Who should play at 12 if Barritt is injured?

Who do you think, considering that Barritt may miss the second test, should play at 12 for England?

If select other then please explain who you feel would be a better option.

Allen. I like that Farrell isn't an option

He shouldn't even be at 10!

Have to give him a bit of credit for the pass which set up the try - probably the best pass I've ever seen him make and it was certainly decisive.

I'm really concerned that JTH will play, and he's a less good version of Barritt (and Barritt in my opinion isn't good enough to be the longterm solution at 12).

Is Twelvetrees in the squad? I thought he was left at home...?

I think he is at home but the suggestion is calling him up.!which will never happen

Centre has been a problem position since Greenwood retired. Twelvetrees is the only slightly alternative inside centre available.

JTH, Allen Barritt Et al are all very similar.

If it was a possibility I'd want Twelvetrees, but it's not.

I'd go for Allen. I'm not convinced he's got what it takes to make it on the international stage, but quite happy for him to be tested out and it to be against the Boks because it's exactly the sort of game that I think will show his limitations and so we can find out one way or another.

I'd be tempted to fit Joseph into the midfield, but I have serious doubts about Tuilagi working at 12 (he hasn't looked right there before for Tigers), and with Brown out I want to see Joseph on the wing rather than bringing Strettle back in.

It really has to be Allen, hasn't it? Lancaster hasn't been able to get a back line firing in his 6 games in charge, so just take one that does. Manu ran hard for the team, but outside a more familiar, more attacking axis of Flood and Allen, Tuilagi could do some real damage. Farrell on the bench, covering 10 and 12, Joseph on the bench covering 13 and the back three. I think the back three worked well on the weekend, and with Brown out I'd mimic someone else's suggestion on another topic look to bring Alex Goode in like for like.

I said Joseph at centre - but forgot until Timhen's post that Brown was out - so you'd probably want Joseph on the wing, as such you'll probably have to go with Allen as there isn't any other options (though I wouldn't be suprised to see Farrell/Flood in instead of him)

Is Twelvetrees even in the squad?

It amuses me that the big problem every one had with Brown was his pace but we all seem to now want Goode in there who's even slower.

I'd go with Allen and hope that the Tigers backline can do it for us. If we can not create try scoring chances with the most creative backline in the country put out then it's time to worry.

Oh come on. Deep down we all know it's going to be Farrell.

majesticimperialman wrote:Is Twelvetrees even in the squad?

No he's not but he could get called up.

I've been hearing rumours that Monye is going to come in to play at 11 for the second test, with Monye looking to utilise his power, pace and experience.

If that is the case this is the side I'd like to see...

09. Youngs
10. Flood
11. Monye
12. Tuilagi
13. Joseph
14. Ashton
15. Foden

However, Lancaster will probably either play Farrell at 10 and leave out Flood, or play Farrell at 12 and move Tuilagi to 13 and Joseph to the bench.

I can understand why people are calling for Allen at 12, however I don't think Lancaster is going to pick him, whilst he probably see's Turner-Hall ahead of him in the pecking order at the moment.

Absolutely, there's no chance it will be Allen. I reckon SL has Farrell, JTH and Tuilagi ahead of him.

I think Tuilagi moving to 12 could be a good long term option if Catt (or whoever) can really work on his distribution. He has all the physical attributes to develop as NZ have developed Nonu. Nonu was a 13/winger who had raw power and pace without much guile or playmaking ability, but became the fulcrum of many All Black plays, while maintaining his aggressive running lines and strong defence. Tuilagi could do the same given the right coaching, and could become a brilliant attacking 12.

In the short term I see Tuilagi at 12 as quite a negative tactic, as it would clearly indicate premeditated crash balls and not a lot else. For this series I would like to see Allen given a go. He has been outstanding in the league for a long time, the 12 England have needed and ignored all this time. He may not have the physicality to transform his club form to international form but he deserves a chance.

But it won't be Allen - he's way down SL's list of ICs. JTH is unfortunately the next cab off the rank. And the reality is Tuilagi is mainly there for the crash ball - and it's far more effective if you have a mover like JJ to take advantage of it. Tuilagi's lack of distribution is in many ways less of a problem at 12 than it is at 13. Flood or Farrell can easily cut him out, and JJ will make sure the ball gets to the wingers occasionally.

Dave I think you're right about Allen. While I think he should get a chance, it is inevitable that he wont.

