Why Can't Robshaw become a traditional openside flanker

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

So after a heated discussed in my rugby club at the weekend i'm curious as to why C Robsahw can't become a traditional openside flanker?

Tom Yougns went from Centre to Hooker in a couple of years and blind to open side flank is a lot more similar so what do people think that Robshaw Doesn't do? does do?

Does he need to be faster? better on the ball (ground work)?

OR is this just a bit of a media hype saying he is not a traditional openside when he ticks all the boxes? I'm not really sure about where i stand on it any more, just interested to hear peoples views on this.

 

[ratsapprentice]

For the same reason Mike Brown can't just "become" a winger - he isn't one.

When you're playing as a kid at school or junior club or wherever... you usually get put on the openside or blindside purely based on how fast you are.
The faster guy goes to openside and the slower guy goes to blindside - playing in said position will lead you to develop the skills required for it.

There is nothing that says you have to play two discernible flanker roles - the French generally don't, they just have two flankers.
The thing that winds people up about Robshaw is the constant insistence from some commentators/coaches that he is an openside when he clearly isn't.
They point to him making a clean turnover at a ruck and say "look he's an openside" when in reality the main attribute of an openside is his pace.
In recent times there has been a tendency for the openside to be a specialist poacher, but this is not the defining feature IMO.
All back row players should be proficient at this skill.
The openside needs to have the ability to get to breakdowns quickly - either to support his own player who has made a clean break, or to slow/steal an opposition player who has broken through the defensive line.

Back rows (all units actually) are about balance there are generally two different setups.
Most people tend to prefer the traditional set up as opposed to the French one.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I dunno, but he's been playing at 7 for...3 years? and hasn't, so I think it's safe to say he won't*.
He seems to be doing well as a 6.5, and as above: balance is more important. A Wood/Robshaw/Binny or Morgan backrow is balanced because you've got two Blindside/Openside hybrids and a big carrying 8.
A Fearns/Kvesic/Binny backrow would work because you've got a slighter 7 with a bigger 6.




*I know people are now going to say "but he look at his stats, he is an openside!", but I don't buy it. I don't claim to know the ins and outs of forward play, but compare the way that Robshaw plays to the way that Braid/Seymour/Kvesic play, and it's very different styles.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

The problem is i watch the saints week in week out and we don't really have classic openside so i don't really see much 'traditional' play anymore.

So the question is why hasn't Robshaw improved his speed and changed the way he plays as he has been playing that role for 3 years? Why hasn't he? Surely you'd want to be the best you can be!

 

[ratsapprentice]

This is Robshaw after he has improved his speed...

He isn't naturally very pacy, which is why he is unable to play as a traditional openside.

 

[j'nuh]

"Traditional" is a bit of a misnomer really. The 7s labelled as "traditional" are much bigger and more well-rounded in their skills than their older variants. In the past, you might have dedicated more time to your specialism and get picked on that basis, but nowadays top forwards need to be very well-rounded with one or two main specialisms. This is what links the world-class players. Guys like an in-form Pocock, McCaw, Flouw etc., are amongst the best well-rounded and specialist players. England's problem is that we have a decision to make between the guy who is probably more well-rounded (Robshaw) and the guy who is probably better at his specialisms (Kvesic/Fraser).

 

[ratsapprentice]

I don't think so; Pocock, McCaw and Flouw are all still relatively pacey compared to their blindside counterparts (Kimlin (in SR), Messam and Alberts).


It's not as if Kvesic or Fraser aren't well rounded though is it?
The difference is that those three you mentioned are simply better.

 

[BasqueBete]

Open side needs to be a poacher, a fixer, a conduit, and have a clever rugby brain, which can make up for lack of pace..

It's a specialist position, which requires some things which you can not necessarily coach.

Robshaw is an average intl blindside, Luke Wallace is an open side.

Robshaw is also not a good captain. He mirrors his coach , and his coach is as dull as ditchwater, and a yes man..

What do they say about dogs and their owners...

 

[Peat]

I don't accept that pace is the defining characteristic of the classic openside and feels there's a very strong argument that when people talk about 'proper' opensides now, they basically mean 'someone who is godlike at the breakdown'.

