Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

What Finn Russell would do with Smith/Farrell for England vs Italy

(Photo by Paul Harding/Getty Images)

Scotland out-half Finn Russell has waded into the debate over England continuing to select Marcus Smith and Owen Farrell as a 10/12 combination under Steve Borthwick rather than have one player as the starting out-half and the other as the bench back-up and not as the starting inside centre.

ADVERTISEMENT

Eddie Jones last year attempted to mould Smith and Farrell as a partnership in the starting England team, naming them alongside each other in all three games on the July tour to Australia and then in all four matches of the Autumn Nations Series.

The creative edge didn’t progress as much as England fans would have liked in those seven matches, igniting a huge debate over the winter as to what new head coach Borthwick would do when the Guinness Six Nations began. In the end, Borthwick opted to continue with the Jones tactic, pairing Smith and Farrell together at 10 and 12 for the opening match versus Scotland.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

With Harlequins attack coach Nick Evans now assisting Borthwick for the duration of the championship, the Smith/Farrell combination was more effective than it had been previously but with England ultimately beaten 29-23 by the Scots, there has been renewed debate about the merits of the two established club No10s starting together for England as a 10/12 partnership.

Russell was the Scottish No10 who came up against the Smith/Farrell axis last weekend at Twickenham and he has now shared his thoughts on what has become a hot topic heading in this weekend’s England game at home to Italy. Should Borthwick persist with Smith and Farrell as his 10/12 when he names his team on Friday afternoon or should one of the players be kept on the bench, enabling England to change up their midfield against the Italians?

Related

Appearing on the latest RugbyPass Offload, Russell said: “It depends how they want to play. Marcus has got so much X-factor, Farrell has got a lot more experience and is a different player to Marcus. So I don’t know. When Marcus plays at Harlequins he has (Andre) Esterhuizen outside which is really good for the gain line so he can play quite often off the front ball, off front foot ball, but I’d say Owen can probably control a game a bit better and Marcus has got more of an X-factor around him.

“So it depends on who they are playing and how they want to play and what they might want to go with. We thought they were maybe going to go Marcus and Own with (Manu) Tuilagi, so Tuilagi can get them the go-forward and they are going to have two ball players to play with and two kicking options because they kick it a lot but when they had (Joe) Marchant there, like they have got strike runners but not as much as if they have Manu out there.

ADVERTISEMENT

“That allowed us to stop them a bit more from first phase. Not stop their attack, they probably just didn’t get the ball they wanted. I don’t know the players that well to play alongside them, so it is hard to say what I would go with and again it’s dependent… who have they got this week? Italy.

“It might be better to go with Marcus this week with a bit of X-factor but then how Italy played (against France), it might be better to go with Farrell to maybe control the game a bit better and then Marcus coming on later on when it is a bit more open and the Italians are maybe a bit more tired.

“Like I said, I don’t know the English players that well personally so it is hard to say what the best option is. But it was hard for them first game because they had a few injuries, a couple of centres went down so it was probably tough for them to decide.”

Russell added that Scotland initially believed England would start Farrell at out-half against them before an injury ruled out Henry Slade from selection and it was then decided to omit Tuilagi and start Marchant at No13 outside Smith and Farrell.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We heard through it was going to be Owen at 10 but then they got a couple of injuries and we then started hearing that Manu wasn’t going to be playing and it was going to be Marcus and Owen, so we weren’t really sure what team to expect.

“It was hard to prep not knowing what their team was going to be, how they were going to play and who they were going to pick. It was an interesting week’s build-up.”

  • Click here to listen to the full Finn Russell interview on RugbyPass Offload
ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

2 Comments
A
Alan 681 days ago

When Finn Russell realises his full potential he won’t be just satisfied by beating England and celebrating. He should be focused on taking Scotland further than they’ve ever gone before.

F
Flankly 682 days ago

Wading in with a firm Dunno.

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 5 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.

144 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Does South Africa have a future in European competition? Does South Africa have a future in European competition?
Search