USA v England, Sat 19/07. 10.05pm Rugbypass & RFU YouTube

[Banquo]

The problem that I had with Marcus at 10 was that his running ability is superb and gets him through gaps that FSmith and Ford just couldn't, but he also kept going for gaps that he would get through for Quins, but which slammed abruptly shut on him at top test level. This left us far too often with our general directing the attack being stuck at the bottom of a ruck.

I was fervently in favour of the move to 15, because he's got incredible feet in wider channels and I thought that we could get him in those channels more often and use him as a second playmaker who could attack gaps without leaving us denuded of our general. Plus, with three incredible 10s available to us and nothing outstanding at 15, I was in favour of getting our best players onto the park if we could. However, I am coming to the conclusion that you all were correct and that he has too many flaws as a 15 - even though it would be lovely to have his undoubted attacking quality running onto attacking ball, it's not gonna work as a full-time option.

Still, we try things - sometimes they even work. And at least now we know and we also have versatility off the bench if we need it.

Puja

Yes, and yes (though I presumably think less of his generalship when he is in position).

IMO, the FB experiment was worth trying, but, as ever, needs the player and club to play along to actually get enough game-time in the new position.
I also agree that whilst it suits him on paper, we're not really seeing that on grass (though I stand by the opinion that "give him a full season there for clubs dn country, and he'll come good" - that's just never going to happen.

he’s very hard to play off as a centre without a lot of familiarity and being used to the visual cues.

This too, which is also a criticism of Russell, though one he's adapted his game to make out of date.

I'd also add that Marcus seems to need a specific team set up around him. All FHs like to have a get-out-of-jail-free IC who can carry like a #8 and also step in to 1st receiver when needed, but Marcus seems to need it more than others, whilst also needing an all-action, ball-hamdling #8 and a game-managing SH.
Again,mall FHs will look better with that build, but that doesn't mean it's best for the team, especially if the team doesn't have those options of the requisite class.

With Russell at least he runs straight and you know he will try something at the tackle line.

[badback]

Don’t often post but enjoy reading. Thank you!

For the first time I was at this one live. Interesting (to me) observations from being live - in no particular order.

George Ford is a huge fan favorite. Cheers for his name when announced. At end people craning over railings call out his name so they can get him to look in their direction for a photo. And it’s very obvious live just how crazy skilled he is.

Ben Curry is massive. Well they all are. He was kind enough to sign son’s shirt. To see him up close well a bit scary. In a good way.

Their tactics as a team, at least for this game, much easier to see live. It seemed they were kicking to gain field position in opposite half. Then from set piece running a series of moves.

Oh and when attacking everting is very fast. But they certainly take their time when ball is not in play to move from one bit of the game to another.

Just a few thoughts.

Your son is following a long rugby tradition of getting curry on one's shirt!

Haha
Yes !

[R3dders]

The problem that I had with Marcus at 10 was that his running ability is superb and gets him through gaps that FSmith and Ford just couldn't, but he also kept going for gaps that he would get through for Quins, but which slammed abruptly shut on him at top test level. This left us far too often with our general directing the attack being stuck at the bottom of a ruck.

I was fervently in favour of the move to 15, because he's got incredible feet in wider channels and I thought that we could get him in those channels more often and use him as a second playmaker who could attack gaps without leaving us denuded of our general. Plus, with three incredible 10s available to us and nothing outstanding at 15, I was in favour of getting our best players onto the park if we could. However, I am coming to the conclusion that you all were correct and that he has too many flaws as a 15 - even though it would be lovely to have his undoubted attacking quality running onto attacking ball, it's not gonna work as a full-time option.

Still, we try things - sometimes they even work. And at least now we know and we also have versatility off the bench if we need it.

Puja

Yes, and yes (though I presumably think less of his generalship when he is in position).

IMO, the FB experiment was worth trying, but, as ever, needs the player and club to play along to actually get enough game-time in the new position.
I also agree that whilst it suits him on paper, we're not really seeing that on grass (though I stand by the opinion that "give him a full season there for clubs dn country, and he'll come good" - that's just never going to happen.

he’s very hard to play off as a centre without a lot of familiarity and being used to the visual cues.

