[RWC2023] England vs Chile (23/09/2023)

[Duct Tape]

Apologies for initiating this side discussion and derailing the main thread (It did seem that it was reaching its natural end). But this has been a very interesting discussion. From my perspective in the US where money has completely blown up old sports agreements and natural geography arrangements (witness college football with its transfer portal and NIL payments); while many of us bemoan the changes (I certainly agree with loyalty to and preservation of local clubs) and most would agree that eventually no one is the winner except TV networks, it is unfortunately the way of the new, much smaller and more international world.

Thus I'm surprised England would exclude otherwise eligible and worthy players simply for club affiliation out of country, when (assuming this is correct) other national rugby unions might have no such restriction.

I don't follow soccer but I'm going to guess players like Messi, Ronaldo and Neymar, playing out of country, still meet FIFA rules to play for their countries in North America in 2026, assuming still good enough. (Could be wrong here?)

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Sorry bath fans View attachment 17873

What makes it most hurtful is the fact it is pretty true.

 

[BrokenWing]

I don't follow soccer but I'm going to guess players like Messi, Ronaldo and Neymar, playing out of country, still meet FIFA rules to play for their countries in North America in 2026, assuming still good enough. (Could be wrong here?)

As far as I'm aware, no such restriction exists in any soccer playing nation.

Arguably Englands best player plays in Spain and their top scorer plays in Germany.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

when (assuming this is correct) other national rugby unions might have no such restriction.

Ireland and New Zealand do

Wales and Australia do but with restrictions (cap limits, so allows the players who have paid their dues to go abroad)

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Always saying, if Farrell has someone else making decisions he is actually a very good operator.
At Sarries he has Goode, and Lozowski to set the calls.
Maybe Smith at 15, with his vision and decision making can play that Goode role. Add Arundell on the wing to help with defensive catching and we might have the start of a good backline.

Difference being that Goode is an actual full back and Lozowski an actual Centre

 

[IT157]

Apologies for initiating this side discussion and derailing the main thread (It did seem that it was reaching its natural end). But this has been a very interesting discussion. From my perspective in the US where money has completely blown up old sports agreements and natural geography arrangements (witness college football with its transfer portal and NIL payments); while many of us bemoan the changes (I certainly agree with loyalty to and preservation of local clubs) and most would agree that eventually no one is the winner except TV networks, it is unfortunately the way of the new, much smaller and more international world.

Thus I'm surprised England would exclude otherwise eligible and worthy players simply for club affiliation out of country, when (assuming this is correct) other national rugby unions might have no such restriction.

I don't follow soccer but I'm going to guess players like Messi, Ronaldo and Neymar, playing out of country, still meet FIFA rules to play for their countries in North America in 2026, assuming still good enough. (Could be wrong here?)

No worries. Could have been worse. Look at the Ireland vs. South Africa thread....

 

[Rugbyfan564]

The RFU will be under pressure from broadcasters and sponsors who will want as many big names as they can playing for England. A weaker England means lower ratings for the Six Nations. The club scene is not as powerful as the national teams commercial interests.

I think by 2035 pan European league will come with teams from France, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and maybe Italy.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

Looks like he's allowed to have his cake and eat it anyway:

Henry Arundell to get England selection exemption for Six Nations – but not New Zealand tour

Exclusive: Arundell, who has signed for Racing 92 in France, falls into the loophole category of “exceptional circumstances”

www.telegraph.co.uk

Does he even have a break clause to allow him to move back next summer anyway.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Does he even have a break clause to allow him to move back next summer anyway.

He only signed for one season

 

[Zed]

Normally I hate the whole ignoring a players strengths and focusing on potential weaknesses but a 15 simply must be solid in the air and strong both in the tackle and positioning in defence. Steward has the turning circle of a barge, which is really being exposed intentionally. Smith is small, not particularly strong and doesn't practice much in the air to my knowledge. Remember when Daly was getting targeted and how bad it looked? It would be even worse with Smith. Given how frequently Stewart is being exposed, why would anyone think Smith won't be?

He has great attacking vision but weaknesses will be exploited internationally. It's whether what he offers will offset the weakness and I don't think it will. Given how often we kick, our opposition will often be in possession and have numerous chances to kick to Smith and expose him, far more often than he will have a chance in an attacking move, especially given how **** poor our attack is. If we had a solid defence and were running good attacking moves then maybe but we don't, we constantly hand over possession. His weakness will be exploited and his strengths nullified by our own tactics. He should not be 15 as long as our tactics remain unchanged.

Against Chili he faced a grand total of 0 kicks under pressure, never had to make a last ditch tackle or perform any of the defensive duties of a 15 for the entire game. He won't have that luxury again against any team that makes the quarters.

I kind of see it as the pros of him being at FB will outweigh the cons. There might be times where his inexperience at FB is exposed, can't handle the high balls etc but his attacking prowess will make up for it. If England persist with Stewart, they are limiting their attack. 15 is one of the best channels to attack through and IMO a FB really should have the speed and agility of a wing. He's a wing that can catch and kick. I can't imagine him struggling that much at 15 though. He's incredibly skilled, much more so than Farrell.

 

[Scotty]

I kind of see it as the pros of him being at FB will outweigh the cons. There might be times where his inexperience at FB is exposed, can't handle the high balls etc but his attacking prowess will make up for it. If England persist with Stewart, they are limiting their attack. 15 is one of the best channels to attack through and IMO a FB really should have the speed and agility of a wing. He's a wing that can catch and kick. I can't imagine him struggling that much at 15 though. He's incredibly skilled, much more so than Farrell.

