Pretty clearly said 'guys'. I have a problem with any player who throws an offload to the opposition. And yes it is more a sin to give away 7 points than possibly costing your team 7 points, I would much rather be 0-0 than 0-7 and having to chase the game because any player tried an offload when it wasn't on. You see if any player cost us the game I would be annoyed, it just seems to be the case that Twelvetrees ****s up more than other players.
It really isn't. Really, really isn't.
A bad offload is a player doing something he's meant to be doing badly. The idea is good but the execution is off.
Not supporting a break is a player doing something he's not meant to be doing. The idea is bad.
It is more excusable for a player to do the former than the latter.
Now, lets assume you disagree and grade everything solely on the effect it has on the pitch. Personally, that's an awful idea, as you have to be encouraging players to follow the right processes, which means being more lenient on bad execution than bad ideas - if you won't accept the odd bad offload, you'll only accept no offloads, as if you throw offloads sooner or later you'll throw a bad one - but that is the only logically consistent position with what you're saying. Lets compare the two situations.
First one - Twelvetrees makes a break, he throws a bad offload, New Zealand regain possession 60 yards up the pitch, then proceed to run it all the way back down the pitch from the ensuing breakdown to score a try in a single phase. Personally, I am rather off with the idea that the player making the offload is the only person responsible; there's 60 yards for the ******** to get through, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of the English defence to stop them in this space, but there we go. Seven points are conceded.
Second one - Tuilagi makes a break, Twelvetrees scratches his balls. Brown goes with Tuilagi, two NZ backs make it back. If Twelvetrees goes, it's a 3 on 2, and even with a justifiably dim opinion of English back play, that should be a try. At the very least, he might stop the ensuing turnover, from which NZ set a position and clear, a ball that Farrell knocks on, which becomes a scrum that becomes a NZ penalty which is three points. So, we've gone from probably scoring five points minimum if he makes the supporting run, to conceding three points. That's an eight point swing.
So the second one has a bigger influence on the score board. So, whichever way you dress it, it's a bigger sin.
Which would seem to justify your anger towards Twelvetrees even more. But wait.
Farrell knocked on an infringing penalty (3 points), missed a penalty (3 points) and then got himself binned for a period in which we conceded 10 points. So, Farrell cost us 16 points, comfortably enough to swing that match, so clearly its even more his fault.
But, before someone points it out, Farrell did score a lot of points that maybe arguably should be included in his plus column.
But in which case, Twelvetrees' try assist needs to be remembered, so he only cost us 8 points overall.
And Luther Burrell missed two tackles that led directly to tries, costing us 12 points. So actually he's the one that cost us the match.
And Tuilagi failed to track back to his wing for that try off of the turnover, and failed to convert his chance, so that's another 12...
So, I really don't see how Twelvetree's grass cutter to Wood could be described as costing us the match, when it's so easy to pick out mistakes that led to tries (Marland Yarde for Nonu's try f' instance).
So I will ask you why should Twelvetree's be the starting 12 ?
Depends what you want, doesn't it?
If you assume Lancaster wants continuity in his current system, which calls for a second playmaker, then it's him or Eastmond, and he's got the advantage of being bigger and stronger. He's also got more experience. Eastmond's probably got the higher ceiling, but Twelvetrees is more of a known quantity. I suppose there's also throwing in a youngster, but this close to the World Cup, I think they'll have to set the world on fire to make it.
If he's thinking of changing it up and going for more of a power play, then Twelvetrees remains in contention although it's a different chat. Twelvetrees will make more yards than Barritt. He probably won't make more than Burrell, but once again he has the virtue of experience. Whoever plays 12 will be defensive leader; Twelvetrees and Barritt are the only two guys with real international experience of that (which gives GN10's logic more credit now I think of it).
I don't think there's anything he does at which he's the best option. But, providing he's in form, he's the second best in all of them. He's capable of performing to international level in all of those areas, even if he's not excellent in any of them. The one point at which I think he's got an advantage over them all is that so far he's had the best partnership with Farrell at international level. Is that enough? I don't know. I suspect it will be enough for Lancaster if he's in form with Glaws, but I'm not sold that makes it the right idea. But then I'm not sold on any of Barritt, Burrell or Eastmond.
Hence my constant prayer for Devoto.
Not exactly the best Meters per runs stats is it.
:lol: Look at the ESPN stats a lot and, actually, it's pretty decent. Nonu only made 11m off of 9 carries in that game. 19m off of 5 carries in the first test, that's about the same. Then he made 50m off of 11 carries in the 2nd test, better but not outrageously so. Let's go look at a few more games on ESPN; Pests vs Sinners; Burrell 9m, 9c, Bell, 13m, 4c. Chiefs vs Tigers; Allen, 15c, 31m, Hill 10c, 35m. NZ vs SA, Nonu, 4c, 24m, de Villiers, 10c, 27m. Finally, Aus vs Arg, Toomua, 9c, 5m, Hernandez, 3c, 10m. No, I didn't get the Toomua one wrong. I think Barritt had one game for England where the stats say that he made 6 carries and only made 1 metre, it happens...
Due to the amount of traffic that 12s carry in, it's pretty common for a 12 to have a low metre per carry return.
Lets compare Barritt V NZ, to 36 first game against NZ you posted.
Yes, comparing a game against a side suffering from a virus outbreak against a game against one not is totally a fair comparison. But in any case, so what? Barritt had a very good game that day. Doesn't mean Twelvetrees didn't have a good game on his day. Trying to determine whether someone had a good game by comparing them to one other game is, in any case, really stupid.
