RugbyRebels

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.

He’s 23 and has 12 caps. I think it’s early to make silly statements like that.

Yes, I’d like to see him replicate his Quins form for England (he has in flashes), but to suggest he’s ‘in danger of being a journeyman international’ is at best incredibly premature.

fivepointer wrote:"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.

If your 10 can’t run a game he shouldn’t be picked.

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)

Exactly. People always brayed on about "Johnson never picked Cipriani and it was clearly because he hated him" while ignoring that Cipriani was Johnson's first choice 10 for his first international window and played like a drain (mostly because of coming back from injury too soon) and then was out injured for the next one which gave Flood a chance to establish himself. Personally, I blame Fazlet.

Cipriani (post injury) was glorious when the entire team was set up solely to play around him - Gloucester being the prime example where they won if he was there and were bereft and rudderless when he wasn't. Might be fine for a mid-table club side, but you can't organised an international side entirely based around one player's presence.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

fivepointer wrote:"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.

If your 10 can’t run a game he shouldn’t be picked.

Well ,yes. I thought the whole point of selecting him would be to allow him a bit of freedom to play it like he plays it for Quins.

fivepointer wrote:"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.

But to Raggs’ point. There’s not really much in the way of actual evidence to suggest this is actually the case. It’s the interpretation people have decided on and it seems that’s that …

As I alluded to in my previous post, Smith is a young player finding his way in to test rugby. I’d kind of expect him to be playing second fiddle to a test centurion to at least some extent. There’s an argument to say he should impose his natural game a bit more, but it would be naive and arrogant to ignore input from vastly more experienced players.

Not only that we’ve also seen that when he is a bit more maverick, the rest of the team aren’t really on the same wavelength. For example, he made some good individual line breaks in the 6N only for others to be slow to react which led to turnovers. He is a student of the game who is known for putting in a lot of time on analysis/improvement so I wouldn’t be overly surprised if he’s toning this down.

Raggs wrote:

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?

Fundamentally disagree. You need a second playmaker to split the field, input in to decisions or step in when your 10 is at the bottom of a ruck but you don’t/shouldn’t need them to run the game.

I’m not claiming to be right. I’m just posting what Jones has said. I can’t give you an example no, just as you can’t give me an example to contradict was Jones has said. We are both sat in our armchairs at home with a distant camera view of the pitch with no access to training sessions or team meetings.
You last question is facile. On this thread I’ve posted that I think Smith had a bad game whilst Farrell was one of our best players.

fivepointer wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

fivepointer wrote:"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.

If your 10 can’t run a game he shouldn’t be picked.

Well ,yes. I thought the whole point of selecting him would be to allow him a bit of freedom to play it like he plays it for Quins.

Me too.

Mellsblue wrote:

fivepointer wrote:"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.

If your 10 can’t run a game he shouldn’t be picked.

God this place is full to the brim with ballix today.

That statement may be true in general but if we’re suggesting Marcus Smith can’t run a game, sorry but that’s absolute tosh.

Scrumhead wrote:

fivepointer wrote:"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.

But to Raggs’ point. There’s not really much in the way of actual evidence to suggest this is actually the case. It’s the interpretation people have decided on and it seems that’s that …

As I alluded to in my previous post, Smith is a young player finding his way in to test rugby. I’d kind of expect him to be playing second fiddle to a test centurion to at least some extent. There’s an argument to say he should impose his natural game a bit more, but it would be naive and arrogant to ignore input from vastly more experienced players.

Not only that we’ve also seen that when he is a bit more maverick, the rest of the team aren’t really on the same wavelength. For example, he made some good individual line breaks in the 6N only for others to be slow to react which led to turnovers. He is a student of the game who is known for putting in a lot of time on analysis/improvement so I wouldn’t be overly surprised if he’s toning this down.

It’s what Jones has said.
Running the game isn’t giving input. The argument after the first test, not from you iirc, was that Smith got the ball when he demanded it. Are we now saying this definitely isn’t the case?

