It’s becoming difficult to find new, interesting ways to write this, but with another series of matches under their belts, England are no closer to knowing what their preferred centre partnership is. Four players featured in the 12 and 13 shirts over the autumn, and none of them guaranteed themselves a starting berth come the Six Nations.
The only certainty is that Manu Tuilagi will return to the 13 shirt when he is fit. At the final press conference of the autumn Stuart Lancaster was asked: “If you could add one extra thing to your side, what would it be?”.
His answer was one word: “Manu.”
There’s no doubt that Manu Tuilagi is a world class player, but England’s desire – or even need – to have him back throws up some uncomfortable questions. Is their attacking game too reliant on one individual? Will whoever plays there in his absence ever be viewed as anything more than a stop-gap? And how the hell do they stop him getting injured?
The first two questions can almost be answered at the same time. The fact that England’s attack was so blunt in the centres this autumn proves that they are heavily reliant on Manu, but that doesn’t really tell the full story. It felt as though at times they were trying to play to a game-plan whose success relied on a Tuilagi-like player smashing over the gainline repeatedly.
Brad Barritt is a fine servant for England but his qualities lie in defence and organisation. This autumn, though, it felt like any semblance of an exciting, attacking game was sacrificed for said defensive nous. England tried to use Barritt as a weapon in attack and it simply didn’t work.
The question is, why was somebody else not given a go in the 13 shirt at all? England used three different centre partnerships but the variety only ever came at 12 – Barritt started every single game. Lancaster spoke at length before the autumn about trying to find the right combinations. It has been patently obvious that the centres are one combination that have failed to click, so why was someone else not given a go at 13?
England set great stall by Barritt’s defensive work and organisational nous, but I refuse to believe they can’t teach one of their more creative centres how to tackle better, or how to talk more in defence. If they can’t then frankly, they are not earning their corn as coaches.
And this argument falls down when you consider that they are so desperate to get Tuilagi back into the team. The Leicester centre’s defensive alignment is shaky at the best of times, and while his size allows him to make some eye-catching hits, he has been known to fall off tackles in the past.
It’s like they decided that with their most potent attacking threat unavailable, they’d settle for the solid defence that Barritt offers until Tuilagi gets back to fitness, rather than try and find another way to try and unlock defences.
Why was someone like Jonathan Joseph, a man who has reinvented himself after an average year, or Luther Burrell, who despite a lack of game time (which didn’t stop Farrell being selected, incidentally) has been in storming form for Northampton, not given a go? Burrell’s omission for the entire series was particularly head-scratching, given how he impressed (at 13, not 12, don’t forget) in the Six Nations.
And what baffles more than anything else is that during this year’s Six Nations, when England were playing some great rugby and Lancaster’s stock as coach was probably at its highest, Barritt’s defensive capabilities were sacrificed in favour of the greater attacking incisiveness of Twelvetrees and Burrell. What has changed since then?
It is important to point out that this is not simply an assassination of Barritt. He is a loyal player who has many qualities and certainly England’s attacking malaises were far from just down to him. But why, when the centres were so clearly misfiring, was the 12 shirt handed round with such abandon when not one other option was looked at in the outside channel?
I don’t think we’re much closer to knowing who the right man at 12 is, but at least they won’t die wondering. To not assess your options at 13, when your bona fide first choice seems to be suffering an increasing number of worryingly serious injuries, doesn’t really make much sense.
No rest for the wicked as the top level rugby returns with the third round of Champions Cup fixtures this weekend. And it really brings the cluttered nature of the season back into sharp focus. The English and Welsh guys, who have been throwing themselves into horrendously physical collisions for the past four weeks in a row, would certainly benefit from a week off.
Coutney Lawes, to take one man as an example, looked utterly battered as he trudged off the field last weekend, but now faces two more weekends of gruelling European fare. It’s no surprise there is so much furore surrounding player welfare these days.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
I think Lancaster will stay with Tuilagi at 13 (as he should) and there will be either burgess (if the switch works out as well as we all feel it will) or Eastmond. We have so many wonderful centre in England and we have many fine fly halves (I’m referring to Farrell) who are just that, 10’s not 12’s. JJ and Eastmond should have a crack at it with ford. As should slide and devote but It will always come back to Manu and Burgess.
JJ has been one of the form 13s in Europe this season, scoring and creating tries for fun. He’s skillful, can kick, has experience on the wing and plays with Ford and Eastmond every week. And he’s a very good defender. Mabe not the lump of granite that Barritt is but decent in the tackle AND far more capable of chasing down an attacker or scrambling back in to position.
