England's centre pairing for the 6 Nations and NZ tests (x3)

First topic message reminder :

Earlier this week I posted the following;

Re: England v New Zealand match thread
by kingelderfield on Wed 13 Nov 2013, 2:12 pm

.gregortree wrote:
Cowshot
would like to see a Twelvetrees/Tuilagi centre pairing in the future
+1 from meReally like Twelvetrees, and agree the future should be Twelvetrees/Tuilagi.

Right now as a fix I would play Twelvetrees with Burrell - Twelvetrees due to his ability and Burrell on form even though this has been playing IC.

I could also see Burrell and either Eastmond, Trinder or Joseph.

The Burrell Tuilagi option should be saved for special Samoan occasions only.

Sadly, and I'm trying to remain open minded, I have yet to see enough from Tomkins (at any time since his code conversion) to suggest he is or will become an international Union centre.

To my mind Barrett would be a retrograde step..

Tuilagi is out of the 6N and we will have to wait and see if he tours in the summer. Therefore if we assume (you may think otherwise?) that Twelvetrees and Tuilagi are our preferred option, then we have to give serious thought to where we go from here.

We have a plethora of candidates at our disposal and where injury does not intervene they will each have opportunities to make their case before the 6N in either the Aviva or European competitions.

The thing with all good centre partnerships is that it is like marriage and there has to be balance and give and take in strengths and abilities - Nonu and Smith for example.

Having watched all 3 of the autumn games I am certain the answer is not Twelvetrees and Tomkins. I thought Twelvetrees showed progression and had a reasonable game yesterday, however I just don't think Tomkins currently has the understanding and execution that the position requires. He is certainly a brave and able defender however it appears his instincts are still anchored in a contact first RL approach(I made this point on another thread yesterday - SCW pointed out that Tomkins did not pass at all in the entire game?). I would not simply turn my back on him but there are parts of his game that must be developed if he is to be a serious contender and not just another stop gap.

Sadly I could see Lancaster completely disagreeing and leaving the partnership in place however I am praying for some enlightenment and for Lancaster to reappraise our options. If he does seriously consider our options it must be firmly weighted in terms of creative ability - the vision to see and create with the ability to execute under pressure.

Twelvetrees/Burrell
Twelvetrees or Burrell/Eastmond,Trinder or Joseph

There are various other OC options who are worthy of consideration and it will be fascinating to see who puts there hand up in the coming months. I think we can exclude Barritt now we have real IC options in Twelvetrees and Burrell but with Tuilagi's injury it is definitely the OC which is the problem.

In the future with Tuilagi playing our options become mouth watering as anyone of Twelvetrees Burrell of Eastmond would offer exciting foils to the beast!

That’s for the future for now let’s reconsider the Twelvetrees/Tomkins experiment and try and provide a creative combination and winning reward to the forwards endeavours.

Your thoughts are all very welcome but please keep the debate centered on the centres!

And I thought the 10 position was ours for debate and hyperbole!  

Farrell gets a raw deal its seems, alright he's not the most attacking flyhalf ball in hand but he is a very godo flyhalf in general.

Flood is a good flyhalf too, especially so when it comes to playing flat, which is Farrells weakness, so when Farrell doesnt play the best attacking game possible it seems like a clamour for Flood to be brought back in.

I think you give Farrell a centre-pairing of 12. Burrell 13. Tuilagi and ask him to play flat.

7&1/2 Flood has had two appearances at 12 where we attacked very little and then 20 mins vs the ABs at flyhalf where we were mainly defending. Against the ABs he tried to play us down field with no time on the clock and we went some 40m after 5 or 6 phases before Billy knocked on mainly through fatigue.

Farrell has to do more ball in hand as an international 10. He showed he is capable in the Lions test but not since.

Burns started the season brilliantly but has largely vanished sinced. Him and Ford should get some chances soon.

He did nothing of note in his appearances and generally doesn't do enough in an England shirt for me. He's had his chances never really secured his place despite for the majority of his time having very little competition. If we're looking for a more attacking 10 it's Burns or Ford for me but I think Farrell is performing very well.

