Tuilagi and England's centres

[McTallshort]

Not difficult for me rats I just dont agree with you doesnt make me wrong.

I have played in the backrow many times in the last 30 years and just think the whole out and out 7 is a bit of red herring. Owen Farrell is a different 10 to Jonny Sexton does that make him not a 10?

Also who decided what an openside is? I can think of a number of players past and present who have worn 7 and been very different players. Neil Back was differnet to Peter Winterbottom. Lewis Moody was different to Ben Clarke. Sam Warburton is different to SOB.

Which ones correct?

 

[goodNumber10]

He is being told to run hard for England but I think he offers a huge amount on the field, much more than Burrell. He causes panic in opposition defence and drags defenders to cover him leaving more space for others, what we need is a real creative gem of a 12 like Eastmond to exploit the space it creates. He also can target weak FH's because having someone like Manu run down your throat a few times hurts performance and he can clear out like a boss too providing quick ball when needed. He is a great player and frankly I am pretty shocked so many people don't want him back. Best wrecking ball centre in world rugby in my eyes.

As fpr goodnumber10 comments on the NZ match, he created one try? Check the Barritt try out, that was ALL Tuilagi. The best centre in the world was dragged out of position because he was worried about Manu then the guy who can't pass sucks both defenders in and offloads.

What you mean this try? The one where Farrell takes it to the line Barritt makes the break and Manu executes a simple 2 on 1 back to Barritt? Tuilagi created that did he?


To put that all down to Tuilagi is stretching it a little.

Farrell took it to the line and pulled Nonu and Read in (which is who Barritt made the break outside of), Smith did everything right for a "man on defence" which is normal in his own half off quick phase play - he scanned counted the numbers knew Jane was sitting in the pocket and left a two on two inside and pushed on the outside man and mirrored up and trusted his inside defenders - notice England have a 3 on three, nonu realigns quickly, and Farrell takes two out with his draw and pass. The man at fault was read, he should have held his man on, and left Farrell to nonu - it's the speed of the ball that creates that try as it allows the defence to stay deset and farrell to come onto the ball and bring it to the line.

But you are right it was AAAAAALLLLL Tuilagi.

He made a fantastic break through carter and gave a good pass to Ashton for his try, and intercepted for his own.

 

[goodNumber10]

ummm I am a very big Manu fan but must say the not just the centres but the whole backline has improved massively since the AIs but to say its just because Burrell is playing is being a bit simplistic. The backline has improved because....

1.Danny Care is playing brilliantly.
2.Owen Farrell is playing better in attack.
3.36 is finally showing the form we all hoped he would because he has been very ordinary for England until now.
4.Ashton has been dropped.
5.Goode has been dropped
6.We finally have 2 wingers that can play...you know well.
7.Brown is in the form of his life.

Add all this up and if Manu had been at 13 instead of Burrell are we saying the results would have been different? Sorry no I dont buy it.

No one is putting results down to Burrell playing, or the change of style down to Burrel. Everyone is saying the backline looked more balanced and cohesive and that he did a lot that Tuilagi won't or chooses not to. There is a difference to what we're saying and what you're claiming we're saying.

Would the backline have worked differently with Tuilagi in it, i think so but we don't' know, but i think we can all agree that it worked without him and no one should be guaranteed a starting spot and a guy who is playing exceptionally well in Burrell shouldn't' be dropped because a player came back from a 6 month layoff and played 60 minutes of rugby.

It sends out completely the wrong message in that if you step up and are asked to do the job you won't be rewarded with consistency of selection because the coaches favourite is back - this is the exact mentality that has messed Wales up this 6nations.

 

[goodNumber10]

Christ you're obtuse.

Wearing 7 =/= being an openside.

Hows this for obtuse?

In France the 6 plays the openside, and in south africa six either plays open or they run as left and right.

 

[goodNumber10]

Not difficult for me rats I just dont agree with you doesnt make me wrong.

I have played in the backrow many times in the last 30 years and just think the whole out and out 7 is a bit of red herring. Owen Farrell is a different 10 to Jonny Sexton does that make him not a 10?

Also who decided what an openside is? I can think of a number of players past and present who have worn 7 and been very different players. Neil Back was differnet to Peter Winterbottom. Lewis Moody was different to Ben Clarke. Sam Warburton is different to SOB.

Which ones correct?

agreed, there is more to it than just being an out and out fetcher.

If the pack is good and balanced you dont' need that. If you've got 3/4 guys who can all fetch and link that's surely better than one? People spout about MacCaw and he does fetch but so does pretty much everyone else in the NZ pack, nay team.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I give up.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Dave...

....Seymour

 

[Patchey]

Dave...

....Seymour

The moment the word openside was mentions I knew this would happen...

P.s. Robshaw is a 6.

 

[goodNumber10]

I give up.