How on Earth was he not given a single chance this Autumn?
Totally agree- Lancs was right to change the backline, but changed the wrong players.
Ok so we can’t slate him too much for the starting NZ backline, on paper it was sound- even if Farrell was rusty, I was backing him to play ok.
But following that match he should have dropped Farrell and brought in Ford and seen what Ford/Eastmond 10/12 combo could have done. Still not working? Change Barritt at 13- bring back Burrell or a live-wire, pacey 13 like JJ/Daly. Eastmond copped the flak for an out of form and rusty 10, and a creatively-lacking 12 playing 13.
12T shouldn’t have been anywhere near the side. And we could all see Farrell at 12 wouldn’t work- he would have had to be at his best form to be able to make a good (and still not great) 12. Doesn’t have the pace or size to offer enough of an attacking threat (a la Toomua).
I am wary of jumping on the ‘next big thing’ bandwagon but for me the crazy omission was Slade. So lets list all the abilities England could possibly want in a centre: A second fly-half style playmaker, who has great distribution of both hands, can kick, fantastic defensively (this actually seems their no.1 requirement), has a turn of pace, the size to break the gain line and can kick 50m+ penalties? Now Slade has all those except the size. Pair him with Manu, Burrell, or similar and you have your centres. He has shown he can play in the centres- he is in the form of his (short) career at 13- despite being at 10 traditionally. Farrell he is not. Should have given him a shot over either 12T or Farrell at 12 for Samoa/Aus.
Tbh I don’t agree with England’s search for a creative, 2nd playmaker at 12 to start with. I just don’t think we have enough top class 12’s of that style to fill the role. We should be operating with a backline style similar to Ireland, New Zealand and Wales. Solid, smashing 12 and silky creative 13 with pace. Manu could do the 12 role perfectly, despite his wish for the extra space at 13, and it would also partially cure his defensive issues. With guys like Burrell behind him, great. Then what we do have an abundance of is the lethally quick and creative 13s. They require more space and don’t have size which is why they don’t work with England’s current system, but with size at 12 you have guys like JJ, Daly, Trinder, Slade, Devoto, even Matt Tait (remember how good he was?). Eastmond I always felt would be better in the wider space of a 13 channel than at 12… Just my thoughts.
**His answer was one word: “Manu.”**
Hello, I’m Stuart Lancaster. My solution to our midfield conundrum? Well, we’re the best funded, best resourced rugby union in the world with the largest playing base. Many think we have the best league. We have more amateur and pro rugby players than anyone else. I’m paid a stack of cash to put a team out there commensurate with our standing in the world game. So obviously I’ve been working hard on my overall plan for winning the World Cup – I’ve spent ages working on this with my team. All of the funded training sessions, meetings, trips, etc. to view players. It’s all helped us develop this multi-faceted plan, to bring together the best elements of one of our countries most popular sports. It’s called “Lordy, I hope that big guy from Leicester is fit!*”.
Must admit this absolutely cracked me up. Well played.
To be fair, based on this Autumn, I’m with him, I hope the big guy from Leicester is fit.
Cheers Jacob. Completely agree that any England fan would want him fit, but would hope it’s horrifying to same fans that in the context of this article it makes it look like the options are
If Manu is fit then plan A, attack to win games. If Manu is not fit then plan B, don’t lose games, select Brad Barrit.
First because you’d want more from your team, especially one with eyes on the prize. Second because Manu seems to have blown more cold than hot in an English jersey? Some great performances but let’s remember, for example, he was also playing against Wales in the last MS matchup. Butchered an overlap (or more than one). Lost the ball in contact. Made very few yards, etc. There have been murmurings of discontent after a few of his games.
He’s not the messiah. Having a plan that seems to rely on him (or Burgess) being one would seem to do away with needing a coaching team. I can do “pick all our best players, if we can’t then we’re stuffed” easily enough. I’d expect more from a proper rugby coach though.
