They're both heavily overrated Saracens who did a job through desire but now need replacing with better players.
If players stop looking World Class, you have to ask why. You look around at what has changed in the units around them, has their role changed, and how the rest of the team is doing as well as personal factors. If you are a half-back who loves to attack the line - or a winger that loves to run lines off of midfield - then going from an inside centre who attracts defenders and gets over the advantage line to one that doesn't is a big issue. Just academically speaking, that's really obviously not ideal. The question of how much Hape was part of those guys looking really good and how much he was beneficiary should be asked.
Hape ran the ball 7.4 times a game in 2011. Barritt ran it 7.6 times a game. So Hape didn't get a lot more ball to work with. Good ball maybe, but not ball. I was lazy and didn't put up the actual stats, but Flood and Farrell both pass it a fairly equal amount of the time.
And if you only have one carrier in midfield, you've signposted where the ball is going. You've robbed yourself of a potential source of go-forwards ball. Come on, you can't believe that Tuilagi means no need for Barritt carrying, as I'm fairly sure you've advocated Twelvetrees to take the shirt. If you don't need your 12 to attack, why would you replace Barritt? But you do, and everyone knows it, which is why most people want Twelvetrees.
Hape's one on one tackling was outstanding. I'd say he probably forced as many people back as Barritt ever did.
End of the day, I don't want to sit here defending Shontayne Hape. He wasn't a great international centre, he didn't do enough things well, and I'd agree that a lot of England's success came despite those centres instead of because of them. The defenders - hah, centres, freudian slip there - could tackle and carry a little and that was it. England were very adroit at avoiding using them for going wide or scoring tries, instead relying on them to do dirty work while the others made hay. And they did that well. Castigating Johnsons or laughing at those centres will probably never go out of fashion, but for a brief period we were really good and we had a lot of backs who looked awesome. I do believe the role of Hape and Tindall in that needs to be re-examined. But that's kinda not the point.
The point is I don't think Hape was great and I've still got more time for him than Barritt because I think Barritt has done SFA in attack to date. Farrell and Twelvetrees play together - Twelvetrees looks great, we score points. Farrell and Barritt play together, not so much. Flood and Barritt play together not so much. Flood and Hape, we score points. Flood and Tuilagi, we score points... maybe Barritt has been done down by circs. If a player doesn't gel with either fly-half and both fly-halfs get performances out of other players, there is a potential problem. I am willing to have an open mind but I can only judge on evidence to date and that's all effluent. Steaming runny effluent.
And I think you're wrong about game plan as well. Nothing wrong with playing in the right parts of the field. But you have to threaten a break to force the wings to stop hanging deep, and you have to score points when you're in the right position. Hit hard you might say. Well, we don't. We simply grind away looking for penalties. Sooner or later that won't be enough, and anyone who is forcing that to be the only plan is a liability. Still, in the name of fairness, if the pack is completely and totally dominant, Barritt looks ok. I just don't think that's enough.
