RugbyRebels

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:

Digby wrote:

francoisfou wrote:The calls for Marcus Smith to be capped are justified, but I wonder if he makes the team for the Autumn Tests if he’ll be obliged to have Owen Farrell at inside centre?

See I watched the Wasps game t'other day, and in the opening minute he kicked off the match going too long with a restart allowing Wasps into the game under insufficient pressure, but Wasps gave the ball back, and then presented with another chance he threw an intercept for no particular reason. And that's just minute 1

I don't know any serious coach who isn't going to want to see a player in the 10 shirt take control of the game and the emotion of the game. Now maybe he does do that most of the time, I only know whenever I watch him it seems all too easy to dismiss his claims. And then people get far too excited about the stuff that does look good on TV, there's some justification for it because he is a talent, but he does seem to miss out on some important detail in his game.

Basically were the calls for his selection justified I don't think I should be watching him and finding it so easy to disregard his clam.

Whilst I know what you mean, and to some extent agree. Quins, especially since Gustard pissed off, have been playing a very loose game generally and I think it's a little unfair to say Smith doesn't play a controlled game when the whole point is to play fast and loose.
Smith was actually tempering the flair a lot under Gustard and was still playing pretty well in a team that wasn't, so I think he can change his game and hopefully can fit nicely into the Ford role (in no way should he replace him!).

Maybe the whole point is just to play fast and assume that pays off whether in points directly or fitness later in the game. Maybe.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

francoisfou wrote:The calls for Marcus Smith to be capped are justified, but I wonder if he makes the team for the Autumn Tests if he’ll be obliged to have Owen Farrell at inside centre?

See I watched the Wasps game t'other day, and in the opening minute he kicked off the match going too long with a restart allowing Wasps into the game under insufficient pressure, but Wasps gave the ball back, and then presented with another chance he threw an intercept for no particular reason. And that's just minute 1

I don't know any serious coach who isn't going to want to see a player in the 10 shirt take control of the game and the emotion of the game. Now maybe he does do that most of the time, I only know whenever I watch him it seems all too easy to dismiss his claims. And then people get far too excited about the stuff that does look good on TV, there's some justification for it because he is a talent, but he does seem to miss out on some important detail in his game.

Basically were the calls for his selection justified I don't think I should be watching him and finding it so easy to disregard his clam.

Sounds fishy to me.

razor sharp

Digby wrote:

francoisfou wrote:The calls for Marcus Smith to be capped are justified, but I wonder if he makes the team for the Autumn Tests if he’ll be obliged to have Owen Farrell at inside centre?

See I watched the Wasps game t'other day, and in the opening minute he kicked off the match going too long with a restart allowing Wasps into the game under insufficient pressure, but Wasps gave the ball back, and then presented with another chance he threw an intercept for no particular reason. And that's just minute 1

I don't know any serious coach who isn't going to want to see a player in the 10 shirt take control of the game and the emotion of the game. Now maybe he does do that most of the time, I only know whenever I watch him it seems all too easy to dismiss his claims. And then people get far too excited about the stuff that does look good on TV, there's some justification for it because he is a talent, but he does seem to miss out on some important detail in his game.

Basically were the calls for his selection justified I don't think I should be watching him and finding it so easy to disregard his clam.

If you watched that game and your only takeaways are a slightly too long kick off and an intercept I’m staggered ...

I dislike overhyping players and I’d always temper my excitement over Smith with the knowledge that he’s yet to play in a really high profile fixture or major knock out game. However, the stats speak for themselves. He’s miles ahead of any other 10 this season, even in a middling team that are largely over-performing because of him. If you find it ‘all too easy to dismiss his claims’, then I’m going to struggle to take anything you say seriously. Particularly when the players you favour are not exactly error free.

You’re right to ‘disregard his clam’ though. His lobster is far superior.

Scrumhead wrote:

Digby wrote:

francoisfou wrote:The calls for Marcus Smith to be capped are justified, but I wonder if he makes the team for the Autumn Tests if he’ll be obliged to have Owen Farrell at inside centre?

