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)

Jimpy wrote:

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.

Wingers do not score many tries in this team. I posted the leading try scorers in Lancaster's reign earlier in the thread, three centres, two scrum halves and one winger:

Manu 6
Care 4
Ashton, Burrell, Twelvetrees, Youngs 3

LondonTiger wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

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.

Wingers do not score many tries in this team. I posted the leading try scorers in Lancaster's reign earlier in the thread, three centres, two scrum halves and one winger:

Manu 6
Care 4
Ashton, Burrell, Twelvetrees, Youngs 3

So we can all agree that Nowell not scoring tries isn't reason enough to exclude him.

I can't believe the amount of noise this discussion has generated.

Mistakes were made in Paris. Mistakes are made in every game. Usually you get away with a few. This time England didn't and they had some bad luck, too. Take the bounce of the ball for the first try. After Ireland, we now know just what Brown is capable of in stopping an unexpected ball. It puts in perspective just how bad that bounce was. May breaking his nose was unfortunate and damaged the team's shape.

The way Lancaster used his subs was a mistake, and one he has learned from. Selecting May and Nowell in the first place wasn't. May's been in form and on the fringes for some time, so no problem there as there wasn't really a better option.

Nowell is more controversial, but compare Nowell's performance in Paris (his first cap, and his worst) with Ashton's performance against the All Blacks in the AIs. Ashton's a seasoned international now, but I don't think even beshocked could argue that that was a vintage performance. I also think that Nowell's efforts on his first cap were at least on a par with that. There's no real reason to believe that Ashton would have coped better overall (though he may have been less likely to drop the kick off)

Poorfour

First French try, off a deflected kick, no-one knows how it will bounce. Could just as easily have shot across to where Brown was standing on the wing and given him an unopposed length of the field run-in. Second try I think the main criticism should be of Goode for letting Huget get outside him and kick through; the bounce back over Nowell and Goode's heads was again just one of those things.

Even in Paris, after a shaky first 20 minutes, Nowell settled to his task and did OK in the main. His performances are improving, but it is a bit of a case of for every 2 good things he does, he makes one mistake. Now, whether we had anyone available for selection that would have done better is a debating point - agree with the comments that Ashton might have played very well with the attacking patterns England have created, and is a proven finisher, but he would have made different mistakes and probably missed more tackles. On balance, any better than Nowell? can't really say, more just a case of being different.

Beshocked, notice I said capable 15s not capable international 15s. They have experience in the position at AP level and can do the job if Brown got injured.

If Brown were injured prior to the game and Foden was out, I would have no problem starting Goode. Just do not think he makes a balanced replacement as he only covers 15. I would warrant that May has played more full back AP games than Goode has at 10 and to a good standard.

Cueto is a winger, but he can again cover 15 and 13 to a good standard. All the "has beens" I mentioned can cover more than one position at a high level, Goode cannot. I would sooner bring on Dickson and play Care at 10 rather than let Goode play there at International level.

Goode is very good club player and an adequate international 15. But he telegraphs everything he does and is too predictable for an international 10. Even Sarries only use him there in an absolute emergency preferring their third of fourth choice 10s to him.

Well-past it Nowell hasn't got much experience in general.

When did May last play 15?

I don't think you need me to tell you when Goode last played at 10 - outplaying the current 2nd choice England 10 to win a crucial match - 2nd vs 3rd.

Did you know that Goode is one of the best place kickers in England?

It's unfair to judge Goode at 10 for England because he's not played there for England. Funnily enough Goode has as much if not more experience as a 10 than Nowell on the wing/full back did before England threw Nowell in against France.

can we please move on from the Goode debate. He isnt even on the bench and SL stated clearly that Nowell/May can cover 15 should the need arise, which makes it pretty clear SL has no plans for Goode any more.

quinsforever let's hope that Nowell/May don't become the next Monye at 15 if moved there.

I just find it funny that some of you are so confident these two players can cover adequately at full back when they haven't convinced on the wing.

