• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

England's Argetine Adventure

Gather App
The RFU website is saying there are no plans to add a replacement to the squad. Err... doesn't that leave us short a loosehead prop? Unless Doran-Jones is being played on the wrong side.

As said, it leaves the scrum a lot weaker. I just hope Marler scrummages like he did last year against the Springboks; otherwise the scrum could be in trouble.

EDIT: Bugger, beaten to it.
 
Great news for Corbs. If Healy doesn't return, I think Corbs could be an outside bet to make the Lions XV. He has the ability to get ahead of Vunipola and Jenkins, it's just a question of whether he has the match fitness.
 
Peat said:
Its that time again already?

I think we need everything we need to about Robshaw's abilities at openside that Lancaster is happy to play him there, but also openly talks of his desire to see a more specialised player challenging. It perfectly encapsulates where Robshaw is.

Also, I'm not being funny, but all this "It didn't work in one match so we only came second means it doesn't work" is just crap. England have come second two years running, beaten the All Blacks (albeit in fortutious circs) and got a draw in South Africa with a 'blindside' at 7. We lost one tight game to Wales last year with a very raw team and one game which featured a very anomalous scoreline for England, has plenty of off the pitch factors to point at to help explain it, and was mainly lost in the front row, which poisons all other aspects of forward play when it goes wrong - and therefore, isn't the best example ever. England have had a great deal of success over the past two years with "two blindsides". With even better blindsides, we'd have had even more probably...

*records the message for future purposes*
Click to expand...

This! one game last season just one game Robshaw was not the best 7 on the pitch, really wish people would say he isnt a 7 the fact is he is a great backrow player and makes a mockery of this "fetcher" role invented by the press to make them think they know what they are talking about.
 
Tallshort said:
This! one game last season just one game Robshaw was not the best 7 on the pitch, really wish people would say he isnt a 7 the fact is he is a great backrow player and makes a mockery of this "fetcher" role invented by the press to make them think they know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Jesus ****ing christ you're now saying there is no such thing as a fetcher? Granted, the importance of one player fetching for the whole team has had a huge amount of hyperbole attached to it.
But "the fact is" he isn't an openside, he may well have been the best flanker on the pitch in any given game, but he has at no point fulfilled the role of an openside truly.
He has tried, but he is simply not in possession of the physical attributes or skills needed to do so. He is good enough a player that his contributions have been great regardless.
 
David Pocock - His primary role for Australia is to win clean turnovers and penalties at the ruck.
Hooper is the better ball carrier/link man, but is still considered second choice because of Pocock's ability at the breakdown.
 
ratsapprentice said:
David Pocock - His primary role for Australia is to win clean turnovers and penalties at the ruck.
Hooper is the better ball carrier/link man, but is still considered second choice because of Pocock's ability at the breakdown.
Click to expand...

off-topic, but: is Pocock the best fetcher of all-time, or have I missed out on some great other ones earlier ? (dunno much before the 90's, and the 90's themselves I barely know).
Just I've never seen anyone remotely close to Pocock's efficiency in that regard so...
 
^ I know, man !! Have seen this one many times already. Look at 0:29, can you believe it ?!! Goes from immense Bok onslaught-pressure, steps from the try-line; to a...turnover !!...one guy ?!!....

P.S.: wht's that miserable glam-metal soundtrack ? Bon Jovi ? Brings a tear to my eye too.
 
ratsapprentice said:
David Pocock - His primary role for Australia is to win clean turnovers and penalties at the ruck.
Hooper is the better ball carrier/link man, but is still considered second choice because of Pocock's ability at the breakdown.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much the role of any openside flanker as they are normally the first to the breakdown being on the openside of the set piece and is something Robshaw does very well he was even complimented on it by Steve Walsh during the tour of South Africa last year. Ok some players make a real specialty out of it but that has diminished since the rule requiring the player to release in the tackle (something Pocock didnt do a number of times in that video) and tighter reffing of the breakdown in the NH in particular.

In the six nations Robshaw was as good at being a 7 as anyone probably better leading up the the Cardiff game but still people are looking for this elusive "Specialist 7" that despite playing very wellin that position for England is not Robshaw which frankly is a load of Rubbish would we really put Kvesic or Seymour a head of Robshaw if we were playing the all blacks tomorrow? No way
 
Show me evidence of Robshaw stealing the ball.

So you agree that Pocock could be described as a turnover specialist aka a "fetcher"?