I agree in parts. I just really hope we don’t start playing like wales and ‘gatland ball’ squeezing the life out of rugby :( when that happens then yes i will agree we’ve gone backwards…
Aye JEFFREY, it’s painful watching all that “gatland ball” as a Welsh fan. Just the 4 titles, 3 Grand Slams, 3 Triple Crowns and a WC semi-final to console ourselves with in the last 10 years. I’d much rather have all those plaudits that England have won with their progressive attitude towards rugby.
you’re crap now though aint ya hahaha! I was at the millennium for wales vs Australia and I have to say ive not seen defence so bad for a long time. it was embarrassing! and in attack all they had in their locker was give it Jamie Roberts and hope big George gets a bit ball. in conclusion wales are as bad if not worse culprits of one dimension rugby and relying on a bosher in midfield. those in glass houses… ;)
My mistake JEFFREY, I thought you were an adult. Toddle on then. I’m sure we won’t discuss rugby ever again.
my mistake I thought you were a dick…. oh you are :/ toddle toddle
Completely agree with you on most of that – we certainly can’t rely on Manu.
I do think more often than not Manu has been one of our best players when he has played. That day at the MS never happened in my mind so I have no idea what you’re talking about….. more seriously, everyone was awful that day, as awful as Wales were brilliant, so I wouldn’t worry too much about that.
The difficulty is that Burrell was injured for both the SA and NZ games. For me they should have got him back in for the Samoa game. Why they didn’t i don’t quite understand. Unfortunately, whilst we have a massive player base, we don’t appear to have many larger ball carrying centres playing in the Prem so after Manu and Burrell, Barritt is next in line.
WHAT A TIT!
and I don’t mean mr lancaster
YOUNGS FORD BURRELL TUILAGI MAY WATSON BROWN.
burrell did a sterling job in the 6n last year. he can play 12 as he does for his club quite often. i dont think we should get hung up on having a 12 with a kicking game. plus youngs kicking game would relief some pressure from ford. anyway calm down all cuz sammyB will make it! haha!
do you think new zealand cry about what they haven’t got?! no way, they play to there strengths as do every team. burrell and tuilagi would cause havoc. why change what we are? a strong pack with big midfield runners and now with some real speed out wide (if we give it them)…if it works it works! also I think its quite unfair to suggest that tuliagi, burrell, Farrell, barritt etc haven’t got any flair. it might not be as clinical as the all blacks, aussies etc but they are the lads putting their bodies on the line for the rose, so lets get behind them and not look for the first excuse to rip into them. barritt is yet again getting criticised for his attacking display but whats to say we would have beat australia without his heroic defence? games are not just won (in fact are rarely won) by mavericks who can produce something special from nowhere. it is a collection of quality defence, set piece, territory kicking, goal kicking, ball in hand attack etc… England excelled in every area apart from ball in hand attack. that’s not a bad place to be in, especially knowing that manu is missing. you may say we shouldn’t be a one man attack! but it hasn’t down Barcelona and lionel messi any harm ;)
bring on sammyB!!
Am I the only one who thinks that a centre pairing of Burgess & Tuilagi is crazy?…and not it a good way. If we’ve got a powerful centre in Tuilagi why do we want another oneinside him. Unless Burgess turns out to have great distribution skills and a decent kicking game (which we don’t know, he’s only played 18 minutes of proffesional Rugby Union) I don’t want him any where near Tuilagi.
Agree a lot with what Henry says about moving Tuilagi to inside and playing with a pacy outside centre. Although I’m not convience we need to have Tuilagi in the side. I my opinion the may reason for needing him is because there isn’t anybody else like him (although he is probably one of the most one dimensional players we have). However I don’t think his form for this year has been that great and that fact he was crowbarred into the side during the summer shows this for me.
Personally I’d like to see Burrell and Slade in the centres for the 6 nations. Burrell has got power, can distrubute maybe doesn’t quite have the kicking game but pair him with Slade who has a massive boot (plus all the other things that Henry has already mentioned). I think that centre pair can also be interchangeable between themselves i.e. Slade can play 12 and Burrell can play 13.
Having said all that I can see why Lancaster has held off on him, and not wanted to chuck him in at the deep end. I think it is a shame that he isn’t a year older or the World Cup is a year late, just so he had had a whole season playing 13 for Exeter. So as it is I’d have him in the squad but maybe hold off starting him for this first few games of the 6 nations.
Some one else I’d like to see at 13 is Jonny May I’d like to see him at 15 as well. He has played both before and guy with that much out and out pace we need to get involved in the game more.
Right, I’m going out on a limb here. 12T does blow hot and cold in the England shirt, but I think the Englang team works better with him playing. There just seems to be more fluency. For all of you poo pooing me now, just have a think about the games he has played in and those he hasn’t, and think about whether the team has played better. I’m not convinced it is a coincidence. Now donning my flak jacket!
I think you something there Staggy. I thought the Aussies targeted 12t. He always seemed to get smashed when he got the ball. Was it because they saw him as a weakness or a threat?
