Marcus Smith’s situation over the past few weeks has been mentally challenging. His preferred position is fly-half, but he has been asked to adapt for the team. Moving from a starting No 10 role to playing out of position and then being benched is a tough adjustment. It’s understandable if he wonders why he was never fully backed in the way that Fin Smith has been. Fin has excelled in the No 10 jersey and now finds himself surrounded by familiar Northampton teammates, providing him with a comfortable framework in which to operate. However, a similar setup was never established for Marcus.
One key takeaway from recent performances is the value that George Furbank brings to the team. Since the World Cup and the international retirement of Owen Farrell, England has transitioned from a 10-12 dual playmaker setup to a 10-15 system. This approach aligns with trends seen in teams like New Zealand, France, and South Africa. Marcus has been asked to play this role, and while he has performed well, it may not have showcased his best attributes. The same could be said for other players who were shifted from their natural positions.
England’s attack has often appeared disjointed. Against Scotland, the team kicked 69% of their possession, with a pass-to-kick ratio of 1:2.7. With such frequent kicking, developing attacking fluency becomes difficult. The question remains: is the lack of fluidity due to Marcus’s performances or the overall philosophy of the team? The latter seems more likely.
It’s clear that Marcus’s instinctive style of play conflicts with the head coach’s vision. The way the team is set up does not cater to his strengths, and he has never been fully entrusted with the No 10 role. While his performances for Harlequins have been consistently outstanding, there seems to be a level of discomfort from the coaching staff when he is at the helm. Conversely, Fin Smith’s approach aligns more closely with the head coach’s philosophy, offering a sense of reassurance.
Elite sport is subjective, and selection decisions are often out of a player’s control. Hard work, dedication, and consistent performance do not always guarantee opportunities if there is a philosophical mismatch between player and coach. This can be difficult to navigate, as Marcus is currently experiencing.
The advice often given in such situations is to stay focused and keep working hard. However, athletes also need to feel that their efforts will lead to opportunities. Marcus has proven himself time and again, yet his contributions are not deemed sufficient at present. It is an emotionally challenging reality.
The key now is for Marcus to continue performing at his best when given the chance. Fans appreciate his attacking flair and will welcome him enthusiastically. If England can find themselves in a strong position during games, perhaps he will have the freedom to play a more expressive style.
The broader challenge for England is justifying their approach. Many observers question how the team intends to improve its attacking play without one of its most naturally gifted attacking players in a central role. It has become a popular discussion point among supporters, drawing comparisons to past football debates about fitting multiple talented midfielders into a team without disrupting balance.
Ultimately, the head coach has the final say. Despite frustrations, his decisions will be judged by results on the field. England has struggled in close matches, and recent victories have not silenced concerns about their style of play. There is now an expectation for the team to deliver on the promise of a more expansive game plan. The upcoming match will serve as a crucial test of whether they can achieve that.
