England vs Chile

[Oakboy]

I would still have taken Warr. Probably too raw edges out probably past it. Brave new world and all.
But I get your point.

Why not Quirke? At least he was recovered from injury unlike other players on the ferry.

I don't get your Quirke obsession. Yes, he'd recovered from injury, but he'd not shown any significant form since doing so and had limited game time because he was deservedly behind Warr. The only thing to pick him on was potential, or his form from over a year ago.

I like him as a player and expect him to kick on again next season, but he wasn't realistically in a position to play for England.

Puja

I think he offers more strength and physical presence than any of the other contenders (a characteristic that I like in a SH). As a 3rd SH behind JVP and Mitchell, he would have offered more than either of the geriatrics. I thought his return to fitness was well-handled. His ceiling is the highest.

[Puja]

Why not Quirke? At least he was recovered from injury unlike other players on the ferry.

I don't get your Quirke obsession. Yes, he'd recovered from injury, but he'd not shown any significant form since doing so and had limited game time because he was deservedly behind Warr. The only thing to pick him on was potential, or his form from over a year ago.

I like him as a player and expect him to kick on again next season, but he wasn't realistically in a position to play for England.

Puja

I think he offers more strength and physical presence than any of the other contenders (a characteristic that I like in a SH). As a 3rd SH behind JVP and Mitchell, he would have offered more than either of the geriatrics. I thought his return to fitness was well-handled. His ceiling is the highest.

I'm not disagreeing with his ceiling being highest or his basic attributes, but that's the same description that's led to us wasting time on Joe Cokanasiga. I would prefer to wait until I see actual performances before picking him for England. After all, Australia have picked based on whose ceiling is the highest and look how well that's working for them?

Puja

[Scrumhead]

Why not Quirke? At least he was recovered from injury unlike other players on the ferry.

I don't get your Quirke obsession. Yes, he'd recovered from injury, but he'd not shown any significant form since doing so and had limited game time because he was deservedly behind Warr. The only thing to pick him on was potential, or his form from over a year ago.

I like him as a player and expect him to kick on again next season, but he wasn't realistically in a position to play for England.

Puja

I think he offers more strength and physical presence than any of the other contenders (a characteristic that I like in a SH). As a 3rd SH behind JVP and Mitchell, he would have offered more than either of the geriatrics. I thought his return to fitness was well-handled. His ceiling is the highest.

Does he? I don’t think of Quirke as being particularly strong or offering physical presence. I see him as a good all rounder with the ability to snipe as well as a good kicking game, whereas our other 9s tend to be one or the other.

Puja nailed it though, Quirke really did nothing to warrant being picked. Warr is a promising player, but if Quirke was really that good and his return to fitness was as ‘well-handled’ as you say, he should have been able to re-establish himself as first choice. The fact of the matter is that he didn’t.

I’ll be very interested to see how it plays out at Sale when Quirke has a full preseason under his belt. I agree he has a high ceiling, but he’s got to dislodge Warr and stay fit.

[Margin_Walker]

Agree with that. I think Quirke has a lot of the tools, but he needs some serious prem performances this season to get in the conversation.

A phenomenal teenager might get picked on his ceiling and potential, but a 22 year old needs some consistent form and usually need to not be sat behind a non international at his club

[Epaminondas Pules]

How do we assess that performance? We won at a canter and werent seriously tested. Can we set much store in some of the performances?
I'm inclined think there were positives in the overall performance and that there were some players who enhanced their reputations.
i really like Dan, who has an energy and mobility that could be a great asset. Ribbans was very good, Smith and Arundell had their moments.

Yes, assessment is not straightforward. Does Arundell walking in gift tries mean anything? Where was the leadership and defensive organisation when Chile ran us ragged several times in the first half? Can set-piece success count for anything against such opposition?

Maybe, we should only react to the off-the-cuff and individual man-on-man stuff since we should be the superior team in terms of organised quality.

I thought Willis was excellent around the fringes. Dan offers pace and feistiness. Smith's pure gas from a standing start is too big an asset not to be in the starting XV.