This too, which is also a criticism of Russell, though one he's adapted his game to make out of date.

I'd also add that Marcus seems to need a specific team set up around him. All FHs like to have a get-out-of-jail-free IC who can carry like a #8 and also step in to 1st receiver when needed, but Marcus seems to need it more than others, whilst also needing an all-action, ball-hamdling #8 and a game-managing SH.
Again,mall FHs will look better with that build, but that doesn't mean it's best for the team, especially if the team doesn't have those options of the requisite class.

You've said that already, but there's no way anyone could actually watch how he played for Quins when esterhuizen was there, or when he left, or at any point playing for England, and come up with that conclusion. The only way anyone could come up with that is to look at Quins at that point and say 'what strengths can I use to deride Smith? He didn't particularly have an armchair ride from his pack, care was hardly a steadying hand, err, oh yeah. He needed a crash 12.'

I don't think he's ever played with a big 12 aside from ester. There are plenty of arguments for preferring the control of ford or the late decisions of fin over marcus' running threat. Smith needing a big 12 is just lazy.

[R3dders]

The problem that I had with Marcus at 10 was that his running ability is superb and gets him through gaps that FSmith and Ford just couldn't, but he also kept going for gaps that he would get through for Quins, but which slammed abruptly shut on him at top test level. This left us far too often with our general directing the attack being stuck at the bottom of a ruck.

I was fervently in favour of the move to 15, because he's got incredible feet in wider channels and I thought that we could get him in those channels more often and use him as a second playmaker who could attack gaps without leaving us denuded of our general. Plus, with three incredible 10s available to us and nothing outstanding at 15, I was in favour of getting our best players onto the park if we could. However, I am coming to the conclusion that you all were correct and that he has too many flaws as a 15 - even though it would be lovely to have his undoubted attacking quality running onto attacking ball, it's not gonna work as a full-time option.

Still, we try things - sometimes they even work. And at least now we know and we also have versatility off the bench if we need it.

Puja

Yes, and yes (though I presumably think less of his generalship when he is in position).

IMO, the FB experiment was worth trying, but, as ever, needs the player and club to play along to actually get enough game-time in the new position.
I also agree that whilst it suits him on paper, we're not really seeing that on grass (though I stand by the opinion that "give him a full season there for clubs dn country, and he'll come good" - that's just never going to happen.

he’s very hard to play off as a centre without a lot of familiarity and being used to the visual cues.

This too, which is also a criticism of Russell, though one he's adapted his game to make out of date.

I'd also add that Marcus seems to need a specific team set up around him. All FHs like to have a get-out-of-jail-free IC who can carry like a #8 and also step in to 1st receiver when needed, but Marcus seems to need it more than others, whilst also needing an all-action, ball-hamdling #8 and a game-managing SH.
Again,mall FHs will look better with that build, but that doesn't mean it's best for the team, especially if the team doesn't have those options of the requisite class.

With Russell at least he runs straight and you know he will try something at the tackle line.

Sounds like young Marcus was lucky to break through into pro rugby

[Mikey Brown]

The problem that I had with Marcus at 10 was that his running ability is superb and gets him through gaps that FSmith and Ford just couldn't, but he also kept going for gaps that he would get through for Quins, but which slammed abruptly shut on him at top test level. This left us far too often with our general directing the attack being stuck at the bottom of a ruck.

I was fervently in favour of the move to 15, because he's got incredible feet in wider channels and I thought that we could get him in those channels more often and use him as a second playmaker who could attack gaps without leaving us denuded of our general. Plus, with three incredible 10s available to us and nothing outstanding at 15, I was in favour of getting our best players onto the park if we could. However, I am coming to the conclusion that you all were correct and that he has too many flaws as a 15 - even though it would be lovely to have his undoubted attacking quality running onto attacking ball, it's not gonna work as a full-time option.

Still, we try things - sometimes they even work. And at least now we know and we also have versatility off the bench if we need it.

Puja

Yes, and yes (though I presumably think less of his generalship when he is in position).

IMO, the FB experiment was worth trying, but, as ever, needs the player and club to play along to actually get enough game-time in the new position.
I also agree that whilst it suits him on paper, we're not really seeing that on grass (though I stand by the opinion that "give him a full season there for clubs dn country, and he'll come good" - that's just never going to happen.

he’s very hard to play off as a centre without a lot of familiarity and being used to the visual cues.