See I watched the Wasps game t'other day, and in the opening minute he kicked off the match going too long with a restart allowing Wasps into the game under insufficient pressure, but Wasps gave the ball back, and then presented with another chance he threw an intercept for no particular reason. And that's just minute 1

I don't know any serious coach who isn't going to want to see a player in the 10 shirt take control of the game and the emotion of the game. Now maybe he does do that most of the time, I only know whenever I watch him it seems all too easy to dismiss his claims. And then people get far too excited about the stuff that does look good on TV, there's some justification for it because he is a talent, but he does seem to miss out on some important detail in his game.

Basically were the calls for his selection justified I don't think I should be watching him and finding it so easy to disregard his clam.

If you watched that game and your only takeaways are a slightly too long kick off and an intercept I’m staggered ...

I dislike overhyping players and I’d always temper my excitement over Smith with the knowledge that he’s yet to play in a really high profile fixture or major knock out game. However, the stats speak for themselves. He’s miles ahead of any other 10 this season, even in a middling team that are largely over-performing because of him. If you find it ‘all too easy to dismiss his claims’, then I’m going to struggle to take anything you say seriously. Particularly when the players you favour are not exactly error free.

You’re right to ‘disregard his clam’ though. His lobster is far superior.

If I'd said that was the only takeaway I'd apologise. And there is a reason I both said and agree he's a talent.

Nonetheless how you open a game is a big thing, and if he's going to open like that it's too easy to consider he's got some nice flashy moves but isn't really ready to deliver.

Why Ford isn't exactly error free I don't know, he's probably got the best error rate, and he's got one of if not the highest skillset, and he's got experience, and he makes the best decisions.

Digby wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Digby wrote:
See I watched the Wasps game t'other day, and in the opening minute he kicked off the match going too long with a restart allowing Wasps into the game under insufficient pressure, but Wasps gave the ball back, and then presented with another chance he threw an intercept for no particular reason. And that's just minute 1

I don't know any serious coach who isn't going to want to see a player in the 10 shirt take control of the game and the emotion of the game. Now maybe he does do that most of the time, I only know whenever I watch him it seems all too easy to dismiss his claims. And then people get far too excited about the stuff that does look good on TV, there's some justification for it because he is a talent, but he does seem to miss out on some important detail in his game.

Basically were the calls for his selection justified I don't think I should be watching him and finding it so easy to disregard his clam.

If you watched that game and your only takeaways are a slightly too long kick off and an intercept I’m staggered ...

I dislike overhyping players and I’d always temper my excitement over Smith with the knowledge that he’s yet to play in a really high profile fixture or major knock out game. However, the stats speak for themselves. He’s miles ahead of any other 10 this season, even in a middling team that are largely over-performing because of him. If you find it ‘all too easy to dismiss his claims’, then I’m going to struggle to take anything you say seriously. Particularly when the players you favour are not exactly error free.

You’re right to ‘disregard his clam’ though. His lobster is far superior.

If I'd said that was the only takeaway I'd apologise. And there is a reason I both said and agree he's a talent.

Nonetheless how you open a game is a big thing, and if he's going to open like that it's too easy to consider he's got some nice flashy moves but isn't really ready to deliver.

Why Ford isn't exactly error free I don't know, he's probably got the best error rate, and he's got one of if not the highest skillset, and he's got experience, and he makes the best decisions.

And has a good 6? years over Smith to have honed his game to that extent. We do need a third FH in contention, because if Ford goes down for a period then we're only 1 Farrell special tackle (albeit with an attentive ref) away from having no 10 or 12 with any real experience.

Whether that's Smith or Simmonds likely comes down to personal preference, but right now Smith is firmly in the driving seat in my mind, not least because Simmonds has looked knackered and has missed a good chunk of his kicks in his last 5 or so games.

How we would solve the problem at 12 is anyone's guess, but that's hardly a new issue in England...

I used to be the same when judging players. I liked the ones who did all the basics really well. Problem was, they were hardly every god enough for international sport.

It’s like Booj. He does everything well except he’s not international class.

Smith had rough edges to his game, but they’re the things that can be sorted out. He should get into the environment more so he gets more chance to see those changes and make them

Danno wrote:

Digby wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
If you watched that game and your only takeaways are a slightly too long kick off and an intercept I’m staggered ...