For me, yes, a classic openside is defined as someone having all the skills to play as a back combined with the tenacity and technical skills of a forward. Michael Hooper is imo the outstanding current example. An awful lot of current opensides are, in my eyes at least, lacking in this skillset. Pace does come into it but there are so many other elements.

What people mean by openside now is imo breakdown specialist. Robshaw is not good enough at that. He is good, but not that good. Why hasn't he improved? Again, pace comes into it a little but I think there's bigger issues. The main ones are a) Its not that easy to jump from good to great b) he's too busy. Considering his workload in terms of tackling, carrying and passing, he's frequently not in the right position. Robshaw is at his best taking on this huge workload and allowing other players to play.

Tbh... take the numbers off the jersies, manipulate the video so all players look the same, and ask someone to pick out the openside using some other signifier - I think most people watching that game again would think Launchbury was our openside.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Part of being good at the breakdown is being able to get there first.
Being slow precludes players from being opensides IMO.

If you have the pace to get to breakdowns quickly, then having even more pace will not make you better in that role - but you need a certain amount to be able to compete in that role.

 

[j'nuh]

Not necessarily. The window to act to make a turnover is so short that speed on foot isn't going to make much of a difference, because if you have to travel any kind of distance on foot, you're not going to get there in time anyway. Most turnovers are done either by the tackler rising back to his feet, or the first person into a ruck. It's much more important to have speed to and from the ground and/or strength to drive over the ball in this case than pace. That said, if you have the agility to get up and down on the floor, you also probably have agility on foot - there must be a fairly decent correlation there.

 

[dullonien]

Not necessarily. The window to act to make a turnover is so short that speed on foot isn't going to make much of a difference, because if you have to travel any kind of distance on foot, you're not going to get there in time anyway. Most turnovers are done either by the tackler rising back to his feet, or the first person into a ruck. It's much more important to have speed to and from the ground and/or strength to drive over the ball in this case than pace. Although I suppose you could include the former in being slow. Robshaw certainly suffers from not being as fast up on his feet after a tackle compared to the better 7s.

I disagree. When I think about a traditional/classic openside, I think of someone with pace, who is adept in both the tight and the loose. They are the ones offering support in attack, to either continue the move, or protect the ball at the ensuring ruck when the rest of the pack will still be trying to catch up. Some might argue that one of the other backline players can do this job, they're big enough. However, having the rest of the backline players in position for the next wave of attack is important, so tying them into rucks will just limit the next phase.

Imo, Tipuric is almost the perfect traditional 7. He's physical enough to get stuck into the general role of a forward, carrying the ball, defending the fringes; but he's also quick enough and skilful enough to play as an extra backline player. Take the first try he scored against the Dragons last week, he was able to support Matthew Morgan when 95% of forwards would be left tens of metres behind, and was there to take a pop pass from the ground. If the ball hadn't of come, he would also have been there to protect the ball in the ruck and provide quick ball on the next phase to the O's backs could finish the job against a disorganised defence.

So imho, pace is what separates what I call a traditional openside from a blindside type of player playing at 7.

Edit. Being a good jackler is a more modern role for an openside, but it stems from this combination of physicality and pace, making the openside the outstanding candidate for the job in defensive situations. Whilst someone like Dan Cole is an excellent jackler, he doesn't necessarily have the pace over the first few metres to get himself into as many rucks as someone like Pocock or Warburton. This is where Robshaw struggles slightly as well, when someone is tackled right in front of him, he can get over the ball and is physical enough to stay there, but if the tackled player is a few metres away, he doesn't have the pace to get there before the opposition backrow, and thus struggles to get himself into a good position.

It was evident a couple of years ago with Warburton, that after a series of injuries, he'd lost half a yard of pace, and struggled to make much impact at the breakdown.

 

[j'nuh]

I don't disagree with you at all. I was just talking solely from a breakdown perspective.

 

[Peat]

When it comes to the turnover, I think having the intelligence to know where to be - and the operational freedom - is more important than having the pace to get there, and then comes the technique to stick in there. The pace is far more important in terms of supporting the ball carrier.

