England v Australia, Sat 13 Nov KO 5.30pm

[Spiffy]

In general, the English media seem enthusiastic about the Smith/Farrell partnership, and suggest that great things are to come from the combo. Were we watching the same game?
Looking forward to seeing Smith playing some creative rugby against the Boks in the enforced absence of his watchdog.
A fast open game seems the only way to beat S.A. Hope Jones has the wit to avoid another arm wrestle and just let his players go for it.

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

I'm not sure the English media really watch anything other than internationals. They probably don't understand how good Smith is surrounded by players that compliment him, or that many other FH's look better than Farrell consistently week in week out. Some of the crap they come up with is amazing.

[Digby]

The problem was also Smith. With not much in the way of a phase attack we complemented that with the lack of a kicking game. Yes he needs time, but Smith was rather part of the problem and hardly an innocent bystander

Well sure. I don't really remember anything of England's tactical kicking game, which may be exactly the point you're making. You haven't treated us to a minute-by-minute for a while. Got a spare 24 hours or so to do one? You might even get all the way through before there's another team announcement and we all start freaking out about that instead.

Also if he needs to think about his depth that doesn't mean he needs to simply drop, only he needs to think about his depth. He might go flatter, which would also be a change in depth some would say

I get what you mean but I'm not sure how standing flatter could be an option if the issue is that the inside defence isn't being fixed in any way. Certainly an improved kicking game that keeps defenders back would help. The more I try to remember what we were doing between minutes 10 and 70 the less I can remember.

He can't not have the ball, well he can but that's a whole other problem. So he can't just say I don't want the out the back option, he needs to have that as an option but give the defence more to think about. Taking it flatter or deeper is an option, both come with risk and reward, but if he's getting nailed a rinse and repeat decision would be questionable and one thing he can change is depth, another kicking

SA are pretty much going to run their defence whatever you do. They run their blitz with an impressive number of recovery options if it's breached, it's really well detailed and everyone understands their role(s)

This would be easier with Ford, but if we're going with Smith we need to be patient because he can't suddenly upload 50 caps worth of experience. Still bloody odd we've just sacked of 70 odd caps worth of experience on a very good player to me, but perhaps that's done now

[Mikey Brown]

The problem was also Smith. With not much in the way of a phase attack we complemented that with the lack of a kicking game. Yes he needs time, but Smith was rather part of the problem and hardly an innocent bystander

Well sure. I don't really remember anything of England's tactical kicking game, which may be exactly the point you're making. You haven't treated us to a minute-by-minute for a while. Got a spare 24 hours or so to do one? You might even get all the way through before there's another team announcement and we all start freaking out about that instead.

Also if he needs to think about his depth that doesn't mean he needs to simply drop, only he needs to think about his depth. He might go flatter, which would also be a change in depth some would say

I get what you mean but I'm not sure how standing flatter could be an option if the issue is that the inside defence isn't being fixed in any way. Certainly an improved kicking game that keeps defenders back would help. The more I try to remember what we were doing between minutes 10 and 70 the less I can remember.

He can't not have the ball, well he can but that's a whole other problem. So he can't just say I don't want the out the back option, he needs to have that as an option but give the defence more to think about. Taking it flatter or deeper is an option, both come with risk and reward, but if he's getting nailed a rinse and repeat decision would be questionable and one thing he can change is depth, another kicking

SA are pretty much going to run their defence whatever you do. They run their blitz with an impressive number of recovery options if it's breached, it's really well detailed and everyone understands their role(s)

This would be easier with Ford, but if we're going with Smith we need to be patient because he can't suddenly upload 50 caps worth of experience. Still bloody odd we've just sacked of 70 odd caps worth of experience on a very good player to me, but perhaps that's done now

As often seems to be the case I've kind of lost track of what conversation we're actually having here. It feels like we agree but it has the tone of an argument?

I'm not suggesting Smith say he simply doesn't want the ball. I'm just saying if we go in to the game with a decoy pod off first receiver to Smith at 2nd receiver as plans A-Z I really hope we do it with a bit more purpose and accuracy. I totally agree we should aim for more variety, and that we can't simply back away from a kicking game (whether in hope to be 'New England' or just avoid an SA arm wrestle) as we'll probably end up playing in all the wrong areas against a 13 man wall.

