Gloucester Vs Sale

[FKAS]

Gloucester Rugby team news
15 Santi Carreras
14 Max Llewellyn
13 Chris Harris
12 Seb Atkinson
11 Josh Hathaway
10 Gareth Anscombe
9 Tomos Williams
1 Mayco Vivas
2 Jack Singleton
3 Kirill Gotovtsev
4 Freddie Thomas
5 Arthur Clark
6 Jack Clement
7 Lewis Ludlow (C)
8 Ruan Ackermann

Replacements:

16 Seb Blake
17 Val Rapava-Ruskin
18 Ciaran Knight
19 Freddie Clarke
20 Albert Tuisue
21 Caolan Englefield
22 George Barton
23 Charlie Atkinson

Sale Sharks team news
Sale Sharks 15. Joe Carpenter, 14. Tom Roebuck, 13. Rob du Preez, 12. Luke James, 11. Tom O’Flaherty, 10. Tom Curtis, 9. Raffi Quirke, 1. Bevan Rodd, 2. Luke Cowan-Dickie, 3. Asher Opoku-Fordjour, 4. Ernst van Rhyn, 5. Jonny Hill, 6. Tom Curry, 7. Ben Curry ©, 8. JL du Preez.

Replacements:

16. Ethan Caine, 17. Si McIntyre, 18. WillGriff John, 19. Josh Beaumont, 20. Dan du Preez, 21. Gus Warr, 22. Sam Bedlow, 23. Sam Dugdale.

[Mellsblue]

What. A. Try. That. Is.
Hathaway’s pass… insert aubergine emoji here.

[Mikey Brown]

I see Tom Curry has now made himself concussion-proof.

Good stuff.

[Mikey Brown]

Atkinson again. Just stick him in the England team with a strike runner at 13 and Smith floating behind. Do it Borthwick, you massive pussy.

[twitchy]

Glos looking fantastic.

[Mellsblue]

What. Another. Try if it stands.

[twitchy]

"Eey Orring" the opposition backs is very amusing when deployed properly.

[Mellsblue]

I’d be bringing Quirke on for the second half.

[Mellsblue]

I’d be bringing Quirke on for the second half.

Difficult to do given he must’ve been injured (again) in the warmup

[Which Tyler]

I’d be bringing Quirke on for the second half.

Difficult to do given he must’ve been injured (again) in the warmup

Seen it reported elsewhere as a tight quad, not worth risking

[FKAS]

Atkinson again. Just stick him in the England team with a strike runner at 13 and Smith floating behind. Do it Borthwick, you massive pussy.

Half the issue is Marcus doesn't like floating out the back, he wants to be attacking the gain line ball in hand and picking runners or going himself.

[Mikey Brown]

Atkinson again. Just stick him in the England team with a strike runner at 13 and Smith floating behind. Do it Borthwick, you massive pussy.

Half the issue is Marcus doesn't like floating out the back, he wants to be attacking the gain line ball in hand and picking runners or going himself.

Well sure, but there’s quite a few things I’d like to change in attack. I don’t know what balance of input Smith, Borthwick and Wigglesworth each have.

It feels like Slade should be the experienced guy who can show the sort of deception at 12 Atkinson does and put people in to space, but he hasn’t been.

Atkinson just seems to get it. He always looks like a running option when he moves the ball.

[FKAS]

Atkinson again. Just stick him in the England team with a strike runner at 13 and Smith floating behind. Do it Borthwick, you massive pussy.

Half the issue is Marcus doesn't like floating out the back, he wants to be attacking the gain line ball in hand and picking runners or going himself.

Well sure, but there’s quite a few things I’d like to change in attack. I don’t know what balance of input Smith, Borthwick and Wigglesworth each have.

It feels like Slade should be the experienced guy who can show the sort of deception at 12 Atkinson does and put people in to space, but he hasn’t been.

Atkinson just seems to get it. He always looks like a running option when he moves the ball.

Oh yeah Atkinson is quality, no argument here. Been overlooked for too long.

For both club and country Smith doesn't like playing out the back. He likes to attack the gainline. He doesn't seem to like the Ford and Fin style float out the back directing the attack until it's time to launch the wider attack, he likes a lot of touches of the ball.

[Scrumhead]

What impresses me most about Atkinson is that he always looks so calm. He has a split second to make a decision and it looks effortless. I’m really not sure what England selectors aren’t seeing?

Marcus does float out the back. He did it a lot with Esterhuizen. Part of the issue with England is that no-one is doing a good job of that role to allow him to play out the back. Lawrence lacks the hands and speed of thought IMO.

