RugbyRebels

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
If a 19 stone prop smashes an elbow into the back of your head and then a forearm into your face you stay down afterwards. Genge just pushes his face into the grass, age old but of niggle. There was more than a bit of niggle and sledging going on from both sides as well. Ellis does love a bit of the verbal stuff so he's always going to partake.

doesn't make it any less dim, at a time when we were on top anyway.

It’s a bit dim, but that’s not the argument. It’s over it being anything other than a penalty. Which it isn’t. It’s dim and annoying as we’d turned the ball over. Then again who doesn’t take an opportunity to give a scrum half a bit of rough.

That didn't seem to be FKAS's point, in fact I'm not sure what the point was. But anyway, it was dim we all agree.

In fairness White's tache would attract a bit of attention to add to being a 9.

So, have we turned the corner (England much improved - per press etc.). Or, did we scrape a win against a poor side, nearly surrendering a 19-0 lead?

Anybody convinced of real progress?

We were better as we were for parts of the last game. Certainly in the general forward play and ruck speed. Backs is still messy. Billy back is a big win. Aus are improved, but they’re not near a top 4 team. Some good young talent is getting really valuable experience. Overall a plus so far.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
If a 19 stone prop smashes an elbow into the back of your head and then a forearm into your face you stay down afterwards. Genge just pushes his face into the grass, age old but of niggle. There was more than a bit of niggle and sledging going on from both sides as well. Ellis does love a bit of the verbal stuff so he's always going to partake.

doesn't make it any less dim, at a time when we were on top anyway.

It’s a bit dim, but that’s not the argument. It’s over it being anything other than a penalty. Which it isn’t. It’s dim and annoying as we’d turned the ball over. Then again who doesn’t take an opportunity to give a scrum half a bit of rough.

It was just good luck that it was only a penalty. Many (most?) refs would have given a yellow card for a forearm to the face of a man on the ground. Genge has a bit of a rep and he will continue to cost his team as long as he keeps it up. Pity, since he's a very good player. Can't be bothered with these swaggering, mouthy, sly-shot, "hard man" props that we seem to be seeing more of in rugby now.

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I think it’s mostly the lack of threat outside him. Farrell isn’t going to attract any attention as a runner, Porter didn’t (that may be just because we barely passed it to him), Nowell, Coka and Steward aren’t going going to gas anyone wide and we don’t use our relatively massive fullback to hit any lines off 10 or 12. If I were the oppo defence coach I’d set up very narrow knowing pace won’t trouble on the edge and still be very happy I won’t have to react to many angles or lines being cut on the gain line, and, to my mind, the Oz d was set up this way.

He gets a relative arm ride with Farrell taking the short passes and working with the forwards. Smith gets it out the back when he wants it. It's hard for some of our players to attract defenders because they rarely touch the ball. Crap grubbers through might have been better spent by Smith giving the likes of Porter and Freeman some harder carries, they are both upper 15/lower 16 stone size blokes. Hit them on a short line and give Australia's centres something to think about. Marchant barely touched the ball last weekend either and he is class. Smith needs to find a way to work through his options a bit more.

Smith doesn’t want it out the back, at least he doesn’t for Quins where he’s shown the form that’s got him in the England shirt. He wants it at the gainline with numerous options so he can put others into gaps or put himself through a gap. Tbf, he can only hit Porter and the like on a short line if they’re running the said line, which they’re not. He’s a new no10 in the attack coach’s system and with a senior player and dominant personality next to him, it seems strange to blame him for it all.
You can attract players without the ball. In fact, it’s key to any attack system.
I find it interesting that Smith can consistently find players running in to space at Quins, with supposedly inferior players, but struggles with the cream of England.

Some of the defence of Smith I buy, and agree that parts of the game plan and selection don’t 100% suit him. Equally, I think he’s been picked because he’s the best individual in England at turning half chances and red zone pressure into points. Pulling rabbits out of hats and 3 on 3’s into walk ins, grubbers, goose step, big mis passes etc, that’s what he’s there for. Ford in his own way and while a very different player, did exactly that for years. Smith has had plenty of opportunities with good ball and in the right areas of the pitch in these last 2 tests and not left his mark as of yet. If the players around him aren’t hitting the lines he wants or keeping width or whatever then he needs to get them to do it. It might not be a back line of absolute athletic skilful freaks across the board, but there’s more than enough there to work with.

I will say that I thought Smith’s form dropped off a fair bit towards the end of the season and he’s still young, very long season with the Lions etc. I still have a lot of faith that he’ll be a good (maybe very good) international, but he’s definitely not delivering in his role at the moment imo.

