Warriors get reassurance from new signing that he won't bail

So in the first instance you are underestimating the impact of media pressure on his tenure. He had to do a lot more with the players at his disposal or he would have been out. To his credit he has tried to do that.

Building a team around Marcus Smith is seen as a test-case [rightly or wrongly] in that view, esp as he has been prepared for the role for about 4 years now after being anointed the wunderkind of English rugby by Eddie.

I'd agree that going back to Ford still has merit as he can prob play the position in more ways than Marcus, but he was also a part of the three underwhelming results with which the 24 6N started. So I doubt he will be see as part of the solution now.

It will come down to Marcus v Fin and that is more interesting. One plays in a turnover-based attack, the other in a Leinster-style possession offence. Who has the most growth left in them?

You praise England for their performance v Ire and Fra, then imply they should go back to Freddie Steward 15 when George Furbank made most of the diff to those performances.

Anf Fin Smith is far closer to Marcus than he is to George Ford, that is why he plays for Saints not Sale.

Noah Lolesio is your sort of player and that worked OK, but only because his team is far more creative than Englands for example. The highly organized Irish attack was also another that didn't require much from the 10, but that is now changing with Prendergast who is in that league mold like the most new age 10's.

So it is in fact your two which would require even more change to make the most of than Marcus Smith.

The man has some standards at least.

If we picked Lawrence at 10 he'd also be our best player. He'd run it like 30 times a game, make metres most of those times, and would only pass the ball like 3 or 4 times, ensuring that no one else could run it more than him!

When England have had success over the past few years, its been either through (i) defensive rugby backed up with smart tactical kicking or (ii) high possession attacking phase play based on quick ruck ball. George Ford was key to the implementation of (i) in the RWC, and in the 6N win over Wales, and to the implementation of (ii) in the 6N games against Ireland and France. Smith did great at (ii) when running at tired defenders at the end of the Ireland match, but has never successfully implemented that gameplan from the start of a test because he doesn't distribute or support his forwards enough to create consistent fast ball and build attacks over multiple phases. Instead, his introduction to the starting side has resulted in much more playmaking responsibilities being forced onto whoever plays 9. Alex Mitchell copes ok with that, but I think he looks better with a more involved playmaking 10 outside him, and it really isn't a gameplan that works for JVP or Spencer. As a result of that the outside backs and centres have barely touched the ball when Smith has been at 10.

This might not have been too much of a disaster, as England have seemed to be moving slightly towards the sort of attacking gameplan that France played under Labit and Quins play (I think this was especially their approach when they won the league a few years ago - but its still a part of their play now), which is based on kicking to create broken field rugby. This is (i) a sharp departure from the gameplans that have worked for England in the past few seasons; (ii) bears very little relation to the tactical approaches of the non-Quins players in the England team; and (iii) is an absolute disaster for the blitz defence, which is weak in transition. Unsurprisingly, it has coincided with a sharp decline in England's results.

There are tougher opponents waiting and they will be punished heavily unless the coaching improves dramatically.