Benetton overcome Zebre in Italian derby

Yes it was, you suggested they didn't use him and used a different setup instead. That to me is not a Marcus but a Borthwick criticism. Unless that has been your angle all along?

Oh right, so the side is starting to play better with him? This is likely what I spoke of then. I'd like to see it continue now and see how good a Marcus side could get.

Isn't that what your asking for from Marcus? Or that the team wants/needs an older version of Dan Carter? Or are you just basing this of win ratio.

Of course some don't continue to develop past the age of 20. You're not really making any sort of argument unless you have new data. 26/27 is undoubtedly the peak of most positions/peole.

no, England have generally looked like a good side when Smith isn't in the team.

Hahaha, define "good"? I'd suggest to you theyre a "good" side now. Surely Ford or Farrell must have had a period of great success somewhere? What about 2015?

But my point was more the game in England. Having only recently adapted a more open game, the pioneers of that are going to find others take a while to catch up (your point about the rest of the team). So you want the rest of the team trying to halt this momentum and go back to a forward based game ala the success of the last two WCs?

You litterally brought up his name was one of the people who should be playing instead of Marcus.

You know, it's just I see people often making comments like "they likely can't afford to sack him".

He offered to quit. There would have been no cost to releasing him. Where you purposefully trying to make him out to be a 'bad man'?

In England and France (if I'm not mistaken), there is no chance for these clubs to host their national side.

Stick with your message. Theres nothing wrong with Ireland (or you) behaving like theyre better when you suggest it would have taken those three that long to break into the Ireland side based on how well they played with they came over.

I think you're being rather naive though. But I can't argue they would have had some exposure instead that 3 year period as I never saw them play. All I know is when they started playing for Ireland (and not surprised by what I saw btw too), they looked an immediate improvement. So I rather suspect you are wrong on both counts, and they either would indeed have played earlier if eligible (so debunking your "their needed development period" thinking), or that they would have taken just as long to become embedded in the AB framework.

PS: the timeframe were are talking about here is obviously pre Irelands dominance. So perhaps another error in judgement on your part when it comes to these sorts of statements.

Actually, I think it would be beneficial for rugby, as some coachs can't be stopped from basically selecting foreigners for the national side before they've even played a local club game. They're probably doing more harm than good.

You, again, appear unable to accept your perception was wrong (it does shrink his options). It's ok to be wrong Nick, you don't need to behave like some almighty on these forums just because we look up to your opinion.

Also, despite repeating it, it appears that you can't understand I'm representing the people who come up with these arguments, not the players.

Honestly, why are you so blind in these discussions? It smacks of someone unable to change their mind and getting defensive.