Manu Tuilagi and Englands Midfield

Been having a discussion about Manu on another thread and i thought id open it up to everyone to see your opinons?

It seems to me that almost 100% on here are simply assuming Manu will walk back in to the England team.

Is Manu simply that good that he can do that, over those currently in the midfield? Is he Englands superstar player that they cant do without?

What about his competition? He has the power game..but what if Elliott Daly was to move back permanently to 13?

Many are advocating a midfield of

10 Farrell
12 Burrell
13 Tuilagi
It has huge power...but possibly missing a little guile?

Im merely putting out there...might the following have more balance?

10 Farrell
12 Burrell
13 Daly (once hes back playing permanently at 13)

He could certainly walk straight into the current England midfield! Soon as he's fit 36 should never pull on a shirt again!

Burrell looks pretty good IMO. Would Lancaster slot Tuilagi in on the wing ahead of Nowell or May?

For me I would have him on the bench for impact I think. 36 has done enough to keep the shirt. Different sort of players tho and Lancaster might want Manu in.

What is the latest with Manu's injury@ Has he made a come back for Tigers yet?

Londontiger said he thinks Manu will be on the bench vs Newcastle.

I'd just like to be in the headache position that SL would have to have a near-complete top squad available.

Hopefully next year he'll be having migraines.

First you have to remember that a players abilities (in the mind of fans) improves the longer he is not in the team. this is happening now with Manu (and Dan Cole). Before injury such players are widely castigated for what they cannot do.

We are fickle

Manu's fitness recovery is such that he may feature on the bench for Leicester this coming weekend - so not enough play to be considered for the remaining 2 6Ns matches.

However there is a very strong chance that we will see a Saints in the AP final and for the first time in a decade no Leicester. This could give Manu the chance to play against Barbariand and in the first test in NZ.

TJ wrote:For me I would have him on the bench for impact I think.  36 has done enough to keep the shirt.  Different sort of players tho and Lancaster might want Manu in.

What constitutes 'enough' or do you just have pretty low standards?

Fumbles n spills the ball, weak in the tackle (misses more than he makes), no creativity or attacking flair. If that's 'enough' then we should just write-off England's midfield now.

The Welsh are talking about bringing back Jonathan Davis into the team for the England team. JD hasn't played for a good couple of months. Why not Manu?

Would people say that Burrell and Tuilagi are too similar to play together? Or would they work well?

And if not do Burrells performances justify being dropped?

Also interesting the huge sway in opinions about Twelvetrees. Amazing how people view games..some thought he played well others thought he was very poor.

tophat24/7 TJ is a Scotland and Edinburgh fan.

Geordiefalcon it would be foolish to consider Daly in my opinion till he is consistently playing well at 13.

I watched the game again and noticed Twelvetrees doing a lot more than I had originally seen - most of it but not all of it good. He's also the organiser for the midfield and our defence was very good indeed. It could be a few more games are what he needs, both to settle and feel he belongs there himself and to get the communication working better in attack.

Unless Burrell or Manu can be midfield organisers, then I think it's one or the other of them, not both.

Beshocked,

Thats why i said if he was to move back to 13 permanently...something i really hope he does.

What about Barritt & Tomkins?

Is Eastmond playing well enough to warrant a look?

Burrell has been playing well - If Manu has to come back then he can sit on the bench and add some impact in the last 20mins (if needed). That, i feel is how he will feature - if at all.

Manu and JD2 have very similar injuries I hear - torn pectoral muscle. similar recovery times depending on the grade of the tear.

Changing the dynamic of the side now would surely impact on the team as a whole. I agree that the backs particularly have been woeful at the start of the 6N's but we have seen improvement and progression. I would be happier sticking with 36 and Burrell rather than drafting in Barritt or Manu.

36 is still struggling imo.

Manu and Burrell will give teams something to think about.

Geordie - Surely Tompkins has had a chance and blown it.
Barritt remains an option.
Eastomnd must feel quite unlucky to have missed out so far - he is perfect bench material as covers centre and wing.

