Team for Scotland

[Mikey Brown]

I'd be happy with that 23.

I would love to see Hill get a go but I just don't see it without at least one injury to Curry/Curry/Earl/CCS. Earl was great in broken play and kick return. Need to see how the openside fundamentals go but he doesn't deserve to be dropped, as much as I find him annoying.

[TheDasher]

I'd be happy with that 23.

I would love to see Hill get a go but I just don't see it without at least one injury to Curry/Curry/Earl/CCS. Earl was great in broken play and kick return. Need to see how the openside fundamentals go but he doesn't deserve to be dropped, as much as I find him annoying.

I agree that it'd be harsh on Earl but on the flipside, Hill provides with another genuine line-out option, amazing top end pace, more size etc so I think it's a no brainer to try...

[Puja]

I think Saturday re-opened my eyes (I'd forgotten I guess) how useful Daly-type players are to a squad. I personally am a big fan of a 6:2 split if you've got a player like that on the bench with two tens on the field. Would much rather have another back-row to come on than replace a centre for the hell of it who's not even that tired. I'd keep Daly on the bench therefore, with a reserve scrum half. When Malins comes back it gives him a bit of hope too... Part of me still feels that if Marcus can do 15, Malins can do a lot of that stuff too... Anyway, not relevant.

Re the side - George was great when he came on but we can't go backwards. Most were happy to see him replaced in the name of progress and have LCD start, so I think we stick with the same set up, LCD to start, George to come on... let's not chop and change too much.

The pack deserve massive credit for achieving something like parity against that behemoth French pack. Genge is getting low marks in certain places (media, youtube etc) but he did alright, after playing well against Ireland and yet again Stuart did well as did Hayes and Baxter.

Again Martin just isn't top class in my view so I'd start Chessum but Martin was 'ok', got through work and no doubt his muscle helped slow down there beasts at collision time.

Back-row excellent but I'd still go 6 Hill, 7 T Curry, 8 Willis personally.

Agree with Banquo that Marcus clearly has great merit as an attacking option at full back but we have to just hope he can deliver when peppered with high balls, crucial one on one tackle situations etc.

Sleightholme definitely has something about him - rapid, confident, bit of edge... I think he could have a break out game some time soon. That said I still want to try Freeman in centres at some point and I'd like Roebuck to get a go somewhere, he deserves it and looks made for test rugby... But, now's not the time and so many deserve another crack after a wonderful, meaningful result.

So I think I'd go:
Genge
LCD
Stuart
Itoje
Chessum
Hill
T Curry
Willis

Mitchell
F Smith
Sleightholme
Slade
Lawrence
Freeman
M Smith

Baxter
Hayes
George
Martin
B Curry
CCS
Randall/Spencer etc
Daly

I'm not a massive Earl fan, but he was fantastic on Saturday. Can't possibly endorse dropping him after that performance.

I'm also not sure I'm convinced by Hill. I'd love to be wrong, but he looks like a player who has a lot of pundit-friendly and highlight-friendly talents who will always tear it up at Premiership, but isn't quite good enough to mix it at the top level. A forward version of Ben Spencer, if you will.

Puja

[Banquo]

If we're going to use this as an option, we need to give MSmith time to settle into the role rather than yanking him based on the opposition, like we're pretending to be Burt dropping Ford because we're scared of the nasty Welsh centres. Granted, he's not Steward in the air (given the 8 inch height difference!), but I've not seen him be particularly vulnerable under a high ball before, either when he's played 15 or when he's dropped back as part of how we use our 10s. He's always seemed perfectly technically capable, but obviously there is the risk that he gets the yips when faced with being targetted by a barrage of high balls.

If he can't cope, then he can't cope, but it's better to know that now and we can either train him up or abandon the double-Smith experiment and I'll have to admit to Banquo that they were right and I was wrong for a second time in a row. No particular need for Steward though - Daly might not be a rock, but he is a regular full-back and can come on if needs must.

Puja

I totally agree that he needs more game time at 15 if he is to be a regular there for England if that helps. I'd rather he learned the job at Quins as opposed to learning on the job in an England shirt. He certainly adds a different attacking dimension, its just a question of- again- what's the trade off.

And its not just high balls, but hitting the line, positional play etc.

It's a weird one. I agree in principal but England are in a strange place and have become reliant on him sparking something in loose play. Even if Quins were to play him at 15 they're going to be set up so differently.