Agreed on Ford and Burns. I like Farrell's attitude and approach, but England need to figure out some alternatives at 10, and that makes giving others a chance. I think this coming 6 Nations would be a good time to introduce Burns and Ford into the squad, with both getting some game time.

I'm not saying drop Farrell. He's clearly going to play a big role in England's future, but I do think England need a "Plan B" player. The backs didn't look remotely dangerous in this AIs.

The thing is Sam whether people like him or not...(i seem to constantly swtich my opinions on him) i believe Lancs is a huge fan and i dont see him being moved from that spot unless possbily Ford or Burns play scintliating rugby from now on...

That means we need to focus on who plays outside Farrell who can make thigns happen.

What do you do with a flyhalf with a limited running threat at the top level? You give him 2 centres who are powerful ball in hand to shift the focus of the defence. this allows space for the blindside winger (wings have suffered coincidentally too) to come in and thats the gold for someone like Ashton (who lancaster clearly rates).

Englands backline is stuttering because of the centre partnership, not the flyhalf imo.

flood was poor when he came on. looked ponderous and bereft of ideas. is that his fault or that of the slow ball he got from youngs, or the centres outside of him? don't know, bit if this is the type of centre partnership we play the 6N with, i think we stick with farrell.

maybe when manu comes back lancaster should consider flood again? i am a big believer in little club partnerships and understandings being key to creating fluency in the national side.

Eastmond:
On this front, there was recent scuttlebutt that he spat out his dummy with Bath and wanted to go back to play R/league.
But Bath management say '....move along please nothing to see here..'

Until the ball from 9 & 10 speeds up the centres are not going to produce anything against most modern international defences.  Once in a while the direct approach will work for England, but most sides can defend against this tactic as it takes an age for the ball to get to the IC and by then the defence is in their face and any pass wide is in danger of an interception.  If the 10 stands flatter and takes the ball on occasionally this creates space out wide.  At the moment Farrell is too deep in attack and doesn't commit defenders who can go wide to 36 etc.  

Part of his standing too deep is the slow service especially at the moment from Youngs.  when he first appeared Youngs either sniped or passed quickly from the base. Now he looks like an OCD sufferer ensuring the runners line up in age order

S and S Farrell has barely played with Youngs during the AIs. Dickson has played 9 and started all three games. Unfortunately the speed of the ball has been little better and there is no option to snipe. Not that Benny looks particularly fit at the moment anyway, he does offer a far superior kicking game but that hardly helps the current problem.

GF if that's the case then I refer to my earlier post where I said it was a waste of time bringing in Tomkins as a centre who specialises in carrying on the gain line and offloading in the tackle isn't going to work in the current structure. Waiting on Manu isn't necessarily a fix as previously he has suffered with the depth that Farrell plays from, can't understand how BOD managed to convince Farrell to stand flat and now even with go forward ball against Argentina he is standing back with the fullback again.

A secondary playmaker in the back three was previously used to balance out Farrell's inadequacies and Goode does that well for Sarries and occasionally England but with Brown playing brilliantly that would be grossly unfair. Perhaps a Johnny May could play wing and add attacking impetus coming into the line and running moves.

Interesting rumours at the minute hinting at Burns waiting to see whether Flood goes to France or not before deciding where he plays next season.

Well that is interesting news...Burns at Leicester could be interesting...

What is that about GF?

10. Burns
12. Burrell
13. Tuilagi

 

Sgt_Pooly wrote:10. Burns
12. Burrell
13. Tuilagi

 

or

Burns
Twelvetrees
Tuilagi

However for now we must remember Tuilagi is injured and Lancaster doesn’t have a ducking scooby about selection or back play.

Farrell is plainly not the solution and to be honest I don't think he has the necessary intelligence for a 10.

Thankfully the autumn internationals are now over for England and I can go back to enjoying the club game.

Is barrit due back of rthe 6 nations?

Scratch wrote:Is barrit due back of rthe 6 nations?

I doubt fitness is requirement for Lancaster to select him.

SCW, you've got to love him.....

http://www.espn.co.uk/england/rugby/story/206463.html

http://www.espn.co.uk/england/rugby/story/206443.html

Yes he just won't go away will he with his 'when i was in the war' stories

Obviously he needs to TCUP