Manu Tuilagi and Englands Midfield

First topic message reminder :

Been having a discussion about Manu on another thread and i thought id open it up to everyone to see your opinons?

It seems to me that almost 100% on here are simply assuming Manu will walk back in to the England team.

Is Manu simply that good that he can do that, over those currently in the midfield? Is he Englands superstar player that they cant do without?

What about his competition? He has the power game..but what if Elliott Daly was to move back permanently to 13?

Many are advocating a midfield of

10 Farrell
12 Burrell
13 Tuilagi
It has huge power...but possibly missing a little guile?

Im merely putting out there...might the following have more balance?

10 Farrell
12 Burrell
13 Daly (once hes back playing permanently at 13)

Chjw131 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:True, I mean playing at 12 for U20 doesn't really count as a lot of these guys have played in sorts of positions in the handful of years they've been playing.  Farrell was shifted to the centre at U20 because Ford was a better 10 but Farrell was still a better 12 than the next in line (similar with Lawes playing 6 when Gaskell and Kitchener were at lock).

You can't/shouldn't do that at full level so Farrell should just be dropped to the bench (if Ford is selected).

Gosh Gaskell and Kitchener at lock? Now that must've been a very lightweight lock pairing.

There is a lot of claptrap on here about Twelvetrees. Beshocked you seem to have a very short memory when it comes to 36. It was only a matter of weeks ago that you were advocating him and Burrell start in the centres and that's what we've got.

Frankly 36 has done well with the opportunities he's had. He's often stood in at first receiver and has straightened the attack very well. He's made far more of an impression that Barritt in a host of areas where Barritt is below par. 36 at least makes ground taking the ball forward. His defence is not poor at all and bar one dreadful tackle in the Australia game I can't think of any glaring errors. Yes he misses tackles but the whole team does, as do Sarries due to the way they defend. To point at missed tackles as justification is not a fair reflection of the player, system or his performance.

He's had some poor passes and a decision to kick when passing was the better option. He's also put the ball through the hands well at times, offers a third kicking option and is offers a lot all round. He needs to work on consistency and aspects of his game but I don't see anyone standing out as being deprived of the opportunity to take the shirt. Eastmond has done well but needs to show more for Bath first and doesn't offer a kicking option yet.

36 is the best 12 we have available at present and whilst not the finished article is not a poor player by any stretch of the imagination. Some posters are far too fickle and impatient.

You've made a list of things that send a shiver down my back for an England test-level player. And this is with a decent run of ~11 caps. I know he has improved but he hasn't yet excelled in the things he was brought in for. I want to see his rugby skills come to the fore...more. My concern is that he really might be the best IC we have, and has reached his level  A team with <not a poor> IC isn't going to win a RWC. Stewie has invested a lot in him - I hope he's right.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:True, I mean playing at 12 for U20 doesn't really count as a lot of these guys have played in sorts of positions in the handful of years they've been playing.  Farrell was shifted to the centre at U20 because Ford was a better 10 but Farrell was still a better 12 than the next in line (similar with Lawes playing 6 when Gaskell and Kitchener were at lock).

You can't/shouldn't do that at full level so Farrell should just be dropped to the bench (if Ford is selected).

Gosh Gaskell and Kitchener at lock? Now that must've been a very lightweight lock pairing.

There is a lot of claptrap on here about Twelvetrees. Beshocked you seem to have a very short memory when it comes to 36. It was only a matter of weeks ago that you were advocating him and Burrell start in the centres and that's what we've got.

Frankly 36 has done well with the opportunities he's had. He's often stood in at first receiver and has straightened the attack very well. He's made far more of an impression that Barritt in a host of areas where Barritt is below par. 36 at least makes ground taking the ball forward. His defence is not poor at all and bar one dreadful tackle in the Australia game I can't think of any glaring errors. Yes he misses tackles but the whole team does, as do Sarries due to the way they defend. To point at missed tackles as justification is not a fair reflection of the player, system or his performance.

He's had some poor passes and a decision to kick when passing was the better option. He's also put the ball through the hands well at times, offers a third kicking option and is offers a lot all round. He needs to work on consistency and aspects of his game but I don't see anyone standing out as being deprived of the opportunity to take the shirt. Eastmond has done well but needs to show more for Bath first and doesn't offer a kicking option yet.

36 is the best 12 we have available at present and whilst not the finished article is not a poor player by any stretch of the imagination. Some posters are far too fickle and impatient.

You've made a list of things that send a shiver down my back for an England test-level player. And this is with a decent run of ~11 caps. I know he has improved but he hasn't yet excelled in the things he was brought in for. I want to see his rugby skills come to the fore...more. My concern is that he really might be the best IC we have, and has reached his level  A team with <not a poor> IC isn't going to win a RWC. Stewie has invested a lot in him - I hope he's right.