One obvious problem is SH should Mitchell's performance v Fiji be more than a blip.

For all of Smith’s gas he absolutely butchered three guilt edge opportunities. The kick in goal after five minutes was both wrong and horrifically executed.

There were some elements that were much better but still our ruck speed was turgid, and when we get 5 metres out we look nothing like a team that’s going to score, both in terms of dynamism and decision making.

Of the pack I though Martin, Ribbans, Willis and Dan stood out. Backs were much more mixed. Arundell did what was asked of him but missed a couple of interventions that a top level player would take. Smith was a mix of sublime and awful. Farrell was Farrell. Daly was all over the shop. Lawrence OK. Malins, well, lucky to be there. Care and Youngs glacial!

[Epaminondas Pules]

Quirke is very physical. It’s potentially part of his problem as he’s doing things you ideally don’t want a SH to do physically. He showed glimpses towards the end of the season but was understandably don’t firing rockets after the lay off.

[Oakboy]

I don't get your Quirke obsession. Yes, he'd recovered from injury, but he'd not shown any significant form since doing so and had limited game time because he was deservedly behind Warr. The only thing to pick him on was potential, or his form from over a year ago.

I like him as a player and expect him to kick on again next season, but he wasn't realistically in a position to play for England.

Puja

I think he offers more strength and physical presence than any of the other contenders (a characteristic that I like in a SH). As a 3rd SH behind JVP and Mitchell, he would have offered more than either of the geriatrics. I thought his return to fitness was well-handled. His ceiling is the highest.

I'm not disagreeing with his ceiling being highest or his basic attributes, but that's the same description that's led to us wasting time on Joe Cokanasiga. I would prefer to wait until I see actual performances before picking him for England. After all, Australia have picked based on whose ceiling is the highest and look how well that's working for them?

Puja

Fair point but I still think he was worth a risk on a 3 SH selection. Let's face it, the original selection of JVP + the two old guys has been proven wrong by one injury and the replacement stepping into the XV. I'd also say that tomorrow Quirke would be as effective a SH at international level as Walker is at hooker so the selection would be no more risky.

Anyway, it's not going to happen. Now, who is 1st choice SH?

[Epaminondas Pules]

One other thing from yesterday. I thought Chessum had his best game since the injury off the bench. Yes it’s Chile, but he looked like pre-injury Chessum.

[Epaminondas Pules]

I think he offers more strength and physical presence than any of the other contenders (a characteristic that I like in a SH). As a 3rd SH behind JVP and Mitchell, he would have offered more than either of the geriatrics. I thought his return to fitness was well-handled. His ceiling is the highest.

I'm not disagreeing with his ceiling being highest or his basic attributes, but that's the same description that's led to us wasting time on Joe Cokanasiga. I would prefer to wait until I see actual performances before picking him for England. After all, Australia have picked based on whose ceiling is the highest and look how well that's working for them?

Puja

Fair point but I still think he was worth a risk on a 3 SH selection. Let's face it, the original selection of JVP + the two old guys has been proven wrong by one injury and the replacement stepping into the XV. I'd also say that tomorrow Quirke would be as effective a SH at international level as Walker is at hooker so the selection would be no more risky.

Anyway, it's not going to happen. Now, who is 1st choice SH?

Mitchell, by a distance (hopefully) and then……Bevan Rodd?

[Oakboy]

How do we assess that performance? We won at a canter and werent seriously tested. Can we set much store in some of the performances?
I'm inclined think there were positives in the overall performance and that there were some players who enhanced their reputations.
i really like Dan, who has an energy and mobility that could be a great asset. Ribbans was very good, Smith and Arundell had their moments.

Yes, assessment is not straightforward. Does Arundell walking in gift tries mean anything? Where was the leadership and defensive organisation when Chile ran us ragged several times in the first half? Can set-piece success count for anything against such opposition?

Maybe, we should only react to the off-the-cuff and individual man-on-man stuff since we should be the superior team in terms of organised quality.

