[England] Post-6N/Pre-RWC Player Watch

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

To be fair Manu has beaten SA at 12 how many other English 12's can say that.



I don't see the harm in starting it in a warm up game fact is you know what 36 and Burrell brings us at 12.

 

[MrTea_32]

To be fair Manu has beaten SA at 12 how many other English 12's can say that.



I don't see the harm in starting it in a warm up game fact is you know what 36 and Burrell brings us at 12.

I agree burrell and twelvetrees have shown us not a great deal, manu at 12 if it works has to.be tried he's played 12 before and such a destructive runner been put through the small gaps by ford could really work with jj on his shoulder

 

[yaboyjj]

Nowell apparently starting at full back this weekend... just sayin'

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Chance for Haley to stake his claim then

 

[yaboyjj]

Chance for Haley to stake his claim then

ayyyyy :lol:
It's a pretty interesting scenario though- obviously Baxter wasn't 'happy' with his involvement off the wing (at least in lline with his carrying potential) and moved him to OC, but now that Steenson is back in the team -> Slade to OC, he feels Nowell would be more involved at fullback....
Unless there is another reason such as an injury to Dollman/McGuigan or maybe wanting both Jess/Whitten in he team?

 

[Mumbles119]

But then has either Burrell or Twelvetrees proved they are playmakers at the top level?

You are right. They certainly haven't.

I am very worried that we have no stand out choices for 12. Aside from this discussion on Manu, I can't help but wonder if Eastmond or Slade would be best too?

It just feels left too late.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Maybe Waldrom on the wing?

 

[yaboyjj]

You are right. They certainly haven't.

I am very worried that we have no stand out choices for 12. Aside from this discussion on Manu, I can't help but wonder if Eastmond or Slade would be best too?

It just feels left too late.

From the way I see it, Lanky always assumed that his partnership going into the WC would be Barritt/Tuilagi, it's just that both their injuries in the Autumn and 6 nations respectively, allowed Joseph an opportunity. Him playing so well (virtually unstoppable atm) put a spanner in the works from Lankys point of view imo, and now it's a straight shoot out between Barritt and Tuilagi for the IC shirt. I reckon 36 and Burrell were only ever stopgap measures and only in the absence of Tuilagi/Barritt will they ever start (pls God let this be the case).

Although having said this, I think Lanky has a particular soft spot for Burrell and 36, the first on account of his 'big game mentality (had a decent game in the latter AP games last season and the 2014 6 nations) and Twelvetrees on account of his training ground 'leadership' (AKA shouting a lot on the field/training pitch and being a club captain- rather like Wood actually).

 

[chippieolamus]

To be honest, I'm happy with Barritt starting as long as it is Ford playing 10. He'll have Tuilagi or Joseph outside him, who are destructive runners anyway so having Barritt isn't such an issue.

 

[Peat]

We all moan when Lancaster plays players out of position know you all want (in the very little time we have) to gamble on a 13 to transfer to 12 in a couple of games?

Are you all mad? If tuilgi doesn't work then we will have missed the opportunity to cement a decent 12 with ford and JJ.

However rubbish 12trees, Burrell, Barrett and Farrell have been at 12, I still think they be better than tuilgi there.

I might be wrong but we don't really have any time to try things out.

No centre pairing still is shambolic Bu Lancaster really.

First, as noted, Tuilagi has played for the Lions at 12, he's played for England at 12, and he's beaten South Africa's disinterested reserves at 12 for his club. It really isn't as radical an idea as you'd like to make out.

Second, this is happening at some point as its the only way to get out 2 best centres - currently out 2 best centres by a big distance - into the team. It's definitely on the agenda, so why not sooner rather than later?

Third - either we have cemented Burrell with Ford and Joseph, or there is no time to cement a player next to them other than Burrell. I mean, think about it...

