Lancaster will look very SILLY for not starting the Billy's.......

England have the incredible luxury of having genuine world class options ready to go that will massively improve the balance of the team.

Rugby as they say is a game for all sizes, however a more subtle point and one not often understood, is that each and every position on the pitch is in its own way special. The obvious example is tight head prop but actually its the same for ALL positions and therefore whenever possible you select players in their specific position, especially at international level. Why would you select 4 blind side flackers, 2 full backs and 2 outside centres? Anyone who thinks Barrett is an IC needs their head examined.

Billy Twelvetrees is the most talented IC England have seen in a generation however very few coaches have the plums to understand he is the standout choice.

Billy Vunipola is a natural number 8, and yes he is obviously green but he has all the ability to play at international level. I would very much expect him to make mistakes and he will give away penalties, however I also believe he will leave the field in the credit column and with Wood and Robshaw in toe will be very well looked after. I can see Billy Vunipola and Ben Morgan competing for the 8 position for many years to come - England are very lucky, still Lancaster is a VERY SILLY BILLY.

Actually agree with Twelvetrees. He and to a lesser extent Liam Williams are two players I cannot understand are not first choices for their sides.

First choice when we have Barrit and Manu??

all three are world class, but Barrit seems to provide better cover and defense.

What has Billy Twelvetrees achieved at international level? Very little.

Sure he had one good performance vs Scotland but when given a start vs Ireland he was anonymous.

When brought on vs Italy again anonymous.

Twelvetrees has to earn the right to start with good performances.

Perhaps Billy should have been given a chance vs Italy but to criticise one of the more consistent England players is foolish.

Brad Barritt is obviously a 12 - he has played virtually all his club rugby there. When he starts England generally win.

Agree about Billy Vunipola who probably should have been tried out vs Italy at 8 with Wood moving to 6.

I agree with the general sentiment of this post. SL is getting dangerously close to playing too many players out of position on occasion. To such an extent that the collective performance of the team will suffer.

If a player does well enough at club level in his position to get selected for the national side then he should play in that same position where he did so well to get the call. Simples.

13 minutes at the end of the game when Italy were already in the ascendancy, after Barritt had done his usual uncreative nothing for the previous 67 minutes. Barritt is a lump, and efficient lump yes but lump all the same. If England are to win the wc they will need more than he can offer, and don't quote the AB game - as that was a one off on the day end of season match only. He plays for Sarries who in his absense have started scoring tries.
Hey accuse me of being a fool if you like I just stick to the facts of the argument and they are that Lancaster dosn't, like many others, understand 15 man Forward and Backs rugby, piano players and piano shifters.

kingelderfield first and foremost SL wants people who can defend. People with the right mental mindset. Not those who will go missing in matches.

36 went missing vs Ireland. It was up to the rest of the backline bar Ashton to do the damage - Goode,Brown,Farrell,Youngs and Barritt all had good games that day.

You need to get out of this mindset that with Barritt in the side England can't score tries. They did vs Scotland and New Zealand.

England's attack vs Scotland and New Zealand was good because the backrow did their job properly. They gave the backs quick ball. In the other games the quality of ball has been patchy at best.

The balance of the backrow is wrong in my opinion. Wood has been shunted to 8 whereas he seems more comfortable at 6. Morgan seems to play an important role when England's attack is good at no 8.

I'd rather B Vunipola at 8 than Wood that's for sure. Neither the coach or the player seem to see Haskell as an 8. I think he's a ball-carrying, defensively strong 6 myself and should be treated as such. If Morgan isn't fit, and BV is, I genuinely think i'd start him. The Haskell, Robshaw, Wood back-row doesn't seem to work that well unfortunately. For me:

6:Wood
7: Robshaw
8: Vunipola.

Haskell on the bench. Croft misses out. I think we'll need heavy artillery coming on as the Welsh defence won't tire unless it's blitzed with big ball carriers.

He's raw, he'll make mistakes, he may even cost us the game. But BV clearly has the potential to be an international 8. Given the poor balance of the other options with players out of position, I also think it represents no more of a gamble than, say, Wood at 8. Haskell at 8? Perhaps.

beshocked wrote:kingelderfield first and foremost SL wants people who can defend. People with the right mental mindset. Not those who will go missing in matches.

36 went missing vs Ireland. It was up to the rest of the backline bar Ashton to do the damage - Goode,Brown,Farrell,Youngs and Barritt all had good games that day.