This too, which is also a criticism of Russell, though one he's adapted his game to make out of date.

I'd also add that Marcus seems to need a specific team set up around him. All FHs like to have a get-out-of-jail-free IC who can carry like a #8 and also step in to 1st receiver when needed, but Marcus seems to need it more than others, whilst also needing an all-action, ball-hamdling #8 and a game-managing SH.
Again,mall FHs will look better with that build, but that doesn't mean it's best for the team, especially if the team doesn't have those options of the requisite class.

You've said that already, but there's no way anyone could actually watch how he played for Quins when esterhuizen was there, or when he left, or at any point playing for England, and come up with that conclusion. The only way anyone could come up with that is to look at Quins at that point and say 'what strengths can I use to deride Smith? He didn't particularly have an armchair ride from his pack, care was hardly a steadying hand, err, oh yeah. He needed a crash 12.'

I don't think he's ever played with a big 12 aside from ester. There are plenty of arguments for preferring the control of ford or the late decisions of fin over marcus' running threat. Smith needing a big 12 is just lazy.

It’s funny the way these narratives develop isn’t it. As if he’s constantly just scampering up blind alleys and then Esterhuizen has to charge in and save him from himself. It oddly mirrors a lot of the nonsense around Farrell.

[Banquo]

Yes, and yes (though I presumably think less of his generalship when he is in position).

IMO, the FB experiment was worth trying, but, as ever, needs the player and club to play along to actually get enough game-time in the new position.
I also agree that whilst it suits him on paper, we're not really seeing that on grass (though I stand by the opinion that "give him a full season there for clubs dn country, and he'll come good" - that's just never going to happen.


This too, which is also a criticism of Russell, though one he's adapted his game to make out of date.

I'd also add that Marcus seems to need a specific team set up around him. All FHs like to have a get-out-of-jail-free IC who can carry like a #8 and also step in to 1st receiver when needed, but Marcus seems to need it more than others, whilst also needing an all-action, ball-hamdling #8 and a game-managing SH.
Again,mall FHs will look better with that build, but that doesn't mean it's best for the team, especially if the team doesn't have those options of the requisite class.

With Russell at least he runs straight and you know he will try something at the tackle line.

Sounds like young Marcus was lucky to break through into pro rugby

As usual only black and white exist on the internet.

He’s neither the saviour nor a villain. Talented player, currently not fitting the mould required by England.

[Puja]

With Russell at least he runs straight and you know he will try something at the tackle line.

Sounds like young Marcus was lucky to break through into pro rugby

As usual only black and white exist on the internet.

He’s neither the saviour nor a villain. Talented player, currently not fitting the mould required by England.

I don't even think the mould is particularly restrictive in the case of our fly-halves - he is still an excellent player and could very easily be our first choice 10. However, he is competing against two other excellent fly-halves, and so his flaws are under greater scrutiny and it doesn't take much to move from first choice to out of the XXIII. If he was around in 2006, then we'd be thanking the gods for his existence and inking him in as first name on the teamsheet.

Puja

[jngf]

Getting so board with Lions now I honestly think England have the makings of a team that would rip the Lions test side apart.

Just looking at my chosen specialised subject and ignoring shirt numbers (by popular demand ) if one perms the back row as follows ( picking one from each criteria) then we have great strength in depth and balance - & as a bonus no need to shoehorn locks into 6 shirt

Wrecking ball: T Willis, CCS or Ethan Roots

Glue/doggedness/work rate/and in at least one case superhuman tackling power and in one case superhuman jackling:
Underhill/ J Willis / Ludlam / T Curry / B Curry / Pepper

Flair/panache/style/raw pace/ effectively an ‘extra threequarter’:
T Hill / Dombrandt / Earl / Pollack

[Scrumhead]

Not sure Roots is much of a ‘wrecking ball’ and with the depth an and quality of other options, I think he’s be extremely fortunate to add to his handful of caps.

Pointless talking about Ludlam too. Good player who gave his best for England but even if he came back to England, he’d be 5th choice at best.