I do get what you mean about varying the depth, but it's not really a solution to poor execution of the above move, it's a semi-workaround that brings its own issues, as you say.

Basically all of this could have been worked out with Ford you'd think. I wondered if Jones's setup for the Aus game was meant to leave Smith more free in the backfield to run counter attacks, with Faz/Manu/Slade in midfield, as a broken field is the area Smith has some obvious advantages over Ford. That still doesn't really explain ditching Ford then having Atkinson in the squad - I'm sure he'll be back though.

[FKAS]

I'm not sure the English media really watch anything other than internationals. They probably don't understand how good Smith is surrounded by players that compliment him, or that many other FH's look better than Farrell consistently week in week out. Some of the crap they come up with is amazing.

Ah Smith is getting the Ford treatment from the media.

[Oakboy]

It's all a case of whether Smith can make a case for doing better with Farrell than Ford with Farrell. It's somewhat ironical that Smith is getting an early chance to perform without Farrell.

[FKAS]

It's all a case of whether Smith can make a case for doing better with Farrell than Ford with Farrell. It's somewhat ironical that Smith is getting an early chance to perform without Farrell.

And with a potent backline (presumably). More than Ford had.

I just hope they give Smith a little freedom to play, the backs moves and attack have always seemed to me to be more geared towards what we'd need if Farrell was playing 10 as opposed to what we could utilise with a more creative option like Smith or Ford.

[Which Tyler]

Ford.jpg

Bit generous to Slade, I feel - Marchant would provide a better balance in the mid-field, but may necessitate a 2nd distributor at FB (Malins)

[FKAS]

Very good.

[Puja]

Ford.jpg
Bit generous to Slade, I feel - Marchant would provide a better balance in the mid-field, but may necessitate a 2nd distributor at FB (Malins)

I'd have Malins at 14, myself - Eddie's idea of a free-floating wing does have some merit and I think he's the ideal candidate (as well as having the full-back skills to be the one to drop back with Steward to cover the 50:22s), not least because he's a very good orthodox wing as well. Plus, I'm not fully on the Radwan train yet - he's fast and elusive and looks very good against Canada and Tonga, but I don't know whether he's actually a top drawer international winger yet.

But yes, Marchant at 13 and Ford at 10 and that's my perfect backline (nothing against Smith, I just happen to agree with Squidge that Ford is, if not the clear best 10 in the world, certainly one of the main contenders).

Puja

[Which Tyler]

For me, it was about balance. If you're playing For/Smith with Tuilagi and Marchant outside them (what a choice of weapons for any FH to use!) then I'd want a second distributor there, who's close enough to the action to step in - which needs to be fullback.

Beyond that - I see Radwan as the heir apparent to May, whilst Malins might be the heir apparent to Watson - but who's actually played a season at FB so wouldn't be a huge risk there at international level. But then, where does someone like Cokansaiga fit if he ever gets a run of fitness and form together?
Besides that, when selecting from broadly equal talent (which I see Malins and Steward as, at FB), I prefer an option with ready-made replacements to be the starter, and the unique player to be on the bench. If Malins is the man at FB, then if he goes down a TdG or Parton can step in without any change to the game-plan and style of play; whilst Steward can come in and offer something different. If Steward's the man, then if he picks up an injury and misses a couple, we're either changing the plan, or asking someone to play an unnatural style.
Of course, that's only when player talent is close to being a toss of the coin. And of course, there's other factors such as balance elsewhere, within between each unit.

I also agree that Ford should be the man at FH, with Smith gaining time off the bench - and that both should be set up to succeed, rather than the opposite, as has been happening for the last 7-8 years. When Smith shows at international level that he's playing better than Ford - swap them around.
Which means a SH who sees his primary role as being giving the ball to the FH unless told otherwise, and a big bugger at IC who can offer a get-out-of-jail-free card (or at least, attract the attention of more than 1 defender - hell even 1 defender would be an improvement!), and rescue the little bugger if he's running out of options or getting ragdolled by the defence.

[Digby]

It doesn't have to be the fullback, Healy as a winger was perfectly capable of stepping in as a primary receiver