrel's last start (v SA), Floods last start (v SA the other day) and Floods previous start (v Aus because he didn't finish the game against SA due to injury)

Hood83 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Jimpy when has Flood shown it though? You can say he's ahead but where's the evidence? Sure he's run the Leicester backline well at club level in most games but in the biggest matches has he stepped up? No the jury is still out.

You could argue the jury is out on a few players though to be fair.

Flood can be right up there? When has he ever shown that?

dummy half when did Flood offer this running game against Australia and South Africa? Don't tell me you're going to go down the whole blame the centres route? No wait it's the coaches' fault right?

I think Flood's capabilities are being over hyped a bit. I can think of only two matches in the last two years against top 10 opposition where he has actually run the England backline decently - Italy and Wales who at the time were on a long losing run.

Remember Wilkinson took the fly half shirt off Flood before the RWC because Flood was poor.

He's been very decent in wins over Australia I believe. I'm sure linked up well with Youngs (whose form is sadly awful now) during our last win at Twickenham.

You may see something different, but I've seen Farrell play twice as well as on the box and it just feels like his default is to kick even when we have quick ball, and that his pass is horribly loopy. It's just my personal perception. Maybe we can compare stats on kicking and passing? Might shed a bit of light on it.

It's like saying Ashton played well the Aussies which he did. Both him and Flood have flattered to deceive in the AIs. I think Ashton has been off form in internationals for some time.

I actually agree. Farrell's default is kick but I personally haven't seen much better from Flood in the Ais. If you go on club form from last season then yes Flood was far ahead but internationally I haven't seen why people still rate him.

I personally haven't seen a good international performance from Flood from some time. Is it completely his fault? Of course not but he must take some responsibility.

In my opinion Farrell does what you expect him to do whereas Flood flatters to deceive. Flood supposedly offers more in attack yet have we really seen this? No, maybe again this isn't his fault but Flood must look at what he can improve upon.

screamingaddabs wrote:Back slightly to the main topic, I've had a thought. Maybe Tuilagi should train at 10 every now and then. Not to make him a 10 (he wouldn't be very well suited to it!) but to force him into playing slightly more heads up and to use others. Just in training of course, and not all the time. If he did it for maybe a total of 30 minutes a week in training I reckon he would start to really improve.

At the same time someone should teach him to kick (clearance kicks and grubbers/chips - not positional so much). This is just technique for him to learn, which shouldn't be too hard.

Give him a year of all that and I reckon he would show real improvement in the areas he is lacking in atm.

Interesting, given that Eastmond at Bath has specifically asked to spend some game time at 10 almost exactly for these reasons - admitedly, Eastmond's skillset is somewhat different from Manu's (coming from being a RL scrum half or stand off, so a ball handling position), but the intention is to give him a better understanding of the tactics and 'feel' of the game, so that he is better in whatever position he ends up settling on (12 or 15 most likely). Giving Manu an opportunity to learn to play more 'heads up' would be good, and the same can be argued for pretty much all of England's back division and back row.

Just looked at the Aviva premiership stats, Saracens have scored the least tries out of any team in the AP, including Sale...Our backline is selected predominatley of players that play for the least creative team in England and coached by the guy that taught them how not to score tries......magic

dummy_half wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:Back slightly to the main topic, I've had a thought. Maybe Tuilagi should train at 10 every now and then. Not to make him a 10 (he wouldn't be very well suited to it!) but to force him into playing slightly more heads up and to use others. Just in training of course, and not all the time. If he did it for maybe a total of 30 minutes a week in training I reckon he would start to really improve.

At the same time someone should teach him to kick (clearance kicks and grubbers/chips - not positional so much). This is just technique for him to learn, which shouldn't be too hard.

Give him a year of all that and I reckon he would show real improvement in the areas he is lacking in atm.

Interesting, given that Eastmond at Bath has specifically asked to spend some game time at 10 almost exactly for these reasons - admitedly, Eastmond's skillset is somewhat different from Manu's (coming from being a RL scrum half or stand off, so a ball handling position), but the intention is to give him a better understanding of the tactics and 'feel' of the game, so that he is better in whatever position he ends up settling on (12 or 15 most likely). Giving Manu an opportunity to learn to play more 'heads up' would be good, and the same can be argued for pretty much all of England's back division and back row.

That's interesting about Eastmond. I've seen literally bugger all of Eastmond - how is he playing (if at all yet).

It looks like my idea isn't as batty as I thought it might be.

Flood is definitely our best FH (until Burns proves himself). He has a proven track record in being part of the best backline we’ve had since 2004, circa 2009/2010, (not too hard I know). At his best he’s the best in the NH – but isn’t consistent enough to be world class. Nor does he like being beaten up. He also has had too many injury problems over the last year or so. Farrell is a safe bet as current back-up - reasonably consistent but a bit uninspiring.

sirtidychris wrote:Just looked at the Aviva premiership stats, Saracens have scored the least tries out of any team in the AP, including Sale...Our backline is selected predominatley of players that play for the least creative team in England and coached by the guy that taught them how not to score tries......magic

I rest my case, however, now you have criticised a Saracens player or anyone or anything to do with the team, you will recieve a backlash from you know who. Because its against the rules. Apparently.

