RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 3:55 pm Which of Fra/NZ/SA/Aus is Wales again?

Fixed. Abject, grovelling apology above.

Spiffy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 4:00 pm

Spiffy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 3:48 pm The overall stats are heavily skewed by the 10 try/68 point Wales game against terribly weak opposition. Without that match, the try average is down to 2 per game.

Woops : disregard response. My bad. Sloppy reading.

Happens to the best of us!

I specifically excluded Scotland and Wales from my statistics - Wales because they're not really T1 rn and it would be unnecessarily padding the numbers and Scotland because we've had this weird inferiority complex against them (which hopefully we broke this 6N) and I think that's been more of a mental thing than anything to do with the efficacy of Wiggy's attack coaching. Plus I didn't want to include the Scotland games because they hurt my argument*!

Puja


*Including Scotland would make it 29 tries over 11 games (or 2.5 per game).

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 4:08 pm

Spiffy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 4:00 pm

Spiffy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 3:48 pm The overall stats are heavily skewed by the 10 try/68 point Wales game against terribly weak opposition. Without that match, the try average is down to 2 per game.

Woops : disregard response. My bad. Sloppy reading.

Happens to the best of us!

I specifically excluded Scotland and Wales from my statistics - Wales because they're not really T1 rn and it would be unnecessarily padding the numbers and Scotland because we've had this weird inferiority complex against them (which hopefully we broke this 6N) and I think that's been more of a mental thing than anything to do with the efficacy of Wiggy's attack coaching. Plus I didn't want to include the Scotland games because they hurt my argument*!

Puja


*Including Scotland would make it 29 tries over 11 games (or 2.5 per game).

but included australia

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 7:01 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 4:08 pm

Spiffy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 4:00 pm Woops : disregard response. My bad. Sloppy reading.

Happens to the best of us!

I specifically excluded Scotland and Wales from my statistics - Wales because they're not really T1 rn and it would be unnecessarily padding the numbers and Scotland because we've had this weird inferiority complex against them (which hopefully we broke this 6N) and I think that's been more of a mental thing than anything to do with the efficacy of Wiggy's attack coaching. Plus I didn't want to include the Scotland games because they hurt my argument*!

Puja


*Including Scotland would make it 29 tries over 11 games (or 2.5 per game).

but included australia

My statistics; I'm allowed to cherry-pick to make my point look better!

I'd argue that Australia under Schmidt are a more significant challenge than their rankings suggest and certainly more relevant than Wales. Mind, even if we get rid of that game, it's not making a massive difference - 21 over 8 (or 2.63 tries per game).

Puja

The pack has been the principle reason why the opportunist disjointed backs have looked better.

Praising the wrong coach me thinks.

I think the acid test for Wigglesworth will be getting the best out of Marcus at 10. IMO, the pinnacle of attacking potential must include our best attacking player. If the best attack judged achievable by this coaching crew includes Fin at 10 that will not be the best possible. It might be easier to attain but will be second best.

Punchy way to start the day on the EMB.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 8:30 am Punchy way to start the day on the EMB.

Someone woke up and chose violence this morning.

Puja

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 7:38 am I think the acid test for Wigglesworth will be getting the best out of Marcus at 10. IMO, the pinnacle of attacking potential must include our best attacking player. If the best attack judged achievable by this coaching crew includes Fin at 10 that will not be the best possible. It might be easier to attain but will be second best.

Why do you make this assertion? Since changing the 10, we are unbeaten.

On a serious note, even if one accepts your assertion of 'best attacking player', often individuals of unique talent (and I accept this) play AS individuals, and sometimes that isn't the best for a team, esp at this level.

Marcus Smith isn’t even the best English 10 at Harlequins.

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:12 am Marcus Smith isn’t even the best English 10 at Harlequins.

Think you might be overpromoting Jamie a bit, as good as he could be

I can just picture Fin Smith as an obnoxious, insufferable, Haskell-esque media personality a few years down the line with his own brand of BRINGS OTHERS INTO THE GAME™ merchandise.

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:07 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 7:38 am I think the acid test for Wigglesworth will be getting the best out of Marcus at 10. IMO, the pinnacle of attacking potential must include our best attacking player. If the best attack judged achievable by this coaching crew includes Fin at 10 that will not be the best possible. It might be easier to attain but will be second best.

Why do you make this assertion? Since changing the 10, we are unbeaten.

On a serious note, even if one accepts your assertion of 'best attacking player', often individuals of unique talent (and I accept this) play AS individuals, and sometimes that isn't the best for a team, esp at this level.

IMO, it's about high-end aims.

I understand all the Andrew v Barnes stuff. I don't accept that Marcus is as maverick as implied. I think he could get just as much out of a team (i.e. the other players around him) as Fin IF the coaches are good enough - AND add a fair bit more besides. (Using him at 15 is an admission of defeat in a way but it was reasonable till Furbank returns.)

Of course, it remains possible that Fin could develop additional attacking flair and go beyond Marcus in every aspect of FH play - but I doubt it.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:37 am I can just picture Fin Smith as an obnoxious, insufferable, Haskell-esque media personality a few years down the line with his own brand of BRINGS OTHERS INTO THE GAME™ merchandise.