No don't give up, you haven't even told us that Wallace does the fetching for quins

 

[TheSaffycen]

I see Barritt there and i'm like why can't he do this more often ! Defensively he is very sound and I never really remember him making the wrong decision. If he can do this against New Zealand than why against Italy does he just run straight into people and get no-where!! When he and 36 played together we did look quite impressive and I think maybe we could try it again but we don't have any games now till the world cup when we can experiment the two together.

 

[goodNumber10]

I see Barritt there and i'm like why can't he do this more often ! Defensively he is very sound and I never really remember him making the wrong decision. If he can do this against New Zealand than why against Italy does he just run straight into people and get no-where!! When he and 36 played together we did look quite impressive and I think maybe we could try it again but we don't have any games now till the world cup when we can experiment the two together.

Barritt was a reasonably attacking minded 10/12 for the sharks so it has to eb conditiong since he joined Sarries (sorry).

I also think it's the quality of the ball that he recieves there and also the fact Farrell brings it to the line.

 

[goodNumber10]

The moment the word openside was mentions I knew this would happen...

P.s. Robshaw is a 6.

playing 7.

If someone plays 7 for England he's a 7 for England regardless of if he plays 6 or 15 for his other teams.

Wood is normally a 6, but when he played 8 for England he was Englands number 8. Arguing anything else is just arguing semantics really.

 

[Patchey]

No don't give up, you haven't even told us that Wallace does the fetching for quins

Well he sort of does...


Robshaw is suited, physically, to either flank. However I've always felt the way he likes to play and his handling mean that he has all the artibutes of a very good six. Unfortunately, in a way, because he's also capable of being a good seven there has never been any need to move him to the blindside.

IMO a Quins back row with Wallace 7, Robshaw 6, Easter/Clifford 8 would be peachy. Similarly and England back row of Kvesic 7, Robshaw 6, Morgan/Billy 8 is probably our best available (although as a concession to Olyy, if Dave Seymor stood a chance of being picked by England I would have put him in there).

(Edit: I think I've replied to your second post before you posted it. How funky of me)


Back to centres though, I think the way Manu has been taught to play in an England shirt has to have had a bearing. I'd completely agree that being England's only real attacking threat in the backs for most of his career must have conditioned him to prefer carrying to passing. When I asked at the start of the thread why no one had 'taught him to pass' I was being overly simplistic. What I was getting at is my confusion as to why no one has ever sat him down and, as well as getting him to improve his basic passing, taught him when he needs to pass. I'm not saying we're going to turn him into a BOD clone but there is massive room for improvement.

I'd be interested to see where people thing Jonathan Joseph fits in. Prior to his injury I would have thought he'd have been up there to fill Manu's shirt for this tournament. He's quite a similar player to Burrell but I'd rate his passing higher.

 

[TheSaffycen]

This Robshaw thing is all a bit silly isn't it. He is a 6 in his style of play, but he links up the forwards and backs like a 7 and he tackles as much as a 7. We play two 6.5 hybrid players in Wood and Robshaw but they aren't fetchers like Hooper or Gill they are more like Dusautoir or Louw, they do everything else a 7 does just they aren't specialist on the floor. You don't need a 7 if the rest of your pack (Launchbury, Coles) can fetch. The only true opensides we have are Kvesic, Fraser and Seymour. Robshaw may not be the traditional 7 but he is a damn good player what ever number is on his back.

Edit

Barritt was a reasonably attacking minded 10/12 for the sharks so it has to eb conditiong since he joined Sarries (sorry).

I also think it's the quality of the ball that he recieves there and also the fact Farrell brings it to the line.

No need for the sorry I have to be honest the reason I support Saracens is because I lived literally on the road where they use to train, not for our style of play! I think the reason we asked him to play the way he does is Hodgson isn't a great defensive 10, but if we let Farrell play with us the way he does with England that Barritt and Ashton will benefit hugely. I still really want Ashton to go back to the way he was 2 years ago and for that to happen he needs a 10 who brings it to the line and he runs lines of them. It's funny because he had an interview where he said the style of England wasn't suiting him because he was told to stay out on the wing and then this 6 nations we play the way he prefers.
With the centres in order of where they stand
12- Twelvetrees, Eastmond, Barritt
13- Tuilagi, Burrell, Tomkins, Joseph

 

[ratsapprentice]

When Wood played at 8 it was different because he was tasked with attempting to fill the role of an 8.

You know perfectly well that the vast, overwhelming majority of people differentiate between 6/7 and Robshaw does not fit into that view of a 7.
Clearly, no-one is going to deny that he literally has the number 7 printed on the back of his shirt.

If Dylan Hartley walked onto the pitch wearing 10 but continued to throw in at the lineout and scrummage, you would still say he is a 10 because that's the number he is wearing?
There is nothing wrong with having generic loose forward roles - but don't insist that Robshaw is a classic 7 because certainly isn't.
And there is no point in bringing up the different numbering systems used in other countries because they aren't the ones we use, are they!?