[Danno]

Not sure Roots is much of a ‘wrecking ball’ and with the depth an and quality of other options, I think he’s be extremely fortunate to add to his handful of caps.

Pointless talking about Ludlam too. Good player who gave his best for England but even if he came back to England, he’d be 5th choice at best.

Can add J Willis given he's ineligible and shows no sign whatsoever of wanting more England caps, plus Hill because the coaches clearly don't like him.

Kinda tired of talking about players that are playing in France as if they'd return and suddenly cure our ills.

[Mikey Brown]

Not sure Roots is much of a ‘wrecking ball’ and with the depth an and quality of other options, I think he’s be extremely fortunate to add to his handful of caps.

Pointless talking about Ludlam too. Good player who gave his best for England but even if he came back to England, he’d be 5th choice at best.

Can add J Willis given he's ineligible and shows no sign whatsoever of wanting more England caps, plus Hill because the coaches clearly don't like him.

Kinda tired of talking about players that are playing in France as if they'd return and suddenly cure our ills.

Have you considered also just not living in reality?

[Danno]

Not sure Roots is much of a ‘wrecking ball’ and with the depth an and quality of other options, I think he’s be extremely fortunate to add to his handful of caps.

Pointless talking about Ludlam too. Good player who gave his best for England but even if he came back to England, he’d be 5th choice at best.

Can add J Willis given he's ineligible and shows no sign whatsoever of wanting more England caps, plus Hill because the coaches clearly don't like him.

Kinda tired of talking about players that are playing in France as if they'd return and suddenly cure our ills.

Have you considered also just not living in reality?

It's a school night (and it isn't mushroom season for three months anyway)

[Banquo]

Not sure Roots is much of a ‘wrecking ball’ and with the depth an and quality of other options, I think he’s be extremely fortunate to add to his handful of caps.

Pointless talking about Ludlam too. Good player who gave his best for England but even if he came back to England, he’d be 5th choice at best.

Yeah but no shirt numbers so one step forward!!

[FKAS]

Not sure Roots is much of a ‘wrecking ball’ and with the depth an and quality of other options, I think he’s be extremely fortunate to add to his handful of caps.

To be fair to Roots he hits hard and works harder. I'd agree he's a good club level player and not an international class one but it seemed that the England coaching staff agreed and dropped him. He did a job and I think even pick a MOTM at one point.

[Oakboy]

Not sure Roots is much of a ‘wrecking ball’ and with the depth an and quality of other options, I think he’s be extremely fortunate to add to his handful of caps.

To be fair to Roots he hits hard and works harder. I'd agree he's a good club level player and not an international class one but it seemed that the England coaching staff agreed and dropped him. He did a job and I think even pick a MOTM at one point.

Roots' place in the heirarchy seems about right. As for his carrying, there was a live Exeter match last season where he replaced Vermeulen and was more penetrative straight away. That's no mean benchmark.

Overall, he's OK - sort of 'A-' with most of our backrow options on 'A'. Finding three (or more) 'A+' picks is the challenge.

[Banquo]

Not sure Roots is much of a ‘wrecking ball’ and with the depth an and quality of other options, I think he’s be extremely fortunate to add to his handful of caps.

To be fair to Roots he hits hard and works harder. I'd agree he's a good club level player and not an international class one but it seemed that the England coaching staff agreed and dropped him. He did a job and I think even pick a MOTM at one point.

Roots' place in the heirarchy seems about right. As for his carrying, there was a live Exeter match last season where he replaced Vermeulen and was more penetrative straight away. That's no mean benchmark.

Overall, he's OK - sort of 'A-' with most of our backrow options on 'A'. Finding three (or more) 'A+' picks is the challenge.

Personally, I think Pollock, Tom Willis, Pepper could all develop to be top players; I'm of the same view on Ted Hill, but no insight really as to why he's unfancied, other than completed tackle stats. Tom Curry is already there, though I don't think he'll be around much longer. Ben Earl is a conundrum, great one minute, shit stupid the next. I hold out hopes for Pearson, and there's quite a queue of young lads around the corner.
Also like CCS and imo he needs some good personal development planning.
Roots is a very average intl player, if that, Brad Shields mk 2.

[Danno]

Shields mII is the perfect summary