Digby wrote:Prep is important, better players likely more important still. I mean okay if your levels of fatigue/prep are simply god awful it's going to be a thing, but the relative gains in this area aren't likely to be chalk and cheese.
But we are currently getting all of our best players because of our previous hard line on the matter. So now we get to have both prep and best players.
Puja
Rarely has that resulted in a string of strong performances and results so tiny whoop. And if we were say to lose Ford and both Vunipolas to France in the next season or so then not so much anyway.
We did get to the RWC final. Granted, we'd all've been happier if we'd won, but it's not bad.
Best players/squad in the short term but would some players, and therefore Eng, benefit in the long term from stints abroad? Marchant, Gareth Thomas and Stephen Jones are all on record as saying stints in NZ/France improved them. Plenty* who say differently, obvs.
*including Andy Goode who moaned about the lack of player welfare in France without grasping the irony of the fact he spent most of his career confusing casual onlookers as to why Leicester had three props on the pitch.
Mellsblue wrote:Best players/squad in the short term but would some players, and therefore Eng, benefit in the long term from stints abroad? Marchant, Gareth Thomas and Stephen Jones are all on record as saying stints in NZ/France improved them. Plenty* who say differently, obvs.
*including Andy Goode who moaned about the lack of player welfare in France without grasping the irony of the fact he spent most of his career confusing casual onlookers as to why Leicester had three props on the pitch.
Stints in NZ - absolutely, would encourage more of our young players to go there. I'm still sad that the Itoje to Super Rugby thing didn't happen last year. France is a bit more dubious, especially with the beasting that they give their players.
Scrumhead wrote:
I agree. Although it’s not really accurate to label Smith as a ‘flair merchant’. He certainly has flair, but that helps to create a false narrative that he is a maverick type of 10, when his game management is now top notch. Quins love broken field, but a lot of our play is a lot more structured than you’d think.
I’m not suggesting that’s what you meant BTW - I just worry that flair = maverick in a lot of people’s minds which creates doubt.
I disagree. His game management is much better than he's often given credit for but it is not top notch and nowhere near it. He failed, along with Care, to keep Sale at arm's distance the other week which meant their pack tired, fell off the pace due to the number of phases of defence required. Last season Youngs and Ford provided a masterclass in how a lesser team can dominate a game at WR, this included a period where with a two player advantage Care and Smith messed around inside their own 22 and lost the 15 v 13 period by 3-0.
Smith is an excellent 10 but he's not the finished article and I do worry that some fans and the media who are building up into the Messiah for English rugby are forgetting that he's 22 and that most starting international flyhalfs are older than that for good reason. You learn game management as you get older. Smith may end up as the premier 10 in the world but right now he's merely very good.
I just hope Smith gets a proper backline to work with and not the type of unbalanced crap Ford had to try and drag round the park.
I’m not ‘building him up into the Messiah for English rugby’, but I do think you’re being overly harsh when you say his game management is ‘nowhere near’ top notch. For your one example of him not managing a game particularly well, there are plenty of examples of him doing the total opposite.
Do I think his game management will improve with age/experience, 100%, yes. I just think his current skill set in that area is higher than you appear to.
Thanks for dismissing me to the ‘some fans’ club though.
You don't count as the 'some fans' I've heard people say things like he's one of the best in the world etc. I like Smith and think he's the natural successor to the England 10 shirt. I do worry that he's going to be hyped up substantially before the first serious international game and then if he slips up the knives will be out. It's not helped that some former internationals are employed by newspapers and opting for the lazy journalism of just hyping the lad up.
Game management generally comes with age. He's good but there's some pretty excellent flyhalfs out there and it's an area where he does overplay. Possibly not helped by having Care at 9. I think he could be a game changer for England but he's not the finished article and won't be this season.
I just hope Smith does not get to be the scapegoat if things go wrong. Yes, he's by no means the finished article. However, he can't learn how to apply his undoubted talent by sitting on the bench. He has to be given a run of games and the odd mistake should not consign him to the understudy role.
If he was qualified for NZ, France or Australia they would not be doubting him, they'd be backing him long-term. I just hope we do.
All totally fair. Though it’s a slightly odd caveat that ‘overplaying it’ is kind of built in to the Quins system. It certainly feels that we play like Smith would want, or have shaped him that way, but I have no idea how he’d adapt to other plans.
The endless media hype sure is annoying, and must be hard to avoid completely as a player too. I feel similar with Sam Simmonds.
Puja wrote:
But we are currently getting all of our best players because of our previous hard line on the matter. So now we get to have both prep and best players.
Puja
Rarely has that resulted in a string of strong performances and results so tiny whoop. And if we were say to lose Ford and both Vunipolas to France in the next season or so then not so much anyway.
We did get to the RWC final. Granted, we'd all've been happier if we'd won, but it's not bad.
Puja
That wasn't the bad, though it's hard to know how much the bad was the years of trying to place at more moderate pace on attack and relying on kicking to secure territory, and ideally 1st phase possession with territory to run a strike move else don't bother to attack ball in hand.
