England Autumn Internationals - MARK II

First topic message reminder :

England squad for autumn Tests:

Forwards: Jamie Blamire (Newcastle), Callum Chick (Newcastle), Jamie George (Saracens), Tom Curry (Sale), Trevor Davison (Newcastle), Nic Dolly (Leicester), Alex Dombrandt (Harlequins), Charlie Ewels (Bath), Ellis Genge (Leicester), Jonny Hill (Exeter), Maro Itoje (Saracens), Courtney Lawes (Northampton), Lewis Ludlam (Northampton), Joe Marler (Harlequins), George Martin (Leicester), Sam Simmonds (Exeter), Kyle Sinckler (Bristol), Will Stuart (Bath), Sam Underhill (Bath)

Backs: Mark Atkinson (Gloucester), Owen Farrell (Saracens), Tommy Freeman (Northampton), George Furbank (Northampton), Max Malins (Saracens), Jonny May (Gloucester), Raffi Quirke (Sale), Adam Radwan (Newcastle), Harry Randall (Bristol), Henry Slade (Exeter), Marcus Smith (Harlequins), Freddie Steward (Leicester), Manu Tuilagi (Sale), Joe Marchant (Quins), Ben Youngs (Leicester)

In Positions:
1.Marler, Genge
2.George, Blamire, Dolly
3.Sinckler, Stuart, Davison
4.Itoje, Hill
5.Lawes, Ewels
6.Curry, Martin
7.Underhill, Ludlam
8.Dombrandt, Simmonds, Chick

9.Youngs, Randall, Quirke
10.Smith

11.May, Radwan
12.Farrell, Atkinson
13.Tuilagi, Slade
14.Freeman, Marchant
15.Steward, Malins, Furbank
-------------------------------------------------
England v Tonga - 6th November
England v Australia - 13th November
England v South Africa - 20th November

There does come a point when past exploits stop being a fact and I feel we're at that point now with Farrell. Even going into the world cup there were signs his influence was waning, that horror show against Scotland being a prime example but he recovered and performed well against both Australia and New Zealand. That however was over two years ago now and I cannot remember the last time he had a real positive impact on a game.

Tactics do play a part, a midfield of Farrell and Slade is one dimensional, the only major difference between them being kicking foot.

For me, the thing with Farrell is that we have been very successful with him in a different era, when the style was much more based on pressurising opposition possession and playing in the right parts of the field.

We're now shifting towards a more fluid attacking style that is based on turning defensive systems against themselves by forcing the players to make choices that stretch their defensive systems.

The Quirke try in the SA game is a great example - de Allende and Am were presented with a picture where they had Slade with multiple passing options, one of which was Smith running across the line and threatening to get to the outside. A moment's hesitation created the space for Marchant to break the line and once Quirke was in support the try was a matter of finishing the 2 on 1.

Yes, it was a mistake by de Allende (as I think Sam commented above), but the whole point of that style of attacks is that it forces even really good defenders to make choices while the attack has options explicitly designed to turn those choices into mistakes. Done well, it puts the defenders in an almost impossible position: focus on one option and the attack chooses the other. Try to keep the options open and the attack exploits the hesitancy.

That system relies on having players who can read the defences really well and make their choices late within the phase. Farrell has historically been more of a phase to phase player - this phase the defence is set this way, so we'll do this. It wasn't clear in the AIs that he was fully on board with the new style.

To be fair, I generally agree. The time is coming to move on from him (indeed it is probably already here), it's just that some sections of English support act like he is the worst player ever to pull on the white jersey. The thing about Marchant is (whether we like it or not), England are clearly lining him to be used as a winger. So with that as a consideration, the best we can hope for is a Tuilagi/ Slade partnership, which is precarious because it raises the shadow of Tuilagi being injured and/or Farrell at 10 (which I am most definitely not in favour of).

We just desperately need some of the young centres to step up, I'd say both Tuilagi and Slade only have one world cup left in them and there is just nothing showing up that makes you think 'He's our man!' about the younger ones, they may show flashes/ bits and pieces, but nothing is convincing yet.

