6 Nations Round 3 - England v Wales

First topic message reminder :

England v Wales

Twickers, London
Saturday 26th Feb 2022
Kick Off - 1645hrs

England team

Steward; Malins, Daly, Slade, Nowell; Smith, Randall; Genge, Cowan-Dickie, Sinckler, Ewels, Itoje, Lawes (Capt), Curry, Dombrandt.

Replacements: George, Marler, Stuart, Isiekwe, Simmonds, Youngs, Ford, Marchant.

Wales Team

L Williams; Cuthbert, Watkin, Tompkins, Adams; Biggar (capt), T Williams; W Jones, Elias, Francis, Rowlands, Beard, Moriarty, Basham, Faletau.

Replacements: Lake, G Thomas, Brown, S Davies, Morgan, Hardy, Anscombe, J Davies.

Good point Poorfour - I also think there is a lot in the 2nd row selection though too.
In my mind - Kruis offered a bit more bulk than the current options (that might be perception rather than real stats). We need a Simon Shaw to come out of nowhere!
Having said that - with a pack containing x3 2nd rows (Ewels/Itoje/Lawes) and 2 average sized back rows (Dombrandt/Curry) - the England pack should not have been struggling on pack weight. So perhaps there is more of a technique issue or referee interpretation!

There was 1 penalty against Wales where Sinks just stood up instead of engaging - the tradition is to take the scrum down if you aren't in a good position and then its a 50-50 if the ref calls you for collapsing, but just standing up made the decision very easy to the ref who was at fault.

I see Eng, Wal & Sco as much of a muchness, with home advantage currently the difference. We’re all are playing for midtable dominance with Eng just edging it, but with the toughest run in. There is little in any of the 3 that really looks world class – may be Smith as he develops. OHs looked a bit raw, centres’ average, and back 3 sluggish. The pack is ok - but struggled a bit at scrum time, and the LO. I'm just hoping for an improvement on 5th tbh.

propdavid_london wrote:There was 1 penalty against Wales where Sinks just stood up instead of engaging - the tradition is to take the scrum down if you aren't in a good position and then its a 50-50 if the ref calls you for collapsing, but just standing up made the decision very easy to the ref who was at fault.

I thought that one was a bit harsh, to be honest. It was pre-engagement, and normally that leads to a reset purely on safety grounds. It's very possible that Adamson was just fed up by that point, but at the level I ref at I would always allow a player to pull out pre-engage rather than go into a scrum in a position they weren't comfortable about.

That is quite likely at that stage of the game.

Poorfour wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:
Mentioned above about Englands front row - But I would single out Sinkler who appears to have been off form 'ever since his move to Brizzle' IMO.  

It's not uncommon for a prop's effectiveness to dip for a couple of years after they change clubs - every side scrummages differently and it can take a while to adapt. Sinckler may benefit from having Genge with him next year - two England starters training together might mean they get used to getting the best out of each other.

That said, it's notable that Quins' scrum hasn't suffered since he left. Wilco Louw was a very decent signing - but even in his absence Will Collier has been excellent, Simon Kerrod is a more than capable backup (and now seems to be converting successfully to LH), Fin Baxter is coming through etc. Our academy has always been good at finding props, but I suspect the thing that's moved us from punching above our weight to one of the best scrummaging packs in the AP is the presence of Adam Jones. He's on a permanent contract now so it will be harder than ever for another club to prise him away, though I cross my fingers that Wales doesn't come calling...

I think Quins scrum looks better for not having Sinckler in it. Obviously round the field his replacements aren't as good but the scrum unit seems much stronger there now, well when Marler is present anyway.

From a Welsh point of view, there are a few things I take out of Saturday

1. The contentious selections of Cuthbert and Faletau paid off, Pivac does seem to be able to get players whose form has dipped back up to a good level (Beard and North over the last few years)

2. I felt the scrum actually looked pretty solid until Marler came on, I think there were a few debatable calls, one of the spider cam shots showed Stuart starting in at 45 degrees in a scrum England went on to gain a penalty on.

3. The lineout is still wholly random, even if Itoje did make a push on the Dombrandt try. Elias is great round the park, but his throwing in varies far too much game to game. Against Ireland it was poor, massively improved against Scotland and back to poor again on Saturday.

4. I saw the Francis clash during the game, it was clear he needed to go off, I don't know who should be making those calls, to be fair to the Welsh physios they were dealing with Watkin at the time, who suffered a cut to the head in the clash.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Some talking points picked up on the eggchasers podcast....

