• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Tuilagi and England's centres

Don't Skip Leg Day

International
TRF Legend
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
5,603
Country Flag
England
Club or Nation
Northampton
So tuilagi came back on the pitch for 30 minutes and had the ball 6 times.

He didn't pass once! Looking back at burrells 6 nations made me think that tuilagi would never have played as well as Burrell. His vision, passing and kicking game is miles ahead of tuilagi and I just can't see tuilagi being anything more than an impact player now.

As people have said before I don't think it's the players he is playing with I just think he doesn't have the vision of an international centre.

Should he look to move to the wing or just work on his passing game which isn't there (unless you speak to die hard tigers fans who tell you he can pass).
 
mmm I dunno about Burrell's kicking game, and his vision isn't exactly miles ahead of Tuilagi's either.

But when in Rome (troll face) this year, I think we can all say we felt the difference for England: Burrell was his consistent self that game, strong ball-carrier, present in the rucks, dedicated etc...but then Tuilagi came in and it literally took three Italians on every single impact to stop him and he was still bending the curtain. He even crossed with all too much ease, just hard to watch if you were pro-Italy, that bad.
He also had a chase with about 4 Italians in front of him and almost got the ball I remember, so isn't the slowest guy on the field. Those Samoan legs get him places...

There's no substitute for sheer power, thighs the size of my torso - each - a Pac Isl running style that constantly, constantly tire the defense and threaten to spread wide open the defense, about 112kg of over-exuberant speed and power.

Mass+mobility= enough at center. If he never passed the ball even once, it would be easily enough, let the other center do the rest.

If Burrell is a satisfying enough passer, put Burrell and Twi. If not, pick 36 since he's been praised for his passing.
 
mmm I dunno about Burrell's kicking game, and his vision isn't exactly miles ahead of Tuilagi's either.

But when in Rome (troll face) this year, I think we can all say we felt the difference for England: Burrell was his consistent self that game, strong ball-carrier, present in the rucks, dedicated etc...but then Tuilagi came in and it literally took three Italians on every single impact to stop him and he was still bending the curtain. He even crossed with all too much ease, just hard to watch if you were pro-Italy, that bad.
He also had a chase with about 4 Italians in front of him and almost got the ball I remember, so isn't the slowest guy on the field. Those Samoan legs get him places...

There's no substitute for sheer power, thighs the size of my torso - each - a Pac Isl running style that constantly, constantly tire the defense and threaten to spread wide open the defense, about 112kg of over-exuberant speed and power.

Mass+mobility= enough at center. If he never passed the ball even once, it would be easily enough, let the other center do the rest.

If Burrell is a satisfying enough passer, put Burrell and Twi. If not, pick 36 since he's been praised for his passing.

That is so wrong it's untrue. Mass may be enough against weak oppositon but you are judged by how you go against the SH where just being a barrelling runner is not enough - Look at Nonu and how he has had to change his game, tuilagi will be worked out and shut down.

On Saturday when Tuilagi came on we saw an attack become very narrow and the back three drop out fo the equation..maybe that's enough for you but it suddenly ruined our attacking options and we became far more predictable.

Lancaster hinted very strongly the other day on the Talksport interview what they one of the England centres was seen as covering wing - and that was Manu. Think he mentioned it three or four times.

The cntres are seen as:
12: 36, Barritt, Eastmond
13: Burrell, Tuilagi, Tomkins
 
Last edited:
I think Eastmond is potentially ahead of Barritt.
He traveled with England to Rome in case 36 had to pull out ahead of him.
 
It's laughable to hear anyone say burrells vision is only slightly better than tuilagis! When playing for England tuilagi ruins our wingers chances by not looking for what's on. It's no good taking four defenders with you if you just go to ground and slow the game down as all the space gets eaten right up.

12trees and Burrell is the best England centre combo we have seen I years.

I'm not saying they are brilliant but the best of what we have tried
 
It's laughable to hear anyone say burrells vision is only slightly better than tuilagis! When playing for England tuilagi ruins our wingers chances by not looking for what's on. It's no good taking four defenders with you if you just go to ground and slow the game down as all the space gets eaten right up.

12trees and Burrell is the best England centre combo we have seen I years.

I'm not saying they are brilliant but the best of what we have tried

Will Carling was also on Talkspot the other night saying he thinks this is the best centre combo he's seen in a long time... he like burrel and 36, but said 36 was trying to hard and should just relax a bit.

