#7

[jordiev]

well with England's back three being very mundane today at best... who would you say is the best #7 in the premiership who should be in that #7 shirt for England

 

[Amobokoboko]

Hard to say as I don't really follow the Aviva championship but maybe Waldrom ( altho he's a number 8)

 

[TRF_Olyy]

David Seymour is the best 7 in the premiership, both performance-wise and stats wise.
No idea if he's the right one for England, however with both Clark and Dowson have 0 caps and being given a shot I don't see why Seymour shouldn't. No chance of him getting called up if there was an injury, though, as he didn't even get on the pitch vs Scotland A for some reason.

Saull, I don't think, is the right option. His defence isn't there yet, even if he is quick around the park and handy at the breakdown.
Kvesic and Gibson will be ones for the future (though Kvesic needs to be used at 7 more, he's spending more and more time at 6 and 8).

If Fourie hadn't have gotten injured then he could've been an option, thought at 31 he's probably a bit old (though that's not stopping Dowson being in the England squad) - Got a try for Sale today in his 2nd appearance back from injury.

Looking ahead to the rest of the Six Nations Wood is the best option as he has experience of international rugby and is the best 7 in the squad. Behind him would be Clark, who can also play 7 very well - hopefully he gets some time against Italy.

 

[Peat]

well with England's back three being very mundane today at best... who would you say is the best #7 in the premiership who should be in that #7 shirt for England

First off, I must congratulate you on reigniting this argument, there was I afraid there'd be nothing to discuss rugby-wise this weekend

Anyway, the answer is... *drumroll* Robshaw. Plays 7 most of the time, is usually the best player on display. No jackal, but makes every tackle and is the best linking back-row in the Premiership, English or not. Some will call him a 6 in a 7's shirt and I'd say there's an element of truth to this criticism... and he's still the best English 7 in the Premiership.

Wood's very close, but seems to have less all-round skill, and in my opinion is still a 6 in a 7's shirt.

Then after him we have Seymour, but there are doubts over whether he's big enough, plus he gets injured at bad moments, and Fourie deserves a mention but as he hasn't played this season I cannot consider him.

Equally I cannot consider Tom Rees. In fact, I think we should probably all have a moment of silence for Rees' career, despite the fact he's only 27.

And then after him there's Olyy's list of colts, to which I'd add Luke Wallace and Ben Nutley. I know that Will Welch is highly though of but know little about him. I've seen Guy Mercer a few times and like what I see of him but don't see him making an international. I would not include Clark; Dowson plays 7 for Saints about as often as Clark.

In short; I think Robshaw is the best option for now and we need to adapt our tactics to what we have, and otherwise we're hoping for one of the youth prospects, of which we have quite a few, to make the step up.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Clark's been out injured for an age though, don't forget. Nutley's looked good in what little I've seen of him this season.
I forgot about Luke Wallace, however - between him and the few above we'll be set for 7s for the future.
Ah, who am I kidding, they'll shoe horn Carl Fearns in there instead - or just keep Robshaw there.

 

[Peat]

Clark's been out injured for an age though, don't forget. Nutley's looked good in what little I've seen of him this season.
I forgot about Luke Wallace, however - between him and the few above we'll be set for 7s for the future.
Ah, who am I kidding, they'll shoe horn Carl Fearns in there instead - or just keep Robshaw there.

Even when fit they routinely play Clark at 6 and Dowson at 7. I've heard high reports of his youthful days as a 7, and clearly Lancaster rates him, but I've yet to see him play outstandingly in a big game and Mallinder doesn't think he's a 7. But then Mallinder's back row selections are a little mad.

The Leeds lad at 7 for the U20s didn't look too bad either. One of them's got to do something...

It's weird. If even a quarter of the players who I have high hopes for fulfil them, we could have a completely different England side in 4 years time.

 

[welshglory]

Wallace and Saull are massively overrated in my opinion.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I think Saull is, but Wallace isn't - I admit I haven't seen him a massive amount, but I've been impressed every time I have.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

I'd like to add a different perspective here: there's no need for "a real openside". What matters is balance along the backrow.

