I'm speculating here but I suspect one of the issues - particularly on first phase ball - is that we set out with the intention of running a pre-called move, but have to make a quick decision on whether it's still on or not when the scrum or lineout doesn't deliver a good enough platform (which it hasn't been). Farrell would probably have gone ahead regardless, whereas Marcus is much more likely to rip it up the planned move and play what he sees. For the centres, that must be harder to read.
However, I don't think you need to be massively on the same wavelength to know Marcus will probably play off the cuff. If you're an international player, I believe you should be alive to the possibility of a break and even more so when it's someone like Marcus on the ball. It still looks like half the team are surprised when he spots a gap and is gone, which means the support is usually sub optimal. Simply put, if players get on his shoulder, they will get the ball. It's not just Marcus either - it's often the same with other less predictable players too. It's a similar problem when IFW makes a break. Our players are just too slow to react which is infuriating.
Where I think Marcus can and should do better is in communicating what he's going to do. In the moment that's probably impossible, but let's say we're 10-15 into the game and we know our set piece isn't dominating, he could say "guys, we're going to run a dummy switch pop if it's clean ball, but if it's messy, I'm going to aim to target the x channel, so be ready to get on my shoulder". Maybe he already does that, but I'm not totally sure he is.
Obviously all of that is harder In unstructured play, but if you know there's a 50:50 chance he's going to make a break, why not gamble and be ready to support?