He wasn't as good at being a 7 as anyone, he was as good as anyone being a 6.
If we were playing the All Blacks tomorrow I would play Robshaw at 6.
Kvesic hasn't shown he is good enough yet, but he hasn't even played a test.
In time I'm sure he will show that he is good enough.

Stuart Lancaster said:
"The ability to get over the ball, turn over ball, but also keep the continuity and be the link player," explained Lancaster, "it's an area we've wanted to build more depth in that position.
"The likes of Matt, Will Fraser and Luke Wallace, there's young players coming through there now, and it's certainly something I'm keen to see.
"In an ideal world you would want that natural seven, but you often don't get that.
"And certainly from my point of view Chris Robshaw was my best ball carrier, my best defender and probably hit more breakdowns that anyone else.
"So he's certainly done a good job for us.
"When you come to select your side it's about balancing your back-row, and part of the selection decisions we made around the Six Nations were based around availability.
Click to expand...
 
Imo a classical 7 should be one of the most versatile players on the pitch. They should be almost as comfortable in the backs as they are in the forwards, Tipuric being a prime example, as are Gill, Hooper, McCaw etc. But this is not to say that every 7 has to be like this to be good or successful, just as not every 10 needs the running game of Phil Bennet.

However I feel there is a core skillset that the top 7's should have, just as there is a core skillset all 10's need. A 10 needs to be able to kick, distribute and make decisions based on what's in front of him. Without those core skills, he will not make it at international level. The openside flanker isn't as exposed as a 10, but the best should be a good fetcher, and a good link player, or at least that's my opinion of it.

England have relied heavily on Dan Cole to do a lot of the fetching recently, with the backrow as a unit getting a couple now and again. Where I see this falling down is against genuine fetchers who possess a little more pace than Cole, Robshaw and Wood for example, Warburton and Tipuric being prime examples. They were able to get to the rucks that split second quicker thus preventing the English fetchers from being effective. This is the downfall I see of having a prop as the primary fetcher in the team, he can be nullified quite easily by a quick and efficient backrow.

I feel like some are taking the criticisms of Robshaw as a 7 as a dig at his overall game. This isn't the case, he's an excellent player imo, but there really is no denying that he still plays as a blindside on the openside. He hasn't managed to adapt his game in the way SOB has, possibly due to a lack of pace, so he continues to do what he knows, and that's to get stuck in and graft all game. As a blindside that's what would be expected, but as an openside I personally would expect a bit more, or at least something a bit different.
 
First of, I agree with what my learned colleague Professor Olyy Northern Monkey said about the scrum.

As for the rest of it...

Fair enough, Australia show what can be done on the back of a shaky platform - although I would argue their platform hasn't been exposed in the same way we were for a few years now, not on a regular basis anyway. Its stronger than many think. And we certainly did not have the skill levels to play like Australia. I maintain that a weak scrum usually leads to a weak pack performance. And I also maintain that there a great deal of adverse factors in that game which make it so far removed from the standard England performance that it's of very little use as a guide to England's weaknesses. It would be like saying Dan Carter has a defensive issue because Tuilagi made him his female dog that time. Nothing you've said so far has changed my mind on that, dull.

You also acknowledge that France use a different back-row set up to the traditional one. I think we can all agree they've been moderately successful over their history. So, either the classic model is not the only one, or France's achievements are incredible having been achieved with such an area of weakness. The former one seems more likely to me. If France don't need an openside, do England? As for Ireland, their front five has been weak (particularly with POC's troubles) and no Fez, plus having a very large boil as a rugby coach, means I'm seeing plenty of other reasons they might have malfunctioned. Leinster have been fine with O'Brien at 7, and by fine I mean the dominant team in Europe, along with the French guys who may or may not be using an openside at any particular moment.

And I see an inconsistency in you saying that Scotland's/Italy's balanced units have not worked against us because of weaknesses in other areas of the park, but not accepting me pointing out that England's whopping great weaknesses in other areas of the park in that game against Wales makes it very difficult to draw useful conclusions about England's back row. One or the other. Either other areas of the pitch affect it greatly, and that day is a poor game to take examples from, or back rows live and die on their own merits and England's unit is a pretty cool bunch of cats. I will accept the answer some from column A, some from column B.

So... sorry, I still think you're off-base with two blindsides being the root of all evil :P Traditional opensides are a great thing to have around, but the list of examples of teams winning without them is simply too long. Including England, who are generally rather successful at the moment.

And oh look, you've gone and posted again... gah. Can't be bothered to edit.