I don't even really view this as an experiment to see whether he can become England first choice, but whether he's a serious option to be our fulltime 15 cover in the 23, with Steward being such a drastically different option (and Daly not fancied as a 15) to Furbank. Not ideal though, granted.

It was frustrating seeing how many times he would instinctively creep up to the playmaker position and then find himself in no man's land, as his footwork and acceleration could be such a threat used correctly. Him overruning Mitchell's pass after the George/Curry break late on seems to be getting him a lot of flack, when I felt like Mitchell just shouldn't have given it.

I'd give him another couple of games while we have this chance.

aye. A weird one indeed. Dual playmaker is fine, but you lose the threat out wide I guess.

Reality is...I don't think we really have a strategy on team development, esp in the backs. Whack a mole- worked this time, to be fair.

[Scrumhead]

Charlie Morgan on Smith at 15.

https://archive.fo/LwRO2

Enjoyed that. A very good article that focuses on the facts rather than preconceived BS.

The strip from LBB and the missed kicks at goals were poor but they have garnered an insane level of criticism that ignores all of his other, positive involvements. Having rewatched the over-run pass several times, I'm pretty sure he was running a decoy line and didn't expect to get the ball. Marcus is smart, he knows he's not going to bust through a set defence - I honestly think he was looking to take defenders eyes off a pass to a deeper player. Looking forward to Puja’s forensic analysis in the MBM.

As Charlie Morgan said, he wasn't targeted under the high ball and could well be exposed by better tactical kicking, but if we're going to start focusing on what worries the opposition rather than what they might do, it's definitely worth persisting with - at least for the remainder of the 6N.

Ramos missed a kick and Penaud dropped a kick so they must be almost as crap as Marcus.

[Banquo]

Charlie Morgan on Smith at 15.

https://archive.fo/LwRO2

Enjoyed that. A very good article that focuses on the facts rather than preconceived BS.

The strip from LBB and the missed kicks at goals were poor but they have garnered an insane level of criticism that ignores all of his other, positive involvements. Having rewatched the over-run pass several times, I'm pretty sure he was running a decoy line and didn't expect to get the ball. Marcus is smart, he knows he's not going to bust through a set defence - I honestly think he was looking to take defenders eyes off a pass to a deeper player. Looking forward to Puja’s forensic analysis in the MBM.

As Charlie Morgan said, he wasn't targeted under the high ball and could well be exposed by better tactical kicking, but if we're going to start focusing on what worries the opposition rather than what they might do, it's definitely worth persisting with - at least for the remainder of the 6N.

Ramos missed a kick and Penaud dropped a kick so they must be almost as crap as Marcus.

[FKAS]

Charlie Morgan on Smith at 15.

https://archive.fo/LwRO2

Enjoyed that. A very good article that focuses on the facts rather than preconceived BS.

The strip from LBB and the missed kicks at goals were poor but they have garnered an insane level of criticism that ignores all of his other, positive involvements. Having rewatched the over-run pass several times, I'm pretty sure he was running a decoy line and didn't expect to get the ball. Marcus is smart, he knows he's not going to bust through a set defence - I honestly think he was looking to take defenders eyes off a pass to a deeper player. Looking forward to Puja’s forensic analysis in the MBM.

As Charlie Morgan said, he wasn't targeted under the high ball and could well be exposed by better tactical kicking, but if we're going to start focusing on what worries the opposition rather than what they might do, it's definitely worth persisting with - at least for the remainder of the 6N.

Ramos missed a kick and Penaud dropped a kick so they must be almost as crap as Marcus.

I'm not sure whether Mitchell meant the pass for him or not. Marcus turned to try and reach for it like he was expecting it though.

Most players make some mistakes (Dupont dropped that pass with the try line beckoning). Marcus made a couple of bad ones getting stripped through poor ball protection and then slicing to Penaud but he did positive things as well. I was quite happy with Marcus at 15 as a tactic pre game and I think he generally got the job done post game.

[Which Tyler]

I'm not sure whether Mitchell meant the pass for him or not. Marcus turned to try and reach for it like he was expecting it though.

I felt live, that it was over-run by Marcus - going too early and not allowing Mitchell enough time to get the ball clear of legs, and out to him.