1. Steward, isn't looking to use is physical attributes as some perhaps expected. I noticed this one actually, he doesn't seem overly comfortable coming at pace into the line. He will often slow down and try to use his footwork to get past the 1st man. I'd like to see him crash ball somewhat, although unsure if he's got this in his locker. He could potentially solve some issues if he could develop this.

Didn't see the game but this would be exactly the opposite to how he's played for Tigers and England since he started. He normally slows and uses his footwork if he's trying to buy time for support, it's a last resort. I see Eddie has made some comments about making the England attack unpredictable by focusing on operating with a lack of structure so could be he's just not on th same page as his teammates or hasn't got the experience to get himself into the game in the style he wants.

I've not seen him do this for England, perhaps bar his try against Aus. I've seen a few mention he could be the physical/direct runner we're missing but I've seen no evidence to suggest he's capable of this. Steward is a big lad, but I don't think he's particularly physical.

He's generally doing well though, so perhaps unfair to expect him to be our Manu replacement too. I just wish we had some gas outside him.

I also noticed the Francis clash during the game, paused and watched back with the wife (another doctor) and neither of us could quite believe he wasn't taken off for good.  Isn't there supposed to be an independent doctor reviewing footage as well?  Whether there is or not, it is quite astounding that no-one with any power to do anything seemed to notice yet again.

On the scrums, I really don't think the amount of time between the crouch, bind, set calls helps, and the time gaps seemed to get longer as the game went on - the pause after bind is really hard to balance on and he was dragging it out for ages.  Much better to let them engage and make sure it is steady before the ball goes in.  We seem to have a terrible system at the moment that is making a mess of things far more than necessary.

On Steward, can we please not make him a crash ball merchant! Yes he's a big guy, but crash ball players tend not to do well on the injury front. While it's hard to stop a big guy running straight at you, it's even harder to catch a big guy running through a gap. Seems to me Steward has a bit of work to do before he can run a kick back the way a peak form Brown, May, and Nowell were a few years back, but he is only 21 and that is something he will hopefully get better at with time. He's generally not too bad at spotting gaps and coming into the attack line, I'd rather see him build on that and his footwork to get around players (particularly in the broken field kick return scenario) than just use his bulk.

Big wrote:I also noticed the Francis clash during the game, paused and watched back with the wife (another doctor) and neither of us could quite believe he wasn't taken off for good.  Isn't there supposed to be an independent doctor reviewing footage as well?  Whether there is or not, it is quite astounding that no-one with any power to do anything seemed to notice yet again.

On the scrums, I really don't think the amount of time between the crouch, bind, set calls helps, and the time gaps seemed to get longer as the game went on - the pause after bind is really hard to balance on and he was dragging it out for ages.  Much better to let them engage and make sure it is steady before the ball goes in.  We seem to have a terrible system at the moment that is making a mess of things far more than necessary.

On Steward, can we please not make him a crash ball merchant!  Yes he's a big guy, but crash ball players tend not to do well on the injury front.  While it's hard to stop a big guy running straight at you, it's even harder to catch a big guy running through a gap.  Seems to me Steward has a bit of work to do before he can run a kick back the way a peak form Brown, May, and Nowell were a few years back, but he is only 21 and that is something he will hopefully get better at with time.  He's generally not too bad at spotting gaps and coming into the attack line, I'd rather see him build on that and his footwork to get around players (particularly in the broken field kick return scenario) than just use his bulk.

Absolutely, and the reffing of it is a complete lottery. The whole sequence just seems designed to make life as difficult as possible for the props to get a good bind and solid starting position, and every tweak seems to make things worse rather than better. Surely time to go back to a passive engagement and the ref penalising any team that starts to push before the ball in in the scrum. The second 6Ns match that has been spoiled by both sides looking to gain an advantage on the bind (first one was Wales v Ireland, where both front rows were trying to get too low on contact and just couldn't keep the scrum up until the ref got on top of them and started making them set higher).

Bring back the hit on the engage.....this coming from an ex prop with a bad back.

Re: the disputed lineout, it's clear from stills and footage that both sides had started closing the gap and not really been policed on it. For the lineout in question, the gap had closed almost completely and this clearly disrupted the Welsh lifters - Itoje wasn't actively interfering with them, just standing really close alongside. But it was very much six of one and half a dozen of the other. Both sides were in the channel, and Adamson had clearly decided that if they were both doing it then neither was getting an unfair advantage.

And then Dombrandt saw a ball that he's taken a hundred times at club level and did what he does.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Some talking points picked up on the eggchasers podcast....

