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)

In that case you should be blaming Yarde and Wade for getting injured, meaning Lancaster had to pick May . . .

Any wingers could have started against France and if they'd have had the 2 bounces from kick throughs would have struggled.

Actually ity is Manu's fault.

Nowell and May were both selected because Wade and Yarde were injured.
Sod's Law dictates that because we needed two new wingers - both would get injured.
We would have only needed one new winger if Ashton's form was not so bad for England.
It has been this way ever since he was banned for hair pulling.
Which he did because he was still angry about Manu's sucker punches in the game the previous season.

so neatly brings us back to Manu, if he had not punched Ashton, we would have beaten France.

so neatly brings us back to Manu, if he had not punched Ashton, we would have beaten France

More girly tickles than punches as well!!

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I dont hate Tigers?

You sound unsure. Any way:

Nobody loves us, everybody hates us
Think we'll go and eat worms
Long ones, short ones, fat ones, thin ones
See how they wriggle and squirm

Same as England, then.

And the Sarries for that matter - but they brought it on themselves.  

Whatever. If you cannot see that Lancaster's selections and decisions during the match cost us dear vs France you cannot be helped.

Ultimately Lancaster should have taken responsibility for the loss. Something he did not. Something I am still very annoyed with as it cost England a good chance at a GS.

Jelly he didn't have to pick May. He chose to. A decision made by Lancaster.

The only selection error Lancaster made, and this is very much in hindsight, is Goode on the bench. Ideally Watson/Ashton/Strettle/any winger at all would have been better. At the time though the steadying hand of Goode seemed sensible and provided cover at full back as well.

beshocked wrote:Whatever. If you cannot see that Lancaster's selections and decisions during the match cost us dear vs France you cannot be helped.

Ultimately Lancaster should have taken responsibility for the loss. Something he did not. Something I am still very annoyed with as it cost England a good chance at a GS.

Jelly he didn't have to pick May. He chose to. A decision made by Lancaster.

How can you say picking MAy cost Englnad the game? Thats whats confusing people. He couldve picked Chuck Norris or Ashton and it wouldnt have mattered if hed got face broken.
Blame him for picking Goode and Nowell, those are the guys whos p tackling and errors cost the game.
Its this insistence that picking May was a mistake because he got injured that people dont get, that couldve happened to any player. Its not even like he was carrying a broken noise into the game or had an abnormally large hooter.

beshocked wrote:Whatever. If you cannot see that Lancaster's selections and decisions during the match cost us dear vs France you cannot be helped.

Ultimately Lancaster should have taken responsibility for the loss. Something he did not. Something I am still very annoyed with as it cost England a good chance at a GS.

Jelly he didn't have to pick May. He chose to. A decision made by Lancaster.

See there you go again blaming May for the loss. Do you blame assault victims for being in the wrong place? Hell if Owen Farrell had not got cramp, Barritt would not have been covering his channel, and Fickou would have had less space to run into - is it Farrell's fault, no. Just as it was not Mays fault, nor indeed Nowell's. Hell while we are at it, why not blame the ball makers because of the funny bounces.

You think you are angry? You should see me right now. So many things I would love to say about your attitude. I will not see the reply as though you write a lot of good, and impassioned stuff, you also write a lot of EXPLETIVE DELETED. Foes list comes into play again, and my blood pressure will normalise

7½,
That doesn't explain why SL left us without fly-half cover for two games. Those decisions resulted in us not being going to France seeking a slam imo.

That plus not granting due deference to Ford and his need for game time.

Again in hindsight Portnoy we had used all the subs by the time Farrell got cramp. Nowell signalled to the bench he had felt a twinge in his hamstring; who do you leave on? The bench is a balance and I understood Goode and Barritt being there for France at the time.

Man with important job gets injured while doing that job exactly as he is told to

The rest of his team are unable to cover for his loss as the organisation hasn't had a contingency plan with someone else at least partly qualified to cover his skills

Company loses money, man gets fired for getting injured doing his job

I wonder how this would go in the courts? Would the man be blamed or would he sue the company for squillions for unfair dismissal

Londontiger I apologise. I am just still annoyed we lost.

I will acknowledge I was wrong to say it was May's fault. Injuries happen but they can have important consequences which it did in this case.

