The rapid rise of Marcus Smith’s career was far from coincidental.

The eye of the hawk that he possessed allowed him to notice things like gaps inside the defense and also the opportunity to showcase his skills, thus leading him to receive immense praise during his time at Harlequins.

Smith, similar to the traditional English fly halves, did not place focus on control or management but rather relied on instinctive footwork and unlocking of defenses to build on his reputation.

As it seemed, England finally found the answer to their modern attacking fly half; however, international rugby is about more than individual talent or skill. Players need to move according to the coach’s resources and plans, which was the root of the problem.

A Clash of Philosophies

The calculated plan laid out by Steve Borthwick revolves around the strict development of discipline into the system. His blueprint for England hinges on territorial control, defensive solidity, and a effective kicking game, much like the strategic thinking one might apply when playing at an online casino.

Where this system works to maintain consistency and minimize risk, it is certainly not equipped to deal with a player like Smith, whose game flows best when he is allowed to use freedom and improvisation. In an attempt to implement his vision with more precision, Borthwick chose more controllable fly-halves, instead of tailoring the strategy to Smith’s defined strengths.

In doing so, adjustment doors opened for George Ford, a player whose tactical discipline and game management fit Ford’s philosophy like a glove. Accordingly, Smith began to be regarded more as a luxury rather than a necessity, as a player whose lack of structure, rather than embraced, was regarded as a liability.

The Full-Back Experiment

To ensure Smith maintained a role in the squad, England’s coaching staff tried shifting his position to full-back. The idea wasn’t completely without rationale: it enabled Smith to utilize his counter-attacking skill as well as add another playmaking option. Despite the rationale, the experiment was riddled with issues.

Like many advances in the game, full-back requires a different approach to the defense, particularly in relation to aerial and backfield coverage. Even though Smith had the required attacking instincts for the role, the lack of positional experience became painfully clear. The change exposed the gaps in the approaches taken.

Instead of realizing Smith’s potential, the change highlighted his shortcomings. It also posed a rather troubling problem: was England truly attempting to incorporate him into the group, or was they rather trying to smoothen the edges to fit him into a framework that did not suit his instinctive manner of play?

Confidence and Consistency: The Mental Game

Unlike levels 0-4 of the Castle. A game of numbers, trying to win money, tends to have a reverberating effect on the mind. It can be imagining a struggle a golfer goes through when uncertain of being benched or picked in the roster. Previously a very self assured athlete, Smith seemed to be permanently stuck in somewhere between on the water in off the different role trains. Try dealing with that pressure in game or with a film, tough right?

It’s more than just the outstanding amount of effort one puts in, in every play. When it reaches the athletic world, everything depends on the skill, balance, and level of trust a person has in their position. There are cases where it is less. If ‘strategic’ substituting is overly executed, to heed certain directions with no clear plan, confidence is in jeopardy. They start yellow-carding every single proposal and rather than making, the call permits them to, fuels the fire of hesitations.

The Bigger Picture: System vs. Individual Brilliance

The case of Marcus Smith brings to light a wider issue in rugby: Should a team be configured around the most talented players, or do players need to follow a specific framework?

It’s not as simple as following one answer. A properly drilled team will beaver away at a well defined structure that will help remove inconsistencies and weaknesses. But on the downside, players that tend to do best when let off the leash with an avenue for self expression are going to be severely stifled within such an environment. On the other side, focusing on one particular playmaker can lead to too much dependence on that one individual, making the team prone to simple counter strategies.

In Smith’s case, it seems like the challenges might be two-fold. Either he adjusts his style to fit Borthwick’s system, or England figures out a way to incorporate his style without breaking the cohesion. History tends to see the dominant teams as the ones that find ways to make the most brilliant players as essential as possible.

In Retrospect

Controversially sidelined Smith seems to always generate discussion – but in reality, Smith’s partnership with the flyhalf is far more concerning for him and England. This debate has precisely evolved far beyond selection issues. It considers the boundaries of team dynamics, modern evolution, systems, and control vs creativity.

There are advantages to England’s tactical configuration under Borthwick. However, the strategies will need to be updated as the sport itself develops. If Smith is to reestablish himself of England’s linchpin, he needs the stronger backing of team structure rather than sheer brilliance. Leaving it at that is improbable, but one thing does remain: that kind of talent won’t remain invisible for long.