I'm not sure it really matters, Borthwick might like to drop a secondary playmaker in at 15 on occasion I don't think he's bothered about Smith becoming a 15 with any regularity. Freddie Burns was used similarly at Tigers being both the back up 10 and 15 as well as the option at 15 if Borthwick wanted to show a different style of attack later in the game.
It probably matters to the player and their chances to the play the position to the best of their ability. Please stop comparing what happened at Leicester to what could happen for England: apples and oranges.
Why? Same coach, similar tactics.
I suspect Smith prefers to be in the 23 pushing his name further into selection for the future as opposed to watching from the stands. The two guys ahead of him are unlikely to make the next world cup and Smith is banking international experience.
Completely different level/quality of game and players. For example re tactics, Sinfield’s defence was great at Prem level but not so much at test level. For example re individual players, Smith being picked on Prem form but failing to play well in England’s set-up. Steward looking great for Tigers and, initially, for England but soon found out at test level but not at Prem level.
That’s before going into a club coach being able to recruit players to suit his set-up which you obvs can’t for a national team.
It probably matters to the player and their chances to the play the position to the best of their ability. Please stop comparing what happened at Leicester to what could happen for England: apples and oranges.
Why? Same coach, similar tactics.
I suspect Smith prefers to be in the 23 pushing his name further into selection for the future as opposed to watching from the stands. The two guys ahead of him are unlikely to make the next world cup and Smith is banking international experience.
Completely different level/quality of game and players. For example re tactics, Sinfield’s defence was great at Prem level but not so much at test level. For example re individual players, Smith being picked on Prem form but failing to play well in England’s set-up. Steward looking great for Tigers and, initially, for England but soon found out at test level but not at Prem level.
That’s before going into a club coach being able to recruit players to suit his set-up which you obvs can’t for a national team.
Don't especially mind Smith being deployed as a 'game changer at 15' with 20 mins to go, but starting him there/being the only 15 injury cover would be mad if he's never going to be developed as a proper job 15. Even then, to stretch the club point even further, Freddie Burns at 15 for England wouldn't have been very pretty.
It probably matters to the player and their chances to the play the position to the best of their ability. Please stop comparing what happened at Leicester to what could happen for England: apples and oranges.
Why? Same coach, similar tactics.
I suspect Smith prefers to be in the 23 pushing his name further into selection for the future as opposed to watching from the stands. The two guys ahead of him are unlikely to make the next world cup and Smith is banking international experience.
Completely different level/quality of game and players. For example re tactics, Sinfield’s defence was great at Prem level but not so much at test level. For example re individual players, Smith being picked on Prem form but failing to play well in England’s set-up. Steward looking great for Tigers and, initially, for England but soon found out at test level but not at Prem level.
That’s before going into a club coach being able to recruit players to suit his set-up which you obvs can’t for a national team.
Sinfield's defence has worked well this world cup.
Young players coming into international rugby have second season syndrome, what a shocker. Happens, generally part of the development of a player. They have both already started to bounce back.
Last sentence is the one I think Borthwick has struggled with the most. He's lacking some of the physicality and aggression in the back he was able to acquire at Tigers. His game plans aren't dissimilar to what he's used previously and as time goes on have worked better with the squad. Early doors was pretty horrific mind.
I suspect Smith prefers to be in the 23 pushing his name further into selection for the future as opposed to watching from the stands. The two guys ahead of him are unlikely to make the next world cup and Smith is banking international experience.
Completely different level/quality of game and players. For example re tactics, Sinfield’s defence was great at Prem level but not so much at test level. For example re individual players, Smith being picked on Prem form but failing to play well in England’s set-up. Steward looking great for Tigers and, initially, for England but soon found out at test level but not at Prem level.
That’s before going into a club coach being able to recruit players to suit his set-up which you obvs can’t for a national team.
Don't especially mind Smith being deployed as a 'game changer at 15' with 20 mins to go, but starting him there/being the only 15 injury cover would be mad if he's never going to be developed as a proper job 15. Even then, to stretch the club point even further, Freddie Burns at 15 for England wouldn't have been very pretty.