Look I can understand the genesis of your point but I think there's a huge amount of over-reaction on here about 36. By that logic would you be discarding Conrad Smith as not of international quality because of one very poor attempted tackle on Manu Tuilagi?

The issue is this: if we continually sieze upon players' mistakes as evidence of their inability to make it at Test level then where does it end. There isn't a player on the planet who doesn't make mistakes from time to time. Some are more crucial or obvious than others. If you discard 36 then who's up next? Burrell until he makes an error, then Eastmond until he misses a tackle... What we have to have is the courage of our convictions and assess the player for who they are and how they can improve.

And as far as the missed tackle count goes we have already elucidated that many of those are as a result of the system of defence which is employed by England.

One of the reasons I'd like to see more combinations given a run is the threat of injury.

Both Barritt and Tuilagi, Lancaster's regular first choice selections, picked up injuries. I don't know whether centres are more prone to go down than other back line positions - we've been unlucky on the wing too - but Trinder, Joseph and Allen were also out around the same time.

Jamie Roberts and Jonathan Davies have missed games through injury and Fofana is now out for France. Australia lost centres during the Lions series. There's a high attrition rate there.

Lancaster has now given significant playing time to Tuilagi (21 caps), Barritt (18) and Twelvetrees (11). Flood also played there for him but is no longer a consideration. Burrell (3), Joseph (6) and Tomkins (3) each have a handful of starts, while Eastmond started once. Eastmond might not have started at all if Twelvetrees hadn't been called up to the Lions.

That's not a lot of experience. Mathew Tait - now playing full back and a very long shot for a squad place - has played more at centre than any of them (22 times).

I'd be a lot more comfortable if we had another centre candidate with caps in double figures before the World Cup swings around.

No 7&1/2 wrote:To offer another example, Vunipola is out now, the form 8 in the premiership is Easter (think most people would agree?), but i think England really need a big ball carrier here so should we pick a player who's not as in form for whatever reason. Personally Morgan is the right choice for me, followed by Dickinson. Easter would be well down the list as i don't think him Wood and Robshaw would work together as effectively as the other options.

Yeah, Robshaw and Easter definitely don't work well at Quins...

I'm kidding, mostly, as we look best with Mo at 6 carrying but Easter is actually still an excellent power carrier

Chjw131 wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

Chjw131 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:True, I mean playing at 12 for U20 doesn't really count as a lot of these guys have played in sorts of positions in the handful of years they've been playing.  Farrell was shifted to the centre at U20 because Ford was a better 10 but Farrell was still a better 12 than the next in line (similar with Lawes playing 6 when Gaskell and Kitchener were at lock).

You can't/shouldn't do that at full level so Farrell should just be dropped to the bench (if Ford is selected).

Gosh Gaskell and Kitchener at lock? Now that must've been a very lightweight lock pairing.

There is a lot of claptrap on here about Twelvetrees. Beshocked you seem to have a very short memory when it comes to 36. It was only a matter of weeks ago that you were advocating him and Burrell start in the centres and that's what we've got.

Frankly 36 has done well with the opportunities he's had. He's often stood in at first receiver and has straightened the attack very well. He's made far more of an impression that Barritt in a host of areas where Barritt is below par. 36 at least makes ground taking the ball forward. His defence is not poor at all and bar one dreadful tackle in the Australia game I can't think of any glaring errors. Yes he misses tackles but the whole team does, as do Sarries due to the way they defend. To point at missed tackles as justification is not a fair reflection of the player, system or his performance.

He's had some poor passes and a decision to kick when passing was the better option. He's also put the ball through the hands well at times, offers a third kicking option and is offers a lot all round. He needs to work on consistency and aspects of his game but I don't see anyone standing out as being deprived of the opportunity to take the shirt. Eastmond has done well but needs to show more for Bath first and doesn't offer a kicking option yet.

36 is the best 12 we have available at present and whilst not the finished article is not a poor player by any stretch of the imagination. Some posters are far too fickle and impatient.

You've made a list of things that send a shiver down my back for an England test-level player. And this is with a decent run of ~11 caps. I know he has improved but he hasn't yet excelled in the things he was brought in for. I want to see his rugby skills come to the fore...more. My concern is that he really might be the best IC we have, and has reached his level  A team with <not a poor> IC isn't going to win a RWC. Stewie has invested a lot in him - I hope he's right.

Look I can understand the genesis of your point but I think there's a huge amount of over-reaction on here about 36. By that logic would you be discarding Conrad Smith as not of international quality because of one very poor attempted tackle on Manu Tuilagi?