Personally think Nowell is a full back but he's doing a good job holding the fort on the right.

And Goode didn't outplay Ford!

May and NOwell

They are the two thorns and Brown is the rose.

Nowell does a lot of hitch kicking and is a mess in the tackle area, no real impact. May, well, he makes huge distances, sideways.

Fact is, Brown has down so well at 15 the whole back 3 unit has benefited,

Soon as Manu, Yarde and Wade are back in the mix you'll forget these fill ins PDQ.

Beshocked, your not Goode's mother are you, you defend him like a mother hen.

He is a good 15, probably the third best in the country (English anyway). I did not see the Bath game, I was in Mexico, not a big rugby country but even if he is a reliable 10, he is not needed there as we have 36 playing alongside Farrell who is playing 50% of his time at 10 at AP level and played there as second choice behind Flood for Tigers. Goode is therefore an unnecessary luxury on the bench as unless it is Brown that gets injured he upsets the balance of the rest of the side when he comes on. A winger/fullback or centre/winger is a much more balanced option.

I have nothing against him as a player at 15, until Brown hit his current form with Foden injured I would not have complained too loudly if he was first choice, but he is just to one dimensional for a bench option, he is a starter or not at all.

Scratch wrote:May and NOwell

They are the two thorns and Brown is the rose.

Nowell does a lot of hitch kicking and is a mess in the tackle area, no real impact. May, well, he makes huge distances, sideways.

Fact is, Brown has down so well at 15 the whole back 3 unit has benefited,

Soon as Manu, Yarde and Wade are back in the mix you'll forget these fill ins PDQ.

See, this is what happens when you have the rugby on the TV but keep your eyes closed during the coverage.

Nowell has has made some really important big tackles, such as on Picamoles and North (and they werent the only ones). He's a natural full back which meant he was able to field aimless Welsh kicking (pretty much all of it on Sunday) when Brown was up field having been involved in an attack - in other words, his positional play has been good too. He has made mistakes of course, but he has improved game by game and has proved an able stop gap (nobody is suggesting he has a permanent place in the team).

No 7&1/2 wrote:Personally think Nowell is a full back but he's doing a good job holding the fort on the right.

And Goode didn't outplay Ford!

no 7 & 1/2 yes he did. It might help if you actually watched the match. Only need to look at the score line - Goode was involved in all the Sarries points.

Sweet drop goal, nailing every place kick, being involved in the two Saracens tries vs missing a simple penalty shot at goal, labouring in attacking despite having over 60% possession and territory. Ford was okay but he was outplayed by his opposite number.

With your twisted logic you probably thought that Priestland outplayed Farrell on the weekend.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outplayed

Well apart from the skill and technique. I'll accept scoring more points but not something I would use personally to (solely) judge players on. I watched for 60 mintues and he definately wasn't outplayed by Goode.

I guess we won't agree until Ford puts in a performance for England though.

Jimpy wrote:

Scratch wrote:May and NOwell

They are the two thorns and Brown is the rose.

Nowell does a lot of hitch kicking and is a mess in the tackle area, no real impact. May, well, he makes huge distances, sideways.

Fact is, Brown has down so well at 15 the whole back 3 unit has benefited,

Soon as Manu, Yarde and Wade are back in the mix you'll forget these fill ins PDQ.

See, this is what happens when you have the rugby on the TV but keep your eyes closed during the coverage.

Nowell has has made some really important big tackles, such as on Picamoles and North (and they werent the only ones). He's a natural full back which meant he was able to field aimless Welsh kicking (pretty much all of it on Sunday) when Brown was up field having been involved in an attack - in other words, his positional play has been good too. He has made mistakes of course, but he has improved game by game and has proved an able stop gap (nobody is suggesting he has a permanent place in the team).