Difficult to cover every position in the backline with the bench with a someone experienced in that position yet still have good bench impact. Other nations are not fussed with potentially shifting players out of position in emergency. The Boks have just named a 7:1 bench for a world cup final. You have to be able to adapt a bit. Smith's done fine covering 15 so far as he (like a lot of 10s) often drops into the backfield when kick tennis takes place anyway.
Ha yeah Freddie Burns, great bloke though he is definitely wasn't cut out to be playing that role internationally. Doesn't mean no one else is either though. Borthwick hasn't got a salary cap to worry about now just the limitations within the EQ players.
Smith as the impact option I think we've all grown to like.
Completely different level/quality of game and players. For example re tactics, Sinfield’s defence was great at Prem level but not so much at test level. For example re individual players, Smith being picked on Prem form but failing to play well in England’s set-up. Steward looking great for Tigers and, initially, for England but soon found out at test level but not at Prem level.
That’s before going into a club coach being able to recruit players to suit his set-up which you obvs can’t for a national team.
Don't especially mind Smith being deployed as a 'game changer at 15' with 20 mins to go, but starting him there/being the only 15 injury cover would be mad if he's never going to be developed as a proper job 15. Even then, to stretch the club point even further, Freddie Burns at 15 for England wouldn't have been very pretty.
Difficult to cover every position in the backline with the bench with a someone experienced in that position yet still have good bench impact. Other nations are not fussed with potentially shifting players out of position in emergency. The Boks have just named a 7:1 bench for a world cup final. You have to be able to adapt a bit. Smith's done fine covering 15 so far as he (like a lot of 10s) often drops into the backfield when kick tennis takes place anyway.
Ha yeah Freddie Burns, great bloke though he is definitely wasn't cut out to be playing that role internationally. Doesn't mean no one else is either though. Borthwick hasn't got a salary cap to worry about now just the limitations within the EQ players.
Smith as the impact option I think we've all grown to like.
Point being he shouldn't be starting at 15 unless he actually is one; he's done 'fine' covering 15 in easy-ish games though was exposed as a starter in option taking v Fiji tbh when he was playing there. There's a massive difference in back field kick tennis cover v being stationed at 15 from 1st phase and phase handling play. In emergency is fine....all positions imo require specialism, but 15 is a very specific skill set and positional awareness imo.
I suspect Smith prefers to be in the 23 pushing his name further into selection for the future as opposed to watching from the stands. The two guys ahead of him are unlikely to make the next world cup and Smith is banking international experience.
Completely different level/quality of game and players. For example re tactics, Sinfield’s defence was great at Prem level but not so much at test level. For example re individual players, Smith being picked on Prem form but failing to play well in England’s set-up. Steward looking great for Tigers and, initially, for England but soon found out at test level but not at Prem level.
That’s before going into a club coach being able to recruit players to suit his set-up which you obvs can’t for a national team.
Sinfield's defence has worked well this world cup.
Young players coming into international rugby have second season syndrome, what a shocker. Happens, generally part of the development of a player. They have both already started to bounce back.
Last sentence is the one I think Borthwick has struggled with the most. He's lacking some of the physicality and aggression in the back he was able to acquire at Tigers. His game plans aren't dissimilar to what he's used previously and as time goes on have worked better with the squad. Early doors was pretty horrific mind.
Sinfield’s defence has not worked well when stressed.
It’s not second season syndrome. Smith hasn’t played anywhere near his Quins form in any match for England and I’m not sure how you can say how he’s bounced back considering how often he’s played in this tournament and which position he’s played. Steward’s limitations have always been there to see - even a complete amateur like me pointed them out - but it’s only at international level that he’s been exposed because it’s a completely different level of comp. Steward hasn’t bounced back - he just looked good in one hand in conditions perfectly suited to his skillset.
I know his game plans aren’t dissimilar to the ones he used at Leicester and there’s been absolutely no signs of improvement in the team performance despite them being together for four months…
I’ve final realised why Billy was picked for the squad. Given he’s spent plenty of time covering the backfield and at first receiver for Sarries he’s been 10 & 15 cover all along. IBWT.