I like Fin and also like club combinations.

Hopefully Marcus learns to play 9 and can link with Benson for club and country

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:37 am I can just picture Fin Smith as an obnoxious, insufferable, Haskell-esque media personality a few years down the line with his own brand of BRINGS OTHERS INTO THE GAME™ merchandise.

Eh? He’s a good lad as far as I know.

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 10:42 am

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:37 am I can just picture Fin Smith as an obnoxious, insufferable, Haskell-esque media personality a few years down the line with his own brand of BRINGS OTHERS INTO THE GAME™ merchandise.

Eh? He’s a good lad as far as I know.

And it's not like he's got the Marcus strut when you're on camera, now hair flick.

I am jesting, but he is a strutter. Like a young Mick Jagger.

Marcus that is.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:57 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:07 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 7:38 am I think the acid test for Wigglesworth will be getting the best out of Marcus at 10. IMO, the pinnacle of attacking potential must include our best attacking player. If the best attack judged achievable by this coaching crew includes Fin at 10 that will not be the best possible. It might be easier to attain but will be second best.

Why do you make this assertion? Since changing the 10, we are unbeaten.

On a serious note, even if one accepts your assertion of 'best attacking player', often individuals of unique talent (and I accept this) play AS individuals, and sometimes that isn't the best for a team, esp at this level.

IMO, it's about high-end aims.

I understand all the Andrew v Barnes stuff. I don't accept that Marcus is as maverick as implied. I think he could get just as much out of a team (i.e. the other players around him) as Fin IF the coaches are good enough - AND add a fair bit more besides. (Using him at 15 is an admission of defeat in a way but it was reasonable till Furbank returns.)

Of course, it remains possible that Fin could develop additional attacking flair and go beyond Marcus in every aspect of FH play - but I doubt it.

It is not necessarily a maverick thing. Marcus plays what is in front of him. He's got the scanning and processing to see the game differently from others. To be successful it requires others to have similar OR be able to read him. What works at Quins is they have a mix of both.

I think Marcus is a fabulously good player, but I'm not sure this England team has the game intelligence or familiarity to maximise it. Yet.

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 11:08 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:57 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:07 am

Why do you make this assertion? Since changing the 10, we are unbeaten.

On a serious note, even if one accepts your assertion of 'best attacking player', often individuals of unique talent (and I accept this) play AS individuals, and sometimes that isn't the best for a team, esp at this level.

IMO, it's about high-end aims.

I understand all the Andrew v Barnes stuff. I don't accept that Marcus is as maverick as implied. I think he could get just as much out of a team (i.e. the other players around him) as Fin IF the coaches are good enough - AND add a fair bit more besides. (Using him at 15 is an admission of defeat in a way but it was reasonable till Furbank returns.)

Of course, it remains possible that Fin could develop additional attacking flair and go beyond Marcus in every aspect of FH play - but I doubt it.

It is not necessarily a maverick thing. Marcus plays what is in front of him. He's got the scanning and processing to see the game differently from others. To be successful it requires others to have similar OR be able to read him. What works at Quins is they have a mix of both.

I think Marcus is a fabulously good player, but I'm not sure this England team has the game intelligence or familiarity to maximise it. Yet.

Its not just that though, his instincts ball in hand make it very hard for centres (say) to figure out support and running lines. Simply, he'll always look to make a break or create a hole/running lane himself, which often means a hitch kick and some lateral running; very hard to play off without both familiarity and own great skill. He has great running skills and footballing skills, but as yet hasn't found a way to get others playing well off him at 10 imo. Dors makes a fair challenge in lots of ways, but I do think our attacking shape has looked better with Fin at 10- might be a coincidence, but I doubt it.

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 8:55 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 8:30 am Punchy way to start the day on the EMB.

Someone woke up and chose violence this morning.

Puja

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:12 am Marcus Smith isn’t even the best English 10 at Harlequins.

Crikey

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:57 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:07 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 7:38 am I think the acid test for Wigglesworth will be getting the best out of Marcus at 10. IMO, the pinnacle of attacking potential must include our best attacking player. If the best attack judged achievable by this coaching crew includes Fin at 10 that will not be the best possible. It might be easier to attain but will be second best.

Why do you make this assertion? Since changing the 10, we are unbeaten.

On a serious note, even if one accepts your assertion of 'best attacking player', often individuals of unique talent (and I accept this) play AS individuals, and sometimes that isn't the best for a team, esp at this level.

IMO, it's about high-end aims.

I understand all the Andrew v Barnes stuff. I don't accept that Marcus is as maverick as implied. I think he could get just as much out of a team (i.e. the other players around him) as Fin IF the coaches are good enough - AND add a fair bit more besides. (Using him at 15 is an admission of defeat in a way but it was reasonable till Furbank returns.)

Of course, it remains possible that Fin could develop additional attacking flair and go beyond Marcus in every aspect of FH play - but I doubt it.

Agreed.