The only other thing to add is that Robshaw is palpably not a traditional openside. He's had some excellent games in that role, and there was a point at which I really felt he was growing into it, but it's been too inconsistent. That said, he ended the season a visibly tired man. Hopefully the rest restores him some. Regardless, I am still content with Robshaw/Croft/Wood with Morgan. Also, hopefully Kvesic turns into the all-round top quality flanker he looks like becoming. Because while I am content, I am not completely happy.
 
Peat said:
The only other thing to add is that Robshaw is palpably not a traditional openside. He's had some excellent games in that role, and there was a point at which I really felt he was growing into it, but it's been too inconsistent. That said, he ended the season a visibly tired man. Hopefully the rest restores him some. Regardless, I am still content with Robshaw/Croft/Wood with Morgan. Also, hopefully Kvesic turns into the all-round top quality flanker he looks like becoming. Because while I am content, I am not completely happy.
Click to expand...

Completely agree that the people saying we're in some sort of mire because we have two blindsides are wrong (three is definitely too many though).
I wouldn't say that replacing Wood or Robshaw in the starting 15 is our top priority.
However, I am of the opinion that specialists are preferable to non specialists.
There are exceptions to this though:
a) when you're specialist does not add more to the sum of the team's parts than the non-specialist. (as has been the case with Wood/Robshaw)
b) for tactical reasons
Those "rules" apply to all positions imo.
We do now have a handful of young opensides who are viable options for England development, Kvesic being the front-runner.


EDIT:

England side to face Argentina in Salta on Saturday, June 8 (kick-off 20:10 BST)
15. Mike Brown (Harlequins, 16 caps)
14. Christian Wade (Wasps, uncapped)
13. Jonathan Joseph (London Irish, 4 caps)
12. Billy Twelvetrees (Gloucester Rugby, 4 caps)
11. David Strettle (Saracens, 13 caps)
10. Freddie Burns (Gloucester Rugby, 1 cap)
9. Lee Dickson (Northampton Saints, 7 caps)
1. Joe Marler (Harlequins, 10 caps)
2. Rob Webber (Bath Rugby, 3 caps)
3. David Wilson (Bath Rugby, 26 caps)
4. Joe Launchbury (London Wasps, 9 caps)
5. Dave Attwood (Bath Rugby, 2 caps)
6. Tom Wood (Northampton Saints, 18 caps, captain)
7. Matt Kvesic (Worcester Warriors, uncapped)
8. Ben Morgan (Gloucester Rugby, 10 caps)
Replacements
16. David Paice (London Irish, 6 caps)
17. Henry Thomas (Sale Sharks, uncapped)
18. Paul Doran Jones (Northampton Saints, 4 caps)
19. Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 20 caps)
20. Billy Vunipola (London Wasps, uncapped)
21. Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens, 12 caps)
22. Kyle Eastmond (Bath Rugby, uncapped)
23. Ben Foden (Northampton Saints, 30 caps)
 
Last edited:
Foden should be starting. In place of Strettle would do me, in place of Brown if needs must. Other than that, I am rather happy with that to say the least.
 
I'm happy with Brown starting, but Foden has been in great for for a couple of weeks now.
Hopefully he gets a decent opportunity to continue it.
Would have been happy with either Dickson or Wigglesworth starting.
Happy to see Attwood given more time too, Lawes is still not stepping up, which is very disappointing even if we aren't short on long levered, athletic locks.
 
Last edited:
Peat. I agree that England had other issues in that game, and I never stated that the backrow balance was the root of all evis in that performance, far from it. However this was a debate about the merits of Robshaw as an openside, and the balance of the English backrow (not started my myself), so I didn't want to go into depth about the issues in the scrum, the balance of the second rows, Farell's goal kicking, the balance in the centres, and the creativity of the back three, which were all probably of bigger concern in that game.

That doesn't mean that there is no merit in debating the backrow selection, especially when there are fixes available for many of the other issues with a return to fitness and form of some players (Corbs, Morgan, Foden etc.), or simply picking form players (36, May, Wade, Burns etc.).

I see the balance of England's backrow as a similar issue to the balance of the Welsh midfield. Both Davies and Roberts are very decent players, and they have combined to produce some good performances and been part of successful Welsh performances, but is the balance as good as it could be? Imo, no. Introducing someone with a little more creativity (Henson, Beck) at 12 would imo enable this Welsh side to improve, with Roberts and Davies battling it out for the 13 shirt. That's not to say that there aren't other areas of potential improvement of the Welsh team, but it's one of them.

