RBS 6 Nations - Italy vs England (11/02/2012, 16:00)

[Feicarsinn]

I was looking at both Attacking OOA 1st 3 and defensive OOA 1st 3, as I believe both are equally important for an openside flanker. I'm certainly cautious about using any stats - as you say the accuracy of the stats is relatively unknown, and the stats don't tell us how effective the players were at each of the tasks (some players are far more effective when they get to the breakdown than others!). You are right that Croft had arguably better 'openside stats' than Haskell in the RWC game, but if you look at the stats throughout the 6 nations last season Haskell was certainly hitting more breakdowns than any other English back-row forward. Just so you know, I'm certainly not suggesting that Haskell is a good international openside either - I think that openside is by far his least effective position. I'm not judging Robshaws openside play solely on the basis of the stats of this single match (and I would be interested in seeing his stats versus Italy), however I do think stats, if used correctly and with caution, can provide a somewhat objective way to assess various aspects of the game.As I said, I don't see any domestic rugby so that is likely where much of the difference of opinion is coming from (and I'm certainly not claiming my opinion is right, as I'm sure you've seen substantially more of the players involved than I have!). I agree that Haskell isn't 'brilliant' at the breakdown, but I think he is reasonably good in this area - at least better than Robshaw. Perhaps my statment should have been: "I'd rather have an openside that is 'reasonably good' at the breakdown and 'just ok' at linking with the backs, rather than an openside that is 'just ok' at the breakdown and 'great' at linking with the backs" .

O'Brien is a slightly different case in my opinion - not sure whether I'd rate him higher or lower than Robshaw/Haskell as a 7 (i.e. I don't rate him as a 7 either). He actually seems to hit a lot of breakdowns (far more than Robshaw/Haskell), he just doesn't seem to be overly effective when he gets there (that is one good reason that rugby stats can be very mis-leading - if not used with caution). I think he is completely wasted at 7, as he spends so much energy at the breakdown, but doesn't really achieve much for his team in doing this! Incidentally I'd actually prefer Robshaw over O'Brien at 6, as I prefer a 'tighter' 6, rather than one running out in the backline all the time (now I'm sure to have wound up the Ireland fans!).

It will certainly be interesting to see how Robshaw goes at 7 versus Wales (assuming he starts their again), especially if Warburton and/or Tipuric are back!

Yeah? Well... you're adopted!

 

[Darwin]

Yeah? Well... you're adopted!

Really? I find it bizarre that I so closely resemble as my siblings. Unless...... we are all adopted. I have a lot to think about.

 

[djames6]

Robshaw wins the ***le of 'dirtiest shirt at end of game' consistently. If that determines whether he's a good or average no 7 then he's good.

 

[gingergenius]

Oh wow... stats *drools* I presume we're looking at Attacking OOA 1st 3? I have to say, I see reasons for caution with these stats (they seem to be counting kickoffs received under possession won, which I think's a little off), but they look at least as good as epsn... interesting to note that in the game you pick out Haskell, Croft has more hits under Attacking OOA 1st 3 and made more passes and arguably from raw stats therefore did more of an openside's job than the Hask did

My argument to Robshaw's ability to play 7 is largely based on the traits shown and behaviour displayed in domestic games where he's a very good 7 on attacking ball (on defensive ball his positioning is pure 6). Has he shown that at international level? No. He's taking on a ton of the small carries, which makes it difficult for him to get involved in the linking (although he started to show it vs Italy imo) and I'd say Lancaster is very obviously using them as a pair of 6.5s - so it's only fair to judge them as that. Fair enough, if you're only watching international rugby, then yes there's not a lot between Haskell and O'Brien and Robshaw - with Robshaw probably on the wrong end of it. Take into account entire skillsets from domestic watching and I really can't see it in the slightest. Haskell and O'Brien are both fantastic wrecking balls and great athletes (better than Robshaw) but I don't think they're any better at securing their own ball (O'Brien looks worse atm, but is out of form), are far behind as link players (probably because they're amazing wrecking balls tbh) and aren't wildly better at securing ball on the deck, if at all. Haskell was last I saw him, O'Brien isn't at the moment but he's off form and a couple of years ago he was looking really promising at that art - but right now, no.

It's a fair point about brilliant at the breakdown vs. poor linking with the backs and vice versa but I don't think Haskell's brilliant at the breakdown and O'Brien definitely isn't - while if Robshaw can bring his Quins form over (if) he is brilliant at linking with the backs.

And of course I know what hyperbolic means, I was being mildly hyperbolic myself. However, I am quite serious about the argument - Robshaw's superior continuity work rules out the tiny edge Haskell has on jackaling for me, while O'Brien's in really poor form as a 7. Although Robshaw's playing as a 6.5 anyway and I'm looking forwards to seeing how it will work against Wales.

how can you say Robshaw and Croft are being played in 6.5 roles? Robshaw carries a bit and tackles a lot - the archetypal modern 6. He is playing at 7 in order to accommodate the reputation of Croft who is just as much of a 6 (and not 6.5), albeit in a different way. To cap it all they have Dowson at 8, who does the same stuff as Robshaw but just not as well.

What does this all mean? England have an imbalanced back row which doesn't carry amazingly, doesn't rule at the breakdown but does get through a lot of tackling and graft. It's been the same for years.

What to do? Find a proper 8. Morgan, done. Find a proper 7. Seymour, worth a try, or Wood for now. Pick the best 6 and put 6 on his back. And until Haskell gets back from NZ, that man is Robshaw.

----

@ psychic duck

The difference, I feel, is that NZ were the best team in the world between 2004 and the RWC. The ****ed this up, but that was no reason to change their team. If England had won a Grand Slam last year, and been knocked out of the world cup only by a side playing scintillating rugby on the day, then I'd be quite happy for members of the RWC team to make up the majority of the current side. As it is (and was at the end of 2007 when England were in a similar position), the team was in need of a drastic change. You don't change anything quickly without a revolution, and that is hopefully what we've got.

England as a nation should expect the almost permanent level of quality that the 3N have. We should certainly expect to be able to beat anyone at home on our day, and given that we're hosting the 2015 RWC, we should expect to go into