- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
SO'B is a freak.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Why Can't Robshaw become a traditional openside flanker
- Thread starter Don't Skip Leg Day
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2011
- Messages
- 12,288
- Reaction score
- 2,264
Yeah I'd go along with that alright.
Neil Back was one of the slowest backrow forwards at tigers or England when he played yet was considered a very good openside, this whole debate is pointless Robshaw has been playing 7 for 3 years now as captain of club and country. He completely out performed Hooper at the weekend who everyone thinks is such a great and natural 7 but still people think he is a 6. The backrow positions are all interchangeable depending on the situation this whole jackel thing is a red herring all forwards and backs for that matter should be good at the breakdown, the idea that only 1 player is allowed to compete for the ball is daft and unrealistic.
Robshaw didn't completely outplay hooper, our pack outplayed theirs as a unit.
No use getting to the ball first if you get 5 opposition players smashing you off it seconds later.
No use getting to the ball first if you get 5 opposition players smashing you off it seconds later.
So a 7 is only as good as the rest of the pack? In that case Robshaw was better than Hooper.
In a way, I guess - if the pack is getting outmuscled then the 7 doesn't have the support he needs at times (we had that problem at Sale last year).
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
Again though... you're denying there is such a thing as an openside - if there wasn't then there would be no need to differentiate between them.
Nowhere have I said Robshaw played badly on here - he played well.
But he played well in the "French" back row system - where you have two generic, interchangeable flankers and a ball carrying number 8.
Nowhere have I said Robshaw played badly on here - he played well.
But he played well in the "French" back row system - where you have two generic, interchangeable flankers and a ball carrying number 8.
ZeFrenchy
First XV
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,786
- Reaction score
- 0
Maybe it's my "french setup" mentality, but I struggle to see, for instance, the difference in style between Robshaw and the "modern" McCaw. Or to see what made Schalk Burger an openside, or to see how Ferris, Higgingbotham, Tom Croft or Adam Thomson can be slower than their openside counterparts...
I see how Tipuric or Hooper stick to the definition you're all giving here, but I struggle to see McCaw, Goerge Smith, Pocock or Sam Warburton, to name a few, as "pacey" forwards. They're all extremely fast over 5 to 10 metres (enough to be the first to the breakdown), but their top speed is nothing exceptional.
I see how Tipuric or Hooper stick to the definition you're all giving here, but I struggle to see McCaw, Goerge Smith, Pocock or Sam Warburton, to name a few, as "pacey" forwards. They're all extremely fast over 5 to 10 metres (enough to be the first to the breakdown), but their top speed is nothing exceptional.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
It's probably simpler if I just give you examples rather than try to explain what I mean:
To me Hooper and Tipuric are probably the best current examples of the traditional openside.
Whereas Dan Lydiate and Joe Worsley are very good examples of the traditional blindside.
I've alluded to the fact that recently (past 5 or so years) the trend has been for opensides to be specialist poachers above anything else, and those four you have mentioned fit into that mould.
The reason that McCaw, Smith, Pocock and Warburton are opensides as opposed to blindsides or simply a generic flanker, is their work at the breakdown.
If you watch them at the breakdown, particularly when they have been involved in the tackle, they do an extremely good job of slowing the opposition ball down - crucially - without being pinged for it.
They slow down the opposition far more than they steal the ball.
And you are right that nowadays we seem to be moving towards more generic French style backs rows - Ferris and Higginbotham could slot in at 6,7 or 8 reasonably comfortably.
****... look at England's second row/back row from the Australia game at the weekend and they could all arguably play as flankers.
To me Hooper and Tipuric are probably the best current examples of the traditional openside.
Whereas Dan Lydiate and Joe Worsley are very good examples of the traditional blindside.
I've alluded to the fact that recently (past 5 or so years) the trend has been for opensides to be specialist poachers above anything else, and those four you have mentioned fit into that mould.
The reason that McCaw, Smith, Pocock and Warburton are opensides as opposed to blindsides or simply a generic flanker, is their work at the breakdown.
If you watch them at the breakdown, particularly when they have been involved in the tackle, they do an extremely good job of slowing the opposition ball down - crucially - without being pinged for it.
They slow down the opposition far more than they steal the ball.
And you are right that nowadays we seem to be moving towards more generic French style backs rows - Ferris and Higginbotham could slot in at 6,7 or 8 reasonably comfortably.
****... look at England's second row/back row from the Australia game at the weekend and they could all arguably play as flankers.
Last edited:
I'd just like to mention that Schalk Burger even though we called him an open side in some instances was more of a 6.5 if you get my meaning and in SA before Brussow (2009) we always played it similar to the French in that there was little distinction between the two and we have our flanker numbers the other way around just to confuse the issue a bit further.
Generally we see 'break down work' as the job of the entire pack but it is quite clear that having at least one guy that is very capable on the deck in the mould of McCaw/George Smith with the dedicated role of getting to as many breakdowns as soon as possible and disrupting the opposition if not turning over possession is quite handy and has been the difference in many of our losses to NZ and Aus. In fact the times we had an out-and-out 'fetcher' on board in Heinrich Brussow we've had our best games against them; Brussow has played against NZ 4 times and all 4 were wins for SA.