I dislike overhyping players and I’d always temper my excitement over Smith with the knowledge that he’s yet to play in a really high profile fixture or major knock out game. However, the stats speak for themselves. He’s miles ahead of any other 10 this season, even in a middling team that are largely over-performing because of him. If you find it ‘all too easy to dismiss his claims’, then I’m going to struggle to take anything you say seriously. Particularly when the players you favour are not exactly error free.

You’re right to ‘disregard his clam’ though. His lobster is far superior.

If I'd said that was the only takeaway I'd apologise. And there is a reason I both said and agree he's a talent.

Nonetheless how you open a game is a big thing, and if he's going to open like that it's too easy to consider he's got some nice flashy moves but isn't really ready to deliver.

Why Ford isn't exactly error free I don't know, he's probably got the best error rate, and he's got one of if not the highest skillset, and he's got experience, and he makes the best decisions.

And has a good 6? years over Smith to have honed his game to that extent. We do need a third FH in contention, because if Ford goes down for a period then we're only 1 Farrell special tackle (albeit with an attentive ref) away from having no 10 or 12 with any real experience.

Whether that's Smith or Simmonds likely comes down to personal preference, but right now Smith is firmly in the driving seat in my mind, not least because Simmonds has looked knackered and has missed a good chunk of his kicks in his last 5 or so games.

How we would solve the problem at 12 is anyone's guess, but that's hardly a new issue in England...

I think we could look at another player, and it'd be one of Smith, Simmonds and Umaga, and I don't really care which. But I don't know test rugby sides are known for their success because they've looked at 3rd choice 10s, they really should be getting looking at players with a view to them being 1st choice next game up, and nobody looks to be pushing in such fashion from outside the EPS

And first choice 10s don't make much sense when they kick off long and invite the opponents into the game under no pressure, get the ball back and throw an intercept to invite the opposition into the game under no pressure, this sets entirely the wrong sort of emotion to the game from the outset, though isn't always a prelude to conceding 46

Stom wrote:I used to be the same when judging players. I liked the ones who did all the basics really well. Problem was, they were hardly every god enough for international sport.

It’s like Booj. He does everything well except he’s not international class.

Smith had rough edges to his game, but they’re the things that can be sorted out. He should get into the environment more so he gets more chance to see those changes and make them

If you had a player who simply did the basics well that wouldn't impress me much either, and actually I'd prefer someone like Smith who has a much higher ceiling.

I would agree getting into the environment would help Smith, and if he gets a chance that's fine as he's not without talent, but I'm not thinking about Smith, I'm thinking about the environment/England. He might go brilliantly in said environment and become clear 1st choice, I'm just not so impressed I think he must have that chance, for me not only is he not the best 10 of the season he's not especially close to being on par with the best 10, and he's much more in the camp of could have that chance, but so could a couple of others.

Digby wrote:

Danno wrote:

Digby wrote:
If I'd said that was the only takeaway I'd apologise. And there is a reason I both said and agree he's a talent.

Nonetheless how you open a game is a big thing, and if he's going to open like that it's too easy to consider he's got some nice flashy moves but isn't really ready to deliver.

Why Ford isn't exactly error free I don't know, he's probably got the best error rate, and he's got one of if not the highest skillset, and he's got experience, and he makes the best decisions.

And has a good 6? years over Smith to have honed his game to that extent. We do need a third FH in contention, because if Ford goes down for a period then we're only 1 Farrell special tackle (albeit with an attentive ref) away from having no 10 or 12 with any real experience.

Whether that's Smith or Simmonds likely comes down to personal preference, but right now Smith is firmly in the driving seat in my mind, not least because Simmonds has looked knackered and has missed a good chunk of his kicks in his last 5 or so games.

How we would solve the problem at 12 is anyone's guess, but that's hardly a new issue in England...

I think we could look at another player, and it'd be one of Smith, Simmonds and Umaga, and I don't really care which. But I don't know test rugby sides are known for their success because they've looked at 3rd choice 10s, they really should be getting looking at players with a view to them being 1st choice next game up, and nobody looks to be pushing in such fashion from outside the EPS

And first choice 10s don't make much sense when they kick off long and invite the opponents into the game under no pressure, get the ball back and throw an intercept to invite the opposition into the game under no pressure, this sets entirely the wrong sort of emotion to the game from the outset, though isn't always a prelude to conceding 46

So you think we should go into the summer with only 1 10? As Farrell is away and we don’t need a 3rd choice...