You need to get out of this mindset that with Barritt in the side England can't score tries. They did vs Scotland and New Zealand.

England's attack vs Scotland and New Zealand was good because the backrow did their job properly. They gave the backs quick ball. In the other games the quality of ball has been patchy at best.

The balance of the backrow is wrong in my opinion. Wood has been shunted to 8 whereas he seems more comfortable at 6. Morgan seems to play an important role when England's attack is good at no 8.

Barritt deserves a lot of credit. But he is very clearly not the answer if we want to beat the SH teams regularly. Even in the NZ game his excellent break was almost ruined by an inability to draw the man and time the pass. His defence has won us games, in fact it's been one of the big reasons behind our current form. But he's a blunt instrument. At some point I think we have to see what BT can do there.

Hood83 I would agree with that. I haven't really been convinced with Haskell to be honest.

Personally I would either start both Vunipola brothers at the start of the game or alternatively bring both on with 20 minutes to go as big ball carriers to punch holes in the Welsh defence. I think it would be great for Billy if he's playing with his brother.

"....I can see Billy Vunipola and Ben Morgan competing for the 8 position for many years to come ...."

Well if the last year is anything to go by I can see Morgan spending half his time on the physio table. So let's hope Vunipola steps up (and remains upright longer than Morgan). Maybe we should be grooming Vunipola and Haskell, and let Morgan have the occassional cameo role.

Haskell is a 6 and a make do 8 - Morgan and BV are natural 8's

Billy don't be a hero...comes to mind. But you're all too young to remember that one.... no?

Billy might be the best ever seen...but come now...he still needs oodles of time to prove it. You have to prove yourself in rugby. You can't just print up tee shirts and call yourself King.

His time might come, but talent will prove itself over time - particularly in that 'generation' category that was attached to him in the initial post.

Haskell was one of our best players in 2011... playing 8 wasn't he? not great ball controll a the base of the scrum was one of the few down-sides as I recall.

beshocked wrote:What has Billy Twelvetrees achieved at international level? Very little.

Is that really fair? He's got three caps, one of which was off the bench, in a game England were struggling in. Furthermore, the Ireland game was not exactly one in which a back could showcase any exciting skills, particularly a guy in only his second start.

How would a new player win a shirt on that basis? Surely the only way would be if the incumbent has a long stretch out through injury.

For all that SL has achieved (and I think he's done a fine job) his conservative approach may count against him on Saturday. I look at Tuilagi and Barritt and see two players who are too similar and predictable (not unlike Roberts and Davies) and I can't help thinking that Twelvetrees offers more options at twelve. We Welsh would feel more threatened down the centre if England came with a bit less predictability.

damage_13 wrote:Haskell was one of our best players in 2011... playing 8 wasn't he? not great ball controll a the base of the scrum was one of the few down-sides as I recall.

Haskell played 7 in the 2011 Six Nations, Easter was at 8, Wood at 6.

With Ryan Jones being ruled out I wonder whether this will impact England's back row selection? Will they play Tipuric and Warburton in which case we would potentially need a quick back row to combat the athleticism and skill at the breakdown that the Welsh would have. Wood, Robshaw and Croft at 6, 7, 8. Worry would be that Croft is still coming back to form and fitness, would you want him starting the game or rather bring fresh legs on as England did on the weekend? I suppose for the those of you who are keen to see Billy Vunipola on the pitch he would be useful in terms of sucking in the aformentioned Welsh back row and hopefully freeing up some space for the English backs to attack. Can't see it happening though. Wood, Robshaw, Croft, Haskell on the bench.

I agree with the OP on the whole. 36 adds something to the team that can be built upon over time. He will not always deliver a faultless performance but sometimes it's about allowing players to grow into a position.

Lancs has done this with Owen Farrell, not that I was a fan of it but he has matured as games have gone by I feel. What he does need though rather ironically is a damn good 12 and Billy T is that man.

More pressing than the 12 situation I feel is the backrow and pack balance generally. I know Lancs had his hand forced by injury but Morgan is key to the balance of the England pack.

With two lightweight SRs and a backrow of Croft, Wood and Robshaw there is zero impact carrying. The only decent carrying I saw in the Italy game was from Tom Youngs who drives in hard and the odd carry from Mako. To be a genuine threat the pack needs to hold a bit more depth and be able to utilise four proper carriers and Manu. For England's style of play it's essential.