He has a shown a tendency to get isolated though.Ditto May. Nowell has also missed some tackles. Most against Wales.

https://fantasygames.telegraph.co.uk/sixnations/statistics/points/1219

May's tackle stats look pretty good because he's barely made any. The bulk of the responsibility has gone on Farrell and Twelvetrees for tackling in the backline.

Would say those two have got stuck in the most. Certainly seems that Farrell has won a turnover/penalty for England on a few occasions.

Perhaps I haven't given Twelvetrees enough credit defensively.

Jimpy wrote:

Scratch wrote:May and NOwell

They are the two thorns and Brown is the rose.

Nowell does a lot of hitch kicking and is a mess in the tackle area, no real impact. May, well, he makes huge distances, sideways.

Fact is, Brown has down so well at 15 the whole back 3 unit has benefited,

Soon as Manu, Yarde and Wade are back in the mix you'll forget these fill ins PDQ.

See, this is what happens when you have the rugby on the TV but keep your eyes closed during the coverage.

Nowell has has made some really important big tackles, such as on Picamoles and North (and they werent the only ones). He's a natural full back which meant he was able to field aimless Welsh kicking (pretty much all of it on Sunday) when Brown was up field having been involved in an attack - in other words, his positional play has been good too. He has made mistakes of course, but he has improved game by game and has proved an able stop gap (nobody is suggesting he has a permanent place in the team).

but you see Jimpy, no one cares what you think.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well apart from the skill and technique. I'll accept scoring more points but not something I would use personally to (solely) judge players on. I watched for 60 mintues and he definately wasn't outplayed by Goode.

I guess we won't agree until Ford puts in a performance for England though.

Not judging it on points scored alone. I am basing it on opportunities taken and taking into account the difficulty both faced.

One had to step into the 10 shirt with not much time's notice, playing a crucial AP match away from home against a strong side who were unbeaten at home that season and were unbeaten in 12 games. The other 10 was at home with a pack on top in the frontrow battle with over 60% territory and possession plus had a very comfortable lineout to rely upon for ball. Couldn't ask for a better platform from the front five surely?

One 10 struggled to unlock the other team's defence for most of the game, the other found it easier to find gaps in the defence of the opposition defence which lead to two tries. Taking opportunities on offer is a massive part of the game.

If I was giving ratings out of 10 I would probably give Goode 8 out of 10 and Ford 6 out of 10.

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Scratch wrote:May and NOwell

They are the two thorns and Brown is the rose.

Nowell does a lot of hitch kicking and is a mess in the tackle area, no real impact. May, well, he makes huge distances, sideways.

Fact is, Brown has down so well at 15 the whole back 3 unit has benefited,

Soon as Manu, Yarde and Wade are back in the mix you'll forget these fill ins PDQ.

See, this is what happens when you have the rugby on the TV but keep your eyes closed during the coverage.

Nowell has has made some really important big tackles, such as on Picamoles and North (and they werent the only ones). He's a natural full back which meant he was able to field aimless Welsh kicking (pretty much all of it on Sunday) when Brown was up field having been involved in an attack - in other words, his positional play has been good too. He has made mistakes of course, but he has improved game by game and has proved an able stop gap (nobody is suggesting he has a permanent place in the team).

He has a shown a tendency to get isolated though.Ditto May. Nowell has also missed some tackles. Most against Wales.

https://fantasygames.telegraph.co.uk/sixnations/statistics/points/1219

May's tackle stats look pretty good because he's barely made any. The bulk of the responsibility has gone on Farrell and Twelvetrees for tackling in the backline.

Would say those two have got stuck in the most. Certainly seems that Farrell has won a turnover/penalty for England on a few occasions.

Perhaps I haven't given Twelvetrees enough credit defensively.

That's what happens when all you are looking for is reasons for Barritt to come back in ..

beshocked

I think 12trees defence has improved markedly through the tournament - was clearly something of a weak link against France and Scotland, but more solid against Ireland and Wales. I think the way England are using him as the shooter in the rush defence means he will miss a few tackles, but often these are the sorts of half misses that slow attacks down and let team mates finish the job. Even Lawes and Robshaw missed their guys on occasion v Wales while committing to the big rush.

