Johann van Graan: 'Last 24 hours have shown any team can beat any team'

What is very clear is Jordie Barrett and Rieko Ioane have poor chemistry and do not compliment each other's skill set. One or both needs to be dropped from the starting midfield permanently.

Jordie has demonstrated he has the skills to be a world class playmaking 12 but he will never be Ma'a Nonu or Tana Umaga or Nganai Laumape, who could break the line with power almost at will.

Therefore, a big power runner at 13 like Fainga'anuka to play with Barrett at 12 seems like a possible world class combo.

Results:

Marcus runs = 3, inc 1 clean break and 1 tackle break

Kicks long = 5

Kicks short = 3, inc one break assist to Lawrence and one try assist to Sleightholme

Passes outside = 17

Pass inside = 3

Passes to backs = 13

Passes to forwards = 7

So once again, there is no support for your claims. Theory that Marcus cannot pass to his outside = bunkum.

Where should I go to get stats pertaining to run/pass/kick distribution?

That is interesting that Marcus distributed more in the summer than he did in the autumn. I wonder why that happened; do you have any theories?

"How convenient! So you have nothing."

NB I don't have the specific thing that you want me to have. I'm really sorry about this, but I don't know why you're so fixated on that. There were actually multiple strands to our discussion but now you've realised you have more data than me on that one specific point its the only thing you're willing to talk about. I'm also legitimately not sure what you want from me at this point. As I said I'm not going to deny what I know to be true just because you have more figures to hand!

I'm not sure what you mean by Putin "weaponising" the refugee crisis. I don't ever listen to his pronoucnements, so I legitimately do not know what propaganda angle he's trying to push.

Also not sure how I've "lapped up" Putin's propaganda about refugees. Not only have I not read or listened to anything he's said, but I also didn't mention refugees until you did.

"Putin represents a threat to Europe not seen since WW2."

He doesn't pose a threat to England (where I live) and poses a smaller threat to humanity globally than the US does. Do you want me to care about europeans more than Iraqis, Palestinians, Afghans, etc...?

But as I was researching the first Test Eng v the ABs in any case, I thought I'd take the trouble to try and work out what you are trying to say about Marcus Smith via a sample game.

Results as follows:

Distribution:

Long kicks = 3

Short [attacking] kicks = 2

Ball carries = 4, inc 1 tackle bust

Passes outside = 17, inc 1 break assist and 1 try assist

Passes inside = 1

Passes to outside backs = 12

Passes to forwards = 6

So if you are trying to say Marcus does not kow how to include his backs in the game, that game def does not back up your theory.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine was wrong, but so what the US/UK invasion of Iraq. We still allow US internationals to wear their flag.

I actually don't have access to stats pertaining to run/pass/kick distribution. Where do you find them?

I had seen stats confirming the evidence of my eyes that England's outside backs barely received any passes in the autumn, but those stats are now behind a paywall. I can't cite specific figures because of that, but I'm not going to deny what I know to be true just because you have more figures to hand!

The point of sharing the article wasn't to push Charlie Morgan specifically, but just because the article presents pretty clear cut statistics showing how rarely outside backs have been touching the ball when Marcus is at 10.

I think Ford looks very coachable and England shouldn't lose faith in him. Marcus Smith has just been given lots and lots of chances and its never translated into results.

I agree that getting worse is often the way it works for any player, any position. Pointing that out is in no sense a refutation of anything I've said.

That's hard to say, but he certainly hasn't got much better. At 20 he was the top scorer in the six nations, and hasn't been since. At 20 he scored 3 tries in the six nations, and hasn't scored that many since. At 20 he was nominated for 6 nations player of the tournament, and hasn't been since. At 22 he was selected at 10 in the offical 6 nations team of the tournament, and hasn't been since. About a year or two ago a load of people started saying he was the best 10 in the world, which they hadn't previously, but my perception was that this was less because he had gotten better, and more that in 2020 his world class performances could be written off as flukes whereas by 2023 they were clearly representative of his genuine talent.

"Isn't that what your asking for from Marcus?"

Is what what I'm asking for from Marcus?

This thread began with me trying to explain that there is no reason to think that Marcus Smith will improve going forwards. Do you agree or disagree with that point?

"that the team wants/needs an older version of Dan Carter? Or are you just basing this of win ratio."

What? I literally argued that Dan Carter was at least as good when he was young as he was when he was older. And no, I'm not basing this off win ratio; I just think that England's low win ratio is partly a result of Marcus Smith being much worse than people realise.

"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."

That is literally the argument I am making though. The fact that you agree with me doesn't invalidate my point. People in this thread were arguing that Marcus Smith would continue to improve going forwards; I argued that he might not, and that even if he does he is already not far from his peak. He will literally be 26 next month, so if you are right that 26/27 is undoubtedly the peak of most "peole", he's only got 5 more weeks of development in him!

"Hahaha, define "good"? I'd suggest to you theyre a "good" side now"

I think finishing 3rd at the world cup is good. I think beating Ireland is good. I think losing 5 consecutive matches isn't good. I define good in terms of winning games, and I think that the world rankings are a pretty good metric for quantifying whether consequential games have been won in a team's recent history. How are you defining "good"?

"Surely Ford or Farrell must have had a period of great success somewhere? What about 2015?"

I honestly don't know what you're talking about, or how it bears any relation to this conversation. Farrell probably peaked sometime around 2016 or 2017, Ford probably peaked a couple of years later, but Ford is still a better player now than Marcus Smith is.

"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)."

England adapted pretty quickly to an open game in the six nations last year, and have got worse since then. If England play in the attacking style of play that is common in the premiership the players will pick it up quickly, as they are well used to it.

"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?"

Seriously, what are you talking about? I don't want "the rest of the team trying to half this momentum", I want the rest of the team to be allowed to play the attacking rugby that comes naturally to them. You seem to have decided that because Marcus Smith has pioneered a style of rugby that works for a mid-table premiership side, the entire England national team should be forced to play it, even if it takes them years to learn it, and lose almost all their matches in the process?