Lancs has to understand that going back to having a backrow in the mould of 6. Crfot 7. Robshaw 8. Dowson (read Wood currently) is NOT going to give England the go forward needed.

I think it's because he prioritises the line-out to such an extent that it's impinging on open play elements.

I agree with us being lightweight in the back row.

Perhaps Billy Vunipola can get some games over the summer in Argentina and we will have a better idea of his international credentials. Provided he then stays fit it would be between him and Ben Morgan to challenge for the starting spot in the Autumn Internationals to provide a ball carrying threat.

kingelderfield wrote:England have the incredible luxury of having genuine world class options ready to go that will massively improve the balance of the team.

VERY SILLY BILLY.

Hood83 wrote:I'd rather B Vunipola at 8 than Wood that's for sure. Neither the coach or the player seem to see Haskell as an 8. I think he's a ball-carrying, defensively strong 6 myself and should be treated as such. If Morgan isn't fit, and BV is, I genuinely think i'd start him. The Haskell, Robshaw, Wood back-row doesn't seem to work that well unfortunately. For me:

6:Wood
7: Robshaw
8: Vunipola.

Haskell on the bench. Croft misses out. I think we'll need heavy artillery coming on as the Welsh defence won't tire unless it's blitzed with big ball carriers.

He's raw, he'll make mistakes, he may even cost us the game. But BV clearly has the potential to be an international 8. Given the poor balance of the other options with players out of position, I also think it represents no more of a gamble than, say, Wood at 8. Haskell at 8? Perhaps.

Surely it doesn't matter who is in the back row as long as Chris (MOTM) Robshaw is playing. You guys worry to much

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

beshocked wrote:What has Billy Twelvetrees achieved at international level? Very little.

Is that really fair? He's got three caps, one of which was off the bench, in a game England were struggling in. Furthermore, the Ireland game was not exactly one in which a back could showcase any exciting skills, particularly a guy in only his second start.

How would a new player win a shirt on that basis? Surely the only way would be if the incumbent has a long stretch out through injury.

Of course it's fair. Billy Twelvetrees is a potential good prospect but gets far too much hype for what he's done or in his case what he hasn't done.

You would think from the hype that surrounds him that he's been tearing up opposition in every game. He had a good debut vs Scotland but it was a good day at the office for the whole side.

Exciting skills is not the most important aspect in winning matches. Twelvetrees was anonymous in the Ireland match. He was basically the only back who he didn't make an impact.

Does that mean he should be written off? No of course not but he's got to make a compelling case as a replacement. His first touch vs Italy was a knock on.

36's first touch vs Scotland was a knock on too if I remember right - but he went on to do some good things and showed great attitude.

Some players appear fully formed as soon as they start playing international rugby but its not that common - so the question is - is 36 worth working on and developing and the answer has to be yes.

beshocked wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

beshocked wrote:What has Billy Twelvetrees achieved at international level? Very little.

Is that really fair? He's got three caps, one of which was off the bench, in a game England were struggling in. Furthermore, the Ireland game was not exactly one in which a back could showcase any exciting skills, particularly a guy in only his second start.

How would a new player win a shirt on that basis? Surely the only way would be if the incumbent has a long stretch out through injury.

Of course it's fair. Billy Twelvetrees is a potential good prospect but gets far too much hype for what he's done or in his case what he hasn't done.

You would think from the hype that surrounds him that he's been tearing up opposition in every game. He had a good debut vs Scotland but it was a good day at the office for the whole side.

Exciting skills is not the most important aspect in winning matches. Twelvetrees was anonymous in the Ireland match. He was basically the only back who he didn't make an impact.

Does that mean he should be written off? No of course not but he's got to make a compelling case as a replacement. His first touch vs Italy was a knock on.

I agree, this Twelvetrees not playing is the difference between England running in tries for fun and putting 50 points past other teams week in week out hype is irritating. Yes I too wish that Barritt was a bit more creative etc but it is about balance. No good if 36 helps us to score a couple of tries if we concede 5 as a result of the English defensive system missing a proven component. One ordinary game and most people want him gone, thankfully SL doesn't seem to think like that. Think he is currently like his opposite number Roberts for Wales. Just because they are not ripping up tress in attack people think they are of absolutely no value to the team.

As i've said above 36 adds a strong dimension to England's game but he has to earn the right to start, I think that's what Beshocked is driving at.