Could the pros and cons of a FB be covered by Arundell 11 Steward 15, who could switch in a game in different situations.

I still stand by Arendell is an attacking FB more than a winger. But not by anymeans proven at any level really

As Steward is a FB, who can play wing. And great option for a crossfield kick

Main example of this is when steward was on the wing for a crossfield kick try, it leaves your winger in the FB position to attack then its just down to what the defence do. If the kicks is on or go throught the hands.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Freddie steward looked a lot better with Slade at 13

Smith at 15 isn't a option outside of short term unless Quine will commit him to 15, which they won't because it's stupid.

People are using Steward as a scapegoat because England back line is massively unbalanced. If you struggle with high balls then how can put pressure on the opposition when they are in their own half? They can know a high ball will put England under pressure from the off.

I would rather Malins got a shot at 15 than Smith

 

[whocaresaboutthetruth]

Freddie steward looked a lot better with Slade at 13

Smith at 15 isn't a option outside of short term unless Quine will commit him to 15, which they won't because it's stupid.

People are using Steward as a scapegoat because England back line is massively unbalanced. If you struggle with high balls then how can put pressure on the opposition when they are in their own half? They can know a high ball will put England under pressure from the off.

I would rather Malins got a shot at 15 than Smith

There seems to be a lot of blame on this forum.If a player doesn't play well it's another players fault or it's the team selection letting them down.Are players not responsible for there own performance aswell as the teams?.TBH it's mostly Owen Farrell who cops the flack for other players poor performance.If smith plays well it's despite Farrell,If ford plays well it's because Farrell didn't play etc etc(who kops it if farrell underperforms??).I personally would play smith at fullback against Samoa and see how it goes and that is not to detract from steward's performances who I think has played well for England in difficult circumstances.It's just to see how smith copes with the 15 role against better opposition and hopefully beneficial to smith to help him learn a new position.

 

[Saintjay]

I kind of see it as the pros of him being at FB will outweigh the cons. There might be times where his inexperience at FB is exposed, can't handle the high balls etc but his attacking prowess will make up for it. If England persist with Stewart, they are limiting their attack. 15 is one of the best channels to attack through and IMO a FB really should have the speed and agility of a wing. He's a wing that can catch and kick. I can't imagine him struggling that much at 15 though. He's incredibly skilled, much more so than Farrell.

Yet Smith is still no more a FB than Farrell is in all reality. If you look at the kick chase Wales put in against Australia or how SA play. Smith would get absolutely murdered. It also sends out the wrong message to Freddie Steward and any aspiring England fullback.

He might be worth a roll of the dice in the last 20. But in my view you select the best full back in the squad and that's FS.

Imagine being viewed as the best current english qualified player in your position and you are dropped for a bloke who's never really played union in that position. Who's arguably not even the best English player in there own position as it is. Here's looking at you Sam Burgess.

 

[Which Tyler]

He's a wing that can catch and kick.

Wait, what?
Smith?
When did that happen?
He's a fly half who can run reasonably fast (or at least, change direction and accelerate well), I've not really looked at him for top-end wing-like pace.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Wait, what?
Smith?
When did that happen?
He's a fly half who can run reasonably fast (or at least, change direction and accelerate well), I've not really looked at him for top-end wing-like pace.

Think he's saying that a fullback should essentially be a wing that can catch and kick. Not that Smith is a wing who can catch and kick.

 

[Which Tyler]

Think he's saying that a fullback should essentially be a wing that can catch and kick. Not that Smith is a wing who can catch and kick.

Ahh, okay, fair enough then.

Then I'd say "there's more than one way to skin a cat"

My priorities for a FB are
1. Defensive solidity (high ball and 1-on-1 tackling)
2. Playmaking (whether calling plays for his FH, or judging when and how to join the line)
3. Pace (doesn't have to be winger-like, but pace is always scary)

But then, I always preferred Matt Perry to Iain Balshaw (or better yet, play both, with IB on the wing).
Of course, a Cullen can do all those exceptionally well.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Ahh, okay, fair enough then.

Then I'd say "there's more than one way to skin a cat"

My priorities for a FB are
1. Defensive solidity (high ball and 1-on-1 tackling)
2. Playmaking (whether calling plays for his FH, or judging when and how to join the line)
3. Pace (doesn't have to be winger-like, but pace is always scary)

But then, I always preferred Matt Perry to Iain Balshaw (or better yet, play both, with IB on the wing).
Of course, a Cullen can do all those exceptionally well.

Think I'd flip 2 and 3 tbh. Having a FB who can playmake is nice but not necessary; that second playmaker role can be filled by both 12 and 13. On the other hand, if a fullback doesn't have pace then IMO they're always going to struggle to a degree in defence if they come up against a genuine speedster in open field.

 

[Geordie]

Its all Borthwicks fault...just blame him.

 

[Saintjay]

Ahh, okay, fair enough then.

Then I'd say "there's more than one way to skin a cat"

My priorities for a FB are
1. Defensive solidity (high ball and 1-on-1 tackling)
2. Playmaking (whether calling plays for his FH, or judging when and how to join the line)
3. Pace (doesn't have to be winger-like, but pace is always scary)

But then, I always preferred Matt Perry to Iain Balshaw (or better yet, play both, with IB on the wing).
Of course, a Cullen can do all those exceptionally well.

I agree. Interesting on Smith vs Steward how much on defence do you sacrifice for improvements on 2 and 3.