[FKAS]

Marcus does float out the back. He did it a lot with Esterhuizen. Part of the issue with England is that no-one is doing a good job of that role to allow him to play out the back. Lawrence lacks the hands and speed of thought IMO.

Of course he does it on occasion he just hasn't done much of it this season and didn't want to do it with either Slade or Furbank in the AIs. Wasn't a tactical thing because Ford and Fin both went to that tactic when they came on.

Having Esterhuizen probably made life a lot easier for him. A mountain of an inside centre who could also pass and kick with a good degree of skill will do that.

[Which Tyler]

And we come back to one the perennial, and as yet unas wered question around Smith.
Can he only work with a Quins-like set up of players around him?
Is he still effective without Dombrandt and Esterhuizen around?
Do England have any players who can do what Dombrandt and Esterhuizen do, but do it at international level?

Are we better off A] fitting a round peg into a square hole, telling Marcus to play like Fin/Ford? B] Fitting round square pegs into round holes, telling Lawrence ego play like Esterhuizen and Earl to play like Dombrandt? Or C] Fitting square pegs into square holes, asking Willis to play like Willis, FSmith/Ford to play like FSmith/Ford, and Atkinson to play like Atkinson?

Of course, they're all professional rugby players, and all capable of doing their best impression of each other, but they're also all better at being themselves.

Of course, personally, I think that Marcus is over hyped, and is about level with Ford (when fit) and barely ahead of Fin, not some wunderkind who has to play regardless. He's certainly earned the starting shirt, and the right to keep it for now, but I'm still not seeing the answer to that question above (whilst the game management question still isn't put to bed for me either - yet)

[Oakboy]

Maybe, Mitchell returning will provide the direction and balance missing in the AIs. SB has yet to get selection and game plan right at 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15. IMO, Marcus has something extra in attacking threat but if the team is not set up to allow him to perform, I'd start Fin. Marcus should then be on the bench. Starting him at FB against Ireland or France would be a mistake.

[Scrumhead]

And we come back to one the perennial, and as yet unas wered question around Smith.
Can he only work with a Quins-like set up of players around him?
Is he still effective without Dombrandt and Esterhuizen around?
Do England have any players who can do what Dombrandt and Esterhuizen do, but do it at international level?

Are we better off A] fitting a round peg into a square hole, telling Marcus to play like Fin/Ford? B] Fitting round square pegs into round holes, telling Lawrence ego play like Esterhuizen and Earl to play like Dombrandt? Or C] Fitting square pegs into square holes, asking Willis to play like Willis, FSmith/Ford to play like FSmith/Ford, and Atkinson to play like Atkinson?

Of course, they're all professional rugby players, and all capable of doing their best impression of each other, but they're also all better at being themselves.

Of course, personally, I think that Marcus is over hyped, and is about level with Ford (when fit) and barely ahead of Fin, not some wunderkind who has to play regardless. He's certainly earned the starting shirt, and the right to keep it for now, but I'm still not seeing the answer to that question above (whilst the game management question still isn't put to bed for me either - yet)

Well considering he was either the scorer or primary architect of all of most of our points in the Autumn, without ‘a Quins style set up’ and no Dombrandt or Esterhuizen, I’d say the answer to both questions is answered and is clearly yes.

He was also good in NZ. To @Oakboy’s point, the main difference from the Summer to the Autumn was Mitchell at 9. Mitchell keeps defences guessing because he offers a sniping threat and his delivery/speed of play makes a massive difference (to whoever is at 10, not just Marcus Smith).

The game management question is more valid. Ford and Fin are better at this.

[Puja]

And we come back to one the perennial, and as yet unas wered question around Smith.
Can he only work with a Quins-like set up of players around him?
Is he still effective without Dombrandt and Esterhuizen around?
Do England have any players who can do what Dombrandt and Esterhuizen do, but do it at international level?

Are we better off A] fitting a round peg into a square hole, telling Marcus to play like Fin/Ford? B] Fitting round square pegs into round holes, telling Lawrence ego play like Esterhuizen and Earl to play like Dombrandt? Or C] Fitting square pegs into square holes, asking Willis to play like Willis, FSmith/Ford to play like FSmith/Ford, and Atkinson to play like Atkinson?

Of course, they're all professional rugby players, and all capable of doing their best impression of each other, but they're also all better at being themselves.

Of course, personally, I think that Marcus is over hyped, and is about level with Ford (when fit) and barely ahead of Fin, not some wunderkind who has to play regardless. He's certainly earned the starting shirt, and the right to keep it for now, but I'm still not seeing the answer to that question above (whilst the game management question still isn't put to bed for me either - yet)

Well considering he was either the scorer or primary architect of all of most of our points in the Autumn, without ‘a Quins style set up’ and no Dombrandt or Esterhuizen, I’d say the answer to both questions is answered and is clearly yes.