Cowshot wrote:I watched the game again and noticed Twelvetrees doing a lot more than I had originally seen - most of it but not all of it good. He's also the organiser for the midfield and our defence was very good indeed. It could be a few more games are what he needs, both to settle and feel he belongs there himself and to get the communication working better in attack.

Unless Burrell or Manu can be midfield organisers, then I think it's one or the other of them, not both.

Can Barritt not do that role?

36 offers nothing in attack (which I thought was meant to be the point of him) so why not have a guy that does everything he can (kicking aside) and is substantially better in defence??

Prop David

Im being pedantic...Tomkins is the rugby league convert, Tompkins is the young u20 outside centre who looks potentially brilliant.

Tomkins didnt do himself any favours...but im reluctant to throw him out all together. Hes a good player and will improve...as Banahan has another player derided on here. If i was Lancs i would just monitor him.

Eastmond should have been on the bench this 6n with out question. This would have given him some ideal gametime as he could very well be inline for gametime in the summer in NZ (i started another thread on this) and we could have a very inexperienced side starting that 1st test.

A number of times 36 was in the 1st reciever position, clearing lines and dinking a few clever kicks to turn the irish line. You wouldnt find Barritt or Manu doing that (or Burrell).
I am not advocating all that 36 did - I agree that he made a lot of errors too. I'm just saying that he still offers options and that keeps defences guessing, they stand off a little more as they dont know where the ball is going. This also takes pressure off Farrell a smidge.

Moving on to Farrell - he absolutely murdered that 'nearly May' effort.

Yeah...as i said above give Twelvetrees a little more time just to see if he is starting to move in the right direction. Though i do worry about his defence.

With regards to May...well thats a big ol' lesson for him. When you have the chance on the try line...dont f*$k about being fancy (one handed etc) just get the ball down as quick and effectively as possible.

I think twelvetrees sort of game will always be high risk Tuilagi much less so. So if you look for fault in 36 you will see it but if you look for skill you will see that as well.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Would people say that Burrell and Tuilagi are too similar to play together? Or would they work well?

And if not do Burrells performances justify being dropped?

Also interesting the huge sway in opinions about Twelvetrees. Amazing how people view games..some thought he played well others thought he was very poor.

Only one way to find out - Play Burrell and Tuilagi against the ABs in one match and 36 and Manu in the other.

Heaven knows who'll play in the first though.

It's not personal defensive skills I'm talking about, it's the ability to read the wider game while down in the middle of it and organise other players in accordance with the situation on the pitch. Twelvetrees is good at it, though a few things didn't happen in attack. Burrell I simply don't know - although I've never heard him mentioned as an organiser he might be if given the chance. But a Test match is not the place for that, it's something his club is likely to discover.

Sorry Geordie,
Yes - I thought you were referring to the Tompkins that played in the NI's.
Agree that he should stay in the system, there is no point in dropping someone completely.
And, your right on Banahan - he is vastly different now to how he was when being capped.
Daly though is someone who really has to be involved and rarely gets his chance.

Its a nice position to be in tho - a real choice of centres and styles

TJ wrote:Its a nice position to be in tho - a real choice of centres and styles

Yes. Big test for them in a fortnight when the Welsh come to town. Think we can beat them, but whether we will - ah - that's a whole other question. Very often after a performance such as that against Ireland the next game sees a slight dropping off as players try to force it a bit. But I'm developing increasing faith in this side as a whole and think they can do the bizz in a fortnight.

Farrell seems to play much better with a second 5/8th style inside centre to help him to run the game, so it Tuilagi is to come in will be for Burrell who is playing very well or in place of Nowell on the wing?

But as a Welshman if England want to drop Twelvetrees, I wont be in the slightest bit disappointed.

I wouldn't like to see Manu in an England shirt until the AIs. We know he is international class but we also know he's had a few injuries and could do with a proper pre season before the RWC. Plus developing squad competition will help us.

