Well, if limited to the last 10 years (hardly my definition of "a long history", but whatever), then Tuilagi, Joseph (who absolutely was a world beater for a time) and Slade really isn't a bad selection - even if Slade is still more on paper than on grass.
Going back further, then Tait, Tindall and Noon really weren't the problem when played at 13 (nor was Greenwood, though he was a 12 playing 13 when played alongside Catt), further back still and you're straight into the Guscott years.
Listing a bunch of 12s doesn't help your point that 13 is the problem position.
From your list of 13s, out of Burrell, Farrell, Barritt, Banahan and Hape - how many England games total were at 13? Tindall and Noon, whilst fine at 13, and theoretically fine at 12, had to spend far too much time playing alongside each other and hampering the entire backline by doing so.
ETA: Please remember, the conversation has gone:
Zootalaws: England has never struggled to find centres
DSLD: England has always struggled to find centres
WT: I think he means 13s specifically, England have a long history of producing good uns
DSLD: how many great 13s have we produced either in the last 10 years
That's quite some moving of goal posts there. from "Never struggle to find" through "long history of producing good uns" to "greats in the last 10 years". Remember, injuries aside Guscott > Tindall > Tuilagi is an unbroken run of 1st choice 13s going back to 1989
