Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

The 'big difference' that denied Marcus Smith a fair England chance

(Photo by Ramsey Cardy/Sportsfile via Getty Images)

Former England player Austin Healey has claimed that Marcus Smith wasn’t given a fair chance to impress by new head coach Steve Borthwick during the recent Guinness Six Nations. The Harlequins out-half was chosen as his country’s No10 in the matches versus Scotland and France. However, he was given limited time as a sub in the other games, a few late minutes against Italy and just 30 seconds in Wales before being an unused replacement last weekend versus Ireland.

ADVERTISEMENT

Smith was back in club action this Saturday, starting for Harlequins in their latest Gallagher Premiership match and going head-to-head against Saracens and Owen Farrell, his main rival for the England No10 jersey. Farrell was said to have marginally shaded that individual battle in a fixture that Saracens won 36-24 to clinch a home semi-final in May.

Prior to the start of the game at Tottenham Stadium in front of a bumper 55,109 attendance, TV pundit Healey shared his thoughts about the difficult situation Smith had endured with England, losing his place in recent months after being the No1 choice at No10 under previous head coach Eddie Jones.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

Asked why Smith had struggled to impress with England in contrast to his greater consistency with Harlequins, Healey suggested: “The big difference is (Andre) Esterhuizen because when you are a player like Smith you like the outside. But if your centres also like the outside and Henry Slade likes the outside as does (Ollie) Lawrence, then they are quite happy to go with you.

“Esterhuizen will straighten up a defence and keep the tighter. The big difference is he never got to play with Esterhuizen for England for obvious reasons [he is a South African international] and he didn’t get to play with Manu Tuilagi, who is arguably the closest thing England have got to Esterhuizen. So when you have got a big, straight-running guy, he can close a defence off and keep them tight.

“When you haven’t got that then everything moves sideways and in international rugby, defences moving sideways control the whole pitch and that is the problem that he faced. You can argue, and a lot of English rugby supporters will argue, he didn’t really get a fair crack of the whip because he didn’t get to play with the same style of rugby that he plays with week in, week out at Harlequins.

“(Nick) David, beaten more defenders than anyone else in the competition, he has got him in the backline. He has got Danny Care, 10 try assists, better than any other nine in the country in terms of try assists and try creation. So, he has sort of been parachuted into a team that arguably doesn’t suit his style.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Quizzed if the Six Nations had definitely settled the Farrell versus Smith England No10 debate in favour of the Saracens player, Healey added: “No, I don’t think it was and it will go on through the camp in the summer to see where they get to.

“Watching Farrell in Ireland, he was right at the front of everything, and he stood up and he stands up to the biggest guys. There are not many fly-halves in world rugby that stand up to big backs, particularly the physical ones like the Irish have got.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

G
GrahamVF 23 minutes ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

"has SA actually EVER helped to develop another union to maturity like NZ has with Japan," yes - Argentina. You obviously don't know the history of Argentinian rugby. SA were touring there on long development tours in the 1950's

We continued the Junior Bok tours to the Argentine through to the early 70's

My coach at Grey High was Giepie Wentzel who toured Argentine as a fly half. He told me about how every Argentinian rugby club has pictures of Van Heerden and Danie Craven on prominent display. Yes we have developed a nation far more than NZ has done for Japan. And BTW Sa players were playing and coaching in Japan long before the Kiwis arrived. Fourie du Preez and many others were playing there 15 years ago.


"Isaac Van Heerden's reputation as an innovative coach had spread to Argentina, and he was invited to Buenos Aires to help the Pumas prepare for their first visit to South Africa in 1965.[1][2] Despite Argentina faring badly in this tour,[2] it was the start of a long and happy relationship between Van Heerden and the Pumas. Izak van Heerden took leave from his teaching post in Durban, relocated to Argentina, learnt fluent Spanish, and would revolutionise Argentine play in the late 1960s, laying the way open for great players such as Hugo Porta.[1][2] Van Heerden virtually invented the "tight loose" form of play, an area in which the Argentines would come to excel, and which would become a hallmark of their playing style. The Pumas repaid the initial debt, by beating the Junior Springboks at Ellis Park, and emerged as one of the better modern rugby nations, thanks largely to the talents of this Durban schoolmaster.[1]"


After the promise made by Junior Springbok manager JF Louw at the end of a 12-game tour to Argentina in 1959 – ‘I will do everything to ensure we invite you to tour our country’ – there were concerns about the strength of Argentinian rugby. South African Rugby Board president Danie Craven sent coach Izak van Heerden to help the Pumas prepare and they repaid the favour by beating the Junior Springboks at Ellis Park.

149 Go to comments
J
JW 6 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

149 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING The Waikato young gun solving one of rugby players' 'obvious problems' Injury breeds opportunity for Waikato entrepreneur
Search