Last edited:
Thingimubob
First XV
What's happened to Brussow? Swear I haven't seen him play in ages!
Injured multiple times for a long while 2010/2011-ish (The Free State have a tendency to field players too early on account of a lack of funds and depth) and is not in HM's plans. He has played some Super Rugby for the Cheetahs (nothing flashy but they did make the play-offs for the first time ever and his unrecognised work is a large contributor IMO) this year but not Currie Cup; in Japan on a sort of sabbatical from the Free State but will be back for them next year for Super Rugby. The press and pundits here in general voiced astonishment that Brussow has not just been overlooked by HM but categorically told that he is not in his plans at all. HM has stated that HB is too small for test rugby, is not a line-out option and gives away too many penalties. IMO and many others' these arguments fall flat if you see that Brussow is heavier than Siya Kolisi and giving away a couple of penalties means the open-side is doing his job IMO. As for the line-outs, personally I believe 3 options is enough and its not like we are using more than 2 currently in any case.
Last edited:
This is it for me. The reality is that I'd think Messam, Vito and Read were all considerably quicker than McCaw - so I don't see speed being the biggest factor. When I think of an openside I think of a dude who is just incredible at getting turnovers. Pocock, McCaw and a few years ago Brussow really stood out. Obviously they should also make a lot of tackles and it helps if they have good support play - but an openside for me will always be the dude at the breakdown. Blindsides on the other hand I like to be used more for making metres in the forwards and making lots of tackles.
When I think of a 6-7-8 combo I often think of Jerry Collins, Richie McCaw, Rodney So'oialo.
I agree Robshaw doesn't look like an amazing 7 - basically because I just don't think he plays like a specialist 7. For me he seems very similar to Thierry Dusautoir which is why it seems people think of him in French system terms.
I'd put Schalk Burger more as an out of position 6 (SA 7). The dudes 6'4'' and 114kgs - not amazingly quick or amazing at the breakdown, but would put a greece fire out with his face. Only in SA would people think he's better suited to an openside - but only cause the blindside is 2,000kgs. Brussow was amazing in 2009 - easily the player I was most nervous about the ABs playing, so strong and gets so low over the ball - thank god for SA's mindset.
Last edited:
Never said that rats, of course there is a position of openside flanker but how thats played depends on the player and team in the same way Quade Cooper is not the same fly half as Jonny Wilkinson but they both play at 10. Robshaw has been Englands most consistent player in the last 2 years but all anyone seems to want to do is say he isnt a 7. Well he is, his work rate is very high, he breakdown work is excellent and as you saw with Yarde's almost Try he links in with the backs.
I fear we have a bit of an inferiority complex with our 7's sometimes and are always looking for Englands version of Richie McCaw but there is only one of him. Ireland dont seem to mind that SOB is not a breakdown Jackel and appreciate the fact they have a great flanker playing at 7 perhaps we should do the same because everyone who has played with or against Chris Robshaw seem to rate him very highly and I think we are sometimes a bit churlish about our captain just because Mr Potato head said something about him not being a so called natural 7 just before the start of last years 6 nations....looks like his mind games might have worked this time with some people.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
I think you are just misunderstanding what I'm saying - I'm not criticising him by saying he isn't an openside.
I'd also disagree that his breakdown work is "excellent" - it's generally ok and occasionally good.
I'd also disagree that his breakdown work is "excellent" - it's generally ok and occasionally good.
Did the first turnover on Saturday that resulted in a penalty and clobbered Genia more than once, he was always there causing problems like Salvi does for tigers.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 12,094
- Reaction score
- 796
Let's just agree to disagree.
irelandfan123
Bench Player
Read HM saying somewhere that Brussow wasn't needed in the breakdown as Hookers in SA were doing the role of 7
O'Brien is a jackal though. His translation from powerhouse blindside with technical limitations - although right from the beginning he could jackal - to an all-round player with excellent hands and breakdown skills to go with top quality blindside physicality has been, in reflection, startling. It is arguably the greatest case of player development in top level rugby over the last few years. It is freakish, but he fits most definitions of openside by now.
A better comparison for Chris Robshaw's move to openside is Chris Henry. Both started as talented, hard-working players who were arguably a bit too slow and small to accomplish their dreams at 6/8 respectively. Their strengths were very much the same - their defence, their work rate, their intelligence, some breakdown skills. Both started playing in the 7 jersey at around the same time. However, where as Henry has adapted, Robshaw has stayed much the same. Robshaw's handling is better, and his breakdown work is better, but he's not an expert. Henry is.
