• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Tuilagi and England's centres

Err can someone please explain what skills tuilagi has that lens him to a centre?

Passing? No
Vision ? No
Kicking game? No
Power ? Yes
Defence organisation? No

He doesn't really stack up in my books as a centres skills?

Never heard so much rubbish in my life . He's an extremely good centre and I'd put the tigers fall to grace this year largely on him being injured and Dan Cole being knackered tbh
 
An easy way to look at how good he is, if Tuilagi was out of contract would you want him in your team ? As a Saracens fan I would want them to move heaven and earth to get him.
 
Tom Youngs was a centre just a handful of years ago . Does that mean we should start him at centre or maybe use him as centre back up ?

To be fair, on current form, Tom Youngs should be used for not much more than carrying the water bottles.
 
Yes, home advantage does have a big bearing upon any game. But then again, can you imagine England reaching the semi final or final and coming up against New Zealand or South Africa. At that point, facing up again a one of the two most mentally strong sides on the planet, I think home advantage is only marginal. In that situation it would, IMO, be more useful to be able to call on the experience of beating a Southern Hemisphere team at home.

---

Wasn't the Churchill Cup stopped because USA and Canada wanted to play full tier 1 sides more?

Two games a year serves little purpose, even of the squad was being coached well. I agree that the Saxons is wear most of our player development should be done. A good squad mixing future talent and potential EPS injury replacements, a good coach and upwards of five games a wear would be cracking. We can dream I guess...
 
I really, really enjoyed the Churchill cup and do miss it.
But it does allow us to have "proper" summer tours with en enlarged squad.
 
I really, really enjoyed the Churchill cup and do miss it.
But it does allow us to have "proper" summer tours with en enlarged squad.

True. But does playing a Saxons team against, for example, the South Afrixan BaBaas have the same benefit? I love the longer yours with midweeks games but I kind of think it would be possible to combine the two.
 
Not arguing anything about Barritt being a neccesity, or what Lancaster said he wanted, or the idea that Barritt potentially has/had more about him -

But he showed very little but crash ball for England and was part of a partnership that looked limited for a relatively long time. Irregardless of whatever Lancaster says he wants, he is clearly prepared to compromise when it comes to having ball players. Lancaster has picked a fair few more teams that had no ball player than teams that had one non-physically imposing centre. To me, that is more telling than his comments to the media. Therefore I continue to think Eastmond has a difficult task ahead.

The point I will make to be clear is that if we have everyone fit Tuilagi should not start on the wing, my New Zealand point has been ripped apart it seems, we have no need to start him. If he is given the 23 shirt and Nowell goes down injured than fair enough, but he does not need to start there.

Thing is, I must disagree. If Tuilagi could play wing, I believe there is a very strong case for starting him on the wing. It is quite possible that he could play wing to the desired standard. I would at the very least like to see it experimented with.
 
I hope that Eastmond travelling to Italy, rather than Barritt is telling - though I have a feeling his ability to cover 11-15 had as much influence as him being a 12, as 36 dropping out would mean Tuilagi would start and they'd need a new bench sub, which Eastmond is more suited too than Barritt.
 
Err can someone please explain what skills tuilagi has that lens him to a centre?

Passing? No
Vision ? No
Kicking game? No
Power ? Yes
Defence organisation? No

He doesn't really stack up in my books as a centres skills?

Got to love this! been our best back for 2 years but all of a sudden because another player has played very well at 13 we are just kicking him on the scrap heap. Nothing to do with Burrell being a saints player eh LS?
 
Got to love this! been our best back for 2 years but all of a sudden because another player has played very well at 13 we are just kicking him on the scrap heap. Nothing to do with Burrell being a saints player eh LS?

+1
 
Plenty of people have had doubts over Tuilagi over the last couple of years to be fair.
 
I've often wondered what Manu would have been like as a forward... sometimes feel he could have been a phenomenal hooker.
 
Tuilagi has to play 13 if fit.

He beats and draws so many defenders, that that's useful even in itself.

If we're worried about him not passing so much, there are ways around it. We can miss-pass, grubber, pass around the back etc. Using Tuilagi as a dummy runner would be fierce. I just can't comprehend dropping a player that guarantees us breaking the gain line.

Does anyone think it's a coincidence that May was cutting back in field way more than he does for Gloucester? Nope. May didn't take people on the outside because there wasn't the space. May received the ball nearly always next to the touchline. This is because for all of England's successes, creating space out wide was not one of those successes. Tuilagi would certainly open those holes.

Twelvetrees-Tuilagi is the center partnership for England.

Twelvetrees is such an understated player for England. Yeah, Eastmond might be able to distribute and run at space better than Twelvetrees can. Yet that's all Eastmond has on Twelvetrees really. Twelvetrees is a backline carrier, a supporting boot for Farrell, he can draw defenders, he's nearly as good defensively as Barritt is, good rucking etc. And he's still got a decent pass, some decent pace, an attacking instinct etc. And leadership. I've read elsewhere, and agree, that when Twelvetrees plays, he helps the players around him play better. Which is why I'm eager to see Twelvetrees partner Tuilagi. Of course, Twelvetrees has some rough edges, but I'm convinced that he'll iron out a lot of these over time.
 
Plenty of people have had doubts over Tuilagi over the last couple of years to be fair.

Doubts from people who have probably never played rugby and don't understand the game. A team needs at least one back, preferably a 12 or 13 that has the power to break the gain line. A well organised defence will take care of a fast, elusive centre and will defend against fast accurate passes, but when you have a 6ft 110kg guy who can run as fast as Tuilagi can, it doesn't matter how good your defence is, sooner or later he will get through. You can know exactly where he's going to run, but it makes no difference. 11 tries in 21 tests speaks for itself. I'm just gobsmacked that people are criticising him as much as they are.
 
but when you have a 6ft 110kg guy who can run as fast as Tuilagi can, it doesn't matter how good your defence is, sooner or later he will get through.

Manu = 6'01 & 112kg
Burrell = 6'03†& 109kg

Burrell is apparently faster than Tuilagi as well.
 
Top