The issue is this: if we continually sieze upon players' mistakes as evidence of their inability to make it at Test level then where does it end. There isn't a player on the planet who doesn't make mistakes from time to time. Some are more crucial or obvious than others. If you discard 36 then who's up next? Burrell until he makes an error, then Eastmond until he misses a tackle... What we have to have is the courage of our convictions and assess the player for who they are and how they can improve.

And as far as the missed tackle count goes we have already elucidated that many of those are as a result of the system of defence which is employed by England.

A favourite quote of mine from an old woodwork teacher I had way way back in time was that the man who never made any mistakes never made anything.

I don't really see what the argument is here regarding 36 & Burrell. If Tuilagi gets back to his best over the next couple of months he will surely be given another opportunity in an England shirt during the summer, more than likely keeping hold of it. Neither 36 or Burrell would deserve to be dropped without testing them inside Tuilagi (I think Burrell has certainly earnt an opportunity to play in his favoured 12 shirt at some point). The best performing partnership from the summer then starts the AIs.

What if Morgan does Really well...when Vuinpola gets fit ... both deserve to start so do England move one to 6 and change the balance of the backrow? Mover Marler to Hooker when Corbs is fit?

Burrell is primarily a runner. Tuillagi even more so. Englands backplay is built around a distributor and a runner. Moving Burrel to inside center would change that balance.

Not being a bosher does not equate to being a second playmaker. Jazz feet or crash ball running is still running. Whilst Burrel has some passing skills he doesnt have a real kicking game and it isnt what his form and the hype is based on. Putting him at 12 would be Hape and his hands "that do things no other player can" again. England what their 12 to be a kick passer.

Putting Burrell in at 12 would lead back to Goode at fullback in defence stepping up as the second playmaker in attack with the centers shunting along and Brown doing the fullback role. It was tried and rejected.

Not everyone can play every game.

How about the 36 Burrell partnership is persisted with or the 36 Tuillagi partnership actually given a chance before its rejected.

Why do people keep putting players in pigeon holes?

I've seen little to suggest 36 has better distribution than Burrell, if anything his passing has been worse.

hawalsh wrote:I don't really see what the argument is here regarding 36 & Burrell.  If Tuilagi gets back to his best over the next couple of months he will surely be given another opportunity in an England shirt during the summer, more than likely keeping hold of it.  Neither 36 or Burrell would deserve to be dropped without testing them inside Tuilagi (I think Burrell has certainly earnt an opportunity to play in his favoured 12 shirt at some point).  The best performing partnership from the summer then starts the AIs.

Completely agree, only a fool would decide to discard one of 36 or Burrell before seeing how they each go with Tuilagi.

Given how the AP table is shaping up it looks like 36 will get the first of the NZ tests.

2014-03-01

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why do people keep putting players in pigeon holes?

I've seen little to suggest 36 has better distribution than Burrell, if anything his passing has been worse.

Hows Burrels kicking game? Hows his eye for the options? Can he step into the Fly Half role? He simply cannot do what England need their 12 to do unless they reshape the way they play again.

Has his passing really been that great or are you just seeing what you want to? He would be asked to do less of what hes best at and shone for if he were moved to 12 and more of what hes merely decent at and some of what he is pretty poor at. Thats not pigeon holing its reality. He got into the side because of his running not his passing, thats why hes at 13 not 12. England dont want their 12 doing a lot of running but do want them to be able to execute the full range of options.

The level of Twelvetrees performances is being really twisted in some peoples heads too just because Burrell has jinked round a few defenders and picked some good lines. Now he has to play no matter what in any position.

Im sure by next week it will be Eastmond or Matt Smith or maybe Chicken thats flavour of the month. This has gone on for years, surely it HAS to be Joseph at 13? Turner Hall at 12? Tomkins? Id like to see rhubarb and custard as a combination.

New Zealand is not the pace to be going to "have a look" at a combination and experiment. Lancaster needs to lay his cards on the table and pick what he thinks are the best sides he can from whats available, as it is the season clash may force him into a bit of jiggery with the centers but really not just for the sake of trying to avoid getting beaten too badly but also developing a team from the squad they have to start identifying their first choice backs combinations and playing them when they can. It may be that they decide to change the philosophy again and go with Burrell Tuilagi, but if we continue to see the strides Englands back play has made in this years 6 nations I cant see them doing that. It will have to be a distributor and a runner, and Burrell is more the latter was the guy 36 was bought in to replace..barritt who can kick and pass a bit but was a bit pedestrian and best suited to a running game. I simply dont buy the logic of going back to that just because they have two guys who deserve to be playing a different role in the side.