He was also good in NZ. To @Oakboy’s point, the main difference from the Summer to the Autumn was Mitchell at 9. Mitchell keeps defences guessing because he offers a sniping threat and his delivery/speed of play makes a massive difference (to whoever is at 10, not just Marcus Smith).

The game management question is more valid. Ford and Fin are better at this.

But was he the primary architect of all of our points because he was enabling the rest of the backline or because he was pulling out moments of individual brilliance? Obviously the failings of Lawrence/Slade as individuals and a pairing may just be down to Lawrence/Slade, but I can't absolve MSmith of all of the responsibility for the impotence of our midfield.

If we're keeping him because he can produce moments of individual brilliance from 10 and is a devastating runner, then let's put him at 15. He can come into first receiver as and when he wants, and also gets to use his pace and step attacking in the outside channels as well which he can't so much when we make him be the responsible one staying at 10.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

But was he the primary architect of all of our points because he was enabling the rest of the backline or because he was pulling out moments of individual brilliance? Obviously the failings of Lawrence/Slade as individuals and a pairing may just be down to Lawrence/Slade, but I can't absolve MSmith of all of the responsibility for the impotence of our midfield.

If we're keeping him because he can produce moments of individual brilliance from 10 and is a devastating runner, then let's put him at 15. He can come into first receiver as and when he wants, and also gets to use his pace and step attacking in the outside channels as well which he can't so much when we make him be the responsible one staying at 10.

Puja

This feels way off topic from Glos vs Sale at this point, but yeah this is pretty much the crux of it for me. I think the ‘management’ stuff is overblown at times, but it’s hard to judge because we seem to deploy Smith purely as a hail-Mary.

Although we keep fiddling with things I think Lawrence and Slade is the most settled centre pairing we’ve had for years, but while they offer (seemingly) crucial things this midfield just doesn’t seem to gel.

To bring it back to Atkinson and Smith not working with a distributing/deceptive 12, you’d think all the things England like in Smith as a fullback would be amplified by having him able to float around in midfield more. Again this could work with Slade, in theory, but Atkinson looks so classy.

Smith refusing to play second receiver as a 10 (but being happy to play 15) doesn't quite add up to me, but he does reach for the desperate plays too frequently when things aren’t clicking. Fortunately they also come off pretty often.

[Scrumhead]

And we come back to one the perennial, and as yet unas wered question around Smith.
Can he only work with a Quins-like set up of players around him?
Is he still effective without Dombrandt and Esterhuizen around?
Do England have any players who can do what Dombrandt and Esterhuizen do, but do it at international level?

Are we better off A] fitting a round peg into a square hole, telling Marcus to play like Fin/Ford? B] Fitting round square pegs into round holes, telling Lawrence ego play like Esterhuizen and Earl to play like Dombrandt? Or C] Fitting square pegs into square holes, asking Willis to play like Willis, FSmith/Ford to play like FSmith/Ford, and Atkinson to play like Atkinson?

Of course, they're all professional rugby players, and all capable of doing their best impression of each other, but they're also all better at being themselves.

Of course, personally, I think that Marcus is over hyped, and is about level with Ford (when fit) and barely ahead of Fin, not some wunderkind who has to play regardless. He's certainly earned the starting shirt, and the right to keep it for now, but I'm still not seeing the answer to that question above (whilst the game management question still isn't put to bed for me either - yet)

Well considering he was either the scorer or primary architect of all of most of our points in the Autumn, without ‘a Quins style set up’ and no Dombrandt or Esterhuizen, I’d say the answer to both questions is answered and is clearly yes.

He was also good in NZ. To @Oakboy’s point, the main difference from the Summer to the Autumn was Mitchell at 9. Mitchell keeps defences guessing because he offers a sniping threat and his delivery/speed of play makes a massive difference (to whoever is at 10, not just Marcus Smith).

The game management question is more valid. Ford and Fin are better at this.

But was he the primary architect of all of our points because he was enabling the rest of the backline or because he was pulling out moments of individual brilliance? Obviously the failings of Lawrence/Slade as individuals and a pairing may just be down to Lawrence/Slade, but I can't absolve MSmith of all of the responsibility for the impotence of our midfield.

If we're keeping him because he can produce moments of individual brilliance from 10 and is a devastating runner, then let's put him at 15. He can come into first receiver as and when he wants, and also gets to use his pace and step attacking in the outside channels as well which he can't so much when we make him be the responsible one staying at 10.