Obviously, his play ball in hand has also come on, and he looked pretty good against Wales (one woeful clearance kick excluded), including instigating the move that led to Burrell's near try and the lovely kick through for the try Burrell did score. Not absolutely convinced by him as a top class international yet (maybe lacks a little pace compared to the best centres), but he does offer more in attack than Barritt and his defence is not as much worse as sometimes portrayed. Certainly his and Burrell's form and Manu's return from injury give Lancaster a good problem to sort out.

And at last 36 gets some recognition for his excellent defensive work. The lad is a quality centre and deserves to be persevered with.

As far as Goode outplaying Ford I think that's pretty wide of the mark. Goode looked capable for Sarries but certainly didn't demonstrate he has superior skills at 10 to Ford. If you're judging it purely on the fact Sarries won then yes the whole team outplayed their opposite numbers. That would be pretty absurd logic though.

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Scratch wrote:May and NOwell

They are the two thorns and Brown is the rose.

Nowell does a lot of hitch kicking and is a mess in the tackle area, no real impact. May, well, he makes huge distances, sideways.

Fact is, Brown has down so well at 15 the whole back 3 unit has benefited,

Soon as Manu, Yarde and Wade are back in the mix you'll forget these fill ins PDQ.

See, this is what happens when you have the rugby on the TV but keep your eyes closed during the coverage.

Nowell has has made some really important big tackles, such as on Picamoles and North (and they werent the only ones). He's a natural full back which meant he was able to field aimless Welsh kicking (pretty much all of it on Sunday) when Brown was up field having been involved in an attack - in other words, his positional play has been good too. He has made mistakes of course, but he has improved game by game and has proved an able stop gap (nobody is suggesting he has a permanent place in the team).

He has a shown a tendency to get isolated though.Ditto May. Nowell has also missed some tackles. Most against Wales.
https://fantasygames.telegraph.co.uk/sixnations/statistics/points/1219

May's tackle stats look pretty good because he's barely made any. The bulk of the responsibility has gone on Farrell and Twelvetrees for tackling in the backline.

Would say those two have got stuck in the most. Certainly seems that Farrell has won a turnover/penalty for England on a few occasions.

Perhaps I haven't given Twelvetrees enough credit defensively.

According to that link, all Nowell's missed tackles were against Wales - he missed none in his first three internationals, which perhaps ought to give him some credit?. I don't think it's accurate though.

Chjw131 wrote:And at last 36 gets some recognition for his excellent defensive work. The lad is a quality centre and deserves to be persevered with.

As far as Goode outplaying Ford I think that's pretty wide of the mark. Goode looked capable for Sarries but certainly didn't demonstrate he has superior skills at 10 to Ford. If you're judging it purely on the fact Sarries won then yes the whole team outplayed their opposite numbers. That would be pretty absurd logic though.

chjw131 no because not every player outplayed their opposite number. Set piece wise Bath were excellent. Doing very well at the lineout - I think 100% and doing very well in the scrum - getting a penalty try.

Goode showed superior goal kicking with a higher % - missing no kicks. He made the correct decisions when there were attacking opportunities - being involved in the two tries. Saracens had far less attacking opportunities than Bath yet were far more clinical. When Saracens got into Bath's half in the 2nd 40, Goode kicked a sweet drop goal with ease.

Ford should have mixed up his game more and should have been more clinical with the ball he had. He missed a straightforward kick at goal.

If I cherry pick certain games then Danny Cipriani has been in amazing form for Sale. By that logic shouldn't he be on the bench instead of Goode? Or indeed over Farrell who's been average for his club.

Cirpriani is back and grown up, the world of punditry is pretty much agreed on that.

Lancaster however does not want a fly half that does what he does well, and doesnt like that he runs sideways across the pitch (May???) closing down space outside him.