1. Steward, isn't looking to use is physical attributes as some perhaps expected. I noticed this one actually, he doesn't seem overly comfortable coming at pace into the line. He will often slow down and try to use his footwork to get past the 1st man. I'd like to see him crash ball somewhat, although unsure if he's got this in his locker. He could potentially solve some issues if he could develop this.

Didn't see the game but this would be exactly the opposite to how he's played for Tigers and England since he started. He normally slows and uses his footwork if he's trying to buy time for support, it's a last resort. I see Eddie has made some comments about making the England attack unpredictable by focusing on operating with a lack of structure so could be he's just not on th same page as his teammates or hasn't got the experience to get himself into the game in the style he wants.

I've not seen him do this for England, perhaps bar his try against Aus. I've seen a few mention he could be the physical/direct runner we're missing but I've seen no evidence to suggest he's capable of this. Steward is a big lad, but I don't think he's particularly physical.

He's generally doing well though, so perhaps unfair to expect him to be our Manu replacement too. I just wish we had some gas outside him.

Yeah I don't think Steward is ever likely to be the Manu replacement. He's a big lad but he's not as physical and nowhere close to being as explosive, then again very few players are.

Steward came up from deep to join the line quite a lot in the Autumn but generally outside the 13 to attack the wide channels. It was fairly effective but Vs Scotland and Italy he was barely used in any sense from phase play and as I said I think there's a disconnect between the players who are being asked to create on the fly. A lot of players in the first two games didn't look comfortable doing that, including Smith who's extra steps to nowhere returned which were something he eliminated when playing for Quins. I wonder if Gleeson and Eddie are trying to run before they can walk given how young and new a lot of these players are together and how hard this competition can be. A bit more structure, even an ambitious one might help.

Eddie's comments on the attack, taken from a Telegraph article.

Eddie Jones was given a chance to outline England’s attacking principles afterwards. He has often spoken about how England do not want to conform to a certain structure. Here is his rationale:

“We don’t play any sort of formation. Most teams around the world play a 1-3-3-1 or a 2-4-2 where the forwards are in certain positions on the field. We play a completely free formation. On a set phase we have the first two phases organised, to get us on the front foot, and then we want the nine, 10 and 12 to be organising the attack and taking the opportunities quickly. There’s much more free decision-making for the players in our attack than there is maybe in a formation attack.”

Interesting. The difficulty with that is that it takes time (and consistent selection) to build rapport and have players doing what you want in the heat of battle. The question is, do England have time to do that before the RWC, and if they do then how many losses will we take along the way?

So in summary the reason it looks like England have no plan in attack, is that they do in fact have no plan in attack?

The most interesting point to me is his comment that he wants the 10 & 12 organising the attack. Presumably this is because he wants Farrell in charge on his return, and if it reflects his attacking philosophy it explains his general preference putting a 2nd 5/8 at 12.

For what it is worth, from where I'm sat a decision by committee is a decision at best delayed and at worst not made. Noting I'm not suggesting that 12s (or indeed anyone else) shouldn't communicate what they are seeing or step in at first receiver as needed, but I do think there's nowt wrong with an attack led primarily by a 10 as I kind of see that as the primary job of a FH. And if the 12 is really your primary decision maker, which I fear is the case (Farrell as captain normally, and Slade as senior player to Smith currently), is that not problematic as they aren't the first receiver having to act on that decision? Also doesn't it somewhat undermine the snap decision making of the 10? Something Smith and Ford are both actually pretty good at when allowed to get on with it. I say all this as a former lock/prop and aware that I may be speaking total nonsense, very happy to be corrected if it is normal for the 10 and 12 to organise the attack together, but I've kind of always seen that as the halfbacks - with (loosely speaking) the SH more directing the forwards and the FH the backs.

I thought Randall and Smith played well with a lot more zip than we have seen recently but then nothing much happened outside of them.

I am not sure our wingers bring a lot of fear to the opposition, so its easier to mark the centers.

In the old days with Wasps when Wade was on the wing, defences had to spread across which left gaps in the middle.

I would like to see Radwan on the wing to keep the defence more honest.

The biggest problem is Daly. He has done nothing fof club or country in years. His selection is beyond understanding.

Squidge had a video a little while ago where he illustrated how Ford and Farrell combined in attack at their best. Essentially, Ford would see the potential for space and call the play two phases in advance. Farrell would run the intermediate phase - usually sending a pod of forwards up to tie in defenders. If that had produced the desired space, Ford would take the ball on the next phase to get it wide.

