England's back line

[ratsapprentice]

Cool head with a good rugby brain, good handling skill and an excellent defensive organiser.....

Got any good examples of that??

 

[goodNumber10]

Got any good examples of that??

How about the whole of the first season he played? The game against New Zealand in 2012?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Yeah, are people's opinions of Barritt really that low?
He's a solid rugby player. He's not Eastmond going forward, but that doesn't mean he's Banahan but with the ability to tackle.

 

[ratsapprentice]

We're talking in the context of international players, and to me "good" means "above average".

I can't agree that Brad has above average anything, other than defense, in which he is unparalleled.

I am a fan of his, he's a good player and comes across as a genuinely nice guy, but him starting at 12 with Farrell sucks all the enthusiasm out of my arsehole.

 

[Tony Manx]

Got any good examples of that??

The climax to Brad's four starts in the 2012 QBE Internationals was his maiden Test touchdown against New Zealand at Twickenham. He made a searing break after being put through a gap by Owen Farrell before exchanging passes with Manu Tuilagi and running in a spectacular try. Brad's staunch tackling and defensive organisation was a vital factor when England beat Ireland 12-6 at the Aviva Stadium in Dublin last February. He also excelled against France at Twickenham 13 days later and went on to start every match in the 2013 RBS 6 Nations Championship.

https://www.rfu.com/squadsandplayers/englandelite/bradbarritt

I would rate him anyway but would add that Will Greenwood, who I rate above most pundit, has always rated him!

 

[ratsapprentice]

The break he made vs the AB's is also an example of him not having a cool head - he very nearly ****ed it up by passing waaaaaay too early (I'm not nitpicking here - he panicked).

Will Greenwood has described Alex Goode as England's best Rugby player.

 

[Peat]

Everything Rats said. Everything.



I feel that GN10 has too little faith and too much. We are developing as an attacking force and will continue to do so. We've got a wealth of young attacking talent, its just about finding the guys that click with international rugby, and we've got two 12s (who I wouldn't rush to condemn defensively) who are there or there abouts who'll improve with more game time and offer us the attacking dimensions.

Also, I don't think we have the 'conservative' game neccessary to win the World Cup and I don't think we have a coach willing to implement it. To break that down:
- Our back three is not solid enough
- Farrell can't run the game well enough at international level without a babysitting 2nd 5th/8th
- Our maul defence is too weak
- Our scrum is insufficiently dominant
- Our ability to win three pointers at the breakdown is limited

And I daresay a few more points

So if we can't win it conservatively, I'd rather we had a real lash at it and kept developing a side that had a genuine attempt at 2019.

 

[TheSaffycen]

I would like to see Barritt and Burrell given a chance together. I really rate Barritt as he improves the defensive side of the WHOLE team, and his passing isn't as bad as people make out. He is very limited (like alot of Sarries players) but he does his job, and he is far more consistent than Eastmond/ Twelvetrees. If we where to pick him however i would feel you have to have a Cipriani at 10/ Daly at 14 to come in and be a second playmaker. But at the end of the day if Barritt was in New Zealand we wouldn't have been ****ed so hard and he couldn't have been any worse going forwards than a half fit twelvetrees. Long term Eastmond/36/Devoto but at the end of the day the world cup isn't that far away.

 

[goodNumber10]

I am a fan of his, he's a good player and comes across as a genuinely nice guy, but him starting at 12 with Farrell sucks all the enthusiasm out of my arsehole.

That made me laugh!

Everything Rats said. Everything.



I feel that GN10 has too little faith and too much. We are developing as an attacking force and will continue to do so. We've got a wealth of young attacking talent, its just about finding the guys that click with international rugby, and we've got two 12s (who I wouldn't rush to condemn defensively) who are there or there abouts who'll improve with more game time and offer us the attacking dimensions.

Also, I don't think we have the 'conservative' game neccessary to win the World Cup and I don't think we have a coach willing to implement it. To break that down:
- Our back three is not solid enough
- Farrell can't run the game well enough at international level without a babysitting 2nd 5th/8th
- Our maul defence is too weak
- Our scrum is insufficiently dominant
- Our ability to win three pointers at the breakdown is limited

And I daresay a few more points

So if we can't win it conservatively, I'd rather we had a real lash at it and kept developing a side that had a genuine attempt at 2019.

See the thing is I think we do have the conservative game to win it, and sadly I think that's our best chance.

If the cup was in 2-3 years I'd want others given more time, but unless something drastic changes with their games I'll be far more confident with Barritt taking the field than 36 & Eastmond.

The break he made vs the AB's is also an example of him not having a cool head - he very nearly ****ed it up by passing waaaaaay too early (I'm not nitpicking here - he panicked).

I've got no problem with when he passed, he passed stayed alive and followed up, Manus pass was too late.

***just watched it again... He did everything right IMHO, he made the break, ball into two hands, his legs had gone so he passed to Manu then supported.

At best he could have drifted out and let Manu cut back in.

Will Greenwood has described Alex Goode as England's best Rugby player.

Yes, well.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I can't believe what I'm reading!

We all wanted barritt out and 12trees in. Apart from New Zealand 12trees has continued to improve as a player where as barritt is as good as he's going to get.

Barritt at 12 will not provide the go forward ball we need. He can't crash it up, his passing is poor and all he brings is a defensive game.

If that's what you want still Haskell at 12, better crash ball, better tackler and better going forward.