I personally felt the decision to pick two inexperienced wingers was the wrong decision.

Should have Goode been on the bench? Well in hindsight probably not no. Perhaps Watson and Ford should have been on the bench but that would have meant even more inexperience in the team.

Do I think Care and Hartley should have been taken off? No I don't.

Ultimately I hold Lancaster responsible. Lancaster and England were put in a tough decision due to the injury to Wade and Yarde but despite that England should have beaten France.

beshocked wrote:Whatever. If you cannot see that Lancaster's selections and decisions during the match cost us dear vs France you cannot be helped.

Ultimately Lancaster should have taken responsibility for the loss. Something he did not. Something I am still very annoyed with as it cost England a good chance at a GS.

Jelly he didn't have to pick May. He chose to. A decision made by Lancaster.

So much of that posting is rubbish (as has been pointed out by others before you go off on one at me), it's difficult to know where to start with it, so I wont. Lancaster did carry the can for the loss by the way, and he has never been anything but forthright in his analysis of England's performances. It's quite refreshing actually, when you think that we were subjected to the tired rhetoric Borthwick used to spout after every (frequent) loss when he was captain.

I think we can agree that the balance of the team on the field and the bench was a bit screwy, but that does partly go down to injuries and long term development trajectory meaning he had the wrong players to pick from in the first place.

I had expected to see Strettle recalled tbh, or reverting back to Goode Brown as starters.

Can we say either would have been a bigger mistake? Who knows. But yes, I was gast flabbered by the side that was put out, and what happened in the first 20 minutes ( England flapping like headless chickens) was utterly predictable.

Whats happend since though is gradual improvement into a style thats working, still some question on Nowell at this level but Foden offers a Lions Class like for like replacement when fit. May as a strike winger ...well jurys still out on that one. Im not as down on him as others are, but again theres the likes of Yarde waiting to take his place. Maybe Tuillagis aggression on the wing would add that x factor, I certainly wouldnt want to be an opposition winger running full tilt and getting lined up by him.

It may have blown the title but its not been a disaster and we can see how the side can keep this formation but improve with other players.

beshocked wrote:So jbeadlesbrighthand you would have picked yet another inexperienced winger on the bench even though the two on the pitch arguably cost us the match?

Would I definitely have had Watson on the bench? Maybe, maybe not. What I wouldn't have done, however, is pick a combination of Dickson, Barritt and Goode. Personally, I don't think Goode is international quality, at least not as a full back. Very classy player, no doubt, but lacking pace, and without the step or strength to make up for it. On balance, I also wouldn't have had Ashton there, for reasons stated previously.

Also, Lancaster's selection of two inexperienced wingers didn't cost us the match. May's injury had nothing to do with his inexperience - you're conflating two separate points. The only case you could make is that a combination of inexperience, new combinations, bad luck with injuries and a weak bench cost us the match. I'm not sure how much of that I'd lay at Lancaster's door, given the injuries in the squad.

With the power of hindsight, I don't see how you can say that having Ashton on the bench would have made a difference. If we'd brought him on instead of Goode, would France still have scored the try at the end (ignoring the butterfly effect brought about by the different personnel)?

Jimpy I am sorry but that's wrong. Lancaster did not accept responsbility for mistakes he made. I would happily acknowledge your point if you find a quote to prove it.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/feb/03/stuart-lancaster-england-france-six-nations

Borthwick's post match comments but were uninspiring cannot argue with that. Not sure why you need to mention them though.

PSW I agree Lancaster in general has done a decent job but in this case Lancaster got it wrong. I can see the way England is progressing and that's down to Lancaster but not everything has worked.

I wouldn't have had Ashton on the bench jbeadlesbrighthand. I would have started him.

The way to combat a lack of experience, new combinations etc is pick more experience.

I still think there was a pretty good case for Ashton starting ahead of Nowell. Plus I am not sure Nowell has really answered the critics.

Yes, if we wanted to give Picamoles a red carpet to the line, Ashton would have been ideal in place of Nowell

BamBam wrote:Yes, if we wanted to give Picamoles a red carpet to the line, Ashton would have been ideal in place of Nowell

I was going to mention that too. Nowell made 10 tackles that game. Would Ashton have done the same? Swings and roundabouts.