What you probably aren't aware of goodNumber10, is that this has already been explained to Tallshort but he continues to goad.

 

[Patchey]

When Wood played at 8 it was different because he was tasked with attempting to fill the role of an 8.

You know perfectly well that the vast, overwhelming majority of people differentiate between 6/7 and Robshaw does not fit into that view of a 7.
Clearly, no-one is going to deny that he literally has the number 7 printed on the back of his shirt.

If Dylan Hartley walked onto the pitch wearing 10 but continued to throw in at the lineout and scrummage, you would still say he is a 10 because that's the number he is wearing?
There is nothing wrong with having generic loose forward roles - but don't insist that Robshaw is a classic 7 because certainly isn't.
And there is no point in bringing up the different numbering systems used in other countries because they aren't the ones we use, are they!?

What you probably aren't aware of goodNumber10, is that this has already been explained to Tallshort but he continues to goad.

I do. Its an Illuminati plot.


I'm happy with our back row as it is, a 6 (Wood), a 6.5 (Robshaw) and a big, ball carrying 8. However I'm too much of a traditionalist not to fear that the lack of an out and out 'fetcher' does make us weaker. Yes, Launchbury and Cole do a lot of breakdown work but, as we saw least year in the game that must not be mentioned, playing a back row without a 'real' 7 against a traditional 6/7/8 combo can lead to you being right royally screwed. Having a proper ball carrying 8 helps, as does having a more physical second lock in Lawes or Attwood (in place of Parling) but I'm still not convinced.

I do like to think its a sign of how good a player Robshaw is that he has ended up being so convincing while playing out of position.

 

[TheSaffycen]

I don't think that we lost that game because the lack of a 7. We lost because every single scrum was a penalty to wales and we didn't turn up, simple as, because the other two times Robshaw has played wales we lost one when lawes had the ball ripped from him and it was won by a good solo effort( and strettle scored a try but it wasn't given) and the other time we completely out classed them. The only time we have genuinely lost because our lack of a fetcher was against Australia in 2012 and we beat them this time round. The reason we lost games was not because a 7 it's just we where just starting to get use to Lancaster's system and it is now working it shows that the fetcher is not necessary.

 

[goodNumber10]

When Wood played at 8 it was different because he was tasked with attempting to fill the role of an 8.

You know perfectly well that the vast, overwhelming majority of people differentiate between 6/7 and Robshaw does not fit into that view of a 7.
Clearly, no-one is going to deny that he literally has the number 7 printed on the back of his shirt.

If Dylan Hartley walked onto the pitch wearing 10 but continued to throw in at the lineout and scrummage, you would still say he is a 10 because that's the number he is wearing?
There is nothing wrong with having generic loose forward roles - but don't insist that Robshaw is a classic 7 because certainly isn't.
And there is no point in bringing up the different numbering systems used in other countries because they aren't the ones we use, are they!?

What you probably aren't aware of goodNumber10, is that this has already been explained to Tallshort but he continues to goad.

Well i was just making a joke with the French/Bokkes point it wasn't really mean to have any bearing on the actual discussion or provoke an argument.

I'm not claiming Robshaw is a classic 7, he's not, but he is a 7 when he plays for England. He fills that role, he doesn't play 6 and dosn't fill a traditional 6 role for England. That's all i'm saying, it's similar to Burrell normally being a 12, but he plays 13 for England and is seen as Englands 13.

To be fair i would say Woods isnt' a tradtional 6 either we play left and right - as others have mentioned hyrbid - which brings me back to South Africa.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I would agree that we play left/right, niether Wood or Robshaw are specialist 6/7's at this point.
Seeing as though they have to wear number, I have no qualms with Wood being closer to a 6 than Robshaw.

I don't agree that SA play in quite the same way though! France, yes... but not SA.
Let's leave that for another time!

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Well i was just making a joke with the French/Bokkes point it wasn't really mean to have any bearing on the actual discussion or provoke an argument.

I'm not claiming Robshaw is a classic 7, he's not, but he is a 7 when he plays for England. He fills that role, he doesn't play 6 and dosn't fill a traditional 6 role for England. That's all i'm saying, it's similar to Burrell normally being a 12, but he plays 13 for England and is seen as Englands 13.

To be fair i would say Woods isnt' a tradtional 6 either we play left and right - as others have mentioned hyrbid - which brings me back to South Africa.

It is a very good point that wood plays like a 6.5 as well. So we really have two 6.5's instead of a 6 and 7.

Seems to work though so I can't moan really.

As for tuilagi can pass rubbish, surely if he could pass he would? There is always support for him after he breaks the line but he just goes to ground.

After breaking tackles there should be gaps in which an offload would result in a try. When tuilagi goes to ground we have slow ball which we arn't great at..........

So maybe it was the wingers and Fb's fault for not supporting him enough? I don't know but I don't want him in an England shirt again until I see him pass like Burrell can!