Scrumhead wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

fivepointer wrote:"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.

If your 10 can’t run a game he shouldn’t be picked.

God this place is full to the brim with ballix today.

That statement may be true in general but if we’re suggesting Marcus Smith can’t run a game, sorry but that’s absolute tosh.

I’m not. I’d love him to run the game but Eddie is quoted as saying Farrell is there to run the game.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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.

My point was in response to there being indecision over whether it deserved a card. It did not.

It was incredibly dim though. Prime position to kick to the corner and go to the rolling maul with all the momentum behind England.

Oakboy wrote:

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.

I think you’ve answered most of your own questions there. I think whichever route we go there will be the option for Farrell to switch back to 12 for a replacement flyhalf, or switch to 10 for a replacement centre. Some will say that adds flexibility, some will say it shows that Eddie can’t make his mind up. I don’t see any of that changing before the World Cup.

If Farrell, Slade, Marchant works better than what we have then great, but I still struggle to see Slade as permanent first choice 12.

Mellsblue wrote:

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.

And Ford doesn't like playing on the gain line picking passes?

A) that's harder to do at international level which is partly why England try and attack the way they do. Defence is easier to coach than attack and the quality of players is much higher.

B) at international level you have to accept that the attack won't be built around you and adjust how you play to what the team needs. Ford did this for years effectively and Smith can as well.

C) Porter ran the cut back line a fair bit for Smith who generally looked for Steward further out or the inside shoulder to Nowell. England don't really seem to use the 13 enough even on the rare occasions Manu is fit.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

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.

I think you’ve answered most of your own questions there. I think whichever route we go there will be the option for Farrell to switch back to 12 for a replacement flyhalf, or switch to 10 for a replacement centre. Some will say that adds flexibility, some will say it shows that Eddie can’t make his mind up. I don’t see any of that changing before the World Cup.

If Farrell, Slade, Marchant works better than what we have then great, but I still struggle to see Slade as permanent first choice 12.

It was mainly Ford/Farrell/Manu. There was one Six Nations where Eddie benched Ford and went solidly with Farrell/Manu/Slade and it went badly. He switched back after that and kept the tactic for one offs or midway through the second half of games.

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:
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.

And Ford doesn't like playing on the gain line picking passes?

A) that's harder to do at international level which is partly why England try and attack the way they do. Defence is easier to coach than attack and the quality of players is much higher.

B) at international level you have to accept that the attack won't be built around you and adjust how you play to what the team needs. Ford did this for years effectively and Smith can as well.

C) Porter ran the cut back line a fair bit for Smith who generally looked for Steward further out or the inside shoulder to Nowell. England don't really seem to use the 13 enough even on the rare occasions Manu is fit.

What’s your point on Ford?!? Not everything is about or criticism of Leicester players. Again, I’ll happily argue Ford is the best 10 in the world.

A) England were more successful when they didn’t play to this system… even at international level… numerous test teams employ more traditional systems and they’ve all scored more points against us that we have over 80 mins this year. Other than Koroibete and Kerevi, I wouldn’t say the Aus backs are any better than those in the top Prem team. Plus, if the oppo are better quality than you’d hope the Eng players around Smith would be better quality…

B) Once again, I don’t want it built solely around him but a nod to his talents would be a help. Ford hasn’t really played in this new system other than the 6N when we lost to everyone but Italy so, your comparison is moot. Even when Ford did last play in a system more suited to him he was still stymied. More importantly, and to the actual point I was making, you were arguing that England were set up to give Smith more time with the ball out the back and my point was this isn’t where he operates at his best.

C) Don’t remember seeing that much, tbh.

Puja wrote:Cipriani (post injury) was glorious when the entire team was set up solely to play around him - Gloucester being the prime example where they won if he was there and were bereft and rudderless when he wasn't. Might be fine for a mid-table club side, but you can't organised an international side entirely based around one player's presence.