Fourth, everyone here advocates moving players all the time and only kicks off when they disagree with the individual move. I mean, Vunipola to 6, Itoje to 8, Daly to 12, Daly to cover wing just to pick a recent selection from this thread, people talking about Burgess before he's even moved there... basically, I think its more about you not rating Tuilagi as highly as you should and being puzzled that people do rate him higher than yourself. There's nothing logical about your objection otherwise.

I mean, if you think Tuilagi's gonna struggle to meet the bar set by our recent 12s, that's a pretty damning statement of him already...

 

[yaboyjj]

To be honest, I'm happy with Barritt starting as long as it is Ford playing 10. He'll have Tuilagi or Joseph outside him, who are destructive runners anyway so having Barritt isn't such an issue.

I agree pretty much. To stop Englands defense leaking like a colander, a decent defensive presence at IC and a right wing who can tackle would go a fair way towards achieving that.

- - - Updated - - -

First, as noted, Tuilagi has played for the Lions at 12, he's played for England at 12, and he's beaten South Africa's disinterested reserves at 12 for his club. It really isn't as radical an idea as you'd like to make out.

Second, this is happening at some point as its the only way to get out 2 best centres - currently out 2 best centres by a big distance - into the team. It's definitely on the agenda, so why not sooner rather than later?

Third - either we have cemented Burrell with Ford and Joseph, or there is no time to cement a player next to them other than Burrell. I mean, think about it...

Fourth, everyone here advocates moving players all the time and only kicks off when they disagree with the individual move. I mean, Vunipola to 6, Itoje to 8, Daly to 12, Daly to cover wing just to pick a recent selection from this thread, people talking about Burgess before he's even moved there... basically, I think its more about you not rating Tuilagi as highly as you should and being puzzled that people do rate him higher than yourself. There's nothing logical about your objection otherwise.

I mean, if you think Tuilagi's gonna struggle to meet the bar set by our recent 12s, that's a pretty damning statement of him already...

I sincerley hope no-one is serious about moving Itoje to 8, Daly to 12 or even Vunipola to 6...
But yeah, I agree Tuilagi to 12 is not an unreasonable shift for him and he does have experience there and yes, the standard set so far is pitifully low.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

First, as noted, Tuilagi has played for the Lions at 12, he's played for England at 12, and he's beaten South Africa's disinterested reserves at 12 for his club. It really isn't as radical an idea as you'd like to make out.

Second, this is happening at some point as its the only way to get out 2 best centres - currently out 2 best centres by a big distance - into the team. It's definitely on the agenda, so why not sooner rather than later?

Third - either we have cemented Burrell with Ford and Joseph, or there is no time to cement a player next to them other than Burrell. I mean, think about it...

Fourth, everyone here advocates moving players all the time and only kicks off when they disagree with the individual move. I mean, Vunipola to 6, Itoje to 8, Daly to 12, Daly to cover wing just to pick a recent selection from this thread, people talking about Burgess before he's even moved there... basically, I think its more about you not rating Tuilagi as highly as you should and being puzzled that people do rate him higher than yourself. There's nothing logical about your objection otherwise.

I mean, if you think Tuilagi's gonna struggle to meet the bar set by our recent 12s, that's a pretty damning statement of him already...

It's not that I don't rate tuilagi, he would be my 2nd choice 13 with JJ fit. It's the fact you have named every game he has played at 12, all 5 of them. I don't think that makes him experienced enough to go to the World Cup as our first choice 12 that's all.

I'd rather have hill play 12 if that's what we are thinking in style wise.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

TBH I would rather take hill over Burrell and twelvetrees now.

But it won't happen.

 

[91jmay]

We shouldn't play a lock who isn't Itoje at 6. Slater and Launchbury don't get about the park well enough for a 6.

 

[Peat]

It's not that I don't rate tuilagi, he would be my 2nd choice 13 with JJ fit. It's the fact you have named every game he has played at 12, all 5 of them. I don't think that makes him experienced enough to go to the World Cup as our first choice 12 that's all.

I'd rather have hill play 12 if that's what we are thinking in style wise.

So you'd rather have a player who's never played international rugby over a guy who's done it at the highest level because of experience?