I guess we will just have to disagree on how suited Burrell is to be the kind of 12 England currently look for. But you have to admit he isnt getting people in a tizzy through his passing, its his highlight reel breaks that has created this cult behind him.

Given our luck though, if that's what we need of one of our centres at least (or Goode at FB), 36 will get injured. We have to assume he will at some point. Do we revert to Goode at 15 (and Brown NOT on the wing, I think Goode at 15 could work fine if not perfectly with 2 genuine, decent positioning, quick wingers) or pick a 13 who can playmake and kick (Daly, then)? Also, can Eastmond kick out of hand?

First people were saying that Burrell couldn't play 13, now people are saying that he wouldn't be any good in his club position, 12.

If they've come to this conclusion based on how he's playing at 13, they should look back at his matches for Northampton at 12 over the last year on the premiership site.  You don't play every position the same, you also vary depending on the abilities of the players around you and more crucially how the coach wants you to play.

Twelevtrees and Burrell should and I think will at least get the rest of the 6N.  Then when Tuilagi is back playing at a level that demands selection, we look at him with both and see what our best option is based on how they perform.

The way Goode played today he should be at 10 and they can shunt Farrel back to 12   

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:2014-03-01

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why do people keep putting players in pigeon holes?

I've seen little to suggest 36 has better distribution than Burrell, if anything his passing has been worse.

Hows Burrels kicking game? Hows his eye for the options? Can he step into the Fly Half role? He simply cannot do what England need their 12 to do unless they reshape the way they play again.

Has his passing really been that great or are you just seeing what you want to? He would be asked to do less of what hes best at and shone for if he were moved to 12 and more of what hes merely decent at and some of what he is pretty poor at. Thats not pigeon holing its reality. He got into the side because of his running not his passing, thats why hes at 13 not 12. England dont want their 12 doing a lot of running but do want them to be able to execute the full range of options.

The level of Twelvetrees performances is being really twisted in some peoples heads too just because Burrell has jinked round a few defenders and picked some good lines. Now he has to play no matter what in any position.

Im sure by next week it will be Eastmond  or Matt Smith or maybe Chicken thats flavour of the month. This has gone on for years, surely it HAS to be Joseph at 13? Turner Hall at 12? Tomkins? Id like to see rhubarb and custard as a combination.

New Zealand is not the pace to be going to "have a look" at a combination and experiment. Lancaster needs to lay his cards on the table and pick what he thinks are the best sides he can from whats available, as it is the season clash may force him into a bit of jiggery with the centers but really not just for the sake of trying to avoid getting beaten too badly but also developing a team from the squad they have to start identifying their first choice backs combinations and playing them when they can. It may be that they decide to change the philosophy again and go with Burrell Tuilagi, but if we continue to see the strides Englands back play has made in this years 6 nations I cant see them doing that. It will have to be a distributor and a runner, and Burrell is more the latter was the guy 36 was bought in to replace..barritt who can kick and pass a bit but was a bit pedestrian and best suited to a running game. I simply dont buy the logic of going back to that just because they have two guys who deserve to be playing a different role in the side.

I guess we will just have to disagree on how suited Burrell is to be the kind of 12 England currently look for. But you have to admit he isnt getting people in a tizzy through his passing, its his highlight reel breaks that has created this cult behind him.

Is Twelvetrees?



Lancaster has stated that although he wants certain abilities in his centres, those aren't tied to specific shirt numbers like you suggest.

"That concept of inside, outside centre is a slightly outdated one for modern rugby.

"You need one guy to get you across the gain-line and one to act as a playmaker."

Whomever he classifies as capable of fulfilling those roles, it won't necessarily always be the 'playmaker' at 12.  For example, experience and ability to meet the different defensive demands of each channel, or what the opposition have there could also affect which shirt the centres get.

But then do we have a playmaker at 13?

True, but that still doesnt allow for Burrell Tuillagi unless one of them is going to be the playmaker and stop the running. I really dont think either is well suited to the role personally especially if it means sacrificing their best skill...breaking the gainline.
12 or 13 its still a playmaker and a gainelinebreaker, not two gainelinebreakers.

Its the still the same point, Im boring myself with it now

Actually didnt Fareel used to play at 13...how about we stick him out there and Goode at 10..Burrel at 10 and Tuillagi umm on the wing..he used to play there.

Sorted.