You obviously haven't read all the angst about how the England team isn't built up solely around Smith at FH, and is therefore dooming him to failure, and that he simply can't be judged in any team that doesn't have Dombrandt, Care and Estehuizen in it.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:Cipriani (post injury) was glorious when the entire team was set up solely to play around him - Gloucester being the prime example where they won if he was there and were bereft and rudderless when he wasn't. Might be fine for a mid-table club side, but you can't organised an international side entirely based around one player's presence.

You obviously haven't read all the angst about how the England team isn't built up solely around Smith at FH, and is therefore dooming him to failure, and that he simply can't be judged in any team that doesn't have Dombrandt, Care and Estehuizen in it.

Nobody has read the angst about how the England team isn't built up solely around Smith as nobody on here has asked for that.

As someone who missed most of the game and only came on here today…

Damn.

A few things:

1) the way he plays and his experience at this level means smith is going to have a few stinkers. If we still win despite that, wonderful.
2) I don’t care that his work rate is great and he beats defenders, Nowell is not an international wing. He’s just not quick enough, full stop. That cross kick should have been a try.
3) Billy is looking good.

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:Cipriani (post injury) was glorious when the entire team was set up solely to play around him - Gloucester being the prime example where they won if he was there and were bereft and rudderless when he wasn't. Might be fine for a mid-table club side, but you can't organised an international side entirely based around one player's presence.

You obviously haven't read all the angst about how the England team isn't built up solely around Smith at FH, and is therefore dooming him to failure, and that he simply can't be judged in any team that doesn't have Dombrandt, Care and Estehuizen in it.

Nobody has read the angst about how the England team isn't built up solely around Smith as nobody on here has asked for that.

Indeed Mells. ….
I blame Smith

Stom wrote:As someone who missed most of the game and only came on here today…

Damn.

A few things:

1) the way he plays and his experience at this level means smith is going to have a few stinkers. If we still win despite that, wonderful.
2) I don’t care that his work rate is great and he beats defenders, Nowell is not an international wing. He’s just not quick enough, full stop. That cross kick should have been a try.
3) Billy is looking good.

Maybe Nowell was the ball-carrying 12 we needed all along.

SDHoneymonster wrote:

Stom wrote:As someone who missed most of the game and only came on here today…

Damn.

A few things:

1) the way he plays and his experience at this level means smith is going to have a few stinkers. If we still win despite that, wonderful.
2) I don’t care that his work rate is great and he beats defenders, Nowell is not an international wing. He’s just not quick enough, full stop. That cross kick should have been a try.
3) Billy is looking good.

Maybe Nowell was the ball-carrying 12 we needed all along.

I'm fed up of all the calls to build the side around Nowell.

Tho he may be needed at 7.

SDHoneymonster wrote:

Stom wrote:As someone who missed most of the game and only came on here today…

Damn.

A few things:

1) the way he plays and his experience at this level means smith is going to have a few stinkers. If we still win despite that, wonderful.
2) I don’t care that his work rate is great and he beats defenders, Nowell is not an international wing. He’s just not quick enough, full stop. That cross kick should have been a try.
3) Billy is looking good.

Maybe Nowell was the ball-carrying 12 we needed all along.

The treasure was the defenders we beat along the way.

Puja

Raggs wrote:

oldbackrow wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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?

On field examples are not needed. The Faz/Smith relationship is already embedded in Jones' public statements about the pairing and implicit in his game plan. Faz, at 12, does everything that a normal 10 usually does - touch kicking, restarts, drop outs, goal kicking etc. He has to be at the centre of everything. The message is loud and clear that the apprentice can't be trusted to play all the facets of a fly half game and take charge of things. It's clear that Smith does not need a play making nursemaid at 12 - his best form is evident when he has a big, powerful, direct runner outside him (at Quins) to threaten the gain line and keep the ball recycling. You have the feeling this will all end with Faz reverting to 10 and Smith getting the shove.

Smith has a highlights reel. Farrell has a fishing rod.

Gosh it is warm today.

Prior to this series Smith had played 6 tests on the bounce without Farrell and I can’t say he looked better for being without him.