Sometimes the bounce of the ball can make a monkey out of any player.

That's fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion. You believe Nowell did a sufficient enough job. I don't.

You wouldn't, because the alternative would have been a Saracens player

Its funny how the blame has gone from May breaking his nose on purpose to Lancaster not starting Ashton to Nowell for being beaten by a bouncing ball

No mention of Goode's utterly pathetic attempt to tackle Huget (can't think why)

What did Nowell do that was so bad in that game? Dropped a ball that was more Launchburys fault for not claiming? Couldn't judge the bounce of a rugby ball?

He didn't play for Saracens at the time obviously, or failing that he wasn't Chris Ashton

Bambam no that's not true. Marler has done a good job. Twelvetrees has at last proven that he deserves the 12 shirt. Brown obviously deserves to be ahead of Goode.

Just because I happen to think one Saracens player should start it's because of bias?

If Nowell had a good 6 nations I would acknowledge it. He has not.

Don't need to mention Goode - you and others deride him enough.

I never said May broke his nose on purpose. I said his injury had a significant consequence on the game due to the subsequent imbalance of the back three.

no 7 & 1/2 Nowell's lack of communication. I don't care who picks up the ball - it was the mix up between him and Launchbury that mean it was a knock on.Again miscommunication between Goode and Nowell meant neither caught the ball which allowed France to score.

Lack of communication?! What communication failure has Nowell had in either instance? Should it be him shouting to Launchbury you messed up your lift and you're not far enough back? Personally that's Lauchburys and the forwards lifting him at fault. For the other it really should be the full back calling the shots but a bounce took them out anyway.

BamBam wrote:He didn't play for Saracens at the time obviously, or failing that he wasn't Chris Ashton

Nowell cannot score tries. Perhaps that's not a problem for you but I want wingers in the side who can score tries.

beshocked wrote:Bambam no that's not true. Marler has done a good job. Twelvetrees has at last proven that he deserves the 12 shirt. Brown obviously deserves to be ahead of Goode.

Just because I happen to think one Saracens player should start it's because of bias?

If Nowell had a good 6 nations I would acknowledge it. He has not.

Don't need to mention Goode - you and others deride him enough.

I never said May broke his nose on purpose. I said his injury had a significant consequence on the game due to the subsequent imbalance of the back three.

no 7 & 1/2 Nowell's lack of communication. I don't care who picks up the ball - it was the mix up between him and Launchbury that mean it was a knock on.Again miscommunication between Goode and Nowell meant neither caught the ball which allowed France to score.

Really? Actually I think most people think he's had a fairly solid (if unspectacular) debut and has improved game by game. He's cost a few points, but hardly cost matches and whether Ashton in his form would have performed any better is more than debateable. I'd hang on to Nowell for now, the boy has done well enough and it'll be sad sad day when we criticise a winger for not having scored an international try in four whole matches (ooo scary monsters). Ashton's record is hardly stellar in that department.

Yes, Ashton has scored so many tries over his last 20 caps that he was surely undroppable

I can't believe you blame Nowell for the "lack of communication" when surely it is the full back's job as he is coming on to the ball. This is a moot point, as it wouldn't have been a problem had Goode been able to tackle a paper bag, so there is a definite need to mention Goode.

Are you sure Twelvetrees has done enough? Barritt is still capable of doing everything he does right?
Funny how there's no need to mention Goode as others deride him enough,

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Bambam no that's not true. Marler has done a good job. Twelvetrees has at last proven that he deserves the 12 shirt. Brown obviously deserves to be ahead of Goode.

Just because I happen to think one Saracens player should start it's because of bias?

If Nowell had a good 6 nations I would acknowledge it. He has not.

Don't need to mention Goode - you and others deride him enough.

I never said May broke his nose on purpose. I said his injury had a significant consequence on the game due to the subsequent imbalance of the back three.

no 7 & 1/2 Nowell's lack of communication. I don't care who picks up the ball - it was the mix up between him and Launchbury that mean it was a knock on.Again miscommunication between Goode and Nowell meant neither caught the ball which allowed France to score.

