England v Japan

[Beasties]

Bit of a backhanded compliment maybe, but I do think Smith defended really well yesterday. Made some excellent, technically sound tackles against some big men. Definitely looks as though he’s been working on his defence.

Yep really stepped up. Our tackling was aggressive all round and good use of line speed selectively, but too many tackles missed for comfort for me.

One thing- our ruck speed was very patchy, and Japans way faster a lot of the time. Both are of concern, and the former doesn’t help Smith overly. Playing a flanker at 6 with Itoje doing his stuff from lock would help

The Itoje scream would be just as effective from the second row as it is the back

I burst into a fit of the giggles when he did that at one point. It was so unapt at that particular moment. Christ Alive man, have some dignity.

[Mellsblue]

Just think international rugby is that much harder, less time, more all round pressure. Rabbit meet many more brighter headlights Another way of putting your point about set up is that he’s a square peg in a round hole accompanied by a very square 12.

Unfortunately I don’t think the aimless kicking thing was about discombobulation, more the game plan

Can’t disagree, again, but if he was failing in a system that was built around him I would just put it down to rabbit meets headlights but until that point I’ll keep the faith.
This, ie my opinion, could all just be ptsd from the time when at school, as a homeless man’s George Ford, I was given a backline that seemed almost purposely designed to make me fail… which also leads me on to my thoughts that nobody who played front five should have a say over the backline, and that can be extend to backrow, including backrow players masquerading as centres, at my discretion.

I don't think we can build a system around him/Quins game tbh. No Esterhuizen , plus a lot of other stuff

At least a nod to it would be nice. Move a ball carrier to 12, Marchant at 13, speed on the wing, not Youngs at 9, a 6 at 6. Add in some attacking intent… it’s mostly I want England to play differently and Smith at 10 pulling the strings is a conduit for that.

[Scrumhead]

Hmm- isn’t being in the right place at the right time a good thing? If Porter isn’t there to finish, there’s no score.

Depends on the popularity of the player.



On Smith - I'm just still don't think he's a great game manager, or reader of the game a distance away (time or space)
He's great at seeing things for himself, and for manufacturing things close in to where he is - but I just don't see him spotting that mismatch on the other side of the pitch; or manipulating a defence to create a mis-match in 3 phases time that, for example, Ford excels at.

Which really, REALLY means that he then suffers from an ordinary IC alongside him, as he needs his gamechangers within passing distance of himself.
Of course, any and every FH benefits from having a gamechanger at IC, and ideally, another on his near-side wing offering something on his other shoulder, and a ballcarrying threat at 8. Ford (for example) had the management skills to overcome the handicaps England provided him; Smith just doesn't have that skill set.

All that said, Smith is young, and has time to develop that side of his game, and I'm sure he will - but he's not there yet. Whereas Ford (for example) had that stuff which set him apart from his peers at U16s.

I wasn’t actually saying it to denigrate Porter. My original point was that 2 tries for Smith and Porter doesn’t automatically translate to both having played well.

In Porter’s case, it’s not about ‘popularity’, but his performances are under a bit more scrutiny because no-one apart from Eddie thinks he should be there. To go in to more detail - 2 tries mask the fact that he made 7m off 4 carries and 7 tackles with 3 missed. He also got stripped on his first carry. I hope the tries aren’t used as a justification for being incredibly average elsewhere. Rugby Pass giving him an 8.5/10 rating exemplifies this perfectly. Had Marchant or Lawrence played and produced exactly the same set of stats, I’d have been equally critical

Totally agree on your assessment of Smith and Ford though.

[Oakboy]

Can’t disagree, again, but if he was failing in a system that was built around him I would just put it down to rabbit meets headlights but until that point I’ll keep the faith.
This, ie my opinion, could all just be ptsd from the time when at school, as a homeless man’s George Ford, I was given a backline that seemed almost purposely designed to make me fail… which also leads me on to my thoughts that nobody who played front five should have a say over the backline, and that can be extend to backrow, including backrow players masquerading as centres, at my discretion.

I don't think we can build a system around him/Quins game tbh. No Esterhuizen , plus a lot of other stuff

At least a nod to it would be nice. Move a ball carrier to 12, Marchant at 13, speed on the wing, not Youngs at 9, a 6 at 6. Add in some attacking intent… it’s mostly I want England to play differently and Smith at 10 pulling the strings is a conduit for that.