I’m really excited about seeing how Curry 6 Underhill 7 Earl 8 gets on - certainly the most mobile backrow since the Holy Trinity ( with Robbo’s temporary experiment of 6 Lund 7 Moody 8 Sanderson confined to the history books as the Andre Previn / Eric Morcambe piano sketch of selections )
Don't especially mind Smith being deployed as a 'game changer at 15' with 20 mins to go, but starting him there/being the only 15 injury cover would be mad if he's never going to be developed as a proper job 15. Even then, to stretch the club point even further, Freddie Burns at 15 for England wouldn't have been very pretty.
Difficult to cover every position in the backline with the bench with a someone experienced in that position yet still have good bench impact. Other nations are not fussed with potentially shifting players out of position in emergency. The Boks have just named a 7:1 bench for a world cup final. You have to be able to adapt a bit. Smith's done fine covering 15 so far as he (like a lot of 10s) often drops into the backfield when kick tennis takes place anyway.
Ha yeah Freddie Burns, great bloke though he is definitely wasn't cut out to be playing that role internationally. Doesn't mean no one else is either though. Borthwick hasn't got a salary cap to worry about now just the limitations within the EQ players.
Smith as the impact option I think we've all grown to like.
Point being he shouldn't be starting at 15 unless he actually is one; he's done 'fine' covering 15 in easy-ish games though was exposed as a starter in option taking v Fiji tbh when he was playing there. There's a massive difference in back field kick tennis cover v being stationed at 15 from 1st phase and phase handling play. In emergency is fine....all positions imo require specialism, but 15 is a very specific skill set and positional awareness imo.
Weren't people saying earlier in the thread that this game should be used to give players a chance and to experiment? I've got no issues with Smith at 15 here - it's giving him valuable game-time and experience in a match which is simultaneously a real test for him, while also being utterly pointless and without stakes.
Is Smith at FB a viable long term option? Quins wont play him there and i'm pretty sure he sees himself as a 10. I could see the point in putting him there for the Fiji game but that was surely a one off. Also, Steward isnt going to move to the wing so why waste him there?
Just seems a pointless selection with no long term advantages and possibly a short term disadvantage.
Meanwhile Lawrence is on the bench again so denied a chance to start a game that he is long overdue to do.
Really the question of FB - is there anyone who would be better there than Smith? I think he does a **pretty good** job, albeit he takes a beat too long to make a decision when playing against the better teams. Commentators rave about Steward but I haven't seen anything special from him for England. Who else in the squad is going to start at FB?
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Difficult to cover every position in the backline with the bench with a someone experienced in that position yet still have good bench impact. Other nations are not fussed with potentially shifting players out of position in emergency. The Boks have just named a 7:1 bench for a world cup final. You have to be able to adapt a bit. Smith's done fine covering 15 so far as he (like a lot of 10s) often drops into the backfield when kick tennis takes place anyway.
Ha yeah Freddie Burns, great bloke though he is definitely wasn't cut out to be playing that role internationally. Doesn't mean no one else is either though. Borthwick hasn't got a salary cap to worry about now just the limitations within the EQ players.
Smith as the impact option I think we've all grown to like.
Point being he shouldn't be starting at 15 unless he actually is one; he's done 'fine' covering 15 in easy-ish games though was exposed as a starter in option taking v Fiji tbh when he was playing there. There's a massive difference in back field kick tennis cover v being stationed at 15 from 1st phase and phase handling play. In emergency is fine....all positions imo require specialism, but 15 is a very specific skill set and positional awareness imo.
Weren't people saying earlier in the thread that this game should be used to give players a chance and to experiment? I've got no issues with Smith at 15 here - it's giving him valuable game-time and experience in a match which is simultaneously a real test for him, while also being utterly pointless and without stakes.
Puja
'people' may have been saying that, but not me. And at the risk of repeating myself, I can't see the value of starting him at 15 unless he going to become one.
Double ranking points, and every test should be seen as important.