Cumbrian wrote:For me, if a player has proven international pedigree, I don't care how old he is.  If Cole is the best man for the job (not saying that he is), then get him in, there is precedent of props older than Cole playing for England (Julian White and Jason Leonard come to mind).    I guess it may seem like a regressive step, but if he can help lay a stronger platform for some of England's new caps then I wouldn't be against it.

I think perhaps some of the doubts over Sinkler are being cast because he is looking a bit unenthusiastic at Bristol at the moment.  He doesn't prop in isolation though, he is part of a unit that often contains Yann Thomas and Harry Thacker who are both good club men, but (with respect) neither of whom would be considered scrummaging titans.

Im disappointed no-ones suggested recalling Phil Vickery given he's yet to confirm his retirement

It's the perennial problem: England doesn't seem able to produce a decent 12.

I think we have some good options at 13 - Odogwu is back playing, and at Quins Northmore doesn't have the versatility of Marchant but is defensively tidy and picks great lines. I'm sure there are others.

I wonder if the answer is to convert a young number 8 to playing 12. I doubt Quins would ever do that with Dombrandt, for example, but 12 and 8 have a lot in common (Jack Clifford was a converted centre and James Forrester filled in pretty respectably at 12 during a Glaws injury crisis; even Sam Burgess is an example of the commonality between back row and centre).

Poorfour wrote:It's the perennial problem: England doesn't seem able to produce a decent 12.

I think we have some good options at 13 - Odogwu is back playing, and at Quins Northmore doesn't have the versatility of Marchant but is defensively tidy and picks great lines. I'm sure there are others.

I wonder if the answer is to convert a young number 8 to playing 12. I doubt Quins would ever do that with Dombrandt, for example, but 12 and 8 have a lot in common (Jack Clifford was a converted centre and James Forrester filled in pretty respectably at 12 during a Glaws injury crisis; even Sam Burgess is an example of the commonality between back row and centre).

I had half a thought the other day about Barbeary being a crashball 12, seens athletic enough. Not sure about his passing range, probably on par with Manu's though.

It would be straight out the Eddie Jones "comments to the media" playbook, hes mentioned Curry Simmonds and Underhill as players who could pop up in the backs, as well as Nowell as a potential forward ...but how often has that actually happened?

In the meantime he's tried just about every actual back in the premiership at centre whilst always ending up back with Slade and Farrell because Tuilagi's injured.

When you think Andre Esterhuizen has only got 8 SA caps - he would walk into the England team and would have 50+ caps if he was English qualified.  I think it shows just how poor our resources are at centre, as well as the indecent haste with which Manu is picked every time he is anywhere fit.

As for suggestions about looking at converting forwards into 12s, I would just say Mauro Bergamasco (I know he played no 9).  But a good forward does not necessrily make a good back.  It seems to be easier going the other way - Tom Youngs, etc.

I remember a game where Michael Hooper filled in at 12 against the Lions (injuries to McCabe and Barnes forced this). I recall he did pretty well given the circumstances.

I think it's a bit like converting between union and league - with the exception of Jason Robinson, I think nearly all the league converts who were long-term successes in union had a background in union.

Academies these days tend to aim for late specialisation - working on the skills and then converting players to their final position when they understand what their eventual speed and body shape is going to be. I think there are a fair few big, skilful guys who've converted to back row late in the game.

I guess the question is why so few of them stay in the backs. Clifford easily had the handling, pace and rugby smarts to play centre, but I suspect Quins wanted his power in the back row as a long term replacement for Easter (such a shame he had to retire before we saw the best of him).

On the other hand, at Prem level, a lot of the 12s seem to be utility players who are also comfortable at 10 or 13 rather than pure-play 12s. That may be because there isn't space in the cap to have a player who specialises in one position, and club level 12s can give up a bit of physicality in return for versatility.

Quins are very, very lucky that SA prefer de Allende at 12 (just as NZ preferred Carter over Evans). We're increasingly seeing that he has the skills of a 10 in the body of, as Tabai Matson put it, a tighthead lock.

