Marcus Smith (Image: Getty)
Amid the ongoing Six Nations Championship, England’s tactical shifts under Steve Borthwick have sparked heated debate.
England have increasingly experimented with playing individuals out of their natural positions, in search of greater flexibility and attacking fluency. Some of these moves have paid off, while others have sacrificed defensive stability and overall cohesion.
At the heart of this debate is Marcus Smith — the Harlequins’ gifted fly-half set to be tested at full-back against France. While the idea of adding a second playmaker to the backfield offers an intriguing dynamic, it also comes with risks. Can Smith truly thrive in a role that demands aerial dominance, defensive awareness, and positional discipline?
The logic behind England’s positional experiments
Versatility has become increasingly critical in modern-day rugby. Adaptable players allow for tactical flexibility and cover for injuries. Hence, Borthwick’s England have embraced this philosophy, testing multiple players in unfamiliar roles.
The Smith experiment comes after their second-half collapse against Ireland, which saw England give up a half-time lead and eventually lose 27-22. The defeat was one of the key motivations behind the change, to add a second playmaker in the backline.
The best teams in the world, like New Zealand and Ireland, often use a secondary distributor outside of the fly-half to open up attacking options. Smith, with his quick feet, vision, and attacking instinct, brings a different dimension from deep.
There is precedent for such a move – in the 2019 World Cup, Beauden Barrett made a similar transition for New Zealand to accommodate Richie Mo’unga, the Crusaders playmaker, in a ‘dual playmaker’ strategy. The idea is that Smith, too, could slot into this hybrid role, linking play from the backfield while also stepping into the attacking line as a secondary playmaker.
Marcus Smith (Image: Getty)
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
The Marcus Smith full-back debate
Smith’s attacking strengths are undeniable. His footwork makes him elusive, and his creativity can unsettle defensive lines. When England want to play fast, expansive rugby, having a player of Smith’s vision in the backfield can be an asset.
However, playing full-back isn’t just about attacking play—it demands aerial security, defensive positioning, and an ability to organize the backfield. These are areas where Smith is still developing.
England’s tactical approach relies heavily on winning the kicking battle, and full-backs play a crucial role in this. Aerial dominance is one of the most important aspects of the position, and at 5’9”, Smith is at a natural disadvantage compared to traditional full-backs like Freddie Steward.
Defensively, Smith also faces a steep learning curve. Full-backs are the last line of defence and must anticipate opposition kicks while covering large amounts of ground. His positioning will need to improve, especially against teams that look to exploit space with tactical kicking.
Other positional shifts: What’s working and what isn’t
Smith’s experiment is just one of several position swaps in England’s setup. Borthwick has shown a willingness to try different combinations, with mixed results.
One of the more successful transitions has been George Furbank stepping into the No. 15 role. Furbank offers a balance of ball-playing ability and defensive awareness, providing a more natural alternative to Smith while still maintaining attacking fluidity.
In the past, England has also experimented with moving back-rowers into lock positions. Maro Itoje, traditionally a second-row, has at times been deployed as a hybrid lock-flanker. While this has added dynamism to open play, it has also raised questions about England’s ability to dominate set pieces.
Not all experiments have paid off. Playing players out of position can lead to defensive disorganisation and a lack of cohesion. Some of England’s recent performances have looked disjointed, particularly when the team struggles to adjust defensively.
Should England persist with the Marcus Smith project?
The Smith full-back experiment will face its litmus test against France, and whether it becomes a long-term solution depends on his ability to refine the defensive aspects of his game.
England’s coaching staff must weigh whether the attacking benefits of having an extra playmaker outweigh the potential defensive vulnerabilities. If Smith can improve under the high ball and develop a more natural positional sense, he could become a genuine option at full-back.
However, if England continues to struggle in aerial duels and defensive organisation, Borthwick may have to rethink the strategy—either by reverting Smith to fly-half or reconsidering the overall approach to positional flexibility.
Ultimately, the team’s success hinges on whether these positional shifts create a more dynamic and adaptable team, or leave them exposed in crucial areas.