RugbyRebels

Spiffy wrote:

Raggs wrote:Sorry, was Spiffy being serious? I thought he was just taking the mickey out of the "Ooooh... Shiny!" crowd?

No - not a WUM.
Jonny Wilkinson was capped at 18.
I would say Marcus Smith has a more rounded game than Jonny at the same age. (Runs for cover!!)
Tony O'Reilly was selected for the Lions at 18, became 19 on tour, and went to score a record number of tries.
Plenty of talented players have been capped at a young age.
I have watched a lot of PL games this year. Yes, Smith does make some mistakes - just like everyone else including Ford, Faz, Loz, Burns etc.. (All Faz mistakes are ignored by the media.) But, overall, he has looked about the best FH to me, especially, as Banquo points out above, he is performing in a fairly ordinary team at present. With a dominant pack and front foot ball I'm sure he'd be even more impressive.
He will have two years' extra experience under his belt by the 2019 RWC and I think he will be a serious contender who would certainly benefit with a little run or two off the bench starting right now.

Wilkinson was capped once a few weeks before his 19th birthday, for a 10 minute run on the wing against Ireland. His next cap was the unfortunate 76-0 game where we were missing about 4 fly-halves who would've played ahead of him. After that, he wasn't given a cap till the 5N, when he was nearly 20 and had a season and a half of pro rugby under his belt.

Spurious comparisons aside, Smith does look good and I can understand the idea of investing in the future. But he looks awkward and unsure for Quins on occasions and that's with him still being an unknown quantity. I think involving him for England this early would be cruel and risk damaging his development. Let him have a season for Quins, let him learn to deal with being targetted, with pressure ramping up, and with having to produce week-in-week-out. If he's still in the same form in January, then we can look at him in the 6N.

Puja

Yup, let's give a youngster time to grow into his game before exposing him so cruelly.
He's training with the squad, and learning with every match; give him the whole of this season, maybe take him on tour this summer for the experience. If he's still going well in 11 months time, with teams who've had a chance to study him and work him out (second season syndrome), then give him some bench spots in November... at the earliest.

Was the last time a big nation picked an exciting young talent at 10 for the WC Michalak back in '03?

Morgan Parra in 2011. Ah, no....hang on

I want to see how Smith goes as the big-shot (who has trained with the full England side) at age-group level again first, at the very least. He has impressed me massively, but all with the caveat that he is very young. He is feeling his way in to it. Sometimes he will go several phases standing back and leaving himself enough space to think, which I totally get, but you can't be doing it in an international match.

We also have to very good FHs. It would be nice to get a third, but it's hardly a priority.

My worry is that this time next year another young pretender will be thrust in to the limelight and Smith's time will have passed.

Based on Eddie's selections, Smith IS 3rd choice FH. Presumably, that means he is two injuries away from starting unless what - Slade or Francis from within the squad?

Oakboy wrote:Based on Eddie's selections, Smith IS 3rd choice FH. Presumably, that means he is two injuries away from starting unless what - Slade or Francis from within the squad?

Lozowski would probably have the stronger claim.

I don't think you should read Smith's inclusion in training into him having a set place in the heirarchy. Smith's been in specifically as an "apprentice" and I don't see that meaning that he'd be in if there was a game next week agains the ABs and Ford and Farrell were injured.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Based on Eddie's selections, Smith IS 3rd choice FH. Presumably, that means he is two injuries away from starting unless what - Slade or Francis from within the squad?

Lozowski would probably have the stronger claim.

I don't think you should read Smith's inclusion in training into him having a set place in the heirarchy. Smith's been in specifically as an "apprentice" and I don't see that meaning that he'd be in if there was a game next week agains the ABs and Ford and Farrell were injured.

Puja

Yes, forgot Loz.

Stick em both in. Smith at 10, Loz at 12! Don't know how much farther the Ford/Faz 10/12 axis can evolve, but Faz still looks like a stopgap 12, whether he's played there for the Lions or not. (Perhaps "stopgap" is not a great term to use, since he often leaves the gap unstopped.)

Spiffy wrote:Stick em both in. Smith at 10, Loz at 12!

People have been sectioned for less. Or invited to write a column for the Times, which is slightly worse.

Puja

Put down the pipe Spiffy ...

Puja wrote:

Spiffy wrote:Stick em both in. Smith at 10, Loz at 12!

People have been sectioned for less. Or invited to write a column for the Times, which is slightly worse.

Puja

Well, Smith is a pretty good 10 and Loz has shown that he's an effective 12 at international level. So it is not beyond belief that we might see the pair of them line out for England in those slots within the next couple of years. Ford is a very good 10 but at the moment, not quite bossing things the way you would like, and has not advanced this game this year; and the over-rated Farrell is not really a proper 12.
I do prefer attacking rugby and like to see a team picked on form. It's true that England have lost only one game under Jones, but the team has looked a tad boring and bereft of attacking ideas, while still managing to rack up some good wins. I like to see the game played with flair and invention, but acknowledge that it is possible to win a RWC without those attributes by playing a hard-nosed, conservative game.
It may be that Jones already has Ford/Faz nailed on for 2019 but they may not be the players to get the best out of Watson, Daly, May, Joseph etc..
We will see how it all goes in the 6N. Jones still has plenty of time to tinker.

I absolutely agree that our attack hasn’t exactly sparkled. However, if you’re concerned that an experienced, proven 10 like Ford is not ‘bossing things’, I really don’t think the solution is chucking a kid (albeit a highly promising one) with 10 or less senior games under his belt in to test rugby.

You’re quite right that Smith and Lozowski could line up at 10 and 12 at some point in the not too dim and distant future, but to to play that combination now would be incredibly risky.

I think we have more pressing issues than accelerating the selection of an 18 year old FH when we already have more than capable players already in that position.
Smiths time will come - hes obviously a very talented lad - but its not desirable or necessary at this stage of his career.

From a kiwi perspective your guys did a great job. Loved your demolition of Australia, of course, and admired the style of rugby you're playing and the attitude of the whole team. Bodes well for future performances.

This feels like a trap.

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Based on Eddie's selections, Smith IS 3rd choice FH. Presumably, that means he is two injuries away from starting unless what - Slade or Francis from within the squad?

Lozowski would probably have the stronger claim.

I don't think you should read Smith's inclusion in training into him having a set place in the heirarchy. Smith's been in specifically as an "apprentice" and I don't see that meaning that he'd be in if there was a game next week agains the ABs and Ford and Farrell were injured.

Puja

Yes, forgot Loz.

That's showbiz

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote: Lozowski would probably have the stronger claim.

I don't think you should read Smith's inclusion in training into him having a set place in the heirarchy. Smith's been in specifically as an "apprentice" and I don't see that meaning that he'd be in if there was a game next week agains the ABs and Ford and Farrell were injured.

Puja

Yes, forgot Loz.

That's showbiz

Is that a pseudonym for senility?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Yes, forgot Loz.

That's showbiz

Is that a pseudonym for senility?

No its an old knock knock joke, apols

The problem with our attack isn't our 10, its our lack of ball carriers who can provide quick ball and/or attract multiple tacklers.

Also, given how up and down parts of Ford's development was, the idea of dropping him and starting all over again with an even less ready 10 is... uhm...

Peat wrote:
Also, given how up and down parts of Ford's development was,

Is this reference to him fielding passes from Youngs?

So are we all agreed that Spiffy should be banned?

Mikey Brown wrote:So are we all agreed that Spiffy should be banned?

No, I like posters who deflect a bit of flak.