I admit that I've applied too much importance to the Wales v England game, but imo it highlighted a few issues in the backrow, regardless of other problems. Yes, they were probably hugely magnified due to the other issues, but it doesn't mean they weren't there. Similarly the poor Wales AI's highlighted issues in the Welsh team, even though they have gone on to perform well since.

Maybe the ideal 7 isn't yet available for England, and that for the time being the current combo is best selected for the big games, but it doesn't invalidate the concerns.

As for France dealing without what we're calling a traditional openside, I feel it's somewhat different. That system has always been in place, and as such their flankers are taught and develop a different type of game. Asking players who have always played with the more widely used openside/blindside combination to switch to using a left/right system is probably very difficult indeed. It's like asking a 10 to play at 9 (both have a big hand in controlling a game and distributing the ball), some can do it (again in France the positions are a little more interchangeable because the 9 has a bigger controlling role than in other countries), but most can't.

Edit. As for Leinster. It's a little easier imo to get away with a slight inbalance in the backrow at club level, because most other clubs have similar issues. There have been times when this has been exposed, against the Ospreys and Tipuric in particular, with him having huge influences in the victories over them. I do think that Leinster could have been even better with a traditional 7, keeping SOB at blindside. However I think that SOB has managed to develop into a top class 7 after a slightly rocky transition period, so that has helped Leinster.
 
Last edited:
dullonien said:
Peat. I agree that England had other issues in that game, and I never stated that the backrow balance was the root of all evis in that performance, far from it. However this was a debate about the merits of Robshaw as an openside, and the balance of the English backrow (not started my myself), so I didn't want to go into depth about the issues in the scrum, the balance of the second rows, Farell's goal kicking, the balance in the centres, and the creativity of the back three, which were all probably of bigger concern in that game.

That doesn't mean that there is no merit in debating the backrow selection, especially when there are fixes available for many of the other issues with a return to fitness and form of some players (Corbs, Morgan, Foden etc.), or simply picking form players (36, May, Wade, Burns etc.).

I see the balance of England's backrow as a similar issue to the balance of the Welsh midfield. Both Davies and Roberts are very decent players, and they have combined to produce some good performances and been part of successful Welsh performances, but is the balance as good as it could be? Imo, no. Introducing someone with a little more creativity (Henson, Beck) at 12 would imo enable this Welsh side to improve, with Roberts and Davies battling it out for the 13 shirt. That's not to say that there aren't other areas of potential improvement of the Welsh team, but it's one of them.

I admit that I've applied too much importance to the Wales v England game, but imo it highlighted a few issues in the backrow, regardless of other problems. Yes, they were probably hugely magnified due to the other issues, but it doesn't mean they weren't there. Similarly the poor Wales AI's highlighted issues in the Welsh team, even though they have gone on to perform well since.

Maybe the ideal 7 isn't yet available for England, and that for the time being the current combo is best selected for the big games, but it doesn't invalidate the concerns.

As for France dealing without what we're calling a traditional openside, I feel it's somewhat different. That system has always been in place, and as such their flankers are taught and develop a different type of game. Asking players who have always played with the more widely used openside/blindside combination to switch to using a left/right system is probably very difficult indeed. It's like asking a 10 to play at 9 (both have a big hand in controlling a game and distributing the ball), some can do it (again in France the positions are a little more interchangeable because the 9 has a bigger controlling role than in other countries), but most can't.
Click to expand...

The back row getting outplayed by Michael Hooper would be another example as the issue getting exploited.

People seem to have forgotten about those Australia and South Africa November matches for England after the Norovirus New Zealand one. It seemed that all their issues as to why they lost to those two sides neither of whom were particularly inspiring in November were simply forgotten after one match.

Without that New Zealand match, I wonder whether Lancaster may have selected the better wingers that were available than the 6 Nations ones, given Twelvetrees a proper run of games after impressing against Scotland, and not decided that Farrell was a locked down choice for fly half.
 

Similar threads

BPM
England 24/25 Depth Chart
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
7K
AngloScotsHybrid
A
TRF_stormer2010
Springbok development towards 2027
Replies
4
Views
2K
TRF_stormer2010
TRF_stormer2010
BPM
Life after Eddie …
37 38 39
Replies
774
Views
57K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
big ginger 8
Ireland Summer Tour? Maybe
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
10K
big ginger 8
big ginger 8
BPM
Harlequins - 20/21
Replies
5
Views
2K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top