I think what England are now trying to do is to eliminate that intermediate phase and create options for Smith to send the ball to where the weak spot in defence is. Which he is very capable of doing if - and only if - he has multiple attacking threats posing questions of the defence. The best example so far was the Quirke try against SA - ironically one that was executed by Slade, but Smith was running across the line as an option and he and Marchant presented three or four options for the defence to cover. When they picked one, Marchant went for the other.

The trouble is, that only works if the players off the ball are doing the right thing and at the moment England aren't. There were several phases where Smith got decently quick ball, looked for his options and didn't have any because no-one was committed to their line. So he was forced to run himself, usually made a half break but then had no-one in support.

I think this England side are quite literally not up to speed either mentally or physically. I don't know why, or how long it will take them to do so. If it starts to work it could be very effective but they are still not there and only showing glimmers of improvement along the way.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Some talking points picked up on the eggchasers podcast....

1. Steward, isn't looking to use is physical attributes as some perhaps expected. I noticed this one actually, he doesn't seem overly comfortable coming at pace into the line. He will often slow down and try to use his footwork to get past the 1st man. I'd like to see him crash ball somewhat, although unsure if he's got this in his locker. He could potentially solve some issues if he could develop this.

Didn't see the game but this would be exactly the opposite to how he's played for Tigers and England since he started. He normally slows and uses his footwork if he's trying to buy time for support, it's a last resort. I see Eddie has made some comments about making the England attack unpredictable by focusing on operating with a lack of structure so could be he's just not on th same page as his teammates or hasn't got the experience to get himself into the game in the style he wants.

I wouldn't worry if it is true, I think it's probably him just getting used to the physicality of Int rugby and him trying to work out what works best. Also if he did crash it up and got turned over (which could happen with the other guys not being on the same page) we'd be complaining too!

Steward is in a small group of England players we should be basing the team around.

Poorfour wrote:Squidge had a video a little while ago where he illustrated how Ford and Farrell combined in attack at their best. Essentially, Ford would see the potential for space and call the play two phases in advance. Farrell would run the intermediate phase - usually sending a pod of forwards up to tie in defenders. If that had produced the desired space, Ford would take the ball on the next phase to get it wide.

I think what England are now trying to do is to eliminate that intermediate phase and create options for Smith to send the ball to where the weak spot in defence is. Which he is very capable of doing if - and only if - he has multiple attacking threats posing questions of the defence. The best example so far was the Quirke try against SA - ironically one that was executed by Slade, but Smith was running across the line as an option and he and Marchant presented three or four options for the defence to cover. When they picked one, Marchant went for the other.

The trouble is, that only works if the players off the ball are doing the right thing and at the moment England aren't. There were several phases where Smith got decently quick ball, looked for his options and didn't have any because no-one was committed to their line. So he was forced to run himself, usually made a half break but then had no-one in support.

I think this England side are quite literally not up to speed either mentally or physically. I don't know why, or how long it will take them to do so. If it starts to work it could be very effective but they are still not there and only showing glimmers of improvement along the way.

There's an element of Smith needing to adapt to those around him and the higher level as well as just those around Smith needing to mould themselves around Smith though. International 10s should be organising the players outside them before receiving the ball, not getting the ball looking outside at their options and thinking, "hey these options I'm meant to be organising aren't very organised!"

I rate Smith very highly, think he's a special player and even as a Tigers fan I was one of those naming Smith as my starting 10 in hypothetical sides for the AIs before Ford was dropped. On Saturday he frustrated me though. The forwards weren't perfect, the lineout was still pretty dire, but they were giving him consistent front foot ball by making yards on phase play and comprehensively winning the breakdown in the first half.

From that front foot ball Smith seemed to be playing so flat he had no chance to make a play though. Often he ended up taking contact himself behind the gain line or giving slightly panicked looking pop passes for someone else to take contact behind the gain line. Playing consistently that flat and taking the ball to the line yourself as a 10 against club defences and international defences are very different things.

If the forwards aren't getting over the gain line then having no crash ball carriers in the backs is a nearly insurmountable issue for a 10. Hence I haven't criticised Smith when the backline has looked toothless, rather the midfield. If the forwards are getting over the gain line and providing clean, quick ball it really shouldn't be the same issue if the backs are being well organised. To me it looked like that organisation was completely absent though.