But of course we all know the most important attribute for a centre is how many tackles they make, so I suppose the above is a moo point (y ‘ know a cows opinion ie it doesn’t matter. It’s moo)
That’s quite an interesting thought.
To be fair we’ve never actually seen Twelvetrees start a match with Manu – maybe we will in the 6 nations.
Can you imagine if the miss pass he threw out to Barritt in the Aus game had Manu on the end of it? There’s every chance we’d have scored (or came a hell of a lot closer), then suddenly that pass (which was awesome) looks unbelievable. Barritt butchering it by looking like he was running through quick sand made it not very exciting!
Games he has played in where England have done well. 6N 2014? Could argue that Burrell played better than him, and a lot of the good work came off the back of Care and Brown being in the form of their lives.
I’m not sure what he brings to the team. He’s nearly 17 stone but doesn’t break tackles (and is far from rock solid defensively, toomua is apparently 14 stone for reference, and steamrollered him a year ago)
He is supposed to be a kicker, but against Australia almost all the kicking was done by 9/10/15, which isn’t his fault, just highlights that when you have half backs who can kick, you probably don’t need a 12 who does!
I’ll concede that he does show the occasional flash of brilliance. The pass to barritt being one of them, but watch Eastmond play, and see how many metres the recipients of his passes make. I’ve been doing it for a while, and I’m pretty certain it’s not coincidence. Distribution isn’t all about throwing nice looking miss passes, it’s about giving players time and space on the ball.
I also have doubts about his mentality, I think the Aussies targeted him because they think he’s a weakness. See previous encounters with toomua for England and lions for reference
The issue I see with 36 at international level is that whilst he can do everything (pass, kick, pace, crash) he takes too long in deciding what he will actually do and ends up doing nothing particularly effective.
What he has always done is get better with a series of games. So if they are going to back him as our RWC 12 then it’s time to stick and not repeatedly twist.
My view is we’ve had 2 guys play in the centres in the Lancaster era who’ve produced consistently good performances, Burrell and Manu. With a ‘first distributor’ at 10 in Ford I think we’ll be fine with Burrell at 12. I’d rather have a simple game plan that’s based on those guys going forwards and then using Care (if back to form) and Ford to get the ball wider off 2nd or 3rd phase. If it’s done at pace then we stand a better chance of having forwards actually running onto a ball as well …. wouldn’t that be a site to behold!
Well done Brighty for the most succinct description of SL’s attacking strategy/ ambition:
“If Manu is fit then plan A, attack to win games. If Manu is not fit then plan B, don’t lose games, select Brad Barrit.”
And yet in the last 3 years Manu has only completed 1 full AI series and is yet to participate in a full 6n, thus exposing the idiocy of being so dependent on one player.
We know SL is not daft, and we also know that Brighty is normally keen on a bit of mischief where England are concerned. Therefore I don’t think any of us should accept that this as completely correct.
However we know that England have been set up to play a certain way with a second distributor at 12 and a powerful runner at 13. This allows England to play to their strengths, by having an effective kicking game allowing us to play in the right parts of the pitch where a powerful runner can make inroads.
The problem that SL has is that we only really have one 13 who can do what SL wants and without Manu the backline has looked a bit exposed defensively, hence Barritt’s inclusion. Yes SL has been experimental in the centres but he has gone through a number of looks and discarded them. Remember when we were all calling for Manu on the wing. Tried, failed, moved on.
Therefore, I think that SL has been cleverer than he has been given credit for. Some experimentation without risking defensive meltdown, but really at the moment, the only centre that he is absolutely sure about is Manu, hence why he wants him back. Didn’t Brighty once say that all he wanted for Christmas was a fit Adam Jones when there wasn’t a plan B. SL is saying exactly the same!
He seems to have tried the same on the wings and we now do have at least one winger who can score tries. Haven’t had that since before Ashton’s book came out!
At the end of the day, we went into the AI’s without any idea as to who our wings we’re and we now have 1 if not 2 starters. We have a second FH and we know some centre combinations that won’t work. That is some progress in my book.
England may have been set up to play a certain way but currently we don’t have the players to play that way – whether at 12 or 13!
This ‘second playmaker’ theory is nice but if you can’t make it work in practice then you have to change the theory, not keep on trying to shoehorn players in to fit your pre-conceived notions of what should happen.