South Africa in 2007 had Burger as the openside, France has never played an openside flanker, Ireland seem to be doing all right with SOB there, McCaw is no longer a classic openside, Neil Back was nothing like a Pocock-Warburton-Brüssow kind of player. What matter is the amount of breakdown work done by the backrow as a unit (well, depending on the gameplan, sometimes they're not supposed to work as a unit). Robshaw is the best english backrower atm, Haskell (when he's back) does a lot of breakdown work if he's asked to, and add in someone like Morgan, Waldrom, Wood or Croft and you can arrange a very good and complementary backrow (albeit very different depending on the players chosen).

Maybe it's a very french approach to backrow playing, but that's my opinion.

 

[Teh Mite]

 

[ZeFrenchy]

Isn't he injured? How can he be the best at the moment if he doesn't even play?

 

[Teh Mite]

He's training again. He'll play against Wales.

 

[Peat]

I'd like to add a different perspective here: there's no need for "a real openside". What matters is balance along the backrow.

South Africa in 2007 had Burger as the openside, France has never played an openside flanker, Ireland seem to be doing all right with SOB there, McCaw is no longer a classic openside, Neil Back was nothing like a Pocock-Warburton-Brüssow kind of player. What matter is the amount of breakdown work done by the backrow as a unit (well, depending on the gameplan, sometimes they're not supposed to work as a unit). Robshaw is the best english backrower atm, Haskell (when he's back) does a lot of breakdown work if he's asked to, and add in someone like Morgan, Waldrom, Wood or Croft and you can arrange a very good and complementary backrow (albeit very different depending on the players chosen).

Maybe it's a very french approach to backrow playing, but that's my opinion.

And that's the way to really get the argument going again... I agree, but don't expect too many other people to agree.

I'd also add that while I agree that its entirely about getting a balanced back-row, the classic 6-7-8 model does produce that very well. Also, a truly outstanding 7 is an incredibly useful player to have, and the sort of player that only tends to appear if you're consciously looking for one. Which is why I am all but ticking off the days until one of the youngsters makes it happen.

 

[Darwin]

I'd like to add a different perspective here: there's no need for "a real openside". What matters is balance along the backrow.

South Africa in 2007 had Burger as the openside, France has never played an openside flanker, Ireland seem to be doing all right with SOB there, McCaw is no longer a classic openside, Neil Back was nothing like a Pocock-Warburton-Brüssow kind of player. What matter is the amount of breakdown work done by the backrow as a unit (well, depending on the gameplan, sometimes they're not supposed to work as a unit). Robshaw is the best english backrower atm, Haskell (when he's back) does a lot of breakdown work if he's asked to, and add in someone like Morgan, Waldrom, Wood or Croft and you can arrange a very good and complementary backrow (albeit very different depending on the players chosen).

Maybe it's a very french approach to backrow playing, but that's my opinion.

In a way, that is true. However, as Peat points out, the classic 6-7-8 model has proven to be effective at International level for many years. That is not to say you cannot be successful without a traditional 7 - indeed France has done pretty well without an out-an-out openside (rather two '6.5s'), but this is the exception, rather than the rule. If possible I believe you should use a traditional 7. However, if England have no traditional 7 that is ready for international rugby (which I can't really comment on) I think a 6. Robshaw, 7. Wood, 8. (a No. 8.... maybe Morgan) would be the way to go.

I'd disagree that McCaw is no longer a traditional openside - he's no longer as effective at stealing opposition ball at the breakdown as he used to be (the younger Pocock, Warburton, Brussow etc have all surpassed him here), but he is still at the bottom of every breakdown slowing down opposition ball and securing quick ball for his team. In addition he still runs great support lines and links well with his backs. In my opinion he's still a traditional openside - he's just not as good as he once was (due in some way to the fact he played most of last year on only one leg!).

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Think Wales showed today that if you're playing a 7 you're going to have the advantage at the breakdown.
They were on top all afternoon, with Warburton and then Tipuric working their socks off.

They play a 6,7 and 8, much like Scotland did last night (and they were very much on top as well).

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I don't think people really have the same meaning of a traditional 7. If a player who plays No. 8 always slows down opposition ball and is the fetcher role and link man then they might be playing No. 8 in a 7 style.

England have 3 x 6.5s at the moment BUT Dowson got a good few turnovers and they all slowed down opposition ball. The only problem was the absent croft but i won't rant about him on this thread as well.

I think the BR is all about balance and if you have a faster lighter No. 7 you have to have big ball carrying 8 and a tackling 6.

I definately think Wood is the in form No. 7 in the premership but i guess people don't think he plays a 7's role?