He also said he though Tuilagi should move to wing as he is limited in his skills and very tunnel visioned.
 
Last edited:
I'm slightly shocked that people don't seem to be able to look past Manu's impact as an individual to see the effect he has on our attacking shape - which he very obviously limits.

His one strength is stronger than any of the single qualities our other backs had on Saturday - but our team is significantly hampered by his style of play IMO.

It's a similar situation to Tom Youngs... if he could throw in then he would be first choice - but he can't/isn't.
And there is no use in saying that he can if he doesn't.
 
Last edited:
i said exactly that.

"On Saturday when Tuilagi came on we saw an attack become very narrow and the back three drop out fo the equation..maybe that's enough for you but it suddenly ruined our attacking options and we became far more predictable."
 
Agree about attacking shape, which is why I like the prospect of Manu as a winger.
That way we can get to use him almost as often as we want, without it necessarily removing our shape.
 
it's true, he might affect the English attack as a whole in a not-so-beneficial way.
But goodnumber10 you say he only manages to puncture through weak defenses, that's just absurd. Most "good teams" have their defense focused on him because they know beforehand the load he is and have enough organization in their ranks to get back in position while other teams have more difficulty recovering from his impacts.
But Tuilagi is responsible for about 2.5/3 tries England scored on NZ in 2012, has scored the one try against Australia that same tour and there are all the other 'smaller' moments where he doesn't actually score tries that I can't mention here in matches against Tier 1 opposition.

And trust me as a Frenchman having Bastareaud on my national side I understand the suffocating limits of having a bulldozer but who cannot give a pass and has ultra-narrow vision. We call him a "coffre à ballons" in french, literally a 'safe for balls', i.e. he smothers all the balls he touches and turns into a big safe locking it up.

But Manu is a more capable passer than that, and he's so mobile and is like a bull. Personally I'd go 12.Twelvetrees 13.Tuilagi, 23. Burrell.
He beats far more defenders than Burrell, requires 3 guys to take down (Burrell doesn't), tackles much harder (dunno the stats, speaking out of memory), I'm pretty sure runs faster, breaks through tackles much more easily and is 100x more likely to pierce a hole in the defense...

Burrell might have qualities over Tuilagi, but with all that in mind there's no doubt for me, personally.
 
Manu just needs to be taught when to pass, we've seen him do it very effectively in the past. Moving him to wing might pay off.
 
mmmm yeah. Good idea. It sounds crazy and blasphemous and YARRRR !!!, but then if you think about it, he might be...better at the wing ?

I'd dunno, coz a winger still doesn't get the ball as much as a center, and when he punctures holes it's at midfield high in the defense, where it hurts the most.
 
Burrell is better than Manu, ok. But Manu can play at wing? In this position you can spend many minutes without touching the ball, and many players will lose themselves and wasted the few opportunities they have in a game.
 
it's true, he might affect the English attack as a whole in a not-so-beneficial way.
But goodnumber10 you say he only manages to puncture through weak defenses, that's just absurd. Most "good teams" have their defense focused on him because they know beforehand the load he is and have enough organization in their ranks to get back in position while other teams have more difficulty recovering from his impacts.
But Tuilagi is responsible for about 2.5/3 tries England scored on NZ in 2012, has scored the one try against Australia that same tour and there are all the other 'smaller' moments where he doesn't actually score tries that I can't mention here in matches against Tier 1 opposition.

And trust me as a Frenchman having Bastareaud on my national side I understand the suffocating limits of having a bulldozer but who cannot give a pass and has ultra-narrow vision. We call him a "coffre à ballons" in french, literally a 'safe for balls', i.e. he smothers all the balls he touches and turns into a big safe locking it up.

But Manu is a more capable passer than that, and he's so mobile and is like a bull. Personally I'd go 12.Twelvetrees 13.Tuilagi, 23. Burrell.
He beats far more defenders than Burrell, requires 3 guys to take down (Burrell doesn't), tackles much harder (dunno the stats, speaking out of memory), I'm pretty sure runs faster, breaks through tackles much more easily and is 100x more likely to pierce a hole in the defense...

Burrell might have qualities over Tuilagi, but with all that in mind there's no doubt for me, personally.