This is simpler than some are allowing for. On paper a playmaker like 12T and a direct runner like Manu who pulls in defenders, who breaks the line and who has a bit of pace is absolutely perfect. Which is why Stewie is investing so much time in the strategy. However that only works if the playmaker actually makes some play. 12T has had plenty of opportunity and has still not convinced. My feeling is there is little competition for IC, so let's stick with 12T in the short term. But he has shown too little so far to be a shoo in. Burrell and Manu should be given some chance.

I think the criticism of Twelvetrees is quite amusing. People can go on and on if they like, but he's actually playing quite well, he's key to the way England want to play (a second distributor, and someone who straightens the attack), and the coaches are happy with him. Twelvetrees will be first choice at IC probably until at least the WC now, unless SL and Catt decide they don't want a distributor in the centres. A couple of other points:

- Nobody I saying Burrell can't play IC, it's just he doesn't play IC the way the England coaches want their IC to play. However he carries the ball well and is a better distributor than Tuilagi so he may actually keep the latter out of the centres by holding the OC shirt.
- The idea Twelvetrees isn't a better distributor than Burrell? Er, well Twelvetrees is a competent FH, but does anyone think Burrell can play 10?

Essentially there s a load of confirmation bias going on here. Those that don't like 36 are fixating on him kicking the ball away once three games ago and a couple of dodgy passes in the other games and ignoring the fact he's actually going a lot of good things.

But it doesn't matter what people here think, he's going to hold the shirt. After-all, England are actually showing more threat in the backs than they have done for years and he's a key part of that.

nth wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:2014-03-01

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Why do people keep putting players in pigeon holes?

I've seen little to suggest 36 has better distribution than Burrell, if anything his passing has been worse.

Hows Burrels kicking game? Hows his eye for the options? Can he step into the Fly Half role? He simply cannot do what England need their 12 to do unless they reshape the way they play again.

Has his passing really been that great or are you just seeing what you want to? He would be asked to do less of what hes best at and shone for if he were moved to 12 and more of what hes merely decent at and some of what he is pretty poor at. Thats not pigeon holing its reality. He got into the side because of his running not his passing, thats why hes at 13 not 12. England dont want their 12 doing a lot of running but do want them to be able to execute the full range of options.

The level of Twelvetrees performances is being really twisted in some peoples heads too just because Burrell has jinked round a few defenders and picked some good lines. Now he has to play no matter what in any position.

Im sure by next week it will be Eastmond  or Matt Smith or maybe Chicken thats flavour of the month. This has gone on for years, surely it HAS to be Joseph at 13? Turner Hall at 12? Tomkins? Id like to see rhubarb and custard as a combination.

New Zealand is not the pace to be going to "have a look" at a combination and experiment. Lancaster needs to lay his cards on the table and pick what he thinks are the best sides he can from whats available, as it is the season clash may force him into a bit of jiggery with the centers but really not just for the sake of trying to avoid getting beaten too badly but also developing a team from the squad they have to start identifying their first choice backs combinations and playing them when they can. It may be that they decide to change the philosophy again and go with Burrell Tuilagi, but if we continue to see the strides Englands back play has made in this years 6 nations I cant see them doing that. It will have to be a distributor and a runner, and Burrell is more the latter was the guy 36 was bought in to replace..barritt who can kick and pass a bit but was a bit pedestrian and best suited to a running game. I simply dont buy the logic of going back to that just because they have two guys who deserve to be playing a different role in the side.

I guess we will just have to disagree on how suited Burrell is to be the kind of 12 England currently look for. But you have to admit he isnt getting people in a tizzy through his passing, its his highlight reel breaks that has created this cult behind him.

Is Twelvetrees?

No.

When 36 starts playing in an England shirt as the playmaker he is capable of being and has been in the past, we might be losing something in the playmaking stakes if we selected Burrell over him, but based on how they're currently performing there wouldn't be much of a drop in that regard.

If 36, Burrell and Tuilagi are going to be our primary centre options from here on, the likelihood is that injuries will lead to all three combinations of them featuring for England between now and the WC.  I don't think any of those combinations would let us down and the two new ones should be tested on the scheduling compromised summer tour.  Each offer something different and of value.

The more likely premiership finalists suggests we'll be looking at 36 and Tuilagi to start the summer tour.  I'd expect that combination to get the first two tests and then Burrell to be given his opportunity in the third.

The coaches have gone for Twelvetrees but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say they are building their backline strategy around him. It's not even clear he would have got the nod to start all these matches this season if Barritt hadn't been injured

I'm sure the coaches are all too aware of the risks of having our moves depend on a player with no obvious counterpart in the squad. Twelvetrees has yet to cement himself in the side, so it's very premature to talk about how essential he is as a playmaking twelve.

Lancaster still likes Alex Goode, and he'd probably be at fullback if Brown wasn't in such imperious form. Ford's emergence means we should be back to two regular tens in the starting 23.