BS are you trying to say that Flood didnt play well in he second and thrid tests against SA nd didnt get the backs moving far better than they had previously?

They picked up 4 tries (all from the backs) against the best defense in the world.
Given that under Lancaster they have only scored 12 tries against top 10 opposition (3 of which came form quick taps, 3 from charge downs, 1 a penalty try) he hasnt bene that shabby in getting England going when not hampered by injuries.

He shouldve been dragged off sooner in the last match and is getting worringly prone to injuries, thats my big concern with him. If hes goign to end up being the new Tait then yeah theres little point in England persisting with him.

Burns may get a chance to prove his worth, but if England are close what are the chances of him being bought on? Pretty low Id assume. If they are getting stuffed it wont prove much.

As for Ford, hes been pretty dissapointing a lot of this season (given the expectation levels) . I dont think hes ready to step up yet.

beshocked wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:

beshocked wrote:You are like a politician - dodging questions left right and centre.

Yes Flood has been selected over Farrell because of club form but when he's played at 10 he has flattered to deceive.

When has Flood shown he can still cut it at international level?

Were you satisfied with his performance in the Australia and SA games?

Flood is the man in possession. As such, it is Farrell (or anyone else) that must do something exceptional to break in to the team. Flood hasn't set the world alight, but he hasn't been poor either. With no one really challenging (maybe Burns will now) he has therefore kept the shirt.

Surely the man in possession of the shirt is the one playing?

Eh? The man in possession is a colloquialism or common phrase meaning the person who is currently the first choice. Which is Flood.

sirtidychris wrote:Just looked at the Aviva premiership stats, Saracens have scored the least tries out of any team in the AP, including Sale...Our backline is selected predominatley of players that play for the least creative team in England and coached by the guy that taught them how not to score tries......magic

Yup completely forget that Saracens are also 2nd in the AP, 1 point off first and have conceded the least amount of tries and points in the AP.

Don't you want players in the side who are mentally strong,can actually defend and win matches?

screamingaddabs no actually the man in possession refers to the person who is currently holding onto the shirt. E.g. Farrell is the man in possession of the no 10 shirt. He's the one wearing it on Saturday. Not your beloved Flood.

If you mean that Flood is first choice why not just say that instead?

Even if you do mean 1st choice you don't know that for sure unless you can read the coaches' minds. Whose to know that after another insipid display that Flood wouldn't have been dropped for Farrell in the NZ test? He might be first choice in your eyes and a few others but that's different to being the man in possession.

PSW still one loss and a draw. Best defense is surely NZ?

Wow I am surprised you actually acknowledge that a Leicester player isn't playing well - Ford. Are you ok?

Jimpy wrote:

sirtidychris wrote:Just looked at the Aviva premiership stats, Saracens have scored the least tries out of any team in the AP, including Sale...Our backline is selected predominatley of players that play for the least creative team in England and coached by the guy that taught them how not to score tries......magic

I rest my case, however, now you have criticised a Saracens player or anyone or anything to do with the team, you will recieve a backlash from you know who. Because its against the rules. Apparently.

It is against the rules for you to continuously be provocative yet do the mods ban you? No - apparently you're untouchable.

[quote="beshocked"]

sirtidychris wrote:
screamingaddabs no actually the man in possession refers to the person who is currently holding onto the shirt. E.g. Farrell is the man in possession of the no 10 shirt. He's the one wearing it on Saturday. Not your beloved Flood.

If you mean that Flood is first choice why not just say that instead?

Sorry your lordship for using a turn of phrase. I see the misunderstanding has angered you. Honestly, calm down. You know what I meant, if it's not clear ask for a clarification, don't go posting pictures and getting in a huff.

What are we arguing about here? I don't think anyone is saying that Flood's played that well.

I can't actually tell what point you're trying to make now Beshocked, you just seem to be flying off the handle at imaginery slights against Saracens and their players.

NZ leaked 3 tries to Scotland

I think that makes any statement that they have the best defence in the world appear deliberatly provocative.

I know you only read the bits where people have a go at Saracens players but you may have noticed me defend Borthwick recently, defend Farrel, suggest Parling amy have been pratly to blame for the lineout creaking, say Tom Youngs isnt really ready, not even bother to mention Allen in the 12 debate, consitently joke about Sam Vesty (before he even left), mock Waldrom at every oppportunity and say it was right for Care to start the AIs ahead of Youngs and that it was harsh to drop him.