 

[ratsapprentice]

When it comes to the turnover, I think having the intelligence to know where to be - and the operational freedom - is more important than having the pace to get there, and then comes the technique to stick in there. The pace is far more important in terms of supporting the ball carrier.

That's what I said...

In recent times there has been a tendency for the openside to be a specialist poacher, but this is not the defining feature IMO.
All back row players should be proficient at this skill.
The openside needs to have the ability to get to breakdowns quickly - either to support his own player who has made a clean break, or to slow/steal an opposition player who has broken through the defensive line.

 

[dullonien]

When it comes to the turnover, I think having the intelligence to know where to be - and the operational freedom - is more important than having the pace to get there, and then comes the technique to stick in there. The pace is far more important in terms of supporting the ball carrier.

It's a combination really. Having the intelligence and game awareness to be in the right place is one thing, but it's only going to get you in the general area, so within a few metres. Then pace over the first few metres matters to get you to that tackle area before the opposition. And finally the physicality and technique is required to stick in there when the inevitable cavalry arrive and smash you off the ball. I'd say that the majority of turnovers are won before the cavalry arrive to drive the jackling player off the ball though, so imo the last point is slightly less important.

 

[Peat]

Dull - still disagreeing. Over that short a distance, starting first is more valuable than being fast. If you're racing the opposition to the tackle area, you're probably not going to win it. And, yes, a lot of turnovers are won before the cavalry arrives, but that's what seperates the good from the great. You'll see the likes of Hooper and Pocock stay on the ball even when get smashed. You won't see Robshaw do that.

Edit - Rats - that was aimed at Dull - also, good shout on the cover tackling. Hooper's scramble was excellent. Basically, everytime I watch him play, I wish he was playing for us. Would be the greatest poach of a long time.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

How do the ABs keep producing great 7s and England seem to struggle? Ever since I've followed Rugby ABs have had Michael Jones, Josh Kronfeld, Richie McCaw and it looks like they will continue this great tradition with Sam Cane and possibly with Ardie Savea.

In the same time England have had the calibre of Peter Winterbottom, followed by the big lumps of Mickey Skinner, even Ben Clarke at the 1995 RWC; who weren't open sides in the traditional sense. We then produce two fine ones in Richard Hill and Neil Back, followed by Mad dog Lewis Moody, who was really a 6.5. Now Robshaw is another 6.5.

 

[dullonien]

Dull - still disagreeing.

Nah. I think we're on the same page here.

The only thing I'll say is that poachers can't necessarily always be running in the direction of the next tackle area. They won't usually be running in the opposite direction, but they may well be filling a hole in the defensive line, and thus standing relatively static. When a tackle area is then formed, and players from both sides are drawn in, they have the opportunity to them leave the defensive line and try to get in over the ball. So imo pace is still important, but certainly not diminishing the importance of their ability to read the game.

How do the ABs keep producing great 7s and England seem to struggle? Ever since I've followed Rugby ABs have had Michael Jones, Josh Kronfeld, Richie McCaw and it looks like they will continue this great tradition with Sam Cane and possibly with Ardie Savea.

In the same time England have had the calibre of Peter Winterbottom, followed by the big lumps of Mickey Skinner, even Ben Clarke at the 1995 RWC; who weren't open sides in the traditional sense. We then produce two fine ones in Richard Hill and Neil Back, followed by Mad dog Lewis Moody, who was really a 6.5. Now Robshaw is another 6.5.

More than likely due to the culture in English rugby as a whole. It's often evident in the make-up of English age-grade sides, who seem to rely heavily on physical strength and power, especially in the forwards. It's an area that I believe NZ have got spot-on, with schools separating players by size rather than age. This means that all players develop a more rounded skill-set early on. Compare that to the system we use here where the early developing kids just overpower everyone else, meaning the small players can't really get into the game, and there's no urgency for the big kids to develop the rest of their games.

 

[big ginger 8]

Just for the mandatory Irishing of the thread and actual curiosity. Do people now consider SO'B a 7? For ages he was often lumped with Robshaw as a 6.5. Now he's got the most turnovers in the Heineken Cup so far but has his carrying back to what it was as a blindside.