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Danno wrote:
And has a good 6? years over Smith to have honed his game to that extent. We do need a third FH in contention, because if Ford goes down for a period then we're only 1 Farrell special tackle (albeit with an attentive ref) away from having no 10 or 12 with any real experience.

Whether that's Smith or Simmonds likely comes down to personal preference, but right now Smith is firmly in the driving seat in my mind, not least because Simmonds has looked knackered and has missed a good chunk of his kicks in his last 5 or so games.

How we would solve the problem at 12 is anyone's guess, but that's hardly a new issue in England...

I think we could look at another player, and it'd be one of Smith, Simmonds and Umaga, and I don't really care which. But I don't know test rugby sides are known for their success because they've looked at 3rd choice 10s, they really should be getting looking at players with a view to them being 1st choice next game up, and nobody looks to be pushing in such fashion from outside the EPS

And first choice 10s don't make much sense when they kick off long and invite the opponents into the game under no pressure, get the ball back and throw an intercept to invite the opposition into the game under no pressure, this sets entirely the wrong sort of emotion to the game from the outset, though isn't always a prelude to conceding 46

So you think we should go into the summer with only 1 10? As Farrell is away and we don’t need a 3rd choice...

I think the summer tour is largely if not wholly irrelevant, they could pick Andy Goode and it wouldn't bother me much. If anything it might encourage me to watch to see him waddle around

Slightly more sensibly I don't recall anyone being successful because they had a 3rd choice 10 who played a small handful of games, though I'm sure we're about to get one, and we're likely to pick 1 of 3 candidates none of whom look nailed on obvious good selections right now

Dunn gets 4 weeks, own from 6.
Lucky boy to get ticks in the "mitigation" but none in the "aggravation" IMO. Given that he was 3 weeks back from a red and ban for dangerous play, he shouldn't really have had any reduction

This is some baffling contortion you're doing here, Digby. Really odd stuff, even for you.

Isn't Stephen Donald a world cup winner?

Yeah, Donald slotting the winner in a World Cup final with Carter and Evans injured is the blindingly obvious example here. I’m sure he’ll be the Andy Goode in this scenario though.

Mikey Brown wrote:Yeah, Donald slotting the winner in a World Cup final with Carter and Evans injured is the blindingly obvious example here. I’m sure he’ll be the Andy Goode in this scenario though.

Wasn't it more than just those two? I think Cruden replaced Carter in the squad and then Slade was replaced by Donald. So Donald was well down the list to the point I think the story was he was out fishing with his mates having some beers when he got the call.

Never underestimate the value of developing squad depth. On a serious note for England they need to do it for succession planning as well because their half backs are all heading towards or already at the 30ish mark. They could all make the next world cup but it would then be unlikely any will make it to the one after that. Plus the obvious older players tend to pick up injuries more easily and recover slower so not leaving ourselves exposed would be nice.

Which Tyler wrote:

Dunn gets 4 weeks, own from 6.
Lucky boy to get ticks in the "mitigation" but none in the "aggravation" IMO. Given that he was 3 weeks back from a red and ban for dangerous play, he shouldn't really have had any reduction

Does seem odd to me that he gets mitigation given he's just back from a ban for (I think) the exact same thing. I'm sure it has nothing to do with it but t leaves for free for Eddie to pick.

Should he be picked is another matter. I don't see much of him play, only really against Bristol and he's offered very little in those games.

jimKRFC wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Dunn gets 4 weeks, own from 6.
Lucky boy to get ticks in the "mitigation" but none in the "aggravation" IMO. Given that he was 3 weeks back from a red and ban for dangerous play, he shouldn't really have had any reduction

Does seem odd to me that he gets mitigation given he's just back from a ban for (I think) the exact same thing. I'm sure it has nothing to do with it but t leaves for free for Eddie to pick.

Should he be picked is another matter. I don't see much of him play, only really against Bristol and he's offered very little in those games.

