[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

 

[Jimbo]

Finn has earned the right to be the starting 10 for Scotland, he had a pretty good game (not MOM, Curry should have been with no doubt), it was a home game without the crowd getting on his back, 1 descent game is not enough to determine long term he is going to be our best choice 10, does he look so good if he doesn't have his club partner at 9, these things need answering before worrying too much who your starting ten should be.

 

[BPM]

Agreed. The level of absolute certainty is unreal given we're currently talking about one good half of rugby.

 

[Saintjay]

Finn has earned the right to be the starting 10 for Scotland, he had a pretty good game (not MOM, Curry should have been with no doubt), it was a home game without the crowd getting on his back, 1 descent game is not enough to determine long term he is going to be our best choice 10, does he look so good if he doesn't have his club partner at 9, these things need answering before worrying too much who your starting ten should be.

Equally does Mitchell look as good with Marcus outside him.

Cohesion and familiarity is a good thing if you look at Leinster etc. Saying that SA manage pretty well without it.

I think it was just recently that the England management and fans were moaning how difficult it was bringing players from different clubs together.

Hopefully they bring the best out of each other and Borthwick has the brains to pick the most suitable/best one dependant on the game plan.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Equally does Mitchell look as good with Marcus outside him.

Cohesion and familiarity is a good thing if you look at Leinster etc. Saying that SA manage pretty well without it.

I think it was just recently that the England management and fans were moaning how difficult it was bringing players from different clubs together.

Hopefully they bring the best out of each other and Borthwick has the brains to pick the most suitable/best one dependant on the game plan.

I don't know how much cohesion comes down to regularity playing together v playstyles at clubs. Familiar faces help but having clubs play the same or similar ways and shapes goes far.

Ireland are obviously Leinster heavy but Connacht and Munster are playing rugby with similar shapes and attackjng patterns.

NZ clubs, I think, do the same but I haven't watched super rugby in a long time.

Same with the SA clubs and I think they get away with more scattered representation because if clubs sign Springboks, it's generally to play like a Springbok. When asked to do something different, it's generally the club that loses out rather than the national team.

France were a bit different in that they mixed the best of La Rochelle and Toulouse but UBB and Toulouse play a similar game with the UBB players being asked to make the switch from an off 10 game to off 9. With Dupont as that 9 it's not too troublesome (unless you're Jalibert and want more minutes).

England are trying to merge players from 6+ clubs, doable but it will take more time and the inconsistency we've seen to get there. Argentina have the same problem. It's probably why those two teams (and SA to a lesser extent) often look better in world cups when the squad is together for an extended period.

 

[Zed]

I've heard more talk this week of Marcus at 12 or 13

SB must be reading my posts, I think I was one of the first to mention him at 15 lol.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Englands problem is when someone decided that the England team wasn't 'orcs on steroids' any more. From that point onwards we lost our identify especially in what players thought they needed to be and how clubs developed players.

We still don't really have an identity in the way we play which would help massively if the top clubs replicated it.

 

[AngloScotsHybrid]

The system should suit the players. If you look at the players England have now they dont have the big scrummaging forwards anymore. England have loads of good openside flankers, several promising young wingers, and Marcus Smith which indicates England should be playing a style where they move the ball around quickly, get it wide and into space and give Smith and the wingers the chance to show what they can do.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Englands problem is when someone decided that the England team wasn't 'orcs on steroids' any more. From that point onwards we lost our identify especially in what players thought they needed to be and how clubs developed players.

We still don't really have an identity in the way we play which would help massively if the top clubs replicated it.

And while the clubs all have private owners with their own vested interests they never will.

But SB is seemingly looking more at club combos, which given this makes absolute sense.

Hopefully there are some orc pups on the way. But sheer size alone isn't enough - they also have to be good.

 

[Saintjay]

The system should suit the players. If you look at the players England have now they dont have the big scrummaging forwards anymore. England have loads of good openside flankers, several promising young wingers, and Marcus Smith which indicates England should be playing a style where they move the ball around quickly, get it wide and into space and give Smith and the wingers the chance to show what they can do.

Which has pretty much Quins and Saints MO for the last few years.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

The system should suit the players. If you look at the players England have now they dont have the big scrummaging forwards anymore. England have loads of good openside flankers, several promising young wingers, and Marcus Smith which indicates England should be playing a style where they move the ball around quickly, get it wide and into space and give Smith and the wingers the chance to show what they can do.

But the system drives how younger players develop. So at a point in time when Eddie Jones or whoever wanted mobile props, things changed but it's always 5 years plus behind in development.

 

[Jimbo]

But the system drives how younger players develop. So at a point in time when Eddie Jones or whoever wanted mobile props, things changed but it's always 5 years plus behind in development.

I agree with this in general but how much of mobile props vs heavy duty scrummaging units is a coaching thing and how much of it is genetics, of course pounds can be gained and different types of Gym work done but bases and ceilings can only be influenced so much, or is it more that dynamic mobile props were given more attention and opportunity so the classic scrummaging ones dropped off the radar?

 

[Which Tyler]

Minute by minute - in progress

England vs France - minute-by-minute - RugbyRebels

Completed

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

It's chicken and egg. Really a national coach shouldn't be trying to pick a team and set targets based on what they want and having the whole system changed to fix that, they should be able to get the best out of what they have. The systems are too slow to respond to produce the sort of a players a coach wants if they aren't already in the pipeline.

I'm of the opinion that club coaches can operate on having a gameplan and then selecting and building a team around that. National coaches are more limited in all aspects. They should identify the talent available, the combinations available and see what they can do with what's available to get them to gel as a team as quickly as possible.

Building a national side around certain players who basically don't exist within your selection pool is pointless. I think it's part of the reason England have consistently failed to select a 12 at 12 and why we struggled so long to replace the Tuilagi/Vunipola holes that were left when they started getting injured. We had a gameplan for players who weren't available.