Manu Tuilagi.... Discuss

[BG]

I agree WWW.

It worries me that EJ still probably believes that fitness and power will win games along with tactical kicking. I think he's transferred that idea from how Sarries play but Sarries are effectively an international team playing against club teams.

Tier 1 teams aren't simply going to let themselves be steamrollered and as Wales have proved, a decent back 3 can nullify tactical kicking, especially with the box kicking of Youngs. I doubt there is much of a difference in fitness between any of the tier 1 nations either.

I'm not a fan of the Ford Fazza combo but at least its a combo that is familiar... the problem is that its also familiar to international defence coaches.

Francis surprised me at 12. He seemed willing and commited to run straight lines in between the 10/12 channel (with or with out the ball ) to try and stop the defence from drifting but I don't think he's big or quick to get through the first tackle.

Holding on to that... conversely.. Ford is like a revolving door at 10. Any team worth its salt will simply run down his channel, England will know this and will have to remove resources from the pack to cover him or Fazz stand closer to him from 1st phase ball.

I have the same feeling about our 2 wingers always having in the back of their mind that they will have to cover for Daly under the high ball.

Saying that I still think the WC is wide open

[wasps]

Ford's defence ain't great, but neither are most of England's 10 options. That's always been the case with fly halves except for a few notable exceptions.


As for wingers turning to chase down a ball behind, it's largely the same for all big wingers.
Lomu was criticised for it, as has George North.
We live to talk about how Cipriani's attack probably outweighs his defensive issues, and how Wade's unique abilities will win you more points than you'll lose for any weaknesses he may have had. In the same vein, it's only fair to consider the positives that you may get from JoeC, Manu et al.



The power based game plan isn't new, it's been around forever, and at times other teams have been better at it than us.
Even the all blacks typically underpin their flair and open running with power around the park.


I'd be lying if I said the 10/12 and 15 didn't concern me, but 10/12 hasn't been great for over 15 years, so it's hardly all Eddie's fault.
The crazy thing about it is that it's so close to being what most people want. I.e. cips at 10, Farrell at 12, with ford on the bench

[Raggs]

I really wonder sometimes if I'm watching the same games as other people.  In the last two games, Ford was 19-1 for tackles, the 1 missed tackle was a great hand off by Davies, which has done far more than Ford. Ford had Parkes coming down his channel repeatedly and didn't miss him once. Farrell on the other hand misses a ton of tackles, as he get's bounced off or just stepped. Farrell needs to be covered in defence as he regularly leaves dog legs and misses when he shoots up. I know the press like to vomit all over his big defence, but it's a myth. And the whole "misses don't really count, since he's forcing them in just like sarries" is bollocks too, no other 12 (or 10) in world rugby misses as many and causes so much panic in his own defence.

Francis repeatedly broke the line, beating 6 defenders and making 2 clean breaks. At least once that defender was Davies, again, no mean feat considering JD2 is considered by many, to be the best 13 in the game at the moment (I'd agree).

You cannot rely purely on running straight into a defence with power, I agree, but when you have multiple power options, and a half decent 9/10, and/or decent hands in the forwards, then suddenly the defence cannot cover everything. You cannot expect to stop Mako Vunipola on the gainline with a single defender, but if you commit 2, then you worry about him getting the pop off to Sinkler, or Billy, and suddenly they make 5-10 yards. Manu has the same effect, it takes 2 to safely defend him, so have him at 12 with Ford at 10, and suddenly if Manu makes a run the defence tightens, if Ford then chucks it out to Slade or Joseph, they're in trouble. Especially with pace like May/Watson/Daly/Coka out there.

The most physical team nearly always wins. Now that's not to say it's all about size, since a fair bit about it is also attitude, but watch the all black pack to see physicality. The ABs play some very very pretty rugby, but their intensity and physicality in the pack are generally unmatched, when they are matched, that's when we see them stumble. The secret to their winning streak isn't the likes of Mo'unga or Barrett, it's the likes of Retallick and Cane, absolutely blitzing rucks and tackles, every time, every game. They win with the psychology that allows them to reproduce that sort of effort virtually every game.

Ireland had the same intensity when they were dominating for a while, though they dropped off a bit.

England rarely match that intensity, but can replicate the physicality simply by having the likes of the Vunipolas and Sinkler etc, these guys are big enough and skilled enough to be able to do well, even without that insane intensity. But when we did last produce it, we were one unfortunately pulled back try from beating the ABs, and that was with a far from first choice pack,  but playing with a really high intensity.

[Shugs]

Which begs the obvious question - why can't England replicate the intensity? My theory on the way people view Ford is simple - he looks small. People equate that as he misses tackles. There is a difference though in that sometimes you can complete a tackle but lose five or six yards which is why Ford gets that reputation as he does that quite often. The two problem positions for England for a few years have been 7 and 12. We've found a 7 but I don't think we have an obvious 12. That's the real problem - we just don't have anyone top notch to play there.