The snag is that Jones will never dump Farrell and give Smith the reins. The best we can hope for is that he'll decide that Smith+Farrell does not work. Farrell at 10 is better than Farrell at 12.

Having said that, with games before the RWC down to single figures, I reckon Jones is set on both. In continuity terms it makes most sense of the last 18 months or so - unfortunately.

[Mellsblue]

I don't think we can build a system around him/Quins game tbh. No Esterhuizen , plus a lot of other stuff

At least a nod to it would be nice. Move a ball carrier to 12, Marchant at 13, speed on the wing, not Youngs at 9, a 6 at 6. Add in some attacking intent… it’s mostly I want England to play differently and Smith at 10 pulling the strings is a conduit for that.

The snag is that Jones will never dump Farrell and give Smith the reins. The best we can hope for is that he'll decide that Smith+Farrell does not work. Farrell at 10 is better than Farrell at 12.

Having said that, with games before the RWC down to single figures, I reckon Jones is set on both. In continuity terms it makes most sense of the last 18 months or so - unfortunately.

I agree that he’ll never drop Farrell but it’s important to have dreams!
O’Gara had an interview with The Times earlier in the week and he said he isn’t a fan of the Smith-Farrell combo, and would start Farrell and have Smith on the bench for the final 20 mins. I could live with that.

[p/d]

I could live with starting with Smith and having F Smith on the bench

[Spiffy]

Interesting on Smith's first try Steward fields the ball and looks like he's going to kick (?) before Cokanisga signals him back infield, then follows Usain "outside break" Steward really well to take the pass and give the offload for the try. That was class.

Yep, back three were very good, despite May's yellow. Despite Slade's nearly man action, I thought he also made a decent impact at 15, though not a fan of Steward being shoved to the wing; weird outside backs bench tbh.

Now hang on there a minute Banquo. I'm sure I heard Dewi Morris describe Steward as "the Leicester flier".

[Banquo]

Can’t disagree, again, but if he was failing in a system that was built around him I would just put it down to rabbit meets headlights but until that point I’ll keep the faith.
This, ie my opinion, could all just be ptsd from the time when at school, as a homeless man’s George Ford, I was given a backline that seemed almost purposely designed to make me fail… which also leads me on to my thoughts that nobody who played front five should have a say over the backline, and that can be extend to backrow, including backrow players masquerading as centres, at my discretion.

I don't think we can build a system around him/Quins game tbh. No Esterhuizen , plus a lot of other stuff

At least a nod to it would be nice. Move a ball carrier to 12, Marchant at 13, speed on the wing, not Youngs at 9, a 6 at 6. Add in some attacking intent… it’s mostly I want England to play differently and Smith at 10 pulling the strings is a conduit for that.

what ball carrier at 12 is the perennial question. And I agree generally, but Smith has been poor- just basics.

[Spiffy]

I don't think we can build a system around him/Quins game tbh. No Esterhuizen , plus a lot of other stuff

At least a nod to it would be nice. Move a ball carrier to 12, Marchant at 13, speed on the wing, not Youngs at 9, a 6 at 6. Add in some attacking intent… it’s mostly I want England to play differently and Smith at 10 pulling the strings is a conduit for that.

what ball carrier at 12 is the perennial question. And I agree generally, but Smith has been poor- just basics.

Smith will not thrive at 10 with Farrell beside him at 12. Jones is not willing to trust him to run the game at fly half. He is the clearly-defined junior partner and Faz does most of the jobs of a normal 10 from the 12 slot. Smith is a talented footballer (though often he tries too hard when it's not on.) If he is to continue playing for England he has to be allowed to run the show and make decisions, stamp himself on the game and develop as the boss man. He's probably quite pissed off playing beside a bloke who brings little to the England midfield and is short of gas and attacking nous and overall a bit of a donkey. I know Faz is supposed to hold Smith's hand, but he's just holding him back. One has to go.
Smith gets selected on his Quins form then gets asked to do something different for England.

[FKAS]

At least a nod to it would be nice. Move a ball carrier to 12, Marchant at 13, speed on the wing, not Youngs at 9, a 6 at 6. Add in some attacking intent… it’s mostly I want England to play differently and Smith at 10 pulling the strings is a conduit for that.

what ball carrier at 12 is the perennial question. And I agree generally, but Smith has been poor- just basics.