Really? Actually I think most people think he's had a fairly solid (if unspectacular) debut and has improved game by game. He's cost a few points, but hardly cost matches and whether Ashton in his form would have performed any better is more than debateable. I'd hang on to Nowell for now, the boy has done well enough and it'll be sad sad day when we criticise a winger for not having scored an international try in four matches. Ashton's record is hardly stellar in that department.

Oh come on Jimpy.

Nowell has a try ratio of 0%. 0 in 4 matches,no tries this season. He has no track record of scoring tries. If you take his whole AP career it is 2 in 16 - 1 in 8 games. Include the HC games and it gets worse.

Ashton has a decent overall track record in scoring tries. In the finishing department there is no comparison.

Ashton pre Tuilagi hair pull: 18 starts 15 tries.
Post 19 starts 3 tries.

Add in the ever increasing defensive frailties and that is why he had to be left out.

It is unfair to single out Goode, just as it is unfair to single out Nowell. In fact Ben Morgan and Jonny May were the only players who statistically made zero mistakes.

Nowell offers little threat tbh, SL just wanted a solid option that would break tackles every now and again.

He won't keep his place once Wade/Yarde come back firing.

BamBam wrote:Yes, Ashton has scored so many tries over his last 20 caps that he was surely undroppable

I can't believe you blame Nowell for the "lack of communication" when surely it is the full back's job as he is coming on to the ball. This is a moot point, as it wouldn't have been a problem had Goode been able to tackle a paper bag, so there is a definite need to mention Goode.

Are you sure Twelvetrees has done enough? Barritt is still capable of doing everything he does right?
Funny how there's no need to mention Goode as others deride him enough,

Bambam I would say that Ashton has not had the easiest time due to the lack of ball.

You say it's the full back's job - was Goode the full back at the time? You had 3 players who could play full back in that back three who had that role at the time? Someone should have picked up the ball - you can say - oh well it wasn't Nowell's fault. He was as culpable as Goode. Nowell was there - he could have caught the ball. He did not.

The bounce of a rugby ball. Yes any of them could have caught it but it fell nicely for the winger.

Twice.

LondonTiger wrote:Ashton pre Tuilagi hair pull: 18 starts 15 tries.
Post 19 starts 3 tries.

Add in the ever increasing defensive frailties and that is why he had to be left out.

It is unfair to single out Goode, just as it is unfair to single out Nowell. In fact Ben Morgan and Jonny May were the only players who statistically made zero mistakes.

You are right it's probably unfair to single out Goode or Nowell. I ultimately blame Lancaster. There were a few mistakes England made and Lancaster could have at least prevented one of them from happening you would think by either selection issues and how he used his bench options.

We will have to agree to disagree about Nowell. I don't think he is blameless but no he was not the sole reason England lost.

Goode should get some criticism of course but equally BamBam you should accept he was not solely to blame for the England loss.

i have a real soft spot for Nowell. He is very brave. I loved watching both his games for Exeter against the Toulon giants.

Yes occasionally he has gotten isolated for England, but that's happening less for all 3 backs now they support each others lines a bit better.

he has dropped a single ball which should have been caught by launchbury.

has has made some really important big tackles on picamoles et al. He missed less against George North on Sunday than Robshaw did which merely shows how hard it is for the first man to stop North.

But the boy is only 20. Has a huge heart, will never give anything other than 100%. And i always have a little bit of excitement every time he counter-attacks. He has been involved in some of England's very best counter attacking play.

i cant think of any wingers in this 6N (am sure i am forgetting some) who have scored against the big teams by going around the outside. So i dont think that is a valid criticism of either Nowell or May. Huget has scored 2 or 3 kick chases and an interception, and other wingers have scored when cutting inside - Trimble, North, Kearney at FB.

I think both May and Nowell have done really really well given the circumstances. Both getting first caps vs France is not what i would call a measured intro to test rugby!

beshocked wrote:That's fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion. You believe Nowell did a sufficient enough job. I don't.

I believe that Nowell showed strengths in areas that Ashton is known to be weak in (e.g. tackling for one). I believe that had Ashton played the overall result would have been similar but the 'errors' would have been different.

I dont think just bringing in 'experience' for its own sake is always enough - England managed to prove that twice this championship.