For a start i never said he only punctures through weak defences i said using mass as a tactic is fine against weak defences but against the top teams you need a lot more. Nonu found this out and went back to the drawing board - developed his passing and kicking and footwork.

And really sorry mate, but if you think Englands attacking shape was better with Tuilagi there than with Burrel then you're deluded. Yes, he created one try against NZ with a well timed run and the other was an intercept otherwise he looks for contact and he seldom passes. People keep saying he's a more capable passer than that but how would you know since he never passes?

Burrel runs good lines, passes well off both hands, offloads out of the tackle - I'm pretty certain browns first try would not have been scored if Tuilagi had been on the pitch. Tuilagi scores trys, yet i'm pretty sure Burrell has scored a few in his 5 caps.
 
I am so pleased the consensus to date here is for Burrell over Manu!

I wholeheartedly agree and believe he is an impact player only as we have better wings although can see hey he could be bench material for centres and wing cover.

I would only say one thing in fairness to Manu - on Saturday was nowhere near match fit and his overall performance clearly demonstrated this and all his flaws.

I do believe it did him or England, no favours to be brought on in that game and the try he scored does not change that opinion!!
 
The question I feel needs to be answered is why Manu hasn't been 'taught to pass' by now?

He's been on the international scene since 2011 and the one consistent criticism of his game, from all corners, has been his lack of distribution. Only the nuttiest of fans would suggest that he can actually pass well enough to bring out outside backs into the game.

From one point of view this was less of a problem when out wingers were Ashton, Strettle and an out of position Brown. They didn't offer that muchout wide, except for at the end of a massive overlap, and only ever looked threatening in broken play. Manu was our main attacking threat and simply by running hard and straight was having a much greater impact. I'm guessing thats how he's got away without passing for so long.

Now of course things are different. This tournament, as well as the Argentina tour and to a certain extent the AIs, has shown that we do indeed have talented outside backs who can, if given the ball at the right time by a passing 13, make big yards. Burrell has been key making this happen.

So its obvious we do better with a 13 who can both bosh and pass, rather than one who just boshes. Burrell has highlighted that but to be honest uits been apparent, or should have been apparent to the management, since the summer. It is also a long standing issue with Manu's game that his passing is not up to scratch. Why, during his very long injury lay off (or before that) wasn't he given a ball and told to practice passing every day?

Of course if that has happened and he still can't do it then in the long run I don't think he'll be as useful to England as Burrell or JJ.
 
The question I feel needs to be answered is why Manu hasn't been 'taught to pass' by now?

He's been on the international scene since 2011 and the one consistent criticism of his game, from all corners, has been his lack of distribution. Only the nuttiest of fans would suggest that he can actually pass well enough to bring out outside backs into the game.

From one point of view this was less of a problem when out wingers were Ashton, Strettle and an out of position Brown. They didn't offer that muchout wide, except for at the end of a massive overlap, and only ever looked threatening in broken play. Manu was our main attacking threat and simply by running hard and straight was having a much greater impact. I'm guessing thats how he's got away without passing for so long.

Now of course things are different. This tournament, as well as the Argentina tour and to a certain extent the AIs, has shown that we do indeed have talented outside backs who can, if given the ball at the right time by a passing 13, make big yards. Burrell has been key making this happen.

So its obvious we do better with a 13 who can both bosh and pass, rather than one who just boshes. Burrell has highlighted that but to be honest uits been apparent, or should have been apparent to the management, since the summer. It is also a long standing issue with Manu's game that his passing is not up to scratch. Why, during his very long injury lay off (or before that) wasn't he given a ball and told to practice passing every day?

Of course if that has happened and he still can't do it then in the long run I don't think he'll be as useful to England as Burrell or JJ.

I wonder what he's like when he plays touch rugby.

Well to be fair there is a difference between passing and knowing when to pass within a game situation. I'm sure he can pass (lions tour that step and blind offload to BOD was fantastic) but it's his awareness that seems to be the issue. I'd also say he's not had the benefit of Catts skills coaching that everyone else has had over the 6nations and training camps so he's probably a good 6 months behind the rest of the squad with what the coaches want and how they want him to play - it's not just telling him he needs to do.

Maybe he'll turn into a complete centre but for my money he's not our best option at 13 just now. Having said that as much as i rate Burrell I'm still left wondering who I'd rather see line up against the AB's.

Still we've had worse problems in the midfield haven't we?
 
Last edited:
Top