The last ban was for an elbow to the head off the ball. Cheap shot. This was just a poor attempted tackle.

I rate Dunn. Good nuts and bolts hooker, low error count and very high work rate. He’s not first choice material for England, but a more than decent 3rd choice.

The recent red cards are blot on his copybook, but I wouldn’t consider him to be a dirty player.

Now Singleton is back playing, I’d expect him to leapfrog Dunn. Eddie took him to the World Cup so must like him.

FKAS wrote: The last ban was for an elbow to the head off the ball. Cheap shot. This was just a poor attempted tackle.

It wasn't an attempted tackle. His arm was tucked in and was a straight shoulder hit to the head. Just read this which does make we wonder if anyone could use the "I hit him in the head to stop him passing" defence:

"Independent disciplinary panel statement from Dunn's hearing said: “The Panel was satisfied that the player's intention was to try and prevent the offload rather than to make contact with the head of the Bristol player." From Somerset live....

FKAS wrote:The last ban was for an elbow to the head off the ball. Cheap shot. This was just a poor attempted tackle.

Wasn't even a cheap shot - it was a clumsy attempt to avoid contact with the dummy runner and keep himself available.
It was clumsy enough to be an elbow to the head though, and rightly banned.

This one I haven't actually seen, but sounds very different (high tackle with the shoulder)

And which should automatically mean he gets a tick for "repeat offender" under aggravation. There ought to be a tick for "need for deterrent" as well.

It's at 69 minutes in if you have time to watch. Not sure how to upload screen caps.

Either way he's a lucky boy to only to get 4 weeks two games after a 3 week ban.

Mikey Brown wrote:This is some baffling contortion you're doing here, Digby. Really odd stuff, even for you.

It's hardly a contortion, just some people are very much more impressed with Smith than I. Some others are very much more impressed with Simmonds or Umaga. I don't think in any normal circumstances any of them 'must' be capped by England, though any of them 'could' to see if they might step up.

And yes Donald was capped by NZ prior to his WC call up. But even if ignoring Weepu was the man leading the halfback effort and Donald was more or less just stood there how many caps went to the likes of Cruden, Donald, Slade because Carter was out injured Vs how many caps went to them because they were honestly picked ahead of Carter?

Now if Ford is out injured then someone else has to play and Farrell wouldn't be my choice. But I wouldn't be forcing the issue of not selecting Ford on the off chance we ended up having to drop down the pecking order. Nobody really tries to cover that situation off other than when backed into a corner.

England have been a little more limited in trying to build exp on other 10s by dint of playing Ford and Farrell, and now with the seeming inclusion of Malins if he goes well there'll be even less incentive to name a younger player on the bench and give them the last quarter. That does practically alter looking at this situation as some other teams might, but that's also not going to change much you'd think unless we're dropping 2 of Ford, Farrell and Malins, we might need to be not picking Slade too before we'd be considering we need other cover.

The contortion is that you have dismissed 79 minutes of excellent game management and talent by Smith because in the first minute his kickoff was a little too long and he threw an intercept (not like Ford's not been prone to an intercept this season). No-one's saying Smith is the finished article, but he's definitely the form 10 in the Prem this season and it's confusing that you appear to be against England taking a look at him.

Puja

Not just dismissed either ... ‘dismissed with ease’ ...

Mentioning Malins as an option at 10 is odd too. I know he’s played there a couple of times for Bristol and on a couple of occasions at Saracens, but I don’t think anyone thinks it’s his best position or that he’s a stronger option than Smith or Simmonds at 10.

At 15 he is definitely worth persevering with, but I wouldn’t want him as our back up 10.

Scrumhead wrote:Not just dismissed either ... ‘dismissed with ease’ ...

Mentioning Malins as an option at 10 is odd too. I know he’s played there a couple of times for Bristol and on a couple of occasions at Saracens, but I don’t think anyone thinks it’s his best position or that he’s a stronger option than Smith or Simmonds at 10.

At 15 he is definitely worth persevering with, but I wouldn’t want him as our back up 10.

Funnily enough, I thought he played mainly for Sarries at 10- and looked very good there. Could be wrong though!