I thought Willis was excellent around the fringes. Dan offers pace and feistiness. Smith's pure gas from a standing start is too big an asset not to be in the starting XV.

One obvious problem is SH should Mitchell's performance v Fiji be more than a blip.

For all of Smith’s gas he absolutely butchered three guilt edge opportunities. The kick in goal after five minutes was both wrong and horrifically executed.

There were some elements that were much better but still our ruck speed was turgid, and when we get 5 metres out we look nothing like a team that’s going to score, both in terms of dynamism and decision making.

Of the pack I though Martin, Ribbans, Willis and Dan stood out. Backs were much more mixed. Arundell did what was asked of him but missed a couple of interventions that a top level player would take. Smith was a mix of sublime and awful. Farrell was Farrell. Daly was all over the shop. Lawrence OK. Malins, well, lucky to be there. Care and Youngs glacial!

Fair comment, all of it. Smith kicking when he naturally wouldn't is somewhat ironical. Maybe he thought his only chance of more game time was if he showed willing with the boot!!

[p/d]

and when we get 5 metres out we look nothing like a team that’s going to score, both in terms of dynamism and decision making.

This. Oh my god this. It is exasperating watching them ‘fiddle’ about.

[Scrumhead]

Yes, assessment is not straightforward. Does Arundell walking in gift tries mean anything? Where was the leadership and defensive organisation when Chile ran us ragged several times in the first half? Can set-piece success count for anything against such opposition?

Maybe, we should only react to the off-the-cuff and individual man-on-man stuff since we should be the superior team in terms of organised quality.

I thought Willis was excellent around the fringes. Dan offers pace and feistiness. Smith's pure gas from a standing start is too big an asset not to be in the starting XV.

One obvious problem is SH should Mitchell's performance v Fiji be more than a blip.

For all of Smith’s gas he absolutely butchered three guilt edge opportunities. The kick in goal after five minutes was both wrong and horrifically executed.

There were some elements that were much better but still our ruck speed was turgid, and when we get 5 metres out we look nothing like a team that’s going to score, both in terms of dynamism and decision making.

Of the pack I though Martin, Ribbans, Willis and Dan stood out. Backs were much more mixed. Arundell did what was asked of him but missed a couple of interventions that a top level player would take. Smith was a mix of sublime and awful. Farrell was Farrell. Daly was all over the shop. Lawrence OK. Malins, well, lucky to be there. Care and Youngs glacial!

Fair comment, all of it. Smith kicking when he naturally wouldn't is somewhat ironical. Maybe he thought his only chance of more game time was if he showed willing with the boot!!

I don’t know if it is entirely fair comment. Yes, he had some poor moments, but those were hugely outweighed by the good ones.

I know it’s only Chile and better teams will give him a much harder time without the ball, but Farrell and Smith in this configuration looked infinitely more comfortable than Smith at 10 and Farrell at 12. Maybe it’s because the dual playmaker from 15 is more familiar for Farrell?

[Which Tyler]

I actually think Smith might have a higher ceiling at FB than FH - eventually, if played there for 20-30 straight matches and a couple of pre-seasons training for it.
His weakness at FH is still in game management, and creating/seeing mismatches and opportunities wider out than a single pass from himself; his strength is broken field running. The first is both absolutely key for a FH, and also easier to learn for a FB; whilst the latter is more easily maximised at FB, with a right a roam.

Sew him into the Quins 15 shirt (will never happen) and sit him in front of every minute we've got of Jason Robinson playing Union (also sit him in front of videos of Alex Goode playing FB, to show both game management from FB, and the importance of keeping momentum whilst trying to change direction - as a comparator to Billy Whizz); and I think his ceiling is higher there.

It'll still never happen, because Quins want him at FH, he almost certainly wants himself at FH, and both Quins and England have alternative FBs who are currently better, and who also have a high ceiling there - if managed properly (always our achilles heel)

[Scrumhead]

I wouldn’t be totally sure on that. If Jarrod Evans settles in well, Smith at 15 might become a very attractive option for Quins. Tyrone Green and Nick David are both very good players, but they aren’t better than Smith.