Good point. But, the thing is, mate, I'm not sure we know how EJ is having the team organise and call the attack. We certainly see the same things, no one running on the ball or simply moving intelligently (or sometimes at all) without the ball. I also agree if playing flat is not working the players have to adjust on the fly regardless of the game plan.

Squidge did mention that Smith often messed up attacks at times by trying to do too much himself. Sometimes you just need to pass the ball on to someone in a better position but he always does that little hop and then carries or passes, and by then the Int standard defense has had time to get up in your face.

He needs more time, and he needs a big carrier to take some pressure off him, like Andre does at Quins. I think we'll see a very different Smith in the summer though, this 6N's will be great for his development in the long run.

The squidge account keeps popping up on my feed, I'm sure he's normally great but all I've seen for a couple of weeks is him having paddies about Smith and getting annoyed England beat Wales.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The squidge account keeps popping up on my feed, I'm sure he's normally great but all I've seen for a couple of weeks is him having paddies about Smith and getting annoyed England beat Wales.

Smith is really managing to rile some club and country fans for some reason. I imagine it was the same when Jesus burst onto the scene, some people just don't buy into it at first.

I doubt Jesus's hair was quite as good either.

A few saying it's typical media bias blah blah blah, think they just realise how good he is.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The squidge account keeps popping up on my feed, I'm sure he's normally great but all I've seen for a couple of weeks is him having paddies about Smith and getting annoyed England beat Wales.

Well the hype around Marcus Smith is a bit daft even if to be fair to the guy he has had a good six nations. All the hype wont serve him well in the long run. Seen it all before with players like Henson and Cipriani and so on.

He will also probably remain a decisive character as long as he bounces around the pitch flicking his hair, pouting, huffing and puffing, demanding attention and looking steely and intense. Then again he is an out half.

A reason to take Squidge less seriously then. And thats after he said that Ford was the best fly half in the world.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure it is when it's as blatant as this. Pivacs quotes that he passed the tests so all good (or words to that affect) also don't sound good.

I always thought that the concussion tests were carried out by an independent medical official? If so & they have told Pivac that Francis has passed the tests then I am not sure what else he can do.

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure it is when it's as blatant as this. Pivacs quotes that he passed the tests so all good (or words to that affect) also don't sound good.

I always thought that the concussion tests were carried out by an independent medical official? If so & they have told Pivac that Francis has passed the tests then I am not sure what else he can do.

He's aware at that point that HIAs were not even necessary. What I would have liked to see is something like yup we dropped a bo~~ock there, and explain what went wrong and what he'd want put in place.

I see Erasmus is being a dick again.

Are you referring to video he posted of Liam Williams getting high tackled?

Yeah.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I see Erasmus is being a dick again.

I suppose anything Rassie says or does these days accounts to him being a dick, eh?

Yeah he is a bit of a tool for posting on other internationals games, probably was a high tackle though. England might have got away with that one.

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I see Erasmus is being a dick again.

I suppose anything Rassie says or does these days accounts to him being a dick, eh?

There is lots to like about Rassie but why tweet about incidents in other international matches? He is clearly doing it to be provocative.

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I see Erasmus is being a dick again.

I suppose anything Rassie says or does these days accounts to him being a dick, eh?

Well he is a dick and will do dick ish things.

Adamson is shocking tbh.

Disagree with that, but seems I'm very much in the minority. I think he's a good ref who will go onto be very good. There is a growing expectation from some fans that a ref should make no mistakes and see every situation as they do, and if that's not the case then he's rubbish. And in a game like rugby thats just going to be impossible as it's too intricate. A lot of those fans are also happy to pile blame on officials and turn a blind eye to their players too!

It is tough to know what to think about the ref, particularly as we don't know if there are particular directives he is working to. The lineouts did annoy me. (Well done to the Welsh for working out he'd be happy with balls going over the Welsh side not the middle) and there were times he became more prominent than maybe he should of, but it is more a case that both sides have things to complain about rather than him favouring one side over the other.

Adamson was woeful but didn't favour either side. He made errors for/against both sides. However, reffing a match especially such a high profile Int must be such a hard job and no ref ever gets everything right.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Disagree with that, but seems I'm very much in the minority. I think he's a good ref who will go onto be very good. There is a growing expectation from some fans that a ref should make no mistakes and see every situation as they do, and if that's not the case then he's rubbish. And in a game like rugby thats just going to be impossible as it's too intricate. A lot of those fans are also happy to pile blame on officials and turn a blind eye to their players too!

Did you not see the Quins v Castres? He was beyond woeful in the closing stages of that match.