Timbo wrote:Some of the defence of Smith I buy, and agree that parts of the game plan and selection don’t 100% suit him. Equally, I think he’s been picked because he’s the best individual in England at turning half chances and red zone pressure into points. Pulling rabbits out of hats and 3 on 3’s into walk ins, grubbers, goose step, big mis passes etc, that’s what he’s there for. Ford in his own way and while a very different player, did exactly that for years. Smith has had plenty of opportunities with good ball and in the right areas of the pitch in these last 2 tests and not left his mark as of yet. If the players around him aren’t hitting the lines he wants or keeping width or whatever then he needs to get them to do it. It might not be a back line of absolute athletic skilful freaks across the board, but there’s more than enough there to work with.

I will say that I thought Smith’s form dropped off a fair bit towards the end of the season and he’s still young, very long season with the Lions etc. I still have a lot of faith that he’ll be a good (maybe very good) international, but he’s definitely not delivering in his role at the moment imo.

Not defending him tbh, as not as big a fan as most. More observing what is happening and lamenting all round But it’s a tough gig in a struggling side which switches tack every other game, and imo Farrell is the dominant voice.

Has he had plenty of opportunity in the red zone? Genuine q? And I do think the backline is a bit short of ability actually

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:Some of the defence of Smith I buy, and agree that parts of the game plan and selection don’t 100% suit him. Equally, I think he’s been picked because he’s the best individual in England at turning half chances and red zone pressure into points. Pulling rabbits out of hats and 3 on 3’s into walk ins, grubbers, goose step, big mis passes etc, that’s what he’s there for. Ford in his own way and while a very different player, did exactly that for years. Smith has had plenty of opportunities with good ball and in the right areas of the pitch in these last 2 tests and not left his mark as of yet. If the players around him aren’t hitting the lines he wants or keeping width or whatever then he needs to get them to do it. It might not be a back line of absolute athletic skilful freaks across the board, but there’s more than enough there to work with.

I will say that I thought Smith’s form dropped off a fair bit towards the end of the season and he’s still young, very long season with the Lions etc. I still have a lot of faith that he’ll be a good (maybe very good) international, but he’s definitely not delivering in his role at the moment imo.

Not defending him tbh, as not as big a fan as most. More observing what is happening and lamenting all round But it’s a tough gig in a struggling side which switches tack every other game, and imo Farrell is the dominant voice.

Has he had plenty of opportunity in the red zone? Genuine q? And I do think the backline is a bit short of ability actually

Smith is very good attacking FH when allowed to play his natural game - close to the gain line, probing for gaps etc. His natural game is not reflected in how Jones is asking him to play with boss man and puppet master Faz. I think one will ultimately have to go and you know it will be the wrong one. Smith will be duly Forded and England will have lost a chance to build a new attacking philosophy around his game. I agree with you that England are also constrained in this department by a lack of quality backs.

Spiffy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:Some of the defence of Smith I buy, and agree that parts of the game plan and selection don’t 100% suit him. Equally, I think he’s been picked because he’s the best individual in England at turning half chances and red zone pressure into points. Pulling rabbits out of hats and 3 on 3’s into walk ins, grubbers, goose step, big mis passes etc, that’s what he’s there for. Ford in his own way and while a very different player, did exactly that for years. Smith has had plenty of opportunities with good ball and in the right areas of the pitch in these last 2 tests and not left his mark as of yet. If the players around him aren’t hitting the lines he wants or keeping width or whatever then he needs to get them to do it. It might not be a back line of absolute athletic skilful freaks across the board, but there’s more than enough there to work with.

I will say that I thought Smith’s form dropped off a fair bit towards the end of the season and he’s still young, very long season with the Lions etc. I still have a lot of faith that he’ll be a good (maybe very good) international, but he’s definitely not delivering in his role at the moment imo.

Not defending him tbh, as not as big a fan as most. More observing what is happening and lamenting all round But it’s a tough gig in a struggling side which switches tack every other game, and imo Farrell is the dominant voice.

Has he had plenty of opportunity in the red zone? Genuine q? And I do think the backline is a bit short of ability actually

Smith is very good attacking FH when allowed to play his natural game - close to the gain line, probing for gaps etc. His natural game is not reflected in how Jones is asking him to play with boss man and puppet master Faz. I think one will ultimately have to go and you know it will be the wrong one. Smith will be duly Forded and England will have lost a chance to build a new attacking philosophy around his game. I agree with you that England are also constrained in this department by a lack of quality backs.

More succinctly put and yes!
Smith seems to want to do more off his own back for England make the big play. Confidence probably.

Oakboy wrote:So, have we turned the corner (England much improved - per press etc.). Or, did we scrape a win against a poor side, nearly surrendering a 19-0 lead?