That Saracens 7 you used to rave about is rubbish though.
Just for balance

beshocked

Fair play heres a more balanced view of the AP
Pos TEAM TF TA
1 Harlequins 26 13
2 Saracens 8 7
3 Gloucester Rugby 17 15
4 Northampton Saints 18 15
5 Leicester Tigers 17 11
6 Exeter Chiefs 25 18
You are correct that saracens are doing well and there method is effective. But they have hardly created anything this year, there defense is sublime but against the best teams in the world you need to score and with a sarries style of play you will never beat the best. I guess i just find it frustrating that the new england coaching set up has decided to adopt this style as supposed to a more open one.

[quote="screamingaddabs"]

beshocked wrote:

sirtidychris wrote:
screamingaddabs no actually the man in possession refers to the person who is currently holding onto the shirt. E.g. Farrell is the man in possession of the no 10 shirt. He's the one wearing it on Saturday. Not your beloved Flood.

If you mean that Flood is first choice why not just say that instead?

Sorry your lordship for using a turn of phrase. I see the misunderstanding has angered you. Honestly, calm down. You know what I meant, if it's not clear ask for a clarification, don't go posting pictures and getting in a huff.

Oi I didn't write that....how come my name is quoted against "screamingaddabs no actually the man in possession refers to...... " !!!!!

They did beat Tigers with atht style of play

Look we have seen the limited gameplan have a reasonable level of success for England. But we have also seen it need sto be backed up with some kind of creative spark as well when faced with the best sides in the world and Wales.
This argument was won at the end of the 6 nations, why are we still having it.

sirtidychris wrote:beshocked

Fair play heres a more balanced view of the AP
Pos TEAM TF TA
1 Harlequins 26 13
2 Saracens 8 7
3 Gloucester Rugby 17 15
4 Northampton Saints 18 15
5 Leicester Tigers 17 11
6 Exeter Chiefs 25 18
You are correct that saracens are doing well and there method is effective. But they have hardly created anything this year, there defense is sublime but against the best teams in the world you need to score and with a sarries style of play you will never beat the best. I guess i just find it frustrating that the new england coaching set up has decided to adopt this style as supposed to a more open one.

You are indeed correct. That's a very reasonable point. Do England have the players to adopt a higher risk expansive game though? I think most people myself included would like to see England playing more like Quins or Leinster but is it realistic?

NZ can do it because their skill levels are far higher.

screamingaddabs you and jimpy should get a room together. You seem well suited. Disappointed in you though- I think you can do better than jimpy.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:They did beat Tigers with atht style of play

Look we have seen the limited gameplan have a reasonable level of success for England. But we have also seen it need sto be backed up with some kind of creative spark as well when faced with the best sides in the world and Wales.
This argument was won at the end of the 6 nations, why are we still having it.

PSW how? What is your solution? Obviously you feel the current personnel is insufficient for the task at hand so whose good enough?

Sir Billy? Freddie Burns? Jonathan Joseph? Wade?

IMO missing out of the AIs is a blessing in disguise for these guys. They have enhanced their reputations without having to play for England, except for Burns who might be ruined by England in just one match.

They'll get the easier run out in the 6 nations. Easier to look good vs Italy than vs Australia or South Africa.

Only possibly Goode has done his continued selection any favours and he is likely to be supplanted by Foden.

[quote="sirtidychris"]

screamingaddabs wrote:

beshocked wrote:

sirtidychris wrote:
screamingaddabs no actually the man in possession refers to the person who is currently holding onto the shirt. E.g. Farrell is the man in possession of the no 10 shirt. He's the one wearing it on Saturday. Not your beloved Flood.

If you mean that Flood is first choice why not just say that instead?

Sorry your lordship for using a turn of phrase. I see the misunderstanding has angered you. Honestly, calm down. You know what I meant, if it's not clear ask for a clarification, don't go posting pictures and getting in a huff.

Oi I didn't write that....how come my name is quoted against "screamingaddabs no actually the man in possession refers to...... " !!!!!

No idea what happened there!

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

sirtidychris wrote:Just looked at the Aviva premiership stats, Saracens have scored the least tries out of any team in the AP, including Sale...Our backline is selected predominatley of players that play for the least creative team in England and coached by the guy that taught them how not to score tries......magic

I rest my case, however, now you have criticised a Saracens player or anyone or anything to do with the team, you will recieve a backlash from you know who. Because its against the rules. Apparently.

It is against the rules for you to continuously be provocative yet do the mods ban you? No - apparently you're untouchable.

You're the one instigating the arguments with your constant and repetetive foot stamping, look above, i'm not the only one fed up with you. Now, do calm down, we don't want you messing yourself with all the excitement again.

See you in the New Year.

36, a heavyweight NZ/Aus coach added to the team ( one of those guys who refused to work with Lancaster maybe), maybe Burns if he gets on the pitch and shows he can do it or possibly try him out in the 6 natons depending on form/fitness of the two senior options.

Farrell though has a chance to prove hes good enough. Of course England losing shouldnt mean hes binned altogether, win and he gets to be the new old Johnny.