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 1:02 pm
Really the question of FB - is there anyone who would be better there than Smith? I think he does a **pretty good** job, albeit he takes a beat too long to make a decision when playing against the better teams. Commentators rave about Steward but I haven't seen anything special from him for England. Who else in the squad is going to start at FB?
Mad Max! He is set to replace Cheap Street at Bris on his return.
I imagined Smith at fullback was more about giving England a bit more versatility from the bench, with a three-quarter/Marchant covering centre/wing, but it seems a bit meaningless now the RWC is done.
On a personal level I'd like to think it might have improved his game to get another perspective on the field (and seeing how Ford/Farrell run things at 10) and give him another USP as a 10 who can cover 15, but I don't see any reason Quins or England would invest a whole lot more time in him there.
Maybe he'd end up like Barrett, but seems a bit unlikely to me.
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 1:02 pm
Really the question of FB - is there anyone who would be better there than Smith? I think he does a **pretty good** job, albeit he takes a beat too long to make a decision when playing against the better teams. Commentators rave about Steward but I haven't seen anything special from him for England. Who else in the squad is going to start at FB?
Smith great at the go forward, Steward at fielding the high ball - is there anyone who can combine this?
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 1:02 pm
Really the question of FB - is there anyone who would be better there than Smith? I think he does a **pretty good** job, albeit he takes a beat too long to make a decision when playing against the better teams. Commentators rave about Steward but I haven't seen anything special from him for England. Who else in the squad is going to start at FB?
Arundell would be the main name. He's been a 15 in everything but his England appearances.
I’m starting to appreciate the genius of the fact that we have three of our best young backs in the back 3 and none of them are in their preferred position. IBWBT.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 3:44 pm
I’m starting to appreciate the genius of the fact that we have three of our best young backs in the back 3 and none of them are in their preferred position. IBWBT.
Get Lawrence at 12 with Everyman at 13 and we’re cooking.
I suspect Smith prefers to be in the 23 pushing his name further into selection for the future as opposed to watching from the stands. The two guys ahead of him are unlikely to make the next world cup and Smith is banking international experience.
Completely different level/quality of game and players. For example re tactics, Sinfield’s defence was great at Prem level but not so much at test level. For example re individual players, Smith being picked on Prem form but failing to play well in England’s set-up. Steward looking great for Tigers and, initially, for England but soon found out at test level but not at Prem level.
That’s before going into a club coach being able to recruit players to suit his set-up which you obvs can’t for a national team.
Don't especially mind Smith being deployed as a 'game changer at 15' with 20 mins to go, but starting him there/being the only 15 injury cover would be mad if he's never going to be developed as a proper job 15. Even then, to stretch the club point even further, Freddie Burns at 15 for England wouldn't have been very pretty.
If ever there was a game to pitch Smith in at 10 and let him play his natural game, this was it. A meaningless third place playoff in the RWC. Nobody gives a rat's about the outcome. A chance finally to let the England players express themselves, try something different/creative, lay down some kind of a marker for the future and come out of it all with something remotely positive.
That squad is a frustrating mix of predictable and pointless. I feel for you guys. The more years they persist with this nonsense the more careers will get fucked over. The selection is almost cowardly.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 3:44 pm
I’m starting to appreciate the genius of the fact that we have three of our best young backs in the back 3 and none of them are in their preferred position. IBWBT.
At least two of them are actually on the pitch, which makes a refreshing change in a sense.
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 1:02 pm
Really the question of FB - is there anyone who would be better there than Smith? I think he does a **pretty good** job, albeit he takes a beat too long to make a decision when playing against the better teams. Commentators rave about Steward but I haven't seen anything special from him for England. Who else in the squad is going to start at FB?
Smith great at the go forward, Steward at fielding the high ball - is there anyone who can combine this?
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 1:02 pm
Really the question of FB - is there anyone who would be better there than Smith? I think he does a **pretty good** job, albeit he takes a beat too long to make a decision when playing against the better teams. Commentators rave about Steward but I haven't seen anything special from him for England. Who else in the squad is going to start at FB?
Smith great at the go forward, Steward at fielding the high ball - is there anyone who can combine this?
Freeman.
We're not crowbarring a centre in to play full-back. Don't be ridiculous.