 

[goodNumber10]

I can't believe what I'm reading!

We all wanted barritt out and 12trees in. Apart from New Zealand 12trees has continued to improve as a player where as barritt is as good as he's going to get.

Barritt at 12 will not provide the go forward ball we need. He can't crash it up, his passing is poor and all he brings is a defensive game.

If that's what you want still Haskell at 12, better crash ball, better tackler and better going forward.

Well i did say i was putting the cat among the pigeons.

I would like 12trees to come on, but so far he has flattered to deceive, that 2nd test in NZ was the final straw for me, his decision making was awful and it completely undermined everything good we'd done int he first test.

I don't think Eastmond is going to make it as an international 12, for reason we've gone over too many times to repeat, so i'd quite like to see how Barritt would respond in the current England first team - now it's moved on significantly from 2012. Its questionable that if he hadn't been injured in 2013 would we even be looking at Eastmond and 36?

 

[Aristodemus]

The only reason you should ever consider Barritt is if we had an absolute doormat of a 10, we don't. His attack is poor and people stating his try vrs NZ in 2012 as an example of his attacking prowess makes me laugh. Conrad Smith went after Manu leaving the gap then Brad did his very best to butcher it.

 

[goodNumber10]

yes, that's generally how gaps appear, someone making a mistake in defence.

I don't think anyone is waving 2012 as a beacon of his new fangled attacking skills, but the point people are making is 12trees and Eastmonds weaknesses seem to have a bigger impact on the England game than Barritts.

Barritt has never let England down in all his appearances, the same cannot be said of 36 & Eastmond.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Barritt has never let England down in all his appearances, the same cannot be said of 36 & Eastmond.

If you consider the centre to be a key player in attack then he has let England down in most of his appearances.

 

[goodNumber10]

If you consider the centre to be a key player in attack then he has let England down in most of his appearances.

I don't agree.

I concede he's not the most gifted of attackers in world rugby but his all round game and consistency trumps that shortcoming, imho of course.

 

[ratsapprentice]

It does... if you have other players in the team who are capable of putting together phase play that can challenge an organised defense.
If you play Farrell there then you don't have that and their shared limitations come to the fore.

 

[goodNumber10]

It does... if you have other players in the team who are capable of putting together phase play that can challenge an organised defense.
If you play Farrell there then you don't have that and their shared limitations come to the fore.

I don't agree mate, i don't think either of them are as bad at playing the "phases" as people make out - i also think England are moving away from the traditional phase play game plan - hence they've been desperate for 36 to come through and Barritt has been shelved.

I think we'll see them reverting to a more traditional Punch & Spread pattern this season.

just to clarify, i'm not saying i think Barritt is the best attacking 12, or anything like that, i would just like to see what he would produce in the current set up, and i don't accept he's dropped past Eastmond in the pecking order.

 

[Peat]

If Eastmond and Barritt go on the same tour, and Eastmond plays two tests, and Barritt plays one mid-weeker, then even considering the circs of Barritt joining late that looks like he fell down the pecking order to me. Maybe that's been changed in the light of test 3 but that is a statement without proof.

As for everything else... well, I disagree, and quite strongly. I disagree on Barritt's attacking output being anywhere near acceptable, be it as distributor or ball carrier, and believe the big change between 2012 and now comes mainly from his absence. I disagree on Twelvetrees, who has mainly been good for us, and doesn't deserve anything like the flak he's receiving for putting in a dodgy performance on his first game back after a long spell out and that game being the most challenging possible. I disagree on Eastmond, who has done a great deal more good than bad for England. If we judged all players as harshly as Twelvetrees and Eastmond are being judged, we would soon run out of players.

And I really disagree about the idea of relying on a conservative gameplan. We are not sufficiently strong in many of the fundamentals needed. It's not like Barritt was able to stop the disintegration against Wales by his defensive magnificence, after all.

But then, I mostly think we're just not strong enough to win the World Cup.

Happily, I think Lancaster is wedded to the idea of having a significant ball in hand threat, and appears to have shunted Barritt to the edge of his squad somewhat... time will tell if that's true, but hopefully it is.

 

[goodNumber10]

fair enough mate, I agree i don't think we're strong enough to win the world cup.

On the other stuff we'll have to agree to disagree, it's just my observations and opinion on Barritt we each have differing ones - remember i'm still a fan of Tompkins

 

[Big Ewis]

fair enough mate, I agree i don't think we're strong enough to win the world cup.

haven't followed the convo but just about this point: England absolutely NEED to beat everybody in the pool, or else (provided they get 2nd pool seed) they're immediately up against the Boks in the 1/4F. England's best bet is beating everybody, and meeting Samoa/Scotland in the 1/4F. Easy peasy, let's be franky. Then, France, Ireland or Argentina. At home, that goes England's way. So far so good. Now they're in the final, at home, against the Boks/All-Blacks most likely. Anything can happen at home in a final.
That's a very nice, easy route for England considering it's a WORLD CUP. It is. But of course all of this can just not happen if they lose but one game in the pool. And I don't think they'll beat S.A. in a 1/4F, even at home. We'll see how the Boks do in Twickers in 3 months.

* An incredibly serendipitous path would be England do end up 2nd in pool, manage to beat the Saffers, and in the meantime France beats the AB's and rids England once again of NZ, after which England patiently take care of France in the 1/2F yet again and find a straight path to the Final, against...Australia or Ireland.