Times Up!

[fortysix]

I would wager quite a lot that the Tuilagi ''misses'' are similar percentage to the hits !!

[jgriffin]

Just to add my pennyworth-generally our Manu's defence is hysterical.

He anticipates, flying up, mostly missing and could never ever, in a month of Sundays, be described as a defensive lynchpin !!!

His brother Alesana was never ever ''comfortable'' with making a head on tackle and was as different to our main defence expert, Anthony Allen, as chalk and cheese . As is Manu to a lesser extent..

I might suggest there's evidence on youtube that might discount some of this, most of the video is of both of them with ball in hand, but some of the hits in the tackle made me realise what an asset the Tuillagis are.

Youtube videos rarely contain highlight reels of missed tackles and players rushing out of the defensive line and being bypassed.

When a Tuilagi times his hit just right, you can feel it in the stands. The problem is that they don't always time those hits just right.

So it's a case of opinion #1 vs opinion #2 because we don't have actual evidence, that's the problem with such arguments (it's like those who hammer on about Cipriani's tackling and don't consult the stats).

[tigerburnie]

Barritt is 95kg, which is not 'small' but it's also a long way short of the 110kg that Burrell and Tuilagi come in around. Yet the smaller man is by far the better defender.

In your opinion of course( which neither I nor the England coaches would appear to share).

[4071]

Barritt is 95kg, which is not 'small' but it's also a long way short of the 110kg that Burrell and Tuilagi come in around. Yet the smaller man is by far the better defender.

In your opinion of course( which neither I nor the England coaches would appear to share).

Er, whut?

The reason Barritt isn't starting this weekend is because he's injured. When fit, Lancaster will find a way to shoe-horn him into the side, whether at 12 or 13. And that's not because he adds ANYTHING going forwards - it's because he's a total rock in defence.

He has almost zero attacking threat, but he's racked up so many caps because he defends brilliantly. Tuilagi is a force of nature going forwards, and that's enough to get him into the team DESPITE his erratic defence.

You might think either of Burrell or Tuilagi is the better defender, but I assure you that not only are you in a minority, but the England coaches definitely disagree with you.

[4071]

I might suggest there's evidence on youtube that might discount some of this, most of the video is of both of them with ball in hand, but some of the hits in the tackle made me realise what an asset the Tuillagis are.

Youtube videos rarely contain highlight reels of missed tackles and players rushing out of the defensive line and being bypassed.

When a Tuilagi times his hit just right, you can feel it in the stands. The problem is that they don't always time those hits just right.

So it's a case of opinion #1 vs opinion #2 because we don't have actual evidence, that's the problem with such arguments (it's like those who hammer on about Cipriani's tackling and don't consult the stats).

I think I might be reading posts from a parallel universe.

You want evidence, then look at the tackle stats of both players from their last four England starts (four because that's all I can be bothered to go through).

Barritt
v Australia: 16 made, 0 missed
v Samoa: 13 made, 0 missed
v South Africa: 6 made, 0 missed
v New Zealand: 14 made, 3 missed
TOTAL: 49 made, 3 missed
Ave per game: 12.25 made, 0.75 missed
Success rate: 94.2%

Tuilagi
v New Zealand: 10 made, 4 missed
v New Zealand: 5 made, 0 missed
v New Zealand: 3 made, 1 missed
v Wales: 5 made, 1 missed
TOTAL: 23 made, 6 missed
Ave per game: 5.75 made, 1.5 missed
Success rate: 79.3%


There really is no contest - the two players are worlds apart. Tuilagi attacks, Barritt defends. Barritt doesn't attack, Tuilagi barely defends. I was unaware that there were people out there who did not already know this.

[Big Dai]

It would be nice to complete that analysis with a "players beaten" and "Yards made" stat? I think you've only made half the case?

[4071]

It would be nice to complete that analysis with a "players beaten" and "Yards made" stat? I think you've only made half the case?

No... I've made the entire case. This isn't about who is the better rugby player - it's about who is the better defender.