Sharkey06 wrote:When you think Andre Esterhuizen has only got 8 SA caps - he would walk into the England team and would have 50+ caps if he was English qualified.  I think it shows just how poor our resources are at centre, as well as the indecent haste with which Manu is picked every time he is anywhere fit.

As for suggestions about looking at converting forwards into 12s, I would just say Mauro Bergamasco (I know he played no 9).  But a good forward does not necessrily make a good back.  It seems to be easier going the other way - Tom Youngs, etc.

That Bergamasco incident seems it will live forever. Shame, because he was a very good flanker, and to be remembered for that? To be fair to Bergamasco, I have played with quite a few 9s who passed no better than he did....

You make a great point about centres. Esterhuizen is a very good player. Just remember the next team to play Quins, all we need is a 50 gram tissue sample and I think we can start growing Esterhuizens in the lab. Can't freakin' breed centres at home.

Pity Youngs (Ben) didnt accept those sweets off Jones, he might be chubby enough to have solved the non existent prop crisis by now.

The players who have made big conversions successfully have generally done so fairly young and as long term projects, rather than to fill a gap in an international side (Burgess being the glaring outlier ...and thats CONTROVERSIAL).

Whilst Jones has blown off about to the press in past years, and theres been rumours sparked by seeing players out of position in training, theres not really anything to suggest its being considered currently. And if it were youd hope the player was given a bit more time to bed in and learn the instincts than Bergamsco was.

Ever since the playing of Bergamasco at 9 coaches never seem to learn the pit falls of playing a player out of position....Every time i think of that game with Bergamasco at 9, reminds me of i think it was Martin Johnson played Ugo Mongue at Full back one game. What a disaster that was.

Cumbrian wrote:For me Underhill drops out of the team at the moment.  I know his club isn't doing well, but he is also part of that environment.  As a player with 20+ England caps entering his prime, he should be one of the ones putting his hand up to turn things around.

I'd bench Underhill. His performances from the bench for England have largely been fantastic which should help keep him in the 23. His dominant tackling against tired runners is always going to be prevalent but I tend to think he has a bigger impact at the breakdown from the bench.

It's such a shame that Willis is injured. I'd love to see Willis and Curry in partnership with Underhill on the bench here.

1.Marler 2.LCD 3.Sinckler 4.Itoje 5.Hill 6.Lawes 7.Curry 8.Dombrandt
9.Youngs 10.Smith 11.May 12.Tuilagi 13.Slade 14.Malins 15.Steward

16.George 17.Genge 18.Stuart 19.Martin 20.Underhill 21.Quirke 22.Farrell 23.Marchant

That's what I'd personally love to see against Scotland.

I know many on here hate the 6-2 bench split but if Farrell is genuinely fully fit (and actually showing form) I'd be very interested to see 12.Farrell 13.Tuilagi outside Smith with Slade dropping out and Barbeary on the bench at some point. The potential impact of Underhill in defence and breakdown, with Barbeary carrying against a tiring opposition could be a brilliant with 30 minutes left to go.

Sub impact is an area England have slipped a bit I think. Early in Jones reign it was a noticeable strength. Our bench forwards in particular tended to have a massive impact. More recently we seem to be making replacements much later in the game and with much less impact. One of our few bench players I felt was having big impacts was Earl and he's been discarded. An odd area of England's game since the RWC.

I seem to remember Earl running around like a demented otter but not actually doing much. Its not always an easy thing coming on and making a difference, and it would have been nice, at least once, to have seen him start but I am not completely convinced

I remember very high tackle counts, a couple of good turnovers and strong carries.

I quite the like demented otter as a description though tbf.

Poorfour wrote:It's the perennial problem: England doesn't seem able to produce a decent 12.

If over the next few years we cant produce quality 12 from:

Max Ojomoh (21)
Ollie Lawrence (22)
Seb Atkinson (19)
Ollie Hartley (19)
Dan Kelly (21)
etc etc
then we are in a right lump of it.

Is this the 6 Nations where Jones needs to take a leap then? Farrell yet to play and the squad announced next Wednesday, injuries are always the most likely way in for a player. With Odogwu back and picked in the squads before is it more likely he moves Slade to 12 and we see others come in?