Puja

This is a very fair question. My take is that in the AIs, our forwards produced a pretty poor platform and then Spencer and JvP were at best average. This often meant Smith was having to pull off ‘moments of individual brilliance’ because the opposition defence had cut off a lot of the options.

My counter question would have been ‘would we have scored more points with Ford or Fin at 10?’. Personally, I doubt it because when faced with the same challenges, I don’t think either are particularly adept at creating something out of nothing. Maybe they’d have come up with different solutions, but I’m not sure they’d have coped better.

Picking Marcus at 15 is good in attack, I’m not so sure it is in defence.

[Puja]

Well considering he was either the scorer or primary architect of all of most of our points in the Autumn, without ‘a Quins style set up’ and no Dombrandt or Esterhuizen, I’d say the answer to both questions is answered and is clearly yes.

He was also good in NZ. To @Oakboy’s point, the main difference from the Summer to the Autumn was Mitchell at 9. Mitchell keeps defences guessing because he offers a sniping threat and his delivery/speed of play makes a massive difference (to whoever is at 10, not just Marcus Smith).

The game management question is more valid. Ford and Fin are better at this.

But was he the primary architect of all of our points because he was enabling the rest of the backline or because he was pulling out moments of individual brilliance? Obviously the failings of Lawrence/Slade as individuals and a pairing may just be down to Lawrence/Slade, but I can't absolve MSmith of all of the responsibility for the impotence of our midfield.

If we're keeping him because he can produce moments of individual brilliance from 10 and is a devastating runner, then let's put him at 15. He can come into first receiver as and when he wants, and also gets to use his pace and step attacking in the outside channels as well which he can't so much when we make him be the responsible one staying at 10.

Puja

This is a very fair question. My take is that in the AIs, our forwards produced a pretty poor platform and then Spencer and JvP were at best average. This often meant Smith was having to pull off ‘moments of individual brilliance’ because the opposition defence had cut off a lot of the options.

My counter question would have been ‘would we have scored more points with Ford or Fin at 10?’. Personally, I doubt it because when faced with the same challenges, I don’t think either are particularly adept at creating something out of nothing. Maybe they’d have come up with different solutions, but I’m not sure they’d have coped better.

Picking Marcus at 15 is good in attack, I’m not so sure it is in defence.

I'm yet to see any defensive frailties by Smith at 15. Seems to be good at positioning in the backfield and he's certainly better than Steward is at one-on-ones. What's alleged to be the problem?

Puja

[FKAS]

But was he the primary architect of all of our points because he was enabling the rest of the backline or because he was pulling out moments of individual brilliance? Obviously the failings of Lawrence/Slade as individuals and a pairing may just be down to Lawrence/Slade, but I can't absolve MSmith of all of the responsibility for the impotence of our midfield.

If we're keeping him because he can produce moments of individual brilliance from 10 and is a devastating runner, then let's put him at 15. He can come into first receiver as and when he wants, and also gets to use his pace and step attacking in the outside channels as well which he can't so much when we make him be the responsible one staying at 10.

Puja

This is a very fair question. My take is that in the AIs, our forwards produced a pretty poor platform and then Spencer and JvP were at best average. This often meant Smith was having to pull off ‘moments of individual brilliance’ because the opposition defence had cut off a lot of the options.

My counter question would have been ‘would we have scored more points with Ford or Fin at 10?’. Personally, I doubt it because when faced with the same challenges, I don’t think either are particularly adept at creating something out of nothing. Maybe they’d have come up with different solutions, but I’m not sure they’d have coped better.

Picking Marcus at 15 is good in attack, I’m not so sure it is in defence.

I'm yet to see any defensive frailties by Smith at 15. Seems to be good at positioning in the backfield and he's certainly better than Steward is at one-on-ones. What's alleged to be the problem?

Puja

The change in law interpretation that stops the blockers on a kick chase has largely negated taking the high ball as a strength. Steward is easily the best in the Prem and he's finding it tough currently because the chaser can just jump there and look to spoil one handed. The defender has to attempt the catch so it becomes a crap shoot most the time.

Marcus created tries through some individual brilliance but also failed miserably to give our attack any width outside of the crossfield kick. Individually excellent but as the general of our attack very poor. We looked more cohesive with Ford (outside the first game where he blatantly wasn't fit) and Fin.

I'm not entirely convinced that Smith is bossing the Quins attack particularly well, they look far more dangerous on the counter attack or from first phase than they do going through multiple phases. Fin and Ford give the impression that they are using the phases to probe and move the defence around, Smith doesn't seem to have that patience and just seems to be looking for the next chance to go all or nothing as soon as possible.