I (and indeed most people) would take Tuilagi over Barritt any time. Tuilagi makes more breaks, beats more defenders and makes more metres in a single game than Barritt does in several months.

As I said, the players are almost complete opposites, and anyone who likes to see attacking rugby and line-breaks will pick Tuilagi. Anyone who likes to see stifling gainline defence and, um... that's about it... well, they'll pick Barritt.

I haven't even looked at the stats from those four matches, but I'd guess that when it comes to clean breaks and defenders beaten then Barritt will be on around 4 in total, whereas Tuilagi will probably have more than that in a single match. Though probably not the match where Lancaster inexplicably stuck him on the wing, after he'd spent the previous test terrifying Nonu and Smith....

[4071]

Though for the sake of curiosity...

Clean breaks - Defenders beaten - Metres made

Barritt:
v Australia: 0 - 0 - 0
v Samoa: 0 - 2- 21
v South Africa: 0 - 1 - 16
v New Zealand: 0 - 0 - 2

TOTAL
Clean breaks: 0
Defenders beaten: 3
Metres made: 39


Tuilagi:
v New Zealand: 1 - 4- 35
v New Zealand: 1 - 3- 100
v New Zealand: 2 - 5- 84
v Wales: 0 - 0 - 11

TOTAL
Clean breaks: 4
Defenders beaten: 12
Metres made: 230



As I said... total opposites...

I'd also add that England lost all four of those games that Tuilagi started, and were on the back foot for most of them. These were not easy games and he still produced some pretty phenomenal stats. Though not so much against Wales, when he only saw the ball about half a dozen times.

And I don't think I've EVER seen a centre with such dire attacking stats as Barritt's against Australia. However, I do seem to recall that he won MOTM, simply because of his colossal defensive performance. Something that I doubt Tuilagi or Burrell has ever done, despite their size.

[G.K]

Well inadvertantly the nail has been hit on the head. Are England trying to play an attacking game with centres like Manu/Eastmond/Joseph, or are they trying to play more an a defending game with centres like Barritt and Burrell or are they trying to play more a kicking distribution game with a second receiver at 12 such as 12T? We have the same problem at OH with Farrell versus Ford or Cipriani?

The thing is that 9 months out from the RWC I don't have a clue, but more worrying is that neither does SLancaster it appears!

[Sajerj]

If Manu was 95KG, i highly doubt he would be playing premiership rugby, let alone International rugby.

[Big Dai]

Though for the sake of curiosity...

Clean breaks - Defenders beaten - Metres made

Barritt:
v Australia: 0 - 0 - 0
v Samoa: 0 - 2- 21
v South Africa: 0 - 1 - 16
v New Zealand: 0 - 0 - 2

TOTAL
Clean breaks: 0
Defenders beaten: 3
Metres made: 39


Tuilagi:
v New Zealand: 1 - 4- 35
v New Zealand: 1 - 3- 100
v New Zealand: 2 - 5- 84
v Wales: 0 - 0 - 11

TOTAL
Clean breaks: 4
Defenders beaten: 12
Metres made: 230



As I said... total opposites...

I'd also add that England lost all four of those games that Tuilagi started, and were on the back foot for most of them. These were not easy games and he still produced some pretty phenomenal stats. Though not so much against Wales, when he only saw the ball about half a dozen times.

And I don't think I've EVER seen a centre with such dire attacking stats as Barritt's against Australia. However, I do seem to recall that he won MOTM, simply because of his colossal defensive performance. Something that I doubt Tuilagi or Burrell has ever done, despite their size.

<Darth Vader> Now the evidence is complete. It is time to return the centre Barritt to the Dark Side.

<Back to normal-ish!> Not being funny old chap. You quoted a load of figures for defending and didn't post any for attacking. The difference is, if anything, more startling as a comparison.

[4071]

Not being funny old chap. You quoted a load of figures for defending and didn't post any for attacking.

In a discussion about who is the better defender, that should not be a surprise.

On the subject of which, this whole discussion is WAYYYY off topic.

Good....

[Tigerbeat]

As this has now gone on for over 22 pages and has gone off topic, I am locking this thread.