Jeremy Guscott: No Manu Tuilagi? Then send for speedy Jonathan Joseph

How could England lose at home to the old enemy after beating New Zealand so convincingly? It’s so fresh in the mind it feels like it happened yesterday, but that’s the beauty of the RBS Six Nations. As much as we can’t see Scotland winning, there’s always that little niggling thought that they could achieve a result at a venue they haven’t won at since 1983.
Fans will be crammed into Twickenham next Saturday to find out if England’s win against New Zealand was just a one off, or the beginning of a successful era for English rugby that we haven’t seen since 2000-2003.
I love the PR chat that flows out between teams during this Championship. Stuart Lancaster has already got out early the fact that in the last four matches between England and Scotland the average points difference has been only four points. That’s a manoeuvre to moderate expectation. It translates as, “Please don’t expect too much from England, it’s going to be a very close match”.
Here are some other facts of the last four matches: two have been at Murrayfield, one in Auckland and one at Twickenham. In the last four games between the two at headquarters the average points difference has been 16. I wonder why those facts were not handed out?
Lancaster has a few big decisions to make with the injury list he’s got.
England without Manu Tuilagi makes attack tough, because his ability to evade defenders or run through them is difficult to replace. There aren’t too many players that could have set up Chris Ashton’s try like he did against the Kiwis. Running through Carter, brushing McCaw aside and flicking Aaron Smith away before passing to his winger to score is pretty unique by anyone’s standards.
During the autumn series, in attack Tuilagi was incredibly influential, scoring four tries, plus he was the top metre-maker with 314, made the most clean breaks with five, and was also the top off-loader with nine.
There are alternatives. Jonathan Joseph is the simple outside-centre replacement, allowing Owen Farrell to remain at 10 and Brad Barritt at 12. Another option is to bring Toby Flood in at 10 and play Brad Barritt at 12 and Owen Farrell at 13, as they do sometimes for Saracens. Other variations are to stick with Farrell at 10, bring Flood into 12 and move Barritt to 13, or instal Billy Twelvetrees at 12 and move Barritt out to 13.
Joseph would be my pick. Although he has been playing at full-back and on the wing in his last few games for London Irish it won’t have done him any harm – certainly no more than Farrell playing outside centre for Sarries. Joseph has been playing in a struggling Irish team and it will be a mental lift to be training with the quality that the England squad offers.
He can take time out away from the threat of relegation and transfer talk and enjoy the elite surrounding. If the English forwards play at the intensity they did against NZ then Joseph is the best candidate to exploit the space created by quick ball.
This is a great opportunity for England to further blood the fast-growing young talent in the squad in the heat of the Six Nations. It will tell us if Joseph has what it takes. I believe he has.
However, Flood could easily get the nod at 10, with the Sarries lads outside, or with him playing at 12. Flood’s played at inside-centre before for England, and at one time he was mooted as the playmaker to open up defences and make the backline purr.
Flood started every game at inside-centre in the 2008 Six Nations, and England came second that year – but by the autumn Riki Flutey had taken over and Flood was on the bench.
That year pretty much summed up Flood’s international career. He hasn’t been able to make 10 or 12 exclusively his for any great length of time, and, despite having accumulated 53 caps he’s only started 35. He’s been around the squad a long time without being hugely effective, but he’s only 27 and may turn everything around. I hope he does, because the more competition the better for England.
If it wasn’t for Tuilagi’s injuries Flood would have struggled to make the 23 for Scotland, mainly because Freddie Burns showed in his cameo against NZ he could have international quality – and I feel Lancaster would have given him the bench.
As it is, with Burns probably ruled out by injury for a couple of weeks, Flood may be given another chance to prove he’s the man. If that happens a re-shuffle could involve moving Barritt to 13, and while that may not seem like that big a switch – and he would do it without hesitation – it’s a huge call.
Barritt is the main man in defence. He leads the line and loves being in the thick of it, tackling and carrying ball into the areas where there isn’t too much daylight and body parts can go missing. But he loves all that.
However, by moving one place out Barritt would lose that connection, and although he could switch between the two centre positions in attack and defence, for England he’s the daddy at 12 right now. Messing with that could unsettle the whole team dynamic.
Twelvetrees coming in at 12 might be something Clive Woodward would have considered, but I don’t think Lancaster is that kind of risk taker.
If England go down the route of Farrell and Flood either way round at 10 and 12 then England will need a very dominant pack, because they pose little threat with ball in hand.
However, what that pairing could deliver is all-important territory. Teams want to kick their way out of their half of the pitch as quickly as possible, and, with two 10s and Ben Youngs able to provide that exit strategy, it will be a factor in selection.
Tuilagi might make it, but the indications are he’s struggling, and it’s better to have him fully fit after missing one game rather than risk him being out longer by coming back too soon.
Joseph is the right choice to replace him, with Farrell at 10 and Barritt at 12 –  but how many times have England got these midfield selection decisions right?