Anybody convinced of real progress?

I don't know that we've "turned the corner" as the press would have it, but I do think the win will be very good for the group. Confidence had to be low with results and it was showing on the pitch in collapsing against the Barbarians and then Australia. A win might be just what we needed to kickstart things and get players believing again.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:So, have we turned the corner (England much improved - per press etc.). Or, did we scrape a win against a poor side, nearly surrendering a 19-0 lead?

Anybody convinced of real progress?

I don't know that we've "turned the corner" as the press would have it, but I do think the win will be very good for the group. Confidence had to be low with results and it was showing on the pitch in collapsing against the Barbarians and then Australia. A win might be just what we needed to kickstart things and get players believing again.

Puja

Can’t underestimate the value of winning.

Get a series win and maybe we can talk about turning a corner. Dont think this is a great Wallaby side and they've certainly had selection and injury issues, but wining away is never easy and coming back from a test down will do the team a lot of good.

I think Smith is only now really developing his distribution game. He can pass well, but he mostly looked for breaks himself or simple passes to a big runner. This season and some of last he seemed to be picking passes better in my eye.

Cips was the master, Ford is very very good. McGinty is no slouch either. Always felt despite other weaknesses Umaga had this as a strength too. Finding the right option out of 3 is hard, then comes the ability to leave it late, then the ability to pass without looking, then the ability to mask even who you're really passing to. Half the knock ons from Cips' passes were from runners he'd convinced on his own side weren't getting the ball.

Raggs wrote:I think Smith is only now really developing his distribution game. He can pass well, but he mostly looked for breaks himself or simple passes to a big runner. This season and some of last he seemed to be picking passes better in my eye.

Cips was the master, Ford is very very good. McGinty is no slouch either. Always felt despite other weaknesses Umaga had this as a strength too. Finding the right option out of 3 is hard, then comes the ability to leave it late, then the ability to pass without looking, then the ability to mask even who you're really passing to. Half the knock ons from Cips' passes were from runners he'd convinced on his own side weren't getting the ball.

There was a time when Cips was so obviously the best fly half in England it was just embarrassing he wasn’t getting picked. I understand people say he was a difficult team presence but it sure would have been good to have seen what he could have done. Another one that got away. Of course he had his injury problems too and never seemed quite as fast once he had that nightmare with his ankle.

badback wrote:

Raggs wrote:I think Smith is only now really developing his distribution game. He can pass well, but he mostly looked for breaks himself or simple passes to a big runner. This season and some of last he seemed to be picking passes better in my eye.

Cips was the master, Ford is very very good. McGinty is no slouch either. Always felt despite other weaknesses Umaga had this as a strength too. Finding the right option out of 3 is hard, then comes the ability to leave it late, then the ability to pass without looking, then the ability to mask even who you're really passing to. Half the knock ons from Cips' passes were from runners he'd convinced on his own side weren't getting the ball.

There was a time when Cips was so obviously the best fly half in England it was just embarrassing he wasn’t getting picked. I understand people say he was a difficult team presence but it sure would have been good to have seen what he could have done. Another one that got away. Of course he had his injury problems too and never seemed quite as fast once he had that nightmare with his ankle.

England does not quite seem to trust an adventurous, attack-minded FH who is willing to play it fast and loose and take chances to create try scoring opportunities. You can trace it back to the amateur days of Andrew v. Barnes when safety first reigned over flair and invention (though, ironically, Andrew was a runner until England knocked that nonsense out of him). An off-the cuff player like Richard Sharp would never get a look in these days.

Spiffy wrote:

badback wrote:

Raggs wrote:I think Smith is only now really developing his distribution game. He can pass well, but he mostly looked for breaks himself or simple passes to a big runner. This season and some of last he seemed to be picking passes better in my eye.

Cips was the master, Ford is very very good. McGinty is no slouch either. Always felt despite other weaknesses Umaga had this as a strength too. Finding the right option out of 3 is hard, then comes the ability to leave it late, then the ability to pass without looking, then the ability to mask even who you're really passing to. Half the knock ons from Cips' passes were from runners he'd convinced on his own side weren't getting the ball.

There was a time when Cips was so obviously the best fly half in England it was just embarrassing he wasn’t getting picked. I understand people say he was a difficult team presence but it sure would have been good to have seen what he could have done. Another one that got away. Of course he had his injury problems too and never seemed quite as fast once he had that nightmare with his ankle.

England does not quite seem to trust an adventurous, attack-minded FH who is willing to play it fast and loose and take chances to create try scoring opportunities. You can trace it back to the amateur days of Andrew v. Barnes when safety first reigned over flair and invention (though, ironically, Andrew was a runner until England knocked that nonsense out of him). An off-the cuff player like Richard Sharp would never get a look in these days.