Personally I really like Ojamoh's game, would love to see him more involved.

Is there an assumption that Jones has moved on from Daly now? (and ditto for Nowell who offers a bit of chonk on the outside). Both back playing after long spells of injuries.

Gooseberry wrote:Is there an assumption that Jones has moved on from Daly now? (and ditto for Nowell who offers a bit of chonk on the outside). Both back playing after long spells of injuries.

Day - yes unless its as some kind of utility back. No chance of going back to 15 and I think Malins has taken over in that utility role.

Nowell - good question but I suspect so.

Steward as well

Daly is well down the 15 pecking order

jeez man...time to forget about Nowell and Manu....

My granny has more durability than those two.

Cant build a side around players who are constantly injured.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Poorfour wrote:It's the perennial problem: England doesn't seem able to produce a decent 12.

If over the next few years we cant produce quality 12 from:

Max Ojomoh (21)
Ollie Lawrence (22)
Seb Atkinson (19)
Ollie Hartley (19)
Dan Kelly (21)
etc etc
then we are in a right lump of it.

Well, quite - but we've had promising centres in the past and somehow not managed to convert them. I think there might be an element that what a club needs of a 12 may have a bigger gap to what's needed of an international 12 than in some other positions. At club level, a lot of 12s seem to be hard tacklers and a focal point for more creative players to play around, but international 12s need to have that "secondary playmaker" dimension as well. Are clubs not challenging them to develop enough?

It will be interesting to see how Quins do with Lennox Anyanwu - not seen much of him yet, but he looks to be the long term successor to Esterhuizen. He seems to have the physicality but I want to see if he can bring the variety and game awareness that our gameplan needs from its centres.

GeordieFalcon wrote:jeez man...time to forget about Nowell and Manu....

My granny has more durability than those two.

Cant build a side around players who are constantly injured.

GeordieFalcon wrote:jeez man...time to forget about Nowell and Manu....

My granny has more durability than those two.

Cant build a side around players who are constantly injured.

Would hold more weight of the assumption was he'd miss out to Malins who's been dropped out of the last 2 England squads with injury and spent most of the 2019/20 season out with two foot breaks. And the theres Cokasinga who was a starter in the summer at wing after coming back from an injury then missed out in the autumn through injury. The list of inured England outside backs is longer than the list of fit ones for most of the past few years, Jones hasnt really shown he's ready to discard players altogether for injury history. Watson another whos spent most of the last 4 years in out of surgery.

Tuilagi is a legit problem though, its actually quite surprising if he makes it through 80 minutes without hurting himself. Putting him at 12 as a crash ball just adds to that danger, although out on the wing he's more likely to pull the hamstring. I guess the faith in him is firstly because he really is a point of difference and also the rest of Englands backs tend be pretty lightweight at test level. Theres not been another 16 stoner really stand out (Cokansinga being injured just as often), hence the above talk of forwards in the backs.

Gooseberry wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:jeez man...time to forget about Nowell and Manu....

My granny has more durability than those two.

Cant build a side around players who are constantly injured.

GeordieFalcon wrote:jeez man...time to forget about Nowell and Manu....

My granny has more durability than those two.

Cant build a side around players who are constantly injured.

Would hold more weight of the assumption was he'd miss out to Malins who's been dropped out of the last 2 England squads with injury and spent most of the 2019/20 season out with two foot breaks.  And the theres Cokasinga who was a starter in the summer at wing after coming back from an injury then missed out in the autumn through injury. The list of inured England outside backs is longer than the list of fit ones for most of the past few years, Jones hasnt really shown he's ready to discard players altogether for injury history. Watson another whos spent most of the last 4 years in out of surgery.

Tuilagi is a legit problem though, its actually quite surprising if he makes it through 80 minutes without hurting himself. Putting him at 12 as a crash ball just adds to that danger, although out on the wing he's more likely to pull the hamstring. I guess the faith in him is firstly because he really is a point of difference and also the rest of Englands backs tend be pretty lightweight at test level. Theres not been another 16 stoner really stand out (Cokansinga being injured just as often), hence the above talk of forwards in the backs.