This obsession with a ‘second playmaker’ is exactly that – an obsession. Whether this is all down to SL or partly to Catt ‘cos that’s how he sometimes worked with JW, I don’t know
What I do know is that the best team on the planet, plays with a big lad at 12 who can break the line and off-load and a faster man who can read a game and pass at 13. Neither of them has much of a strategic kicking game and yet the team does not seem to suffer for it.
I’m a Wales fan, so that probably rules me out of this discussion! (suspicions of subterfuge etc.). But honestly, I agree with Drew Smith that England should go for two great attacking players – Burrell and Tuilagi. They’re both pretty fearsome, Burrell is an excellent footballer, and if Manu can tighten his defence, it would look like a very strong pairing. Burgess looks too much of a gamble to me; what can Lancaster do? Let’s say he brings him into the 6N, and it doesn’t work; where is he then? Yet another failed experiment with the midfield, which would really get everybody worried with so few competitive games before the WCup. Can’t wait for Wales/England – got to be a cracker!
The issue for England is that with about 9.5 months b 4 their ‘home’ RWC in 2015 they seem more at sixes and sevens than they were c2 years ago.
In the time leading to RWC 2003 England were beating the top 3 SH sides at Twickenham and away in the SH. Everyone could see they were favourites at least 12months b 4 the tournament.
Can any England fan really see their lifting the trophy in next October?
Don’t we were is a better position two years ago at all. We have much better strength in depth now, and every position outside of the 12 shirt is pretty settled. That wasn’t the case two years ago.
No we are nowhere near comparable to the 2003 team – not even close.
On the last point, no not really. But can you honestly see anyone lifting it outside of NZ? After NZ I think England are as well placed as anyone else.
are you simple?! Yes they can win it, but it’ll be damn hard as there is some quality teams in there! this autunm we lost to the big two, but matched them in tries scored. we were probably the strongest pack in the autumn with big players to return in that area. we may have found our creative fly halve and manu will return. defensively we’re are up there with best. our set piece is world class and now we have got a rolling maul the springboks will fear. there is a few areas to sharpen up in but yes of cause we can win the world cup, you’re a fool to think not. plus its at Twickenham!!
Agree with the NZ assessment Jacob. What’s exciting is how much more open this one looks than previous. After NZ we’ve got Eng/Ire/Wal/SA/Aus who now all look like they’re competitive with each other (and 3 of them in the same group!). So assuming the usual Kiwi choke away from home it’s a wide field. I’d even add France in there, especially if they play NZ in a knock out match and Wayne Barnes is reffing.
I can hear the Kiwi’s moaning about it already ….food poisoning/forward-passes/Norovirus….
Staggy, me mischievous? As if. To be serious though I take your point about Adam Jones but I still think the situations are markedly different as a) Jones is/was a proven test match stalwart. Basing your team around him is no more daft than basing it around McCaw or Martin Johnson or anyone else with 50+ caps in a key position and b) Wales have nowhere near the depth of England in terms of numbers so England shouldn’t be in the same position of only having one decent player in a position that Wales sometimes find themselves in. I think SL should have dealt with this by now rather than making it clear to the incumbents that they’re just filling time until Manu comes back.
Manu Tuilagi is not the answer to England’s centre dilemma. He is far too stupid to be effective against top quality opposition. All he has to offer is being a quick lump and nothing more. God help us if Stuart Lancaster is relying on him to be our saviour.
Bit late into this conversation but will put in my six pennyworth anyway. What is the point in messing about trying to find a centre combination to match the OBs, Australia, SA and even Wales? There is neither the time to get them to gel and anyway do they actually exist? Our best chance of winning the WC is to construct a totally different game to the fancy-Dans and play to our strengths. Manu and Slamming Sam might not be very pretty to watch but you would need a few brick walls to stop them. Maybe that’s Bombers grand plan? All he needs is do is to get Ford Senior on-side!
We should play:
One of Eastmond, Twelvetrees or possibly Slade
With one of Tuilagi, Burrell or possibly Burgess
Injuries, form etc will determine specific players but in terms of balance, and creating a system that isn’t completely dependent on one player, I think that’s the way to do it.
John, I think that this is generally agreed to be SLs plan. Ball player at 12 and bosher at 13. Haven’t quite settled on the right combination yet though…………..!
Eastmond & Burrell… or Joseph for me.
A couple of other things;
‘There’s no doubt that Manu Tuilagi is a world class player’… & ‘The Leicester centre’s defensive alignment is shaky at the best of times…’. These 2 statements are contradictory. How dose he compare with say Conrad Smith or whoever in the N or SH?