Fin has done fine, but I still don’t accept that accept that he was the difference-maker in winning games or that he actually ‘brought players into the game’ as we were told he would. Our overall performance level went up but I think it’s quite bizarre to give him the majority of the credit for ‘steering us to victory’.

A better defence and a much better scrum were far bigger factors in ending the losing run IMO.

Like Oakboy, I think it would be crying shame if we don’t use Marcus to his potential. He can do most of the things Fin can and plenty of things Fin can’t.

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 11:42 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:57 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:07 am

Why do you make this assertion? Since changing the 10, we are unbeaten.

On a serious note, even if one accepts your assertion of 'best attacking player', often individuals of unique talent (and I accept this) play AS individuals, and sometimes that isn't the best for a team, esp at this level.

IMO, it's about high-end aims.

I understand all the Andrew v Barnes stuff. I don't accept that Marcus is as maverick as implied. I think he could get just as much out of a team (i.e. the other players around him) as Fin IF the coaches are good enough - AND add a fair bit more besides. (Using him at 15 is an admission of defeat in a way but it was reasonable till Furbank returns.)

Of course, it remains possible that Fin could develop additional attacking flair and go beyond Marcus in every aspect of FH play - but I doubt it.

Agreed.

Fin has done fine, but I still don’t accept that accept that he was the difference-maker in winning games or that he actually ‘brought players into the game’ as we were told he would. Our overall performance level went up but I think it’s quite bizarre to give him the majority of the credit for ‘steering us to victory’.

A better defence and a much better scrum were far bigger factors in ending the losing run IMO.

Like Oakboy, I think it would be crying shame if we don’t use Marcus to his potential. He can do most of the things Fin can and plenty of things Fin can’t.

Plus a new captain, better use of the bench a shed load of luck and two T2 teams out of four…

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 11:42 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:57 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:07 am

Why do you make this assertion? Since changing the 10, we are unbeaten.

On a serious note, even if one accepts your assertion of 'best attacking player', often individuals of unique talent (and I accept this) play AS individuals, and sometimes that isn't the best for a team, esp at this level.

IMO, it's about high-end aims.

I understand all the Andrew v Barnes stuff. I don't accept that Marcus is as maverick as implied. I think he could get just as much out of a team (i.e. the other players around him) as Fin IF the coaches are good enough - AND add a fair bit more besides. (Using him at 15 is an admission of defeat in a way but it was reasonable till Furbank returns.)

Of course, it remains possible that Fin could develop additional attacking flair and go beyond Marcus in every aspect of FH play - but I doubt it.

but I still don’t accept that accept

acceptance is progress

I'm preferring to give Fin at least some credit. Comparing the two is chalk v cheese in truth and there's no reason why there shouldn't be a healthy competition tween the two, save that whilst Ford and Fin could be interchanged quite easily as starting 10, to maximise Marcus you definitely need different attacking structures because of his instinctual play and the need for familiarity with it. Not a good or bad thing, but a thing for sure.

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 11:42 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:57 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:07 am

Why do you make this assertion? Since changing the 10, we are unbeaten.

On a serious note, even if one accepts your assertion of 'best attacking player', often individuals of unique talent (and I accept this) play AS individuals, and sometimes that isn't the best for a team, esp at this level.

IMO, it's about high-end aims.

I understand all the Andrew v Barnes stuff. I don't accept that Marcus is as maverick as implied. I think he could get just as much out of a team (i.e. the other players around him) as Fin IF the coaches are good enough - AND add a fair bit more besides. (Using him at 15 is an admission of defeat in a way but it was reasonable till Furbank returns.)

Of course, it remains possible that Fin could develop additional attacking flair and go beyond Marcus in every aspect of FH play - but I doubt it.

Agreed.

Fin has done fine, but I still don’t accept that accept that he was the difference-maker in winning games or that he actually ‘brought players into the game’ as we were told he would. Our overall performance level went up but I think it’s quite bizarre to give him the majority of the credit for ‘steering us to victory’.

A better defence and a much better scrum were far bigger factors in ending the losing run IMO.

Yep, we fixed the lineout and restarts as well. The set piece improvements have been huge

Danno wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 11:53 am

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 11:42 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 9:57 am

IMO, it's about high-end aims.

I understand all the Andrew v Barnes stuff. I don't accept that Marcus is as maverick as implied. I think he could get just as much out of a team (i.e. the other players around him) as Fin IF the coaches are good enough - AND add a fair bit more besides. (Using him at 15 is an admission of defeat in a way but it was reasonable till Furbank returns.)

Of course, it remains possible that Fin could develop additional attacking flair and go beyond Marcus in every aspect of FH play - but I doubt it.

Agreed.

Fin has done fine, but I still don’t accept that accept that he was the difference-maker in winning games or that he actually ‘brought players into the game’ as we were told he would. Our overall performance level went up but I think it’s quite bizarre to give him the majority of the credit for ‘steering us to victory’.

A better defence and a much better scrum were far bigger factors in ending the losing run IMO.

Yep, we fixed the lineout and restarts as well. The set piece improvements have been huge

longer in camp, the better the basics become, quelle surprise.