And, tidy as Hill looks, there's not a single world beating attribute to him and there's a good chance there never will be. Tuilagi is one of the top five most powerful centres anywhere in rugby union. There is a pretty marked difference there.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

We shouldn't play a lock who isn't Itoje at 6. Slater and Launchbury don't get about the park well enough for a 6.

I'd disagree, certainly about Launchbury. It's worth taking into consideration that locks are generally knackered by setpiece work anyway, so their general play is affected. Look up Launchbury's player of the month Aviva video from a couple of years ago from when he was playing at 6 for Wasps.

 

[Maverick1987]

So you'd rather have a player who's never played international rugby over a guy who's done it at the highest level because of experience?

And, tidy as Hill looks, there's not a single world beating attribute to him and there's a good chance there never will be. Tuilagi is one of the top five most powerful centres anywhere in rugby union. There is a pretty marked difference there.

I think also because of the way Manu plays it doesn't matter so much to him which centre position he plays . For me it's the room he will create for JJ and Nowell by drawing the defenders attention that's exciting . JJ is amazing anyway with another yard or 2 of space he could be devastating

He would be create a get out clause for Ford aswell if things aren't going well in the respect of give the ball to Tuilagi and smash it up the middle in the same way Leota does for Cipriani at Sale

As a matter of fact I can't thing of a single centre in international rugby that could do that better

 

[Every Time Ref]

I'm not in general in favour of converting a player to a new position at international level, but for me there are two big reasons why in this case I think it's our best option.

Firstly, as many have mentioned upthread we simply don't have a single alternative twelve without serious question marks against at least one major area. Barritt, Twelvetrees, Burrell all make my heart sink at the prospect of them starting in the twelve shirt in an important match, the fact that people are suggesting Hill, who hasn't played a single international, as a prospect for a starting place in a World Cup speaks volumes. Tuilagi might not be a twelve at the moment, and converting him at such short notice might be a major risk but he's really not facing much competition and he does have the skillset to potentially be a world class twelve.

Secondly, George Ford is the perfect ten for the proposed centre pairing of Tuilagi-Joseph. He's fantastic at picking options who run off him, and Tuilagi will run off him all day. @Maverick1987 already mentioned that Tuilagi will create space for Joseph outside him; he will also create space for Ford inside him. Ford takes the ball to the line and decides what to do at the last possible moment - if Tuilagi takes a defender, Ford will take the gap inside him. So that midfield offers three serious attacking threats for Ford - going himself; popping it to Tuilagi late to smash through the middle; or giving it out the backdoor to Joseph. All three of those are going to ask serious questions of any defence, and Ford is so far has proved to be superb at picking the right option. Any defence is going to have to be absolutely on point to mark all three of them effectively.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I'd like to see Tuilagi at 12. It takes some of the carrying duties off our forwards and he became a bit less effective prior to his injury because he had uncreative players inside him at 10 and 12. Everyone knew the ball would be shovelled to Tuilagi to try to batter through. We also had wings who weren't used very well. Now we have a 10 who attacks the line and poses a running threat himself along with a nice pass and a 13 who offers a good running and passing threat. Teams can no longer cover just Tuilagi because be players inside and outside him can exploit the gaps that would create. If he develops and offload too, I'm sure JJ and Nowell would be there to collect it.

Ultimately I think at the very least it is worth a try. Tuilagi and JJ on form are both good centres, great even and I see no reason to hinder our midfield by selecting one of them if we can potentially have both without too much messing about.

The question is what would we do with the forwards if we use Tuilagi? It would allow us to go for a more athletic pack without such a strong emphasis on carrying ability in tight spaces.

 

[91jmay]

I'd disagree, certainly about Launchbury. It's worth taking into consideration that locks are generally knackered by setpiece work anyway, so their general play is affected. Look up Launchbury's player of the month Aviva video from a couple of years ago from when he was playing at 6 for Wasps.

He moves really well for a lock, for an international back row ? I don't think so, it nullifies some of the advantage he brings from lock.