And I'm much more performance than results in thinking, so the 3-0 series win in Australia was a bad series for me. A great defensive effort but far too little on attack
Referenced that in the other thread but it got buried under the novel Fazonavirus news. I'm dubious about those stats considering they're a) from the Daily Fail and b) have two obvious errors in Hill getting capped after being an apprentice and there being a fairly large omission in their list of Eddie debutants. They're already trying to push the narrative that he's only found Curry and Underhill, and they're already struggling by trying to claim that Daly and Sinckler "don't really count" for some reason, but that narrative takes another hit if you notice that they've somehow entirely forgotten about Maro Itoje.
Referenced that in the other thread but it got buried under the novel Fazonavirus news. I'm dubious about those stats considering they're a) from the Daily Fail and b) have two obvious errors in Hill getting capped after being an apprentice and there being a fairly large omission in their list of Eddie debutants. They're already trying to push the narrative that he's only found Curry and Underhill, and they're already struggling by trying to claim that Daly and Sinckler "don't really count" for some reason, but that narrative takes another hit if you notice that they've somehow entirely forgotten about Maro Itoje.
Puja
Was the 'Eddie's favourite team' thing? Because that also ignored the fact that all of Curry's 30+ caps came from Eddie in favour of the 18 (iirc) given to Robshaw, of all people.
Referenced that in the other thread but it got buried under the novel Fazonavirus news. I'm dubious about those stats considering they're a) from the Daily Fail and b) have two obvious errors in Hill getting capped after being an apprentice and there being a fairly large omission in their list of Eddie debutants. They're already trying to push the narrative that he's only found Curry and Underhill, and they're already struggling by trying to claim that Daly and Sinckler "don't really count" for some reason, but that narrative takes another hit if you notice that they've somehow entirely forgotten about Maro Itoje.
Puja
Was the 'Eddie's favourite team' thing? Because that also ignored the fact that all of Curry's 30+ caps came from Eddie in favour of the 18 (iirc) given to Robshaw, of all people.
The team is supposed to be which player has been picked in a given shirt number the most amount of times (arguably a fairly useless stat), with Curry's caps being spread out between 6,7 and 8. I suppose it is interesting interesting that Robshaws 18 caps at blindside is the lowest out of all the positions, suggesting Eddie changes his mind/is less certain what he wants from that position possibly?
Or he sees the 6 as the least specialist backrow position, and therefore the one that you put the least suited player in place? Like the 7 needs to be quick off the scrum, the 8 needs to be able to control the ball at the back of the scrum. Pretty much anything else doesn't matter what number is on the back of the shirt, and so it's those things that count.
I just found it odd since Robshaw was a player he name checked in an opinion piece before he even got the HC role. Everyone, including Robshaw, knew his days were numbered and it was mainly down to a paucity of international standard English flankers at the time that he managed 18 appearances under EJ
Danno wrote:I just found it odd since Robshaw was a player he name checked in an opinion piece before he even got the HC role. Everyone, including Robshaw, knew his days were numbered and it was mainly down to a paucity of international standard English flankers at the time that he managed 18 appearances under EJ
Eddie respects a leader, and Robshaw was clearly a leader. A Farrel of the backrow so to say. Not the most talented, but huge workrate and drive.
Danno wrote:I just found it odd since Robshaw was a player he name checked in an opinion piece before he even got the HC role. Everyone, including Robshaw, knew his days were numbered and it was mainly down to a paucity of international standard English flankers at the time that he managed 18 appearances under EJ
Harsh. I'd've said the 18 appearances were testament to his workrate and determination to turn around the coach's opinion of him - he did a very good job for the first 3 years of Eddie and only lost his place when he got injured.
Harsh but not unfair. I'd agree that his longevity in spite of his cards being marked was very much down to him as a player, but with the big caveat that there was little serious competition around at the time. He and Haskell were unceremoniously binned once Cunderhill were a viable pick
For what it's worth I'd have kept him around the squad a little longer, maybe (with hindsight) he could have imparted a smidgen of wisdom to one Mr Farrell about how not to make a referee shitfaced with rage from the fifth minute of a match
I’ve always been a fan of Oghre outside of the set piece but was never really convinced on his basics. He definitely seems to improved those quite a bit this season which makes him a very interesting prospect and quite possibly means that Barbeary stays in the back row.
It's easy to forget that Barbeary and Willis may soon be challenging again. I suppose both may add pressure on Curry to look at the 8 shirt - until the other Willis develops???
I get the Harry Thacker vibes from Oghre. Is it unfair to dismiss him because he's smaller? Maybe. Surely Wasps wouldn't keep Barbeary in the backrow just because of Oghre's emergence? There's plenty of competition in the backrow for Wasps so you'd think they'd be better suited with both challenging for 2 in the long run. I have no idea if Barbeary actually has the core skills though.
Personally, I think ‘the other Willis’ is already there and if not, he most definitely will be in 2yrs time.
If Jack comes back at his previous level, he could be a left field option at 8. I’d prefer him at 6 or 7 but He’s bigger than Curry or Underhill and a better heavy carrier so if we want 3 flankers, you never know?
Barbeary is also a very interesting option. He can definitely offer explosive carrying but isn’t a lineout option and I don’t really have a read on his core skill set as a flanker. I actually wish he’d develop as a 12!
I think if Dan Frost hadn't done so well, then Barbeary would have definitely been playing at hooker, all of a sudden though, it's a lot more congested both in the backrow and hooker (once the injuries ease off a bit).