Playing well and being the player the coach wants are not always the same thing. Ask Nick Easter.

Yappysnap it's hardly cherrypicking when I am talking about the last match that Goode played at club level.

Danny Cipriani - has the unwanted of 4 charge down kicks in 4 consecutive tests. He's got a lot to do to win people's confidence.

Farrell been average for his club? Disagree. He's been in good form most of the season.

Comparing Cipriani to Farrell. 

beshocked wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well apart from the skill and technique. I'll accept scoring more points but not something I would use personally to (solely) judge players on. I watched for 60 mintues and he definately wasn't outplayed by Goode.

I guess we won't agree until Ford puts in a performance for England though.

Not judging it on points scored alone. I am basing it on opportunities taken and taking into account the difficulty both faced.

One had to step into the 10 shirt with not much time's notice, playing a crucial AP match away from home against a strong side who were unbeaten at home that season and were unbeaten in 12 games. The other 10 was at home with a  pack on top in the frontrow battle with over 60% territory and possession plus had a very comfortable lineout to rely upon for ball. Couldn't ask for a better platform from the front five surely?

One 10 struggled to unlock the other team's defence for most of the game, the other found it easier to find gaps in the defence of the opposition defence which lead to two tries. Taking opportunities on offer is a massive part of the game.

If I was giving ratings out of 10 I would probably give Goode 8 out of 10 and Ford 6 out of 10.

It assumes the opportunities and level of opponent are the same though. Personally I would rate the Saracens team and squad as better than Bath. I would also say that any rugby player can show vision and passing range but relies heavily on their team mates to take advantage; just because mves don't result in points doesn't mean that what a 10 or any player has done wasn't of a high quality. Goodes kick to wide open space for Strettle was brought about by a break from a poor Abendonon pass. Ford never got that sort of opportunity.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:I think Stewie made a couple of mistakes in retrospect and also got unlucky in the France game. Putting 2 shiney new wingers in for the 1st game of the 6N, away, against France was always a risk. And Nowell made mistakes – as he was bound to in his 1st game. It didn’t help settle his nerves that the catch from the KO was fumbled; and that he was the cover (great planning!).  Then May going off in the 1st few minutes made a pig’s ear of the back 3 – which was just plain bad luck. Then the use/timing of the bench was poor.

I think SL should have eased the new back 3 in by playing Ashton in the France game; then May in to see what he could do. And replacing Hartley & Care was just poor planning. We need Stewie to be part of the definite improvement in the team’s performance.

Na.....stewie will always be behind the curve. You must always remember that he's just not a world class coach, he's a political stitch up - he's your one and only RFU man.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Is that Billy Vunipola over Wood (BV)?

You'll recall Wood was selected to cover 8 following Morgans injury - all the time BV was playing for fun at Wasps.

I'm pretty sure Billy was injured at the time of the Wales game last year

kingelderfield is the same Danny Cipriani who gave away 4 chargedown tries in 4 international matches - all in consecutive matches? England have time to tweak proceedings.

Hi Beshocked,

No its not the same Danny Cipriani - and that is the point as to why he should be scrupulously judged by all serious observers.

As to available time? Well yes there is still plenty of time though not necessarily enough international game time. Farrell has obvious strengths but his game is not comprehensive (few are) and therefore we need alternatives as well as genuine competition to be allowed to show its hand. If no one else is allowed the opportunity then we are all wasting our time.

Cipriani will tour NZ, guaranteed.

Billy v was pencilled in to face France last year but got injured before the match and missed the rest of the tournament.Waldrom was the player Lancaster wouldn't risk starting.

BamBam wrote:I'm pretty sure Billy was injured at the time of the Wales game last year

You might well be right? I can see him playing for wasps the week after the Welsh game but not the previous 2 Aviva games......though I can't see the injury mentioned in the thread at the time.

https://www.606v2.com/t41671-lancaster-will-look-very-silly-for-not-starting-the-billy-s

beshocked wrote:Yappysnap it's hardly cherrypicking when I am talking about the last match that Goode played at club level.

