It's probably better to look at this in respect of the "pair" (Mitchell /Smith) rather than the "individual".
Ideally you tag them both.
That was the plan.
Fisher was the man for Mitchell.
Now, we send Curnow to Smith.... and Mitchell has a day out.
But if we send Curnow to Mitchell then Smith becomes more effective.
So you cant look at Mitchell's contribution in isolation.
You have to look at in terms of his contribution minus the effect of keeping Smith quieter (He had his second lowest possession game for the year)
....and that becomes a very much "lesser" total effect.
We should have tagged both?
Yep, But with who?
Kennedy was suggested several times by the commentators.
He's hard enough but he would have struggled with the running aspect.
Who else?
Prof E says O'Brien for Smith....a possibility. A good lesson if nothing else.
It does become a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul", and when you're a couple of players down the ability to use another player with a purely run with role diminishes your options further.
Now I'm not excusing the coaches.
They made a judgement...and while one player was contained the other had a (predictably) exceptional game.
Am I critical Mitchell wasn't curtailed.
Yes I am.
Do I think Mitchell was more of priority than Smith.
Definitely! Statistically (and not just on disposals) there is daylight between them..
But I'm also glad it's not me with those decisions.
That's well above my pay grade.... and maybe not as simple or obvious as it looks in hindsight.
Ideally you tag them both.
That was the plan.
Fisher was the man for Mitchell.
Now, we send Curnow to Smith.... and Mitchell has a day out.
But if we send Curnow to Mitchell then Smith becomes more effective.
So you cant look at Mitchell's contribution in isolation.
You have to look at in terms of his contribution minus the effect of keeping Smith quieter (He had his second lowest possession game for the year)
....and that becomes a very much "lesser" total effect.
We should have tagged both?
Yep, But with who?
Kennedy was suggested several times by the commentators.
He's hard enough but he would have struggled with the running aspect.
Who else?
Prof E says O'Brien for Smith....a possibility. A good lesson if nothing else.
It does become a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul", and when you're a couple of players down the ability to use another player with a purely run with role diminishes your options further.
Now I'm not excusing the coaches.
They made a judgement...and while one player was contained the other had a (predictably) exceptional game.
Am I critical Mitchell wasn't curtailed.
Yes I am.
Do I think Mitchell was more of priority than Smith.
Definitely! Statistically (and not just on disposals) there is daylight between them..
But I'm also glad it's not me with those decisions.
That's well above my pay grade.... and maybe not as simple or obvious as it looks in hindsight.