To a certain extent, this is a failing of the English game. Our style, our refs, it doesn't really encourage players to become breakdown experts. The Pro 12 is different. I don't know what other factors are involved. But anyone who thinks Robshaw is a breakdown expert, someone who's very good there, doesn't watch enough rugby. Anyone who thinks you can fit most standard definitions of an openside's skillset without being a breakdown expert does not know enough about rugby. What happens when you play a guy who does not have the skills in the jersey - do you redefine the position - all that - that's an open question of sorts. But that's besides the point. He seriously just isn't what most people mean by an openside. No inferiority. Just a honest look at what people expect and what Robshaw provides. He is an excellent player and fits more of the attributes than some will tell you. But he is certainly not a breakdown expert.
I do find it interesting that rats looks at relatively static guys like Lydiate and Worsley for his classic blindsides though. Like nick, I think of Jerry Collins. Players who can carry as well as hit. Mindyou, I'd say the blindside position is by far the most flexible. So many different players fit in and there is so little set responsibility.
For me, the big difference is that the openside works to the ball, the blindside works around the ball. The openside is there to hit that breakdown - secure that ball - take the offload. The blindside secures the fringe - takes the carry - makes the hit. And, if you look at Robshaw, he is more the latter than the former.
A better comparison for Chris Robshaw's move to openside is Chris Henry. Both started as talented, hard-working players who were arguably a bit too slow and small to accomplish their dreams at 6/8 respectively. Their strengths were very much the same - their defence, their work rate, their intelligence, some breakdown skills. Both started playing in the 7 jersey at around the same time. However, where as Henry has adapted, Robshaw has stayed much the same. Robshaw's handling is better, and his breakdown work is better, but he's not an expert. Henry is.
To a certain extent, this is a failing of the English game. Our style, our refs, it doesn't really encourage players to become breakdown experts. The Pro 12 is different. I don't know what other factors are involved. But anyone who thinks Robshaw is a breakdown expert, someone who's very good there, doesn't watch enough rugby. Anyone who thinks you can fit most standard definitions of an openside's skillset without being a breakdown expert does not know enough about rugby. What happens when you play a guy who does not have the skills in the jersey - do you redefine the position - all that - that's an open question of sorts. But that's besides the point. He seriously just isn't what most people mean by an openside. No inferiority. Just a honest look at what people expect and what Robshaw provides. He is an excellent player and fits more of the attributes than some will tell you. But he is certainly not a breakdown expert.
I do find it interesting that rats looks at relatively static guys like Lydiate and Worsley for his classic blindsides though. Like nick, I think of Jerry Collins. Players who can carry as well as hit. Mindyou, I'd say the blindside position is by far the most flexible. So many different players fit in and there is so little set responsibility.
For me, the big difference is that the openside works to the ball, the blindside works around the ball. The openside is there to hit that breakdown - secure that ball - take the offload. The blindside secures the fringe - takes the carry - makes the hit. And, if you look at Robshaw, he is more the latter than the former.
ZeFrenchy
First XV
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,786
- Reaction score
- 0
I'll ask a related question: why would you want Robshaw to become a traditional OF? 20 years ago no one asked for Lomu to become smaller in order to become a "traditional winger", and claims for Nonu to become a traditional 12 have stopped in the last 5 years or so. I don't see nowadays' Richie McCaw (as opposed to McCaw ten years ago) fitting in any of the definitions of a traditional OF given in this thread. Nor I do Flouw, and Pocock and Warburton have evolved away from it too.
I can see how you cannot have Juan Smith in both flanks, but I fail to see the necessity for Robshaw to "become" Michael Hooper or for Flouw to "become" Brüssow, when international rugby, is moving away from that. Neither Brüssow nor Hooper nor Tipuric nor Cane are first choice, which leaves SOB as the only "real" openside to be a first choice starter internationally (maybe overstating my case here, but I hope you see what I mean), and he happens to be a converted blindside.
The fact is that playing Robshaw alongside a more blindside-ish flanker (ok, I won't call him an openside) is what's working best for England atm. He got MoTM against Ireland and France last 6N, and the loose trio were outplaying every other backrow until the Wales game (which (a) I consider an outlier and (b) England lost in the front five more than in the loose trio) and they totally out-breakdowned an Australian team featuring the most openside of the opensides.
So I think this is a question that need to be answered with another question: why would he? Maybe he could, he's just not doing it.
I can see how you cannot have Juan Smith in both flanks, but I fail to see the necessity for Robshaw to "become" Michael Hooper or for Flouw to "become" Brüssow, when international rugby, is moving away from that. Neither Brüssow nor Hooper nor Tipuric nor Cane are first choice, which leaves SOB as the only "real" openside to be a first choice starter internationally (maybe overstating my case here, but I hope you see what I mean), and he happens to be a converted blindside.
The fact is that playing Robshaw alongside a more blindside-ish flanker (ok, I won't call him an openside) is what's working best for England atm. He got MoTM against Ireland and France last 6N, and the loose trio were outplaying every other backrow until the Wales game (which (a) I consider an outlier and (b) England lost in the front five more than in the loose trio) and they totally out-breakdowned an Australian team featuring the most openside of the opensides.
So I think this is a question that need to be answered with another question: why would he? Maybe he could, he's just not doing it.