‘…they are not earning their corn as coaches’. Crikey! An Englishman (presumably) stating this!?
roy
You depress me. BTW the ‘ fancy-Dans’ have been 1 & 2 in the world since, oh I dunno, Dunkirk? And Burgess (who?) has hardly played a club game yet! And how effective was that Kiwi, Tui, on tour? Stroll on!
Staggy
Why limit it to just a bosher @ 13? Why can’t the guy ‘play’ as well?
Don, in a perfect world we would have someone with the force of Nonu and the skills of Conrad Smith. If you can find him in England at the moment I’d be a happy man!
brighty, JEFFREYMcINTOSH
Now, now children, it’s Xmas coming up & you must behave or Santa won’t bring you any presents!
Is there a pattern here, or have you just fallen out with yet another brighty?
However, JEFFERY 2 long a name to reprint here, Wales DID beat the Saffas unless I’m mistaken & didn’t England, prior 2 scraping a R1 v Oz, lose, oh what was it now, 5 or was it 6 on the bounce, v the SH? Hello!
Joe_Carlisle
There’s no guarantee that ANYONE is going to win the WC. A no. of factors beyond a team’s abilities can come into play like refs’ calls, injuries, kickers going off form, pressure etc. But are you trying to convince others or yrself? Look @ the stats v Oz in the ST for the w/end of the test e.g. Oz had 70% territory, 60 summat % possession etc, etc. How does this poss rep a ‘w class’ set piece’? And were you hibernating during the tour & AI’s? England lost 6 on the bounce v the SH! Some w class. And as for, ‘probably the strongest pack…’, it reminds me of a Carlsberg ad. Need to get real boy, or I could mistake you for an E coach.
Staggy
Well I recall Nonu exasperating me as a player at 1st. He seemed unable to keep his feet , he’d lose possession for fun & was too 1 dime for me, altho he always had pretty good feet (hands like them too at times), when not falling over of course. However, he’s been ‘manufactured’ or coached into having a more all court game now. He kicks, passes more accurately & keeps his feet & possession better. My pt is that, it’s not just a ? of plucking a rabbit out of a hat. It’s drilling a player with some ability & persisting with him… or them (more than 1 for a posi due injuries). Seems to me that someone like Eastmond, who in my perception, seems a real trier with a bit of skill, esp of the dancing feet, ought to be given a decent run. However, it seems that guys like him aren’t trusted by management to fit a more rounded game. Surely, the latter req is almost essential for England to have a real shout @ the death nxt yr. If the Oz test is the ‘new’ strategy, then I fear for players with ability like KE. Also, times running mighty short & England don’t have much wriggle room now, esp with Walse & Ireland away nxt 6N. Catt’s the ‘skills’ coach, but how this manifests itself in midfield is hard for me to discern. IMO Catt should take more responsibility for tactics/strat & demand that England also play with no fear, some adventure & drilled running lines, loop arounds, back 3 insertions etc, as well as being able to kick (accurately) for the corners or up & unders (mainly in the oppo 22 when approp). They’re my thoughts anyway.
brighty, JEFFREYMcINTOSH
Now then kiddies, if you want the fat man in the red suit, pointy hat & long white beard to bring you any pressies this Xmas, you simply must behave!
brighty
This is becoming an increasingly worrying pattern for you. You’ve fallen out with yet ANOTHER punter here. At this rate Santa will run out of rattles for yr pram!
And JEFFREY, whose name is tooo long to fit in here, altho you state; ‘you’re (Wales) crap now though aint ya…’, didn’t THEY just beat they Boks? And stick 30 on yr lot a couple back? Also didn’t, presumably non crap England, recently lose 5 or was it 6 on the trot v the SH? Used this expression before I know, but it seems so apt now; ‘Sealed lips gather no feet’. Nart mean?
DREWSMITHtheOPTOMIST
‘why change what we are?’. Er, because you lost 6 v the SH? And ‘burrell did a sterling job in the 6n LAST year. he can play 12 as he does for his club quite often’. In the WC you’ll have the SH to contend with & club ain’t Int’al level. Good to be an optimist, but some realism too please. Yr team’s ‘strength’s are simply those because they play ltd rugby. If they played a more expansive game as well (& when approp), as they tried in NZ, they’d have had (some) more time to dev an all round game. Perhaps you think England’s ‘regression’ v Oz is all it’ll take to show off the WWE trophty @ Wetherspoons in Twick after the tourney? Might be.
Trio
I think you might have cracked it there! if they did play God in midfield, wouldn’t that put the squirts up all other teams?