Ive said for years....we missed a trick with Sam Simmonds...should have been a 12. But hey ho.

Your comparing Malins injury record to Manu and Nowells??

Poorfour wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Poorfour wrote:It's the perennial problem: England doesn't seem able to produce a decent 12.

If over the next few years we cant produce quality 12 from:

Max Ojomoh (21)
Ollie Lawrence (22)
Seb Atkinson (19)
Ollie Hartley (19)
Dan Kelly (21)
etc etc
then we are in a right lump of it.

Well, quite - but we've had promising centres in the past and somehow not managed to convert them. I think there might be an element that what a club needs of a 12 may have a bigger gap to what's needed of an international 12 than in some other positions. At club level, a lot of 12s seem to be hard tacklers and a focal point for more creative players to play around, but international 12s need to have that "secondary playmaker" dimension as well. Are clubs not challenging them to develop enough?

I think it depends on the overall balance with the backline as to what you need from the 12. Eddie has previously found the physical options not physical enough bar Manu and the playmaking options not enough a point of difference to drop Farrell. England have 13s that can work with either type of IC but the likes of Burrell, Devoto and Francis have proved to be no more than solid. We're lacking any IC to really step up to a level where they can't be ignored.

Centre is also one of the most difficult positions in modern rugby. The combination of the games increased pace and physicality with better analysis means that centres need to be immensely strong, fit and defensively astute in order to keep up. It's difficult.

Wales are still trying to replace Roberts and have shifted North to 13 as JD2 loses his pace.

Scotland haven't had a standout 12 for years and whilst Harris is fabulously defensively I think most Scotland fans will admit he's a flawed 13.

France shifted Vakatawa to centre in their search for a 13.

Even NZ conveyor belt is still trying to replace Nonu and Smith. I really rate Lienert-Brown but who partners him is continuous chop and change.

Australia have been flying through centres trying to find long term solutions.

Despite his fragility Manu has stacked up nearly 50 caps and offers things few others do. That's why England keep returning there. Rugby players like him don't come around often, let alone centres like him.

Similar with Farrell as a 12. Flawed player, yes, but England have had huge success with him as a very effective inside centre. With the right game plan being the caveat there as with all players.

The over simplified centre debate reminds me a lot of the frequent "where's our 20+ stone lock, who jumps in the lineout, is terrific in mauls, keeps up with the modern game, makes huge tackle counts, carries effectively and can play 80 minutes?" nonsense. There's one in rugby. One. He's called Eben Etzebeth. They aren't common. That's why we know who Eben Etzebeth is. Because he's unusual. If it was normal then Eben Etzebeth couldn't simply be described with his name. If there were an abundance of these players we'd need to say "Eben Etzebeth, you know, that big Stormers lock, got a couple of Boks caps during an injury crisis, just signed a Pro D2 deal in France, quite aggressive, impressed with the U20s but never quite made it".

And Even Etzebeth is only 19 odd stone. And Rettalick still rules that roost.

We always want what we don't have though. No team is going to have a 23 of world class players, and even the world class players aren't going to be everyone's cup of tea. There are going to be a couple of batons handed over shortly, number 8, scrum half, both centre positions possibly and a wing spot. Even if you left it to inside centre it's clear there would be no consensus on here as to who should start which is the beauty of sport in part.

king_carlos wrote:Centre is also one of the most difficult positions in modern rugby. The combination of the games increased pace and physicality with better analysis means that centres need to be immensely strong, fit and defensively astute in order to keep up. It's difficult.

Wales are still trying to replace Roberts and have shifted North to 13 as JD2 loses his pace.

Scotland haven't had a standout 12 for years and whilst Harris is fabulously defensively I think most Scotland fans will admit he's a flawed 13.

France shifted Vakatawa to centre in their search for a 13.

Even NZ conveyor belt is still trying to replace Nonu and Smith. I really rate Lienert-Brown but who partners him is continuous chop and change.

Australia have been flying through centres trying to find long term solutions.

Despite his fragility Manu has stacked up nearly 50 caps and offers things few others do. That's why England keep returning there. Rugby players like him don't come around often, let alone centres like him.