We should remember that Bomber wants one of his World Cup centre selections to be able to cover wing. That's not going to be Barritt or Twelvetrees. Does he see Manu switching there? Perhaps he has Joseph or even Eastmond in mind for that role. Can Burrell make a fist of it on the wing?

DaveM, While I agree that 36 is the first choice 12 and deserves to stay on and having player like him is important to Lancaster's plan, I think you are being heavily guilty of bias too


I do not dislike 36 at all, but I have been disappointed. In the AIs, where he was poor in 2 games and good in one, I gave him the benefit of the doubt because we weren't attacking much, Farrell was playing deeper and Tomkins didn't help, but 36 still statistically didnt pass anywhere near enough and I suspected he was actually making life harder for Farrell. However, it was a new centre partnership, so ok.

Against Ireland, he was fine but he has genuinely been poor again against France and Scotland. He's just about started coming in at first receiver, which is great, but generally his handling has not been good enough and neither has his passing. I know he has these skills, but it's unfair to blame posters for chiding him when he is not showing the playmaking skills and basic handling skills you'd expect from him. I genuinely see more people here being Twelvetrees apologists than those I think are unfairly berating him.


Hopefully he improves things again and cements his place at 12 and he certainly has at least 3 games where he'll be playing there to do so, but at the moment I am wary about him.


As for a kicking game from 12, well if in the pre-Twelvetrees system Goode was expected to be the kicker backup, why can't one of the back 3, all having good boots, do that role again?

ChequeredJersey wrote:I do not dislike 36 at all, but I have been disappointed. In the AIs, where he was poor in 2 games and good in one, I gave him the benefit of the doubt because we weren't attacking much, Farrell was playing deeper and Tomkins didn't help, but 36 still statistically didnt pass anywhere near enough and I suspected he was actually making life harder for Farrell. However, it was a new centre partnership, so ok.

Against Ireland, he was fine but he has genuinely been poor again against France and Scotland. 

He wasn't poor against Scotland at all, nor was he poor in two games in the AIs. He played well against both Argentina and New Zealand after his shocker against Australia.

I would say that at times his instinct is to do too much himself - kick or straighten the line and crash the ball in - when he should be passing more, which is an odd fault for a 10/12 to have. On the whole though I think he has steadily improved and is starting to look more composed an authoritative on the pitch.

one things for sure, Manu won't be ready for next week. He's so off the pace in this game.

thomh wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I do not dislike 36 at all, but I have been disappointed. In the AIs, where he was poor in 2 games and good in one, I gave him the benefit of the doubt because we weren't attacking much, Farrell was playing deeper and Tomkins didn't help, but 36 still statistically didnt pass anywhere near enough and I suspected he was actually making life harder for Farrell. However, it was a new centre partnership, so ok.

Against Ireland, he was fine but he has genuinely been poor again against France and Scotland. 

He wasn't poor against Scotland at all, nor was he poor in two games in the AIs. He played well against both Argentina and New Zealand after his shocker against Australia.

I would say that at times his instinct is to do too much himself - kick or straighten the line and crash the ball in - when he should be passing more, which is an odd fault for a 10/12 to have. On the whole though I think he has steadily improved and is starting to look more composed an authoritative on the pitch.

Based on my memory, I respectfully disagree. Certainly he wasn't as bad as he was against France vs Scotland, but he was still underwhelming and from memory I thought he was poor vs New Zealand but might be mistaken

Fair enough. The consensus at the time was that NZ was his best game of the AIs but that isn't necessarily correct of course.

chjw131 comparing Conrad Smith to Billy Twelvetrees?  

PSW the 36-Tuilagi has already been tried, your own club tried it. It was not as effective as Allen-Tuilagi.

Thomh if NZ was supposedly Twelvetrees' best game it doesn't really say much about him. Both him and Tomkins struggled in my opinion. I still feel that Twelvetrees two best performances were vs Scotland, who happen to be the weakest opposition he has faced. Against stronger opposition he looks out of his depth.

DaveM I do think it's pretty laughable that you and others think Twelvetrees is a better 12 than Burrell. You say that England are showing more threat in the backs. The vast majority of that is not down to Twelvetrees, he is not been involved in any of the tries.


I suppose it depends what you want from your centres.

Personally I want attacking threats in the centres, people who will create opportunities. Twelvetrees might be a "playmaker" but he's created very few opportunities.

Burrell-Tuilagi might be more route one but I believe more would be able to create more attacking opportunities through raw power,pace,ability and running great lines.

Who do you believe is more likely to break the line and beat defenders?

