[2025 Six Nations] England vs France - 08/02/25

[BrokenWing]

What's so wrong with having Marcus on the bench?

The fear that while he's on the bench he's not on the pitch producing a moment of magic.

 

[Saintjay]

The fear that while he's on the bench he's not on the pitch producing a moment of magic.

He could be Paul Daniels with moments of magic and they still wouldn't have really helped England's form over the last year.

 

[Which Tyler]

Hasn't he been on the pitch anyway for most of the last year?
So yeah, having him on the pitch is unlikely to have changed the form of the team he was playing for...

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

He could be Paul Daniels with moments of magic and they still wouldn't have really helped England's form over the last year.

SB likes M Smith, not a lot, but he likes him.

 

[BrokenWing]

Hasn't he been on the pitch anyway for most of the last year?
So yeah, having him on the pitch is unlikely to have changed the form of the team he was playing for...

I'm just giving a reason for a coaches possible reluctance to put him on the bench.

He can play 80 minutes and do nothing, but if he's on the bench it'll always be a case of what if?

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Hasn't he been on the pitch anyway for most of the last year?
So yeah, having him on the pitch is unlikely to have changed the form of the team he was playing for...

Seems logical, but isn't. We don't know how bad they'd have been without him on the pitch.

I've dropped out of touch with rugby in the last five years, honestly. I only really watch England games. BUT that gives me a simplistic lens to view it from. In England games, Marcus Smith makes more moments (breaks, assists, scores) than he breaks (missed tackles, errors, bad choices). More per unit time than any other that I can think of. That is valuable.

He's not always game changing, but he's good enough that, for now, I'm in favour of having him on the pitch over a mediocre fullback or inside centre.

Speaking of mediocre fullbacks, lot of Firbank arse kissing lately (I'm guilty too), but he realistically had fewer good games than Steward. In a more relevant style, yes, but not consistently, I would argue.

Beer a l'Orange out.

 

[Scotty]

Seems logical, but isn't. We don't know how bad they'd have been without him on the pitch.

I've dropped out of touch with rugby in the last five years, honestly. I only really watch England games. BUT that gives me a simplistic lens to view it from. In England games, Marcus Smith makes more moments (breaks, assists, scores) than he breaks (missed tackles, errors, bad choices). More per unit time than any other that I can think of. That is valuable.

He's not always game changing, but he's good enough that, for now, I'm in favour of having him on the pitch over a mediocre fullback or inside centre.

Speaking of mediocre fullbacks, lot of Firbank arse kissing lately (I'm guilty too), but he realistically had fewer good games than Steward. In a more relevant style, yes, but not consistently, I would argue.

Beer a l'Orange out.

At 10 it's between him having the game changing moments or FSmith playing to put others in a position to do things, no that Marcus is selfish, but FSmith gives more stable and constant attack and that's why I think he should get the nod at 10 for the rest of the 6N

Smith at 15 hasn't been tested vs a team that really puts him under alot of pressure with the high balls. That's where I think he will get found out. I'd rather Furbank at 15 when fit just for more experience in the position with Smith as an impact player on the bench. Vs Steward I don't know as it affects the way we won't to attack and he has his own floors I guess depends on the team.

At 12 I think it would weaken our defence and at 13 he'd be the defensive leader in a position he doesn't play. I don't think there is a pay off their on balance unlike 15 where he could get found out but his counter attacking from deep plays to his skills