I think having him at 15 gives us more in attack. I doubt Marcus will be happy about it but his form isn't exactly making a case for him being the 10 shirt without question.

[Mikey Brown]

Interesting how that argument about 15s can be spun both ways though. With a clearer route for attackers to get to the fielder, do you want a Furbank/Smith under it instead of Steward?

Kind of agree on Smith, sadly, but with the huge caveat (as always) of muddled thinking and little consistency in coaching, tactics and players around him.

There are times for Quins this season he’s looked a bit of a headless chicken. I guess he’s so used to being able to pull the rabbit out of the hat, but I too would like to see a bit more of that patient phase play.

I’m curious how teams view the trend of shallow “kick-passes” we’ve seen the last few seasons. They seem largely used just to stretch a defence a bit and rarely create scores. Despite commentators calling every single one “on the money” most of them tend to be too shallow and land on a static attacker.

All teams are doing it, but Smith in particular seems to have allowed this to become his default in moments of panic. I want to see him trust his playmakers outside, whoever they are.

[Scrumhead]

This is a very fair question. My take is that in the AIs, our forwards produced a pretty poor platform and then Spencer and JvP were at best average. This often meant Smith was having to pull off ‘moments of individual brilliance’ because the opposition defence had cut off a lot of the options.

My counter question would have been ‘would we have scored more points with Ford or Fin at 10?’. Personally, I doubt it because when faced with the same challenges, I don’t think either are particularly adept at creating something out of nothing. Maybe they’d have come up with different solutions, but I’m not sure they’d have coped better.

Picking Marcus at 15 is good in attack, I’m not so sure it is in defence.

I'm yet to see any defensive frailties by Smith at 15. Seems to be good at positioning in the backfield and he's certainly better than Steward is at one-on-ones. What's alleged to be the problem?

Puja

The change in law interpretation that stops the blockers on a kick chase has largely negated taking the high ball as a strength. Steward is easily the best in the Prem and he's finding it tough currently because the chaser can just jump there and look to spoil one handed. The defender has to attempt the catch so it becomes a crap shoot most the time.

Marcus created tries through some individual brilliance but also failed miserably to give our attack any width outside of the crossfield kick. Individually excellent but as the general of our attack very poor. We looked more cohesive with Ford (outside the first game where he blatantly wasn't fit) and Fin.

I'm not entirely convinced that Smith is bossing the Quins attack particularly well, they look far more dangerous on the counter attack or from first phase than they do going through multiple phases. Fin and Ford give the impression that they are using the phases to probe and move the defence around, Smith doesn't seem to have that patience and just seems to be looking for the next chance to go all or nothing as soon as possible.

I think having him at 15 gives us more in attack. I doubt Marcus will be happy about it but his form isn't exactly making a case for him being the 10 shirt without question.

Really 50:50 on this post. On the bolded section - sorry but, what? I’ll preface this by saying that I do regard both Ford and Fin as better game managers than Marcus, but to suggest we looked ‘more cohesive’ in the final quarter vs. NZ or Australia is pretty wild revisionism. Sure, Fin looked good against a poor and well beaten Japan side, but I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison. Ford had two shockers. As you say, he clearly wasn’t fit, but come on now … it might fit the narrative that Ford is a better game manager, but those two games are particularly poor examples to cite.

Personally, I thought we looked most cohesive in the first 20 against NZ. We were doing well playing flat to the line (with Marcus at the heart of this) to the extent that they gave up a yellow trying to defend our attack. Then it felt like we abandoned it. NZ definitely adapted but I don’t know why we stopped playing. Something similar happened vs. Australia. It feels like this is a pattern as we regularly go quiet in the middle two quarters of games regardless of who plays 10.

Re. The third paragraph, I think you’re absolutely correct. The Quins attack has really fallen off this season and Marcus isn’t ’bossing’ it the way he should. He is our key man but it doesn’t feel like he’s really taking charge. I’m not sure why that is, but I suspect he may not buy in to Wilson’s gameplan so is kind of doing his own thing with mixed results.

The bottom line for me is that we have a very difficult sequence of 6N games coming up. Picking Ford would be a backwards step, while picking Fin largely off the back of a 20min cameo vs. Japan (the only real glimpse of his club form seen at test level) to start in Dublin is a risk. I get some of the arguments against Marcus and I think it’s fair to say he didn’t get the attack firing in the AIs, but I think it was decent at the end of the last 6N and over the summer. but IMO, he’s proved he can do it against the best sides and I think we have to back him. If Marcus goes with the Lions (as he should), then I’d be looking at Fin to lay down a marker in Argentina.

@Puja feel free to move all this if you feel the need.