I wouldn't be disappointed to see Manu/JJ combo as long as Manu is missed from time to time. If he is given first phase ball every time it would be horribly negative. I'll be happy if he is utilised in a Roberts-esque manner short term, but like I said previously, Nonu should be the target model for Tuilagi.

Dave, you have convinced me

Tuilagi is the best option at 12 right now if he can hold the defensive line. Hopefully with Joseph outside him the negative to this combo is lack of experience defensively.
However, on the positive side it could be spectacularly successful offensively.

The other big dilemma for SL is does he drop Farrell & bring in Flood? Hopefully Mike Catt can convince him this is the way to go.

One test down we have to show attacking intent.

Which one of them has Lancaster previously started and used as a replacement shuffle at 12?
Which one 3 months ago was the golden boy of english rugby?
Which one is the least likely to move the ball forward in hand or pass outside, the key criteria lancaster looks for in his midfield players?

We all know hes going to play Farrell there

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Which one of them has Lancaster previously started and used as a replacement shuffle at 12?
Which one 3 months ago was the golden boy of english rugby?
Which one is the least likely to move the ball forward in hand or pass outside, the key criteria lancaster looks for in his midfield players?

We all know hes going to play Farrell there

Except that neither Monye or Joseph are invloved today which does indicate a start for both of them on Saturday (unless there are injuries we don't know about). Tuilagi won't be dropped so I think we will see Tuilagi at 12, Joseph at 13.

All your points above however may well point in the direction of him keeping Farrell at 10 rather than playing Flood which is not much better.

Except Lancaster has sriously suggested playing Tuilagi on the wing

It is hard to imagine Farrell being dropped from the starting line-up, but I think now might be the time to do it. If not, where would he do the least damage? Whilst he did set up the try on Saturday I think I'd rather him at FH if he's anywhere. He's played a lot though, and I think it's perfectly legitimate to rest him (what I think he really needs is a season playing 10 at Sarries under a different attack coach, improving his attacking game).

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Except Lancaster has sriously suggested playing Tuilagi on the wing

Yes I read that one too. But I am not sure if he actually really suggested it himself or responded to a journo's suggestion saying all options were being considered. Maybe I'll be proved wrong but it doesn't sound like a great plan to me.

"Manu predominantly played his age-grade rugby on the wing," said Lancaster said.


"So there is that but I am trying to find people to fit roles and I think 13 is still an area we need to look at.


"I have said all along you have got to make sure you have different options in different positions. We have still got some decisions to make but it is an honest group and we have worked hard as a team and in units to identify the areas that we need to work on. Everyone takes responsibility for it."

Sounds like SL is open to change - Be bold Stuart !!

When is the England squad announced?

I think it will probably be Thursday.

Who should play 12 if Barrit is injured? (and he is)

This is so easy to answer....

When we have the ball.... Anthony Allen because the guy plays 12 for his club and has the requisite distribution and running skills. He will release players outside him.

When SA has the ball Manu Tuilagi....the saffas arent big on getting the ball to 13 channel anyway and a midfield of Flood, Allen, Joseph just seems a little lightweight defensively.

Now all we need to do is either....

1. Sneak an extra centre on to the field when no one is looking and go with 16. We have done it before; OR

2. Play 9.Youngs, 10. Flood, 12. Allen, 13. Tuilagi, 14. Joseph, 11. Ashton, 15. Foden and swap Allen and Tuilagi in defence and attack.

Why did it take this many posts to spell out the bleeding obvious?!

Thanks, Zander.
Thinking about the title of this thread, I still find it strange that England still haven't found a suitable midfield combination. There are a lot of candidates, but I suppose this is part of the squad evolution. Hopefully, we will have a much better idea after this tour is over. One thing for sure is we will know who is tough.

Armchairexpert wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Except Lancaster has sriously suggested playing Tuilagi on the wing

Yes I read that one too. But I am not sure if he actually really suggested it himself or responded to a journo's suggestion saying all options were being considered. Maybe I'll be proved wrong but it doesn't sound like a great plan to me.

This is pure mind games from Lancaster. Admittedly i think the first such example but there it is. We do have to get intot he heads of the boks to have half a chance and he is doing his bit.

Triangulation wrote:Who should play 12 if Barrit is injured? (and he is)

This is so easy to answer....

When we have the ball.... Anthony Allen because the guy plays 12 for his club and has the requisite distribution and running skills. He will release players outside him.

When SA has the ball Manu Tuilagi....the saffas arent big on getting the ball to 13 channel anyway and a midfield of Flood, Allen, Joseph just seems a little lightweight defensively.