[Epaminondas Pules]

For all of Smith’s gas he absolutely butchered three guilt edge opportunities. The kick in goal after five minutes was both wrong and horrifically executed.

There were some elements that were much better but still our ruck speed was turgid, and when we get 5 metres out we look nothing like a team that’s going to score, both in terms of dynamism and decision making.

Of the pack I though Martin, Ribbans, Willis and Dan stood out. Backs were much more mixed. Arundell did what was asked of him but missed a couple of interventions that a top level player would take. Smith was a mix of sublime and awful. Farrell was Farrell. Daly was all over the shop. Lawrence OK. Malins, well, lucky to be there. Care and Youngs glacial!

Fair comment, all of it. Smith kicking when he naturally wouldn't is somewhat ironical. Maybe he thought his only chance of more game time was if he showed willing with the boot!!

I don’t know if it is entirely fair comment. Yes, he had some poor moments, but those were hugely outweighed by the good ones.

I know it’s only Chile and better teams will give him a much harder time without the ball, but Farrell and Smith in this configuration looked infinitely more comfortable than Smith at 10 and Farrell at 12. Maybe it’s because the dual playmaker from 15 is more familiar for Farrell?

Hugely outweighed? He literally butchered three tries.

[Scrumhead]

Yet scored or made several others that none of our other players would have …

[Epaminondas Pules]

Yet scored or made several others that none of our other players would have …

I’m not denying the he scored, but you can’t say his ups were hugely better when we cost us at least 15 points, 10 of which were in that first 20 minutes where an early score settles us.

Hi did some good, some bad, some exceptional and some terrible.

[Mikey Brown]

Maybe it’s just me, but feels like he’s quite aware of the narrative around his limitations. I still view him as a 10 long term though. The ‘game management’ stuff is overstated sometimes I think, but sometimes trying too hard to be selfless or forcing a kick/pass that isn’t on is just as bad.

He 100% would have gone himself when he rounded that defender before a duff pass to the invisible man on the wing. The nothing kick for Arundell felt like a complete lack of communication. Poor choice and poor execution. What was the other one?

It was also odd how we kept flinging him the ball with huge mismatches in favour of the defence and maybe only 1 player outside.

He definitely offers something as a 15 but it’s not really realistic for Quins or England, though for very different reasons. I do feel like he might learn and improve as a player for the new perspective and watching Faz/Ford do their thing at 10.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Maybe it’s just me, but feels like he’s quite aware of the narrative around his limitations. I still view him as a 10 long term though. The ‘game management’ stuff is overstated sometimes I think, but sometimes trying too hard to be selfless or forcing a kick/pass that isn’t on is just as bad.

He 100% would have gone himself when he rounded that defender before a duff pass to the invisible man on the wing. The nothing kick for Arundell felt like a complete lack of communication. Poor choice and poor execution. What was the other one?

It was also odd how we kept flinging him the ball with huge mismatches in favour of the defence and maybe only 1 player outside.

He definitely offers something as a 15 but it’s not really realistic for Quins or England, though for very different reasons. I do feel like he might learn and improve as a player for the new perspective and watching Faz/Ford do their thing at 10.

Totally agree. He looked tight/tense, like he was trying too much. It’s why I was really pleased he got that first try. He was much more relaxed / himself in the second half. Still a little bit tight, but much more like himself.

[Danno]

Alright, which one of you is Matt Dawson

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66904167

[Spiffy]

Yet scored or made several others that none of our other players would have …

I’m not denying the he scored, but you can’t say his ups were hugely better when we cost us at least 15 points, 10 of which were in that first 20 minutes where an early score settles us.

Hi did some good, some bad, some exceptional and some terrible.

Smith is a naturally-talented footballer with some vision and pace. I'd say his main problem at the moment is that he wants something spectacular to happen every time he is on the ball, and so it all tends to look a bit frantic. If he were to ease back a bit, take a leaf out of the Finn Russell playbook, play a little more within himself and chose his moments for the big plays, he'd be fantastic. With experience and good coaching, I think he can do this.