You could just as easily blame Goode for his complete lack of tackling when he came on for the loss - but that wouldnt have meant that it was his fault, because the biggest reason in my mind (and plenty others) is the poor bench choice, and the second biggest is pulling off Care in particular and probably Hartley also.

(I'd add that I thought Tom Youngs had a very positive impact on the Wales game when he came on.)

lost - totally agree re tom youngs on sunday. he made some huge hits in and around the ruck and first contact area in the last 10 mins. seriously rocked some of the welsh forwards back onto their heels.

i would love to see him push for hartley's spot again as they are both great hookers with differing, but both very useful, styles.

Really quinsforever? I thought North brushed off Nowell at one point as if he was a flea.

Giving both first caps vs France away from home certainly is not a particularly intelligent move. Agreed.

lostinwales I would think you'll find that Goode has got an awful lot more criticism than Nowell. Is some of the criticism warranted? Yes - it is disproportionate? I believe so.

People scrutinise Ashton's tackling more because they see it as a weakness. If other players miss tackles they are sometimes ignored.

Armchair fans have their scapegoats. Goode took that mantle off Ashton. Priestland has that role for Wales etc.

Quins

Brown's try v France was with him playing as the winger, and was pretty much in the corner (although from recollection he had to power through the defenders.

Nowell is an interesting one - he's done some pretty good things and a few not very good ones. Re-watching Sunday's game, he was probably a bit more solid than I initially gave him credit for, but he did struggle a couple of times around the breakdown. He has the potential to be a very good player and he does seem to be improving his decision making game by game, but he just looks a bit green for the level he is playing at. I don't really hold the dropped kick-off v France against him, as Launchbury should have dealt with it and if not it should have been another forward (Billy V?) covering behind. Lets be honest though, he is probably about 4th or 5th choice winger if everyone is fit.

beshocked wrote:

BamBam wrote:Yes, Ashton has scored so many tries over his last 20 caps that he was surely undroppable

I can't believe you blame Nowell for the "lack of communication" when surely it is the full back's job as he is coming on to the ball. This is a moot point, as it wouldn't have been a problem had Goode been able to tackle a paper bag, so there is a definite need to mention Goode.

Are you sure Twelvetrees has done enough? Barritt is still capable of doing everything he does right?
Funny how there's no need to mention Goode as others deride him enough,

Bambam I would say that Ashton has not had the easiest time due to the lack of ball.

You say it's the full back's job - was Goode the full back at the time? You had 3 players who could play full back in that back three who had that role at the time? Someone should have picked up the ball - you can say - oh well it wasn't Nowell's fault. He was as culpable as Goode. Nowell was there - he could have caught the ball. He did not.

I dont want to get in to the arguement really as i think Ashton can bring a lot to this England team...but i also rate Nowell and May.

I would say that still goes for the current wingers. They have probably received more ball, but i would say bar a few times, its mostly in areas with plenty of defenders , hence why May has resorted to quite a bit of side running rather than straight.

Ashton is by no means out of contention and i fully expect him to go to NZ. Its going to be quite a battle between the wingers...

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Bambam no that's not true. Marler has done a good job. Twelvetrees has at last proven that he deserves the 12 shirt. Brown obviously deserves to be ahead of Goode.

Just because I happen to think one Saracens player should start it's because of bias?

If Nowell had a good 6 nations I would acknowledge it. He has not.

Don't need to mention Goode - you and others deride him enough.

I never said May broke his nose on purpose. I said his injury had a significant consequence on the game due to the subsequent imbalance of the back three.

no 7 & 1/2 Nowell's lack of communication. I don't care who picks up the ball - it was the mix up between him and Launchbury that mean it was a knock on.Again miscommunication between Goode and Nowell meant neither caught the ball which allowed France to score.

Really? Actually I think most people think he's had a fairly solid (if unspectacular) debut and has improved game by game. He's cost a few points, but hardly cost matches and whether Ashton in his form would have performed any better is more than debateable. I'd hang on to Nowell for now, the boy has done well enough and it'll be sad sad day when we criticise a winger for not having scored an international try in four matches. Ashton's record is hardly stellar in that department.

Oh come on Jimpy.

Nowell has a try ratio of 0%. 0 in 4 matches,no tries this season. He has no track record of scoring tries. If you take his whole AP career it is 2 in 16  - 1 in 8 games. Include the HC games and it gets worse.