Danny Cipriani - has the unwanted of 4 charge down kicks in 4 consecutive tests. He's got a lot to do to win people's confidence.

Farrell been average for his club? Disagree. He's been in good form most of the season.

Comparing Cipriani to Farrell. 

But that's the only game you choose to talk about, so ignoring the 20+ very good games that Ford has had for Bath this season at 10, and the dozen or so for Tigers that he had last season again at 10, and the age group games that he had as well again at 10. While Goode's had some average 10 displays, one good game in one way traffic against a poor opposition and looked pretty lost at Int level.

As to Cips it was tongue in cheek but there you go again, ignore all the good games he's had (some of which have been outstanding) and just look at those 4 chargedowns. If I cherry pick the right moments then I could find fault in any player.

Oh and Farrell has def been average for Sarries, hence why Hodgeson plays the bigger games and in the big games that Farrell does start, you lose.

Scratch wrote:Cipriani will tour NZ, guaranteed.

Scratch I hope you're right, and that his selection is justified come June (plenty of buses still to be tackled). Most of all though if he does tour I hope he gets more than 15 minutes against the Crusaders.

kingelderfield wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Is that Billy Vunipola over Wood (BV)?

You'll recall Wood was selected to cover 8 following Morgans injury - all the time BV was playing for fun at Wasps.

From memory BillyV got injured training with the England squad the week leading up to the French game. He played for Wasps (his first game in over a month) the day before England beat Ireland in Round 2. He played again the following week (6Ns rest weekend) and did not play again for 5 weeks, until after the 6Ns had finished.

kingelderfield wrote:

Scratch wrote:Cipriani will tour NZ, guaranteed.

Scratch I hope you're right, and that his selection is justified come June (plenty of buses still to be tackled). Most of all though if he does tour I hope he gets more than 15 minutes against the Crusaders.

I think that is why lancaster has been vague about 10 and allowed Flood to go, I think he wants consistency and maturity from Cips and seems like that big bang on the head from the No 47 has done the job. Is he up to speed defensively as that has always been my biggest concern about him.

Cipriani i s no fool, like Henson, and i think he knows he behaved like a co$ck before…..still a huge talent and one hopes he fulfills it.

Scratch wrote:Cipriani will tour NZ, guaranteed.

In Lancasters eyes hes 5th choice at best currently, even without Flood. Even if theres 2 EPS FHs in the Jeff final there would still be two available to go for the first game, as well as beeweetweeetwee and goode. Lancaster has been more than happy to go with one specialist in matchday 23s.

Taking Cipriani would require a significant shift in thinking or an injury crisis. Had he seriously been in the frame he wouldve made the saxons when Burns was struggling for form and Flood retired. Instead hes behind Myler.

Biggar has more chance of getting a start for Wales

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Scratch wrote:Cipriani will tour NZ, guaranteed.

In Lancasters eyes hes 5th choice at best currently, even without Flood. Even if theres 2 EPS FHs in the Jeff final there would still be two available to go for the first game, as well as beeweetweeetwee and goode. Lancaster has been more than happy to go with one specialist in matchday 23s.

Taking Cipriani would require a significant shift in thinking or an injury crisis. Had he seriously been in the frame he wouldve made the saxons when Burns was struggling for form and Flood retired. Instead hes behind Myler.

Biggar has more chance of getting a start for Wales

Sadly I think thats a realistic 'bomber' appraisal, however the Sharks are fixtured to play 4 of the 5 teams above them in their remaining 6 games and this will give every honest pundit opportunity enough to make their judgement.

Still I doubt bomber has the plums.

I have only seen Cipriani a couple of times this season. Clearly he has been getting Sale's attack going, both from what I have seen and read. But how has his defense been going? When he was in Aus he was roundly criticised for it.