Seeing it several more times now, it felt like the sort of mistake that happens at the level I play(ed) at - Marcus is running a decoy, expecting a pull-back; Mitchell has seen defenders bite onto Marcus, so passes to Slade outside him. Marcus sees the ball coming his way, and isn't fully aware of where Slade is, assumes that ball is a poor pass to himself, and tries to catch and control it.
Different sightlines, different intentions, lack of communication.

As a SH, I've certainly thrown plenty of passes behind the back of a dummy runner; that the runner has ruined by trying to catch - usually less successfully than Marcus did.

[Scrumhead]

Yep. Looks we are reading it in exactly the same way.

It’s a mistake and the end of probably our best attack of the game but I really don’t understand the widespread condemnation it’s received.

The main reason for thinking it was a decoy run is that Marcus very, very rarely runs in to contact. If he takes the pass, he’s running into two defenders on a crash and would do well to even keep hold of it.

@Banquo what is so funny?

[SixAndAHalf]

Was at the game so have just now had an opportunity to rewatch and properly comment.

It was a good to get on the right end of one of these tight games but the performance was more mixed especially reflecting on France's unforced errors.

For Scotland, I would just change Chessum for Martin in the XV - Martin offers a lot and in particular its hard to assess the impact on our solid scrum but I feel that Chessum offers a better balance alongside Itoje and the back row we are fielding.

On the bench I would bring in Ted Hill for BCurry / CCS (hard to say who and may be a "horses for courses" selection) - Hill coming on alongside Martin would give us a better balance.

The other selection decision is probably Sleigtholme vs Murley - I would go with the former and agree with the comment about him seeming on the cusp of a breakout performance.

[p/d]

2 10’s. One starting and one on bench. A fullback at 15.

Radical, but doable

If Furbank is still out, do you want Steward picked or Daly? I see neither as top quality 80 minute options.

I'd try Marcus again with a degree of reluctance. Once Furbank is there, SB must bite the bullet and simply choose his best FH.

Steward. I think he got a rough ride after the first round. Yes I see the irony in picking a 12 to play fb but at least he plays in that position week in week out.

[Banquo]

Yep. Looks we are reading it in exactly the same way.

It’s a mistake and the end of probably our best attack of the game but I really don’t understand the widespread condemnation it’s received.

The main reason for thinking it was a decoy run is that Marcus very, very rarely runs in to contact. If he takes the pass, he’s running into two defenders on a crash and would do well to even keep hold of it.

@Banquo what is so funny?

your rants about poor Marcus. Bit overprotective perchance?

[Banquo]

2 10’s. One starting and one on bench. A fullback at 15.

Radical, but doable

If Furbank is still out, do you want Steward picked or Daly? I see neither as top quality 80 minute options.

I'd try Marcus again with a degree of reluctance. Once Furbank is there, SB must bite the bullet and simply choose his best FH.

Steward. I think he got a rough ride after the first round. Yes I see the irony in picking a 12 to play fb but at least he plays in that position week in week out.

[Scrumhead]

Yep. Looks we are reading it in exactly the same way.

It’s a mistake and the end of probably our best attack of the game but I really don’t understand the widespread condemnation it’s received.

The main reason for thinking it was a decoy run is that Marcus very, very rarely runs in to contact. If he takes the pass, he’s running into two defenders on a crash and would do well to even keep hold of it.

@Banquo what is so funny?

your rants about poor Marcus. Bit overprotective perchance?

Maybe? Although I wouldn’t class anything I’ve said as a rant.

[Mikey Brown]

I think Elon Mush has altered the way people perceive that emoji.

[jngf]

I'd be happy with that 23.

I would love to see Hill get a go but I just don't see it without at least one injury to Curry/Curry/Earl/CCS. Earl was great in broken play and kick return. Need to see how the openside fundamentals go but he doesn't deserve to be dropped, as much as I find him annoying.

I agree that it'd be harsh on Earl but on the flipside, Hill provides with another genuine line-out option, amazing top end pace, more size etc so I think it's a no brainer to try...

Be interesting to see respective sprint training times of Earl and Hill - wouldn’t like to call which is faster. Earl looked like a potently quick wing at times on Saturday

[Banquo]

Yep. Looks we are reading it in exactly the same way.

It’s a mistake and the end of probably our best attack of the game but I really don’t understand the widespread condemnation it’s received.