Ashton has a decent overall track record in scoring tries. In the finishing department there is no comparison.

Have you seen his latest stats? There isn't much difference to be honest. Plus he tackles ten times better than Ashton. And he doesn't pull hair.

North also brushed off Robshaw like a flea. However, George North doesnt make many yards, even though he breaks lots of tackles, because he almost stops every time he rolls a tackler back. so he loses all his momentum, and even though he rolls the tackler backwards, he then gets swamped by tacklers 2, 3 and 4.

so i actually think being the first tackler beaten by North, while showing up in missed tackles statistics, was hardly damaging at all against england for either robshaw or nowell.

nowell did completely miss cuthbert after a good kick chase to the corner when he charged in just a fraction too quickly and got stepped. but i am sure he will know better next time. i'd rather players miss tackles on the opposition tryline than our tryline

dummy_half wrote:Quins

Brown's try v France was with him playing as the winger, and was pretty much in the corner (although from recollection he had to power through the defenders.

Nowell is an interesting one - he's done some pretty good things and a few not very good ones. Re-watching Sunday's game, he was probably a bit more solid than I initially gave him credit for, but he did struggle a couple of times around the breakdown. He has the potential to be a very good player and he does seem to be improving his decision making game by game, but he just looks a bit green for the level he is playing at. I don't really hold the dropped kick-off v France against him, as Launchbury should have dealt with it and if not it should have been another forward (Billy V?) covering behind. Lets be honest though, he is probably about 4th or 5th choice winger if everyone is fit.

knew i have forgotten about some tries...had definitely forgotten brown was on the wing at that point.

i did cringe when nowell got absolutely rucked backwards when he was trying to contest after may had gone to ground. Jamie Roberts and AWJ definitely a bit much for nowell!

Jimpy not much difference? 0 is still 0. Nowell should have an opportunity vs Italy to get on the scoresheet though.

quinsforever wrote:

i did cringe when nowell got absolutely rucked backwards when he was trying to contest after may had gone to ground. Jamie Roberts and AWJ definitely a bit much for nowell!

Got to give Nowell some kudos for trying to do the right thing. Just wasn't very effective. And to be fair, May should have passed him the ball about 10 yards previously as it looked like he had some running room on the outside. Heck even having Nowell be the guy taking the ball into contact and May doing the rucking is a better option.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy not much difference? 0 is still 0. Nowell should have an opportunity vs Italy to get on the scoresheet though.

Hopefully, but the lack of a try scoring winger is hardly a handicap when the centres are creating and scoring for fun, the FB can part the Red Sea and the pack are carrying so well.

beshocked wrote:

BamBam wrote:Yes, Ashton has scored so many tries over his last 20 caps that he was surely undroppable

I can't believe you blame Nowell for the "lack of communication" when surely it is the full back's job as he is coming on to the ball. This is a moot point, as it wouldn't have been a problem had Goode been able to tackle a paper bag, so there is a definite need to mention Goode.

Are you sure Twelvetrees has done enough? Barritt is still capable of doing everything he does right?
Funny how there's no need to mention Goode as others deride him enough,

Bambam I would say that Ashton has not had the easiest time due to the lack of ball.

You say it's the full back's job - was Goode the full back at the time? You had 3 players who could play full back in that back three who had that role at the time? Someone should have picked up the ball - you can say - oh well it wasn't Nowell's fault. He was as culpable as Goode. Nowell was there - he could have caught the ball. He did not.

Nope, Goode wasn't the full back, he was trailing behind Huget having completely missed his tackle while having the touchline to help, it was Brown at FB

The ball bounced before Nowell or Brown got there. If possible I would line up any top class back 3 player in rugby, boot the ball up in the air and force them to let it bounce once before collecting with the opposition bearing down on them, then count how many of them are actually capable of gathering it fifirst time.

That is the reason for the cliché "the bounce of a rugby ball"

The try was ultimately a result of Goode failing to stop Huget going round the outside, or even before that, the turnover that I think was the fault of Twelvetrees, but don't hold me to that. By the time Nowell and Brown were involved we were already in deep doo doo

Though why Goode was defending wing and not Brown (not ideal at wing but surely better to have there with Goode at FB?!) is beyond me