Lancaster seems to be building a team around strong temperament as well as natural ability, something I really like about him. Players like Cipriani don't have the mental toughness over players like Farrell so will always struggle with Lancaster as coach. Having said that I do think Lancaster will give Cipriani a chance if playing well enough, he will just have to prove more than other players.

Regarding the centre options, I think playing Manu on the wing may leave us vulnerable for pace. I also like most others think May and Nowell have done extremely well given the circumstances so deserve to fight it out for the wing spots with Wade and Yarde when they return. I'd love to see Burrell and Tuilagi given a go. Anyone who's watched Burrell week in week out has seen his distribution has been very impressive so I don't think Twelvetrees will be missed as much as people think.

yappysnap wrote:

beshocked wrote:Yappysnap it's hardly cherrypicking when I am talking about the last match that Goode played at club level.

Danny Cipriani - has the unwanted of 4 charge down kicks in 4 consecutive tests. He's got a lot to do to win people's confidence.

Farrell been average for his club? Disagree. He's been in good form most of the season.

Comparing Cipriani to Farrell. 

But that's the only game you choose to talk about, so ignoring the 20+ very good games that Ford has had for Bath this season at 10, and the dozen or so for Tigers that he had last season again at 10, and the age group games that he had as well again at 10. While Goode's had some average 10 displays, one good game in one way traffic against a poor opposition and looked pretty lost at Int level.

As to Cips it was tongue in cheek but there you go again, ignore all the good games he's had (some of which have been outstanding) and just look at those 4 chargedowns. If I cherry pick the right moments then I could find fault in any player.

Oh and Farrell has def been average for Sarries, hence why Hodgeson plays the bigger games and in the big games that Farrell does start, you lose.

My point was that Goode outplayed Ford - people disagree for some bizarre reason. Does it make Goode the better 10? Perhaps not but it does show that there could be potential for Goode to move back to 10 as a viable option. It also makes a mockery of the opinion that Goode would be a hopeless 10 at international. You never know he might relish the challenge and take to it like a duck to water.

When I am talking about a Goode vs Ford match why would I mention other games? This was the latest club game, one of the biggest and most important of the season. I feel those other matches are irrelevant to this.

Bath were poor opposition? I don't think so personally. The impression I get from some posters is that they believe that Ford was behind a powder puff Bath pack getting destroyed in all departments and that he had very little ball and possession to work with.

That's just not true. Not everything went Bath's way but why would it?

Wasn't one way traffic, just one team taking the opportunities and the other not.

To be honest there's not much positive you can say about Cipriani's run at 10 for England. He did have one very good game vs Ireland but other than that......

The bit about Farrell. Sorry that's a load of £$%^.

The two losses in the AP this season have been when Farrell was not 10.

Farrell was at 10 when we beat Quins away, crushed Bath and Leicester at home. He has been involved in some big scores. He's been better than average. He's been in better form than Hodgson who in my opinion had a howler vs London Irish.

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/matchcentre/fixtures/squads.php?player=79207&includeref=dynamic


http://www.premiershiprugby.com/matchcentre/fixtures/squads.php?player=4416&includeref=dynamic

Hodgson has played less minutes. Farrell has been given the bigger games.

I'd stick Tuilagi on the wing, need a kicking 12

Dont judge Cips on what happened 4 years ago anymore than judging Mako on his fisrt couple of tests or Brown and Care on their early career behaviour.

he genuinely seems to have done what has been asked of him, and is certainly doing moire than Burns this year and has a lot more about him than Myler.

That in no way detracts from Farrell, or what a solid percentage 10 brings to England. England are very structured and coached (unlike the early Lancaster years when it was very much " stand in a line and kick it), the "maverick genius" that is cipriani is good at making things happen but bad for the overall team. Its just not what England are looking for and Lancaster has never favoured his half backs running, although that has relaxed a little recently. Cipriani would require a fundamental shift in the way the rest of the team plays to accommodate him both in attack a defence. Thats why he wont happen

Well, confirmed Manu's on the bench.