Can't remember if I did or didnt tbh. Doubt 1 match would change my mind.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure it is when it's as blatant as this. Pivacs quotes that he passed the tests so all good (or words to that affect) also don't sound good.

I always thought that the concussion tests were carried out by an independent medical official? If so & they have told Pivac that Francis has passed the tests then I am not sure what else he can do.

He's aware at that point that HIAs were not even necessary. What I would have liked to see is something like yup we dropped a bo~~ock there, and explain what went wrong and what he'd want put in place.

Its not Pivacs job or his area of expertise, its completely out of the coaches sphere of influence for good reason . Do you expect the medical staff to wade in with opinions on the welsh lineout?

Gooseberry wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure it is when it's as blatant as this. Pivacs quotes that he passed the tests so all good (or words to that affect) also don't sound good.

I always thought that the concussion tests were carried out by an independent medical official? If so & they have told Pivac that Francis has passed the tests then I am not sure what else he can do.

He's aware at that point that HIAs were not even necessary. What I would have liked to see is something like yup we dropped a bo~~ock there, and explain what went wrong and what he'd want put in place.

Its not Pivacs job or his area of expertise, its completely out of the coaches sphere of influence for good reason . Do you expect the medical staff to wade in with opinions on the welsh lineout?

I'd expect that Pivac knows the basics about his players safety and to know the laws around this. Not to imply that if they pass some tests when they should already be off and resting that it somehow makes this a safe practice. No I don't expect the medical staff to wade in on lineouts tactics or anything like that.

Would you not like to see basically the face of your national team accept the mistakes and look and vocalise the solution in massive massive mistakes like this?

mountain man wrote:Adamson was woeful but didn't favour either side. He made errors for/against both sides. However, reffing a match especially such a high profile Int must be such a hard job and no ref ever gets everything right.

Yes it’s a big game and it seems he has a reputation of being poor in his league. Not officiated too many big internationals either, so it’s maybe a bit early to give him a game where there tends to be discussion points. The fact is (as you say), both sides could probably pick faults with him. He had an awful TMO to help him. That’s the biggest problem that I had. MacNeice is an imposter.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The squidge account keeps popping up on my feed, I'm sure he's normally great but all I've seen for a couple of weeks is him having paddies about Smith and getting annoyed England beat Wales.

I'll go see the England Vs Wales vid at some point but one of his running jokes is the media hype around Smith. He's often complimentary about Smith's play it's more mocking the media's obsession with the next big thing.

I think Yappy called it right. Smith is trying to do to much himself. The attack is not based around a structure he can fall back on, there's to great an emphasis on unpredictability. That's a lot of pressure on a young 10 with a backline that's still under construction.

I don't view his vids much if at all, it was a twitter melt down and a pet lip after the match. Didn't come across as jokey. Smith is the best we have by a distance, so clearly will receive plaudits.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't view his vids much if at all, it was a twitter melt down and a pet lip after the match. Didn't come across as jokey. Smith is the best we have by a distance, so clearly will receive plaudits.

I'd argue there's not much between Smith and Ford currently, if indeed anything. Smith is in because Ford has reached his ceiling and we don't know where Smith's is yet. 

I don't tend to read Twitter as it's nearly always people's knee jerk reactions, possibly whilst under the influence when it comes to sport.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't view his vids much if at all, it was a twitter melt down and a pet lip after the match. Didn't come across as jokey. Smith is the best we have by a distance, so clearly will receive plaudits.

I'd argue there's not much between Smith and Ford currently, if indeed anything.

Ford is a fine player in his own right, but he's just not playing at Smith's level, even the most one-eyed of Tigers fan must be able to admit that.

I think Ford is perhaps the better tactical kicker, but Smith is better in pretty much every other aspect of his game. Ford having little to no running game on the International stage has hampered him in his later career imo.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't view his vids much if at all, it was a twitter melt down and a pet lip after the match. Didn't come across as jokey. Smith is the best we have by a distance, so clearly will receive plaudits.

I'd argue there's not much between Smith and Ford currently, if indeed anything.

Ford is a fine player in his own right, but he's just not playing at Smith's level, even the most one-eyed of Tigers fan must be able to admit that.

I think Ford is perhaps the better tactical kicker, but Smith is better in pretty much every other aspect of his game. Ford having little to no running game on the International stage has hampered him in his later career imo.

Smith has the running game. Last time we had a 10 who could do that was probably Cipriani. Before that Charlie Hodgson? The others have all had their moments (particularly Wilkinson) but it has not been a strength.