This is why Brown is at 15 instead of Goode. Brown - beats more men and has made more impact despite Goode being a "playmaker".

I do not feel that adding more running threats into a backline like Burrell-Tuilagi would weaken the side because they are not "playmakers". You just adapt.

nathan wrote:one things for sure, Manu won't be ready for next week. He's so off the pace in this game.

Didnt stop them picking wilson

beshocked wrote:chjw131 comparing Conrad Smith to Billy Twelvetrees?  

PSW the 36-Tuilagi has already been tried, your own club tried it. It was not as effective as Allen-Tuilagi.

Thomh if NZ was supposedly Twelvetrees' best game it doesn't really say much about him. Both him and Tomkins struggled in my opinion. I still feel that Twelvetrees two best performances were vs Scotland, who happen to be the weakest opposition he has faced. Against stronger opposition he looks out of his depth.

DaveM I do think it's pretty laughable that you and others think Twelvetrees is a better 12 than Burrell. You say that England are showing more threat in the backs. The vast majority of that is not down to Twelvetrees, he is not been involved in any of the tries.


I suppose it depends what you want from your centres.

Personally I want attacking threats in the centres, people who will create opportunities. Twelvetrees might be a "playmaker" but he's created very few opportunities.

Burrell-Tuilagi might be more route one but I believe more would be able to create more attacking opportunities through raw power,pace,ability and running great lines.

Who do you believe is more likely to break the line and beat defenders?

This is why Brown is at 15 instead of Goode. Brown - beats more men and has made more impact despite Goode being a "playmaker".

I do not feel that adding more running threats into a backline like Burrell-Tuilagi would weaken the side because they are not "playmakers". You just adapt.

Wouldnt it be easier just to pick Vunipola at Scrum half?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

beshocked wrote:chjw131 comparing Conrad Smith to Billy Twelvetrees?  

PSW the 36-Tuilagi has already been tried, your own club tried it. It was not as effective as Allen-Tuilagi.

Thomh if NZ was supposedly Twelvetrees' best game it doesn't really say much about him. Both him and Tomkins struggled in my opinion. I still feel that Twelvetrees two best performances were vs Scotland, who happen to be the weakest opposition he has faced. Against stronger opposition he looks out of his depth.

DaveM I do think it's pretty laughable that you and others think Twelvetrees is a better 12 than Burrell. You say that England are showing more threat in the backs. The vast majority of that is not down to Twelvetrees, he is not been involved in any of the tries.


I suppose it depends what you want from your centres.

Personally I want attacking threats in the centres, people who will create opportunities. Twelvetrees might be a "playmaker" but he's created very few opportunities.

Burrell-Tuilagi might be more route one but I believe more would be able to create more attacking opportunities through raw power,pace,ability and running great lines.

Who do you believe is more likely to break the line and beat defenders?

This is why Brown is at 15 instead of Goode. Brown - beats more men and has made more impact despite Goode being a "playmaker".

I do not feel that adding more running threats into a backline like Burrell-Tuilagi would weaken the side because they are not "playmakers". You just adapt.

Wouldnt it be easier just to pick Vunipola at Scrum half?

Why? Neither Billy or Mako are scrum halves. What is the point of playing either of them there?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

nathan wrote:one things for sure, Manu won't be ready for next week. He's so off the pace in this game.

Didnt stop them picking wilson

Peter... where is that tongue in cheek icon when it is needed ?
England do seem desperate for good TH cover. In fact front row is where we are pretty vulnerable when the 2 first choice props are is sick bay.
Prop cover worries me the most.
Wings/ centres / combos and FB (when all candidates match fit) we have an embarrassment of choices.
In that sense we do not need to chance a non match fit candidate.

beshocked wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

beshocked wrote:chjw131 comparing Conrad Smith to Billy Twelvetrees?  

PSW the 36-Tuilagi has already been tried, your own club tried it. It was not as effective as Allen-Tuilagi.

Thomh if NZ was supposedly Twelvetrees' best game it doesn't really say much about him. Both him and Tomkins struggled in my opinion. I still feel that Twelvetrees two best performances were vs Scotland, who happen to be the weakest opposition he has faced. Against stronger opposition he looks out of his depth.

DaveM I do think it's pretty laughable that you and others think Twelvetrees is a better 12 than Burrell. You say that England are showing more threat in the backs. The vast majority of that is not down to Twelvetrees, he is not been involved in any of the tries.


I suppose it depends what you want from your centres.

Personally I want attacking threats in the centres, people who will create opportunities. Twelvetrees might be a "playmaker" but he's created very few opportunities.

Burrell-Tuilagi might be more route one but I believe more would be able to create more attacking opportunities through raw power,pace,ability and running great lines.