Hope SL uses him as one of his early doors subs, give him time to make an impact.

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Scratch wrote:May and NOwell

They are the two thorns and Brown is the rose.

Nowell does a lot of hitch kicking and is a mess in the tackle area, no real impact. May, well, he makes huge distances, sideways.

Fact is, Brown has down so well at 15 the whole back 3 unit has benefited,

Soon as Manu, Yarde and Wade are back in the mix you'll forget these fill ins PDQ.

See, this is what happens when you have the rugby on the TV but keep your eyes closed during the coverage.

Nowell has has made some really important big tackles, such as on Picamoles and North (and they werent the only ones). He's a natural full back which meant he was able to field aimless Welsh kicking (pretty much all of it on Sunday) when Brown was up field having been involved in an attack - in other words, his positional play has been good too. He has made mistakes of course, but he has improved game by game and has proved an able stop gap (nobody is suggesting he has a permanent place in the team).

He has a shown a tendency to get isolated though.Ditto May. Nowell has also missed some tackles. Most against Wales.

https://fantasygames.telegraph.co.uk/sixnations/statistics/points/1219

May's tackle stats look pretty good because he's barely made any. The bulk of the responsibility has gone on Farrell and Twelvetrees for tackling in the backline.

Would say those two have got stuck in the most. Certainly seems that Farrell has won a turnover/penalty for England on a few occasions.

Perhaps I haven't given Twelvetrees enough credit defensively.

I dunno with 36 really. He's definately better than he was and had his best game for England against Wales. But he still makes some defensive mistakes, although he is a very solid tackler when he gets it right.

Jimpy,

Twelvetrees and Burrell are improving game by game. Surely the shirts are theres until Manu or anyone else play so well that those positions are under threat.

Despite how good Manu is...im not comfortable with him just coming straight back on to the bench or replacing one of them in the starting lineup. It sends out a bad message, but also is not fair on the two lads when England are looking a much more effective team in attack.

And that should be the case for all the positions.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Jimpy,

Twelvetrees and Burrell are improving game by game. Surely the shirts are theres until Manu or anyone else play so well that those positions are under threat.

Despite how good Manu is...im not comfortable with him just coming straight back on to the bench or replacing one of them in the starting lineup. It sends out a bad message, but also is not fair on the two lads when England are looking a much more effective team in attack.

And that should be the case for all the positions.

I just think that good though Burrell is (and he has settled down to international rugby wonderfully) a fit and on form Manu is better. Manu was pretty much the only backline attacking threat for a couple of years and now things are different, but that is as much to do with the way the whole team is playing rather than one player.

The only thing that would keep Manu out in my mind is the development of 36 and Burrell as a combination.

Whichever way you look at it the three of them are all liable to be in the 23 if they are all fit, and choosing between them may be a headache but its a better kind than the alternative.

I'm not suggesting Burrell is a better player than Manu but he certainly passes more and therefore it's no surprise the back 3 have seen a lot more ball.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'm not suggesting Burrell is a better player than Manu but he certainly passes more and therefore it's no surprise the back 3 have seen a lot more ball.

It would be interesting to see how often Burrell has actually passed the ball to the wingers as opposed to them taking the ball from cut-out passes from 12trees or Farrell or they have been running the ball back after kicks. Not suggesting he doesn't pass, and indeed I remember one (poorly executed under pressure) pass to Nowell against Wales, but my impression is that the fluidity of England's shape in attack has meant that Burrell is often passing to supporting forwards or inside backs rather than the wingers

Also, I think Manu takes some unfair stick for his passing - he is a much better ball handler than his detractors make out, with the ability to make both good passes and offloads from contact. The more valid criticism is that sometimes he makes the wrong choice in taking the ball to ground when a pass or offload is available - maybe with England's increased willingness to take risks and to have supporting players to hand, this may become lessened.