Smith will not thrive at 10 with Farrell beside him at 12. Jones is not willing to trust him to run the game at fly half. He is the clearly-defined junior partner and Faz does most of the jobs of a normal 10 from the 12 slot. Smith is a talented footballer (though often he tries too hard when it's not on.) If he is to continue playing for England he has to be allowed to run the show and make decisions, stamp himself on the game and develop as the boss man. He's probably quite pissed off playing beside a bloke who brings little to the England midfield and is short of gas and attacking nous and overall a bit of a donkey. I know Faz is supposed to hold Smith's hand, but he's just holding him back. One has to go.
Smith gets selected on his Quins form then gets asked to do something different for England.

Smith does have Andre Esterhuizen next to him a club level. Mountain of a bloke who tidies up bad ball, has a big boot and is always there to support one of the Smith snipes whether it's good or not. There's a reason he's Quins highest paid player. An ideal presence for a young 10 or indeed any 10 to have next to them.

Smith hasn't really looked any better in matches without Farrell. Baabaas game when we had the Care and Smith combination it was woeful, Vs France when it was Randall and Smith also woeful. In fact for anything past the Italy game Smith struggled in the 6N. No Farrell in those games.

Personally I'd like to us stay with JVP/Smith/Farrell/Manu for the next two games. One thing Smith hasn't had is a settled halfback partner nor a settled midfield. Give him a bit of continuity against some big teams and see if that helps.

[fivepointer]

Farrell isnt the best foil for Smith but the Quins player hasnt been at his sharpest. I dont think his club form has been much to write home about and all round he seems to be struggling to find his best form. I dont think the dynamic is right with Farrell and realistically one them has to play 10, though Jones may stubbornly choose to leave things unchanged.
For me, if something isnt working and shows little signs of doing so you make a change.

[Scrumhead]

Smith’s Quins form in the latter part of last season and this season so far hasn’t been sparkling but it’s still light years ahead of what he’s produced for England so far.

I’m a big fan, but I’m also a realist. If there’s going to be a fall guy, unfortunately it should be him and not Farrell.

It does seem like Eddie is wedded to their partnership though, which is a little weird considering how little loyalty he showed to Ford who produced far better performances than Smith has in the same system.

Part of me wonders whether he is actually stuck on the dual playmaker set-up rather than Smith. Is it possible that by sticking with the system, it presents an easier opportunity to slot Ford straight back in?

[Skalyba]

For years under Jones, the thought was Ford OR Farrell but he played both. Now, he is making a similar statement with Farrell and Smith. The latter's running game is neutered by hardly ever being up flat. The opposition is rarely surprised.

JVP, Farrell, Lawrence and Slade might just end up being the balanced 9, 10, 12, 13 compromise.

That would probably be my choice at the moment. If we have to use Farrell - and I thought he was good on Saturday - then do it at 10. On the other hand - Quirke, Ford, Manu could be good if they come off a solid back end of the season for Sale together - then either Slade or Lawrence at 13 depending on the opposition

[Which Tyler]

Part of me wonders whether he is actually stuck on the dual playmaker set-up rather than Smith. Is it possible that by sticking with the system, it presents an easier opportunity to slot Ford straight back in?

This is still my working theory.
Ford was dropped for Smith, not because Ford is bad, or Smith is better; but because Smith could become better - but he'd only do so in time for the RWC is he was introduced... approximately when he was.
Ford is a consummate professional, and isn't going to become a bad player by not being in the England squad - his body will certainly prefer him being a club 10 with offseasons etc, than flogged at both international and club level.

I think the plan was always to give Smith as much time as reasonably possible to bed in to the England systems and playing styles; if he does, he goes to the RWC, quite possibly alongside Ford. If he doesn't, Ford comes back in for the 6N, and RWC warm-ups, or even just the RWC warm-ups; and goes to the RWC as starting FH.


Ford and Smith have both been set up to fail, with Youngs inside, and Farrell outside of them. Ford had the game to make it work anyway, Smith (so far) simply hasn't.
If Eddie's not going to change the system to better suit Ford, then he's certainly not going to to suit Smith.