Who do you believe is more likely to break the line and beat defenders?

This is why Brown is at 15 instead of Goode. Brown - beats more men and has made more impact despite Goode being a "playmaker".

I do not feel that adding more running threats into a backline like Burrell-Tuilagi would weaken the side because they are not "playmakers". You just adapt.

Wouldnt it be easier just to pick Vunipola at Scrum half?

Why? Neither Billy or Mako are scrum halves. What is the point of playing either of them there?

Surely they can adapt their game? Isnt the most important thing to have linebreakers. Its surely pointless to try and pick a balanced side with a variety of skillsets and look to do ,more than just run the ball. These guys look way better on the highlights packages anyway

PSW I am just trying to understand how suggesting Burrell-Tuilagi centre partnership is similar to putting a Vunipola brother in the centres.

Burrell and Tuilagi - first and foremost are actually centres. Are you suggesting that neither have the skills to be centres?

You talk about balance. I agree balance is good but I think you underestimate both Burrell and Manu.

Manu showed the potential to be more creative with his awareness of his team mates vs NZ. Okay it's just one game but in that one match he showed he can offer more. If Nonu can improve his game so can Manu.

Burrell is underrated - his passing is solid, he's a good running threat and he runs excellent supporting lines.

Would you call Burrell-Pisi centre partnership for Saints creative?

When will Twelvetrees prove that the hype is warranted?

I wouldn't be massively surprised to see Tuilagi make the bench ahead of Goode so we may get the chance to see this quite shortly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I wouldn't be massively surprised to see Tuilagi make the bench ahead of Goode so we may get the chance to see this quite shortly.

I guess it depends on how he goes in training, but Tuilagi (mainly in defence) looked some way short of match fitness.

I may just be hoping someone replaces Goode.

I just wouldnt risk Manu at all.

Leave him with the Tiger.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I may just be hoping someone replaces Goode.

Said it before, Other options on the bench and field cover all positions Goode covers to a higher standard (well maybe(!) not FH but that is a whole other debate) so it would be great to have an impact player/ someone we want to have a look at. Especially great if they could actually run fast and/or offer some kind of threat too. So that for me means Eastmond, Watson or Daly, given that its way too soon for Manu.

I am also looking forward to Dickson not getting on the pitch again.

I'm not totally against Goode but the only position he would realistically cover at international level is full back which would mean either Brown gets injured (shudder) or we have to move Brown to wing (awful for the team).

no 7 & 1/2 Goode showed he could potentially cover at 10 by outperforming Ford on the weekend.

Ha. No.

Why do you say that? Goode is a better place kicker than Ford. More attacking than Ford. Better defender. More experienced.

The only area Ford wins is kicking from hand - he is very good at that.

Well i watched up until 9 as the missus wanted to watch Jonathan Creek (why I married her i don't know) and Ford was the better up until that point bar place kicking which is the one area holding him back a lot. Other than that though Ford is a much better 10.

Add to that there we're looking to give experience to another fly half and you've said yourself that we shouldn't consider people who don't play the same position for their club.

I suppose it depends what you mean by better.... with over 60% of territory and possession you would expect more from your 10 than just one penalty kick and a penalty try (from the pack).

Especially with the Bath pack doing very well in the set piece.

Goode with less possession,territory and opportunities did very well. This was summed up with him nailing a lovely drop goal in Sarries' rare time in the Bath half.

Didn't see the drop goal beshocked. If he's better than Ford he's being wasted at Sarries, I don't think he is though. Presumably you would agree that England need to blood another 10 though in case something happens to Farrell and Goode wouldn't be considered for this at present or near future, therefore I would still have a recognised 10 on the bench and personally would be dropping Goode from the bench altogether.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm not totally against Goode but the only position he would realistically cover at international level is full back which would mean either Brown gets injured (shudder) or we have to move Brown to wing (awful for the team).

Wouldn't you think that when Foden is back and firing (his cameo on Saturday was quite good, but has a ways to go), then we have Foden covering Brown?

To me the back cover needs to be a 9 and 10 the remaining back on the bench needs to be able to cover (along with the starters) the rest. Not a fan of temp cover for 10 like we had against france and Scotland. In the future if he gets back to his best Foden would be great cover for 15, wing and even outside centre.

Goode has looked like he could be a great FH, but he doesnt play there very often.

I am sure Beshocked can correct me, but as a young player at Sarries I am sure it was stated that the aim was to move him up from FB as he matured (was he at 10 to Ben youngs 9 for the U20s?). However it never really happened and now with Farrell and Hodgson at the Barnet club is unlikely to ever happen.