Although your achievement-based value system is a bit odd Beshocked I would agree that 36 had a very good debut but doesn't yet deserve to oust Barritt from the shirt in the short term.

I have seen Carl Fearns again playing very well for Bath at 7. I don't think that's the best position for him but he's a very strong ball carrier and excellent in the tackle area. I'd like to see him called up to train to give England another option for 6/8 who's got the carrying game.

B91212 I agree.

lostinwales I don't disagree with that You could argue 36 probably should have started vs Italy but he didn't.

Barritt has to start vs Wales.

Chjw131 in the long term 36 will probably supplant Barritt but he needs to do this by taking his chances when they are on offer.

Sometimes perceptions are wrong. Certain people think Flood is a more attacking fly half than Farrell Jr and would bring the wingers into the game more, give us a more attacking dimension. It didn't materialise. Is it completely Flood's fault? No of course not but he didn't deliver.

The blame game is easy - it's the centres fault - let's change them. Yet Barritt-Tuilagi combo beat NZ scoring 3 tries. 36-Barritt vs Scotland - 4 tries.

Does that tell me any of them are the problem? No.

Same back three in both games - their fault? No

Personally I don't think it's as simple as one or two players' fault in the backline for the team's failure to score tries. It's a team thing.

England have not being getting quick ball - fixing that is the key IMO. Most sides look dangerous when that happens.

I think it was the lack of OF and youngs that had the bigger impact tbh. They run the game at the moment.

I think many overlook at what OF does. He makes intellegent passes, and youngs is great with quick ball.

Its all well and good hitting your opponenets all game. But its about getting the open players in to the game.

Agree Beshocked it almost never comes down to one player, although Danny 'Chargedown' Cipriani had me questioning that in 2008.

Against the Irish the weather was a top factor and not many teams would have been scoring hat fulls of trys in that game. Versus France though I think we lacked go-forward again. When confronted with a quick defence it's difficult to hold a touch more depth and employ your big carriers to proper effect. In the main England lacked precisely what the likes of Piccamoles provided.

We have carried on lacking that sort of balance in the pack and that to my mind is a concern. I know we've had injuries to Morgan and Billy V but the balance in the EPS needs to be right and we need to look to bring in players who can keep that balance in the pack.

I feel you need four hard carriers in the pack and England with the Itlay team have just two.

chjw131 sometimes it's difficult to gauge the quality of the backs when the forwards aren't exactly helping.

England's backs didnt help themselves at all either but it's a team game. All the backs made silly mistakes - missing tackles, not making a potential try making pass etc. We shouldn't focus on one particular individual even though it's natural to.

you could look at the England vs NZ as an example even Carter that day looked poor.

I think England need to start Billy Vunipola at 8 definitely.

Agree the balance of the backrow doesn't seem to be there.

I don't think even Lancaster knows - he tried Lawes at 6 vs France which failed miserably. Wood has been played at 8 which is not his preferred position etc.

Also another point is that the pretty poor overall set piece of England hasn't been the fault of the backs!

farrell and barritt, four 6's in the squad and a disfunctioning back 3.....this sl really is a clever fellow. And how did we get here? there wasn't any signs, nothing to suggest any problems....gosh this barritt chap really shows plenty, can't see the issue myself....atleast we all know sl has plenty of coaching experience at the highest level to fall back on, oh no thats not right is it, woops i forgot he's not even coached in the jeff...shows what i know.

Indeed I mentioned that on another thread, our set-piece has been poor and that's not a good sign at all.

Is Cole a touch fatigued and does Launchbury offer enough shove from the SR? Perhaps Rowntree has too much on his plate? Whatever the situation it needs rectifying.

The scrum over the last couple of games has looked like it just doesn't have enough weight in it. The props aren't getting twisted inside out, they're just gradually being shunted backwards. Maybe that's just the cost of picking a more mobile back 5 of the scrum.

beshocked wrote:
The blame game is easy - it's the centres fault - let's change them. Yet Barritt-Tuilagi combo beat NZ scoring 3 tries. 36-Barritt vs Scotland - 4 tries.

Does that tell me any of them are the problem? No.

I think you're in danger of cherry picking there. Barritt was involved in one of those tries - where he ran through a gaping hole, badly mistimed a pass and got bailed out by Tuilagi's ability to stay on his feet and get the offload away. He's a very handy player who should start against Wales but his attacking play for England over the last 12 months hasn't been that good.

kingelderfield 8 wins out of 9 in the 6 nations and a win vs the ABs. Not bad for SL so far.