Similar with Farrell as a 12. Flawed player, yes, but England have had huge success with him as a very effective inside centre. With the right game plan being the caveat there as with all players.

The over simplified centre debate reminds me a lot of the frequent "where's our 20+ stone lock, who jumps in the lineout, is terrific in mauls, keeps up with the modern game, makes huge tackle counts, carries effectively and can play 80 minutes?" nonsense. There's one in rugby. One. He's called Eben Etzebeth. They aren't common. That's why we know who Eben Etzebeth is. Because he's unusual. If it was normal then Eben Etzebeth couldn't simply be described with his name. If there were an abundance of these players we'd need to say "Eben Etzebeth, you know, that big Stormers lock, got a couple of Boks caps during an injury crisis, just signed a Pro D2 deal in France, quite aggressive, impressed with the U20s but never quite made it".

Havent you just described the future George Martin?

king_carlos wrote:Centre is also one of the most difficult positions in modern rugby. The combination of the games increased pace and physicality with better analysis means that centres need to be immensely strong, fit and defensively astute in order to keep up. It's difficult.

Wales are still trying to replace Roberts and have shifted North to 13 as JD2 loses his pace.

Scotland haven't had a standout 12 for years and whilst Harris is fabulously defensively I think most Scotland fans will admit he's a flawed 13.

France shifted Vakatawa to centre in their search for a 13.

Even NZ conveyor belt is still trying to replace Nonu and Smith. I really rate Lienert-Brown but who partners him is continuous chop and change.

Australia have been flying through centres trying to find long term solutions.

Despite his fragility Manu has stacked up nearly 50 caps and offers things few others do. That's why England keep returning there. Rugby players like him don't come around often, let alone centres like him.

Similar with Farrell as a 12. Flawed player, yes, but England have had huge success with him as a very effective inside centre. With the right game plan being the caveat there as with all players.

The over simplified centre debate reminds me a lot of the frequent "where's our 20+ stone lock, who jumps in the lineout, is terrific in mauls, keeps up with the modern game, makes huge tackle counts, carries effectively and can play 80 minutes?" nonsense. There's one in rugby. One. He's called Eben Etzebeth. They aren't common. That's why we know who Eben Etzebeth is. Because he's unusual. If it was normal then Eben Etzebeth couldn't simply be described with his name. If there were an abundance of these players we'd need to say "Eben Etzebeth, you know, that big Stormers lock, got a couple of Boks caps during an injury crisis, just signed a Pro D2 deal in France, quite aggressive, impressed with the U20s but never quite made it".

They had Matt Scott...?

No 7&1/2 wrote:And Even Etzebeth is only 19 odd stone. And Rettalick still rules that roost.

We always want what we don't have though. No team is going to have a 23 of world class players, and even the world class players aren't going to be everyone's cup of tea. There are going to be a couple of batons handed over shortly, number 8, scrum half, both centre positions possibly and a wing spot. Even if you left it to inside centre it's clear there would be no consensus on here as to who should start which is the beauty of sport in part.

I'm an enormous Retallick fan but Etzebeth this year has matched Retallick's best in the past and was far better that Retallick of 2021. Etzebeth was exceptional this year.

Even if we had Retallick at his peak to partner Itoje I feel several on here would question why our locks keep popping up for carries in the wide channels regardless of how effective they can be there.

It just grates sometimes with me. There seems to be a significant number of England rugby fans who won't be happy until the team satisfies the unrealistic desire for a side which has the granite forward pack and perfect set-piece of (largely imaginary) old England teams whilst simultaneously also playing the free flowing offload heavy, coast to coast style of a pro era attacking side.

Manu, Farrell and Slade as 12 options with Slade, Manu, Marchant and potentially Odogwu as 13 options isn't a bad place to be if you ask me. Lots of good players, varying skill sets and versatility. The two selected from them just need balance. Most importantly there has to be a runner in there that offers a threat.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Scotland haven't had a standout 12 for years and whilst Harris is fabulously defensively I think most Scotland fans will admit he's a flawed 13.