Now all we need to do is either....

1. Sneak an extra centre on to the field when no one is looking and go with 16. We have done it before; OR

2. Play 9.Youngs, 10. Flood, 12. Allen, 13. Tuilagi, 14. Joseph, 11. Ashton, 15. Foden and swap Allen and Tuilagi in defence and attack.

Why did it take this many posts to spell out the bleeding obvious?!

Allen is a running 12 more than a distributor. The stats show he is twice as likely to carry as pass, and if you compare him to who he is replacing and people want to see more distribution over, he passes half as much as Barritt.

Over the course of the AP Allen made 97 carries and passed 51 times. Barritt made 106 carries and passed 110 times.

alcoombe wrote:

Triangulation wrote:Who should play 12 if Barrit is injured? (and he is)

This is so easy to answer....

When we have the ball.... Anthony Allen because the guy plays 12 for his club and has the requisite distribution and running skills. He will release players outside him.

When SA has the ball Manu Tuilagi....the saffas arent big on getting the ball to 13 channel anyway and a midfield of Flood, Allen, Joseph just seems a little lightweight defensively.

Now all we need to do is either....

1. Sneak an extra centre on to the field when no one is looking and go with 16. We have done it before; OR

2. Play 9.Youngs, 10. Flood, 12. Allen, 13. Tuilagi, 14. Joseph, 11. Ashton, 15. Foden and swap Allen and Tuilagi in defence and attack.

Why did it take this many posts to spell out the bleeding obvious?!

Allen is a running 12 more than a distributor. The stats show he is twice as likely to carry as pass, and if you compare him to who he is replacing and people want to see more distribution over, he passes half as much as Barritt.

Over the course of the AP Allen made 97 carries and passed 51 times. Barritt made 106 carries and passed 110 times.

Whatever.

He is a specialist 12.

He plays well at 12.

12 is a highly specialist position.

He is the best 12 we have.

That's fine, just don't expect any more passing and releasing of the outside backs than we've already seen.

alcoombe wrote:That's fine, just don't expect any more passing and releasing of the outside backs than we've already seen.

Oh really??!

This from the Toryograph on today's game......

79 mins: Anthony Allen, who has had a good match, butchers a three on one as he looks left, looks right, looks left again, looks right again and then is tackled. A shame because his passing today has been key to the side's momentum.


Did it not occur to you when you were busy gathering your statistical nuts for the winter that Leicester may simply be asking him to play a certain way. Of course he has the distribution skills. Of course he can use them too.

I rest my case.

Ah yes, the Telegraph, home of such great rugby writers as Paul Ackford.

Did you actually watch the game or just read about it? He had an OK game, largely anonymous in the first half, did better in the last quarter once the Barbarians had tired. The notable passes he made were ones that most players would have made in the same position. The butchering of a try by running when the clear cut option was to pass highlights the issue the stats raise. It's not a question of whether he is a good/bad passer, just that he's more likely not to. I don't see that proclivity changing much if you transplant him within the Tigers 9-13 axis.

He's a good player, and picking him for his footwork and running lines makes sense (though ultimately I don't think he'll transplant what he can do at club level to international, particularly against the Boks), picking him for increased distribution doesn't.

I accept that the toryograph is not always the best but surely the comment quoted is not plain wrong? Or is it?

I did not watch no. I didnt claim to either.

The point is that it is not Allen v Barrit as you seem to think. Barrit is out.

It is Allen vs the rest inc Manu.

It seems that Manu might get the nod know so academic anyway.

Like you say, all academic for the moment now, but...

I wasn't suggesting it was Allen v Barritt or that Allen was a bad player that couldn't do a job in light of Barritt's injury, just that his natural game wasn't as a distributing 12 and that people calling for his selection hoping for greater frequency of that compared to what Barritt has provided had the wrong expectations about what he would bring.

I would say yes a fair bit of that Telegraph comment is wrong. Allen had an OK match rather than a "good" one and although he made one maybe two significant passes, they were far from extraordinary and weren't "key to the side's momentum". If you look at that live match Telegraph piece it's noticeable that the first mention of his name is in the 59th minute (as I said in my above post, he was anonymous for much of the game) and that of the 4 mentions of his name 2 are positive and 2 not. My overriding memory of his contribution to the match was the correct part in that Telegraph statement, the butchering of an almost certain try by keeping hold of the ball rather than passing to take advantage of a 3 on 1.