No one is denying there are problems but it's not as clear cut - as swap one player and hey presto! England will magically score 4 tries a game. Is it?

SL tried Sharples vs Australia but his choice was so costly that SL decided to go down the 2 FBs in the back three route.

Reminder me how much coaching experience Martin Johnson had?

thomh you would think with a more mobile backrow this would help England at the breakdown?

Chjw131 wrote:Indeed I mentioned that on another thread, our set-piece has been poor and that's not a good sign at all.

Is Cole a touch fatigued and does Launchbury offer enough shove from the SR? Perhaps Rowntree has too much on his plate? Whatever the situation it needs rectifying.

We have a very young front row at the moment and I think the dip in 2nd half v Italy was due to Vunipola fatiguing. Patience is needed with the front row and the return of Corbs before we become ultra consistent. Worried by our lack of option in the lineout though happened in SA aswell, seem to be missing Crofts ability, that is a more pressing concern IMO.

[quote="SecretFly"]Billy don't be a hero...comes to mind. But you're all too young to remember that one.... no?

I remember paper lace

beshocked wrote:
thomh you would think with a more mobile backrow this would help England at the breakdown?

Yes - England have improved a lot at the breakdown in the last 6 months.

thomh wrote:

beshocked wrote:
thomh you would think with a more mobile backrow this would help England at the breakdown?

Yes - England have improved a lot at the breakdown in the last 6 months.

Didn't seem to see that vs Italy,France,Ireland,South Africa or Australia though....

It did against South Africa and particularly Ireland I think, as well as New Zealand and Scotland - I'll give you the others. That's still a big improvement from where we were under MJ.

beshocked wrote:

thomh wrote:

beshocked wrote:
thomh you would think with a more mobile backrow this would help England at the breakdown?

Yes - England have improved a lot at the breakdown in the last 6 months.

Didn't seem to see that vs Italy,France,Ireland,South Africa or Australia though....

I certainly did v SA and france

I think it would be harsh to say that Tom Wood has failed at 8, but the "experiment" (forced by injury) has. Wood has done enough to earn a position in this England team, but that should be at 6. With Morgan ruled out, we should be looking at Vunipola or possibly even Waldrom to come in. I'd then possibly have Croft (covering lock and back row) and Haskell (covering back row and lock in an absolute emergency) on the bench, as the back row battle will be important and Lawes' form hasn't been great so far.

I don't think any other changes in the pack would be necessary. Youngs and Farrell have to come back in for me. That's a given.

Starting Twelvetrees over Barritt represents a gamble, and the nerves I'm feeling about this game might cause me to say make the switch, but Barritt is a solid defender and our game is built around offering opposition teams absolutely nothing (with our defence) and taking every opportunity for points (mainly Farrell's kicking). Build up a bit of scoreboard pressure, and start to attack the holes that appear. I think we took 5 kicks at goal before we scored a try against New Zealand, we'd taken 3 penalties before our first against Scotland and 4 pens before our only try against France. Against Ireland and Italy attacking the holes didn't work (weather vs Ireland, lack of clinical edge vs Italy), but keeping the scoreboard moving by taking our kicks did the job as we kept the oppositions' score down. We've got the best defence in the Championship so far and haven't conceded 20 points in any game, and in part that is down to Barritt.

So I guess I'm saying stick with Barritt and carry on doing what has got us to the verge of a Grand Slam. It's all well and good saying we won't win a World Cup with Barritt at 12, but we're not trying to win a World Cup, we're trying to win one game of rugby against Wales. There is plenty of time to develop our gameplan with Twelvetrees at 12 over the next 2 years, but right now we've got to pick our very best option for the next game only, and that's Barritt.

In the back three, I was also tempted to stick Foden at 11 and move Brown to 15, I just think Brown is a better full-back then Goode and Foden is a better winger than Goode - plus he is less likely to get phased by the occasion (less likely than Goode, and certainly less likely than an uncapped winger such as Wade or May). However this isn't a deal breaker. I would probably like to see Foden on the bench, however, which might mean Flood dropping out the 23 entirely and Twelvetrees covering 10.