Manu is our best centre but that's only when he's fully fit. Burrell is playing well so why rush him back?

Agreed, fkaS. There's no need to rush him back so let's not. Much better for the player and England.

9. Care
10. Farrell

11. May
12. Burrell
13. Manu
14. Yarde
15. Brown

There you go.

Manu should be going to NZ, hes had his rest whilst injured. No need for him to play in the 6 nations though.

I dont really buy the Burrell Tuilagi midfield either, far too similar. Nor does it fit with the stated goal to get a distributor and a runner combination.

Twelvetrees and Tuilagi fits the bill. People are down on 36 because he doesnt make the eye catching breaks, but then hes specifically employed to make Burrell look good. Which hes done pretty well at so far.

Care, Farrell, 36, Tuilagi with Burrel covering form the bench.

I think the 36-Burrell partnership should be given the rest of the tournament, I don't want Tuilagi rushed back to his long term detriment.

I want to see more from 36 in the remaining 2 matches.  He's acquitted himself reasonably well, but he's not producing the sort of play that we know he is capable of in the situations he's found himself in.

If 36 can't display those aspects of his game then I think it's right to give Burrell an opportunity in his more familiar 12 shirt in the summer once Tuilagi is back in the mix.  Burrell won't be the sort of playmaker that we hoped 36 would be, but as the more steady 12 that 36 is currently giving us, I think with his added running threat Burrell might be the better option.  Burrell's handling ability certainly won't let us down, it's far better than some people assume, I've been impressed with how he's developed there over the last year, he's shown some skilled stuff in some of the Northampton games I've caught this season.

The way the AP seems to be heading, it looks like we'll have to change to a 36-Tuilagi partnership for at least the first summer tour match.  I'd be inclined to give that 2 games and then depending on how the tour plays out consider changing it to Burrell-Tuilagi for the last.

Great, look forward to seeing the Kiwis run through our pathetic 36 midfield all summer then.....

Twelvetrees hasn't been amazing and has made some mistakes, but then he's been part of our most consistently threatening back line for a long time, and hasn't been to blame for any of our wasted opportunities. In fact he's basically done exactly what was asked of him: taken the ball up when necessary, used his range of passing to spread play and given us a second kicking option. Our backs have looked a lot more balanced recently than they have for a while, and while Twelvetrees' performances have been mixed I don't think they've been anywhere near bad enough for us to abandon the experiment and revert to a double-bosher midfield so soon.

Eustace H Plimsoll wrote:Twelvetrees hasn't been amazing and has made some mistakes, but then he's been part of our most consistently threatening back line for a long time, and hasn't been to blame for any of our wasted opportunities. In fact he's basically done exactly what was asked of him: taken the ball up when necessary, used his range of passing to spread play and given us a second kicking option. Our backs have looked a lot more balanced recently than they have for a while, and while Twelvetrees' performances have been mixed I don't think they've been anywhere near bad enough for us to abandon the experiment and revert to a double-bosher midfield so soon.

Over-lap v France when we had at least 1 if not 2 more men than France out wide and he decided to boot it over into (deep) space thus squandering one of our best attacking moves of the match?

And, by range of passing, do you include chucking it at people's feet when, again, we had men over versus the French?

Over-lap v France when we had at least 1 if not 2 more men than France out wide and he decided to boot it over into (deep) space thus squandering one of our best attacking moves of the match? wrote:

I'd forgotten that one – the kick. A questionable decision, certainly. I think his passing has been decent though. He put May away with a great flat cut-out pass in that game, for example. Exactly what he's there to do.

Farrell, for example, has been far more culpable in wasting opportunities, as has Care (who I think has had a good tournament overall).

And Twelvetrees had a hand in setting up both May's wasted opportunities yesterday. Most people seem to agree May just needs more time—I think 12t could do with some too.

Who is in the running for a midfield spot?

The following names seem to crop up most: Tuilagi, Twelvetrees, Burrell, Barritt, Tomkins, Eastmond, Daly, Joseph and Trinder, with Slade and Burgess real longshots.