They had Matt Scott...?

Scott's been fantastic for Tigers and has a really rounded game.

If Scott's international career can be classed as standout though then that kind of further reinforces my argument that Farrell, who's best international performances immeasurably outstrip Scott's, hasn't been too bad an inside centre for England.

Someone mentioned about Australia centres, Kerevi would like a word. Pretty excellent player. Also would not mind having Vakatawa at 13, prefer him there than at wing. Penaud is a 13 who got shunted to the wing and can't get a look in at OC because of Vakatawa.

For Scotland, Scott is cursed by falling into the bad books for no apparent reason when he moved to Gloucester. Good club player though I am not sure he is good enough to take over any of S Johnson, Harris, Tuipulotu or Bennett who are all in form or incumbent.

I think he would come back in if we had 2-3 injuries but even then he would be fighting for the spot with H Jones, Hutchinson, Redpath and Lang. There is also Currie coming through at Edinburgh who looks a prospect. Scott's career for Scotland got messed around and I think if memory serves it would time with the Scott Johnson reign of terror.

Also our standout 12 should have been Dunbar. He was excellent leading up to RAW 2015 and would have finally got the recognition he deserved...had he not torn his ACL 6 months prior. He was starting to build up his form and he tore it again which effectively ended his career. Centres is arguably the worst hit by injuries.

Hazel Sapling wrote:Someone mentioned about Australia centres, Kerevi would like a word. Pretty excellent player. Also would not mind having Vakatawa at 13, prefer him there than at wing. Penaud is a 13 who got shunted to the wing and can't get a look in at OC because of Vakatawa.

For Scotland, Scott is cursed by falling into the bad books when he moved to Gloucester for no apparent reason. Good club player though I am not sure he is good enough to take over any of S Johnson, Harris, Tuipulotu or Bennett who are all in form or incumbent.

I think he would come back in if we had 2-3 injuries but even then he would be fighting for the spot with H Jones, Hutchinson, Redpath and Lang. There is also Currie coming through at Edinburgh who looks a prospect. Scott's career for Scotland got messed around and I think if memory serves it would time with the Scott Johnson reign of terror.

Also our standout 12 should have been Dunbar. He was excellent leading up to RAW 2015 and would have finally got the recognition he deserved...had he not torn his ACL 6 months prior. He was starting to build up his form and he tore it again which effectively ended his career. Centres is arguably the worst hit by injuries.

Kerevi is brilliant but they've capped a fair list of other players trying to find a centre to partner him long term.

Dunbar's a player whose praises I sang a lot before that injury but he also had significant limitations. He could truck it up in attack but that was largely it. His defence and breakdown work were excellent for a centre though. He was effective before injury but would be another good player who shows how good Farrell's best performances as a centre have been.

hmmm - Sale still listing Tuilagi as injured (I know the initial assessment was 4-6 weeks but they still have that number against him)

lostinwales wrote:hmmm - Sale still listing Tuilagi as injured (I know the initial assessment was 4-6 weeks but they still have that number against him)

I suspect they have more on their minds at the moment than weekly player specific updates on the website, I assume its 4-6 weeks form when he was first injured. All the media noise is that hes going to be fit (by Tuilagi standards) for selection, quote from a couple of days ago was "He is doing really well on his rehab. There is a Leicester game the week before the Six Nations, which is obviously a big one for him, and we are hoping to get him back a week or two before that." Hopefully just plays the one game to reduce the chances of hurting himself again :whistle

Just dont see any chance of him not making the squad, especially with the lack of strong candidates in the backs to offer some chonk and direct running.

After watching the Wasps vs. Toulouse match, Barbeary has to be in the squad on Tuesday doesn't he? I know he is raw, but he is so strong and dynamic. He is also surprisingly good at the breakdown.

Cumbrian wrote:After watching the Wasps vs. Toulouse match, Barbeary has to be in the squad on Tuesday doesn't he?   I know he is raw, but he is so strong and dynamic.  He is also surprisingly good at the breakdown.

Jones called Barbeary into the ANC final squad when he was even rawer so I'd say he has a very good chance indeed. He looks a special player.