My 23:
M Vunipola, T Youngs, D Cole, J Launchberry, G Parling, T Wood, C Robshaw (C), B Vunipola
B Youngs, O Farrell, M Brown, B Barritt, M Tuilagi, C Ashton, A Goode
D Hartley, J Marler, D Wilson, T Croft, J Haskell, D Care, B Twelvetrees, B Foden.

kingelderfield wrote:. He plays for Sarries who in his absense have started scoring tries.

Interesting point. England' winger were running in plenty of tries a couple of years ago, that stopped when Lancaster took over and the wings have barely got a look-in with Farrell and Barritt playing.

Strettle used to score loads of tries. At Sarries with Farrell and Barritt inside him he's hardly managed any. Then when Farrell and Barritt clear off for a while he is suddenly scoring at will.

It's worth remembering that it's not just a case of Farrell, Barritt and Tuilagi being rubbish distributors (and to be fair, Farrell's passing is actually quite good sometimes) - it's also the fact that Farrell and Barritt offer absolutely zero threat themselves, which means defenders can stay wide, which is why Ashton and Brown always have three men in front of them when they get the ball.

Thanks for your efforts Brad but it's time to unleash 36/Tuilagi against the Welsh!

Why not Twelvetrees and Barritt and Tuilagi on the wing...?

Would solve a lot of what you guys are constantly raising as the issues with the team...!

Billy V is just not ready for this test match, he still makes too many errors at Jeff level. He was brought into the squad to train during this 6 nations with one eye on the future, had he not picked up a little injury he may well have seen some time off the bench, the return of Croft did not help him either.
His time will come in the summer.

Croft is the man that will be involved on saturday. I think he will start ahead of Haskell because of what he adds to the lineout, England's lineout has been distinctively average throughout this tournament.

36 has not justified a starting spot at all for me, he has had a solid start to his international career and I expect that to continue but Barritt is absolutely ahead of him at this stage. Barritt is capable of playing in an attacking back line, he will not necessarily be the most creative element but he does not need to be. Englands lack of tries was down to a lack of collective composure and nothing to do with one individuals passing ability!

I don't understand why people seem to think that we would lose a lot in defence if Barritt was replaced by Twelvetrees. Yes Barritt is a great defender but Twelvetrees is also very strong in defence. He puts in some ferocious hits and very rarely do you see anyone get past him, while he is continually learning from one of the very best in Tindall. He also wins a huge number of turnovers. Perhaps he is not yet quite as strong defensively as Barritt, but the loss would only be small.

The gains he would provide in attack are far greater than the loss in defence. Barritt really is very poor going forward, he appears to stifle many attacking opportunities and his handling isn't great. People site the NZ game as an example of his abilities in attack, but what did he really do? He ran straight through a gaping hole before trying as hard as he could to butcher the 2 on 1, only to be bailed out by Tuilagi. If anything I would say that was an example of lack of ability rather than proof of ability. And aside from that occasion I can't think of another time when Barritt has threatened the opposition defence during his international career.

The argument that replacing 1 player can't make too big a difference is nonsense. Not only would you be replacing a poor attacker with a very good one, which is bound to make a difference in such a crucial position, you completely change the mentality of the team in an attacking sense when you bring someone with Billy's range of passing and offloading skills into the centre.

It really is a no brainer. Twelvetrees and Tuilagi represents by far the best option in both the short and long term. They would be extremely exciting going forward, and I'm sure that a lot of opportunities would be created, while they would also provide more than sufficient defence.

Wi11 wrote:

Strettle used to score loads of tries. At Sarries with Farrell and Barritt inside him he's hardly managed any. Then when Farrell and Barritt clear off for a while he is suddenly scoring at will.

He barely used to score any when he was at Quins - not for his last few years with us anyway.

Grand Slam game, stick to what you know would be the argument and Barritt has not been fazed by much so far in his international career. While I agree Twelvetrees may be the option long term I would stick with Barritt for Saturday.

jeffwinger wrote:
Barritt really is very poor going forward, he appears to stifle many attacking opportunities and his handling isn't great. People site the NZ game as an example of his abilities in attack, but what did he really do? He ran straight through a gaping hole before trying as hard as he could to butcher the 2 on 1, only to be bailed out by Tuilagi. If anything I would say that was an example of lack of ability rather than proof of ability. And aside from that occasion I can't think of another time when Barritt has threatened the opposition defence during his international career.

I swear that some of you don't actually watch games and just regurgitate the stuff you read on here by other posters who aren't paying attention to what is really going on.