Lancaster says he will take three centres and one who can also cover wing. Form and injury aside, who should we discount from that list? I don't have a strong sense of who the coaches would favour if everyone was playing well. Is Barritt Mr Dependable or Mr Limited? Does Tuilagi count as wing cover?

36 was treated like a messiah on these boards for a good 6 months before his 1st cap.He has 11 caps and played with 3 or 4 partners,hardly ideal for anyone let alone someone at the beginning of their career.Greenwood took time to settle in the role,as did tindall at 13.I would reserve judgement until after the autumn,if we keep chopping and changing we will never build a team.

Eustace H Plimsoll wrote:

I'd forgotten that one – the kick. A questionable decision, certainly. I think his passing has been decent though. He put May away with a great flat cut-out pass in that game, for example. Exactly what he's there to do.

But here we have the crux, you downplay it as a simple 'questionable decision', I call it a f*** up that cost us the game. His 'decent passing' also included chucking it to feet when we had another over-lap in that game (this time just short of the try line) so another example of him costing us the game.

Whereas you pick up Farrell for decisions that haven't cost us games? (May and the ref/POM are more to blame for our failed try versus Ireland, for example)

Hang on, the time when 12t kicked to the corner when we had an overlap, we were barely in France's half as I remember it. We did have an overlap, but it was by no means a certain score and I don't see how you can argue it cost us the game.

Conversely, we had a two-man overlap early on against ireland, five metres from the line and Farrell chose to take the ball into contact and lost it. It was only because Launchbury hoovered up the loose ball and 12t quickly passed wide that May had the chance to lose the ball over the line. Farrell's mistake was clearly much worse.

Personally Id like to see Tomkins and Twelvetrees given a go, just so we can have Billy Joel in the centers.

Eustace H Plimsoll wrote:Hang on, the time when 12t kicked to the corner when we had an overlap, we were barely in France's half as I remember it. We did have an overlap, but it was by no means a certain score and I don't see how you can argue it cost us the game.

Conversely, we had a two-man overlap early on against ireland, five metres from the line and Farrell chose to take the ball into contact and lost it. It was only because Launchbury hoovered up the loose ball and 12t quickly passed wide that May had the chance to lose the ball over the line. Farrell's mistake was clearly much worse.

A clear over-lap with acres of space to run into and seriously rapid guys to fill it (remember a certain Chris Ashton running in versus Oz from much deeper in his own half?) versus a tight scramble near the line when May made a series of school boy errors including - jinking back into trouble rather the run straight lines, trying a flash one handed put down rather than carrying the ball tight to the body over the line and failing to off-load to the free man who could've walked it in?

And we still WON that game, winning being kind of the point of playing. 36 squander two great chances in a game we lost.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Personally Id like to see Tomkins and Twelvetrees given a go, just so we can have Billy Joel in the centers.

That's just the way you are.

Would add that, having now rewatched the play several times, JL's contribution to the try that never was was far more impressive and important to 36's who just did the absolute basics of what one would be expected to do in that situation (contrasting with May doing the opposite).

Would add that, having now rewatched the play several times, JL's contribution to the try that never was was far more impressive and important to 36's who just did the absolute basics of what one would be expected to do in that situation (contrasting with May doing the opposite). wrote:

Yeah I agree. Farrell's contribution to that play: crap, almost ruining it. Launchbury: great. Twelvetrees: OK. May: poor.

I'm surprised at some of the conclusions on this thread about the type of player Burrell would be for England at 12. The player I've seen there for Northampton is a lot more skilled than just a 'bosher'.

Tuilagi will almost certainly become the starting 13 again this year, and the current centres have done enough (Burrell out of position) that they must both be tested with him.

I personally think Burrell's distribution has been stronger than Twelevetrees. I'd love to see Burrell/Tuilagi together.

With Top Hats hatred of Twelevetrees I'm starting to suspect he may actually be Kyle Eastmond........