[wasps]

I'll definitely agree that Farrell is not a defensive rock.
his desire to put in big hits often causes problems as he goes out of the line to do it.

However, I'd rather have him standing in front of an opposition power runner than Ford.
I've only seen a few bits of the Wales games so can't comment on those, however I've often seen Ford pushed out of the way, or run over in defence.
That's not a huge criticism, because that's often been the way for fly halves and there aren't many who are renowned for their defence.


The stats may not back it up, and that's fine, but I'd be happier with someone running at Farrell in the line than Ford.

[Raggs]

Ford was heavily targeted, especially by Parkes, and yes, gave up a few yards here and there. But I'd rather give up a few yards, than straight up miss tackles like Farrell does.

Shugs, in some games we do, the NZ game for instance. Ireland managed to do it for 4-5 games in a row I recall, but I can't think of any other team that manages to repeat it so often as NZ, and they seem to be stuttering more recently. I'd guess it's a combination of psychology, coaching and players on the team. Wales can sometimes manage it at home, but rarely away.

Sam Cane is a great example, watch how hard he plays, it's insane, I'm amazed he's not suffered more injuries. In Underhill and Curry, we have two players that seem to be able to replicate that, which is great news.

[westwaleswasp]

Ford had a bad year in poor form where he was a poor all round- defence included- which is what people remember, rather like people selectively memorising Wade's early career. That is not Ford at his best, we are seeing a better Ford now- although no ten will match Cipriani for unlocking defences. I agree with Raggs that Farrell is overly lauded defensively, has been for a while- it is because he puts in eye catching tackles every now and then. But he does miss tackles, often in bigger matches, and of course we know about the no-arms issue.

I like BG's point above about replicating Sarries- it is not the gameplan that has bought Sarries' success, but the fact they are overly loaded with international players- as many would say by dubious cap evasion methods, but that is a different story. With the players they have they could play any number of ways, and indeed, over the past four years  they are for more likely to score from anywhere than almost any team other than us during the Cipriani era, they play a lot more than people think- again the media story of the wolfpack has obfuscated the fact that they have a lot of good footballers and normally have more than one ten on the pitch.  The point is Sarries have been successful because of depth- their 4th choice lock is Skelton or Kruis etc. They also play a lot more nowadays. Eddie's England seem closer to the 2013 model- which is what I am dubious about.

I expect people will praise England's physicality when they win, and admonish their lack of creativity when they lose, but the reality is we will be a lot less creative than we could be given some of the choices Eddie made a while back, particularly at 9- and to his credit Eddie has tried to compensate elsewhere by the removal of the prosaic Brown and the introduction of Daly, but the sting in the tail is we know Daly is not a 15. It is almost as if Eddie's head knows he needs dangerous runners, but his heart wants power, power, power, so we get a quotient of the Watson/Daly types, sometimes shoehorned in.
It is possible to lack creativity even if we score a few tries against a France team, say- because tries can be scored when teams defend badly or play the wrong full back etc. We scored 4 against Ireland and were the same team against Wales when our lack of creativity was exposed- we did not suddenly get less creative. Sarries fans often back in 2011-13 often pointed to the number of tries scored as evidence of creativity, when it was evidence of teams collapsing having been steamrollered, but that steamrollering is not going to happen to Wales, ABs et al- they won't run out of gas in the last twenty when 4 Lions are brought on like GP teams. 
 
I do disagree with somewhat Ragg's point about the most physical winning matches. It is not wrong, but the way the term is used by the media, "most physical" means a range of things. How many times during our year when we made the final would we say we were the most physical? Probably not many. It is true that the matches we lost we said we lacked physicality- but we won most matches and at no point were we more physical. What tends to happen is if a team wins they get the label "most physical" either for a period of stout defence or for a couple of close range tries.   

[welsh wasp]

I think Tuilagi made one break against Wales at Twickenham and very exciting it was - but then he was tackled. I can’t remember anything similar in Cardiff. He is a bit like Jamie Roberts was for Wales - the big battering ram. But then Lancaster (I think) put Joe Worsley in the centre when Wales has a scrum or line-out and that was a very successful defence against Roberts. A Tuilagi break is very exciting but defences know what he will do which is to try to run over them.
The other change between Twickenham and Cardiff was that Billy V was not so effective in his charges at Cardiff - had Wales worked him out? Will other teams at the RWC do the same? NZ seem less inclined to have Sonny-Bill W as a first choice centre - is he their Tuilagi?

[wasps]

Eddie Jones is Australian.
He coached them in an era when they had good all round footballers all over the park.
Those players could generally play 3 or 4 different positions almost equally well.

Australia often seem like a team trying to perfect Total Rugby, where players can slot in anywhere.

What they often lack is power, and that has caused them to come unstuck on a few occasions.


Eddie now has a team with powerful forwards to build around, but not the all round skills in the backs.
Daly is one player with that versatility.
Farrell plays 10 and 12
Nowell, wing and OC
He now wants Ford as a backup 9


He's trying to build total rugby, but with a power base.

No idea why he therefore doesn't pick cips