[Banquo]

At least a nod to it would be nice. Move a ball carrier to 12, Marchant at 13, speed on the wing, not Youngs at 9, a 6 at 6. Add in some attacking intent… it’s mostly I want England to play differently and Smith at 10 pulling the strings is a conduit for that.

what ball carrier at 12 is the perennial question. And I agree generally, but Smith has been poor- just basics.

Smith will not thrive at 10 with Farrell beside him at 12. Jones is not willing to trust him to run the game at fly half. He is the clearly-defined junior partner and Faz does most of the jobs of a normal 10 from the 12 slot. Smith is a talented footballer (though often he tries too hard when it's not on.) If he is to continue playing for England he has to be allowed to run the show and make decisions, stamp himself on the game and develop as the boss man. He's probably quite pissed off playing beside a bloke who brings little to the England midfield and is short of gas and attacking nous and overall a bit of a donkey. I know Faz is supposed to hold Smith's hand, but he's just holding him back. One has to go.
Smith gets selected on his Quins form then gets asked to do something different for England.

Think I said earlier and many times before that Smith and Faz is not a combo I like; not for most of your reasons tho, simply Faz is not a very good 12 as you allude to. I don't buy this theory that unless you do all the kicking etc at 10, you are somehow a lesser 10 tbh.
Both Smith and Ford cry out to have a carrier next to them (who, other than Manu at the moment tho)- and in the absence of Manu, Jones is heavily wedded to dual playmaker and/or Faz having to start, per Scrumhead's comment.
Mess.

[p/d]

cometh the hour cometh the Porter

[Mellsblue]

cometh the hour cometh the Porter

Off he plods, like a lamb to the slaughter

[FKAS]

cometh the hour cometh the Porter

Or this time of year Plummeth the Hour. Certainly makes watching the England games easier.

https://www.oldsawley.com/post/plummeth

[Banquo]

cometh the hour cometh the Porter

Off he plods, like a lamb to the slaughter

Just hope he doesn't run into my daughter.

There again, she'd probably get away quite easily.

[Oakboy]

Theoretically, if Jones were to give up on Farrell at 12, he has: 9 - JVP/Quirke, 10 - Farrell/Smith/Ford, 12 - Lawrence/Tuilagi, 13 - Slade/Marchant.

That gives him alternatives in each position, more or less interchangeable - within the same system. If he insists on persisting with Farrell at 12 the system has to change if Farrell were missing (injury or whatever).

In terms of making best use of the remaining build-up games, grinding on with Smith/Farrell seems a stubborn stance too far even for Jones.

[Oakboy]

cometh the hour cometh the Porter

Off he plods, like a lamb to the slaughter

Just hope he doesn't run into my daughter.

There again, she'd probably get away quite easily.

Does she play rugby?

[Banquo]

Off he plods, like a lamb to the slaughter

Just hope he doesn't run into my daughter.

There again, she'd probably get away quite easily.

Does she play rugby?

Touch rugby (but it was more the rhyme I was going for)

[Puja]

For years under Jones, the thought was Ford OR Farrell but he played both. Now, he is making a similar statement with Farrell and Smith. The latter's running game is neutered by hardly ever being up flat. The opposition is rarely surprised.

JVP, Farrell, Lawrence and Slade might just end up being the balanced 9, 10, 12, 13 compromise.

That would probably be my choice at the moment. If we have to use Farrell - and I thought he was good on Saturday - then do it at 10. On the other hand - Quirke, Ford, Manu could be good if they come off a solid back end of the season for Sale together - then either Slade or Lawrence at 13 depending on the opposition

I would agree except that Ford/Farrell has worked before and been very successful - if Ford gets back to form and fitness, it's definitely a viable tactic. I don't think Farrell is a bad 12 or that the two 10s routine is inherently wrong (unlike the three locks one), but it's very clearly not working with Smith.

Puja

[p/d]

Farrell is a 10.

I really want better than ‘not a bad 12’ playing 12.

[Scrumhead]

We all do, but we simply don’t have one unless we’re counting on Tuilagi (which we simply can’t do).

Kelly is the best option but he’s injured. Lawrence has played 12, but is primarily a 13.

Honestly, who else is there? Mark Atkinson is injured and isn’t a test calibre player anyway, Ojomoh hasn’t really had a sustained run in the Bath side so isn’t a serious option yet. I’m not seeing who else there is to pick?