The main reason for thinking it was a decoy run is that Marcus very, very rarely runs in to contact. If he takes the pass, he’s running into two defenders on a crash and would do well to even keep hold of it.

@Banquo what is so funny?

your rants about poor Marcus. Bit overprotective perchance?

Maybe? Although I wouldn’t class anything I’ve said as a rant.

Passionate defence then Honestly, there are a couple in the press who have a weird obsession with Smith, most want his talent to be used in the best possible way. But saying 'widespread condemnation' and 'insane' criticism seems a tad ott, though I get the frustration.

[Mikey Brown]

I don’t really understand what issue you’re taking with what he said either, to be honest. His overall summary seems pretty fair and to agree with Morgan.

Both those quotes are referring to specific moments and how keenly voices on the internet have jumped on them.

Maybe you’re drawing a line between professional pundits and just the general noise on the internet, reviews/ratings, breakdowns of the game etc. but I’ve seen an absolute ton of slating Marcus Smith for those errors, in a not particularly constructive way.

[Banquo]

I don’t really understand what issue you’re taking with what he said either, to be honest. His overall summary seems pretty fair and to agree with Morgan.

Both those quotes are referring to specific moments and how keenly voices on the internet have jumped on them.

Maybe you’re drawing a line between professional pundits and just the general noise on the internet, reviews/ratings, breakdowns of the game etc. but I’ve seen an absolute ton of slating Marcus Smith for those errors, in a not particularly constructive way.

I’m not ‘taking issue’ - just find it funny how people leap to defend players over some comments made, often by people who don’t know that much.
Perhaps I don’t read the same stuff, or perhaps I don’t react in the same way. Just seemed a bit of hyperbole tbh. Each to their own.

[Oakboy]

Will Aldritt and Dupont ever simultaneously have such off-days (by their standards) again? It shows they are human, I suppose.

It’s the Fin Smith effect. The force is with him.

Who would you pick if Smith, Smith and Furbank are fit?

[Banquo]

Will Aldritt and Dupont ever simultaneously have such off-days (by their standards) again? It shows they are human, I suppose.

It’s the Fin Smith effect. The force is with him.

Who would you pick if Smith, Smith and Furbank are fit?

Smith, Smith and Furbank

[Mikey Brown]

Fair enough. I mean if you don’t want to hear/read uninformed reactions to the ramblings of uninformed strangers on the internet you’re definitely in the wrong place. I’d use a laughing emoji here but think it would come off as passive aggressive.

You’d hope the players are suitably insulated from all this shit, but seeing how things went with Faz (and he was considered incredibly thick skinned) I just find it sad to see the glee some have found in writing off Smith as nothing more than a fancy hairdo and a pointless hitch-kick.

I appreciate that’s more a society/internet-age issue than a rugby one.

Anyway… on to Scotland.

[Oakboy]

I think Marcus needs more credit for agreeing to play FB than he gets. It is not in HIS best interest, arguably, but it IS (in SB's opinion) in the best interest of the team. Playing there, he is entitled to more consideration for mistakes than he is at FH (or Fin is at FH). It follows that blaming Marcus for a perceived 'bad' performance at FB is tantamount to blaming SB for selecting him there. Maybe, those who criticise his performance at FB are reinforcing THEIR opinion that he should not have been selected there.

I did not want Marcus at 15 but I think (now) that Fin at 10 + Marcus at 15 is marginally better than Marcus at 10 + Steward at 15 - based on two matches only.

[Oakboy]

It’s the Fin Smith effect. The force is with him.

Who would you pick if Smith, Smith and Furbank are fit?

Smith, Smith and Furbank

At, 10, 15 and 23???

[Banquo]

Fair enough. I mean if you don’t want to hear/read uninformed reactions to the ramblings of uninformed strangers on the internet you’re definitely in the wrong place. I’d use a laughing emoji here but think it would come off as passive aggressive.

You’d hope the players are suitably insulated from all this shit, but seeing how things went with Faz (and he was considered incredibly thick skinned) I just find it sad to see the glee some have found in writing off Smith as nothing more than a fancy hairdo and a pointless hitch-kick.

I appreciate that’s more a society/internet-age issue than a rugby one.

Anyway… on to Scotland.

...I genuinely found it funny , not that I do or don't want to hear it. I'm as guilty as anyone in getting wound up mind. Thanks for the tip