...or like Marcus Smith. Lol.

I think Cips was fantastic and picked pre injury- iirc Wilkinson was dropped for him. Since then its not been about his rugby so much as....him tbh.

Oh...and Ollie Campbell v Tony Ward

Yeah, Cips got several chances, but absolutely blew them each time with non-rugby things. Suspect he's like Marler with a self destructive streak, but Marler seems to have recognised it better.

Raggs wrote:Yeah, Cips got several chances, but absolutely blew them each time with non-rugby things. Suspect he's like Marler with a self destructive streak, but Marler seems to have recognised it better.

Indeed. The whole post injury thing was badly handled by both England and whoever was advising him.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Yeah, Cips got several chances, but absolutely blew them each time with non-rugby things. Suspect he's like Marler with a self destructive streak, but Marler seems to have recognised it better.

Indeed. The whole post injury thing was badly handled by both England and whoever was advising him.

And by his own decision making! He was a glory to watch at times but never really for England (and we can't blame Eddie for that)
Smith needs to show next week that he isn't Farrells 'puppet' even if it means going against instructions otherwise he is in danger of being a fantastic premeriership player but a 'journeyman' international.

oldbackrow wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Yeah, Cips got several chances, but absolutely blew them each time with non-rugby things. Suspect he's like Marler with a self destructive streak, but Marler seems to have recognised it better.

Indeed. The whole post injury thing was badly handled by both England and whoever was advising him.

And by his own decision making! He was a glory to watch at times but never really for England (and we can't blame Eddie for that)
Smith needs to show next week that he isn't Farrells 'puppet' even if it means going against instructions otherwise he is in danger of being a fantastic premeriership player but a 'journeyman' international.

? Can you tell me what Smith following Farrell's instructions looks like, with in game examples (and how you know this is coming from Farrell), and what Smith not following Farrell's instructions would look like, with clear descriptions?

From Jones’s mouth:
"You talk about Marcus Smith, Owen's going to be an important player for Marcus. Marcus could be an absolutely brilliant 10 so he needs to have a 12 next to him that can run the game for him and that's where Owen is so good."

Let’s not get started on the logic behind a brilliant 10 needing a 12 to run the game for him.

oldbackrow wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Yeah, Cips got several chances, but absolutely blew them each time with non-rugby things. Suspect he's like Marler with a self destructive streak, but Marler seems to have recognised it better.

Indeed. The whole post injury thing was badly handled by both England and whoever was advising him.

And by his own decision making!l.

Yes, true.

Mellsblue wrote:From Jones’s mouth:
"You talk about Marcus Smith, Owen's going to be an important player for Marcus. Marcus could be an absolutely brilliant 10 so he needs to have a 12 next to him that can run the game for him and that's where Owen is so good."

Let’s not get started on the logic behind a brilliant 10 needing a 12 to run the game for him.

Context? If talking about our current game plan, then yes, it's very important to have a 12 that can run the game for him when he's making runs himself or working on other things.

But let's say you're right, and despite being called a brilliant 10, Farrell is running everything, can you give me an example of what it would look like when Marcus is following Farrells instructions, and what it looks like when he doesn't? Is it as simple as Smith does something good, it was Smith, Smith does something bad/boring, it was Farrell?

Mellsblue wrote:From Jones’s mouth:
"You talk about Marcus Smith, Owen's going to be an important player for Marcus. Marcus could be an absolutely brilliant 10 so he needs to have a 12 next to him that can run the game for him and that's where Owen is so good."

Let’s not get started on the logic behind a brilliant 10 needing a 12 to run the game for him.

The cynic in me still can't help but wonder what will happen if everyone is fit and on-form (if that ever happens). Will Tuilagi play at 13 with Smith/Farrell at 10/12 or will it be Farrell/Tuilagi/Slade? Thinking back to previous times, Ford was in/out depending on Tuilagi's fitness AND Jones's current whim.

Of course, some might still argue for Ford/Tuilagi/Slade.

If one were to argue that Tuilagi will never be fit enough to do a whole tournament and if one were to argue that Farrell will always start, does that guarantee a starting slot for Smith? Taking all that into consideration, with Jones still in the job, I'd go for Farrell, Slade, Marchant and stick with it for every minute possible. There's still enough to do with bedding in a 9 (i.e. dump Youngs and Care) and getting the back three settled.

We need stability/continuity from this tour onwards, IMO.

"Marcus could be an absolutely brilliant 10 so he needs to have a 12 next to him that can run the game for him"

Key word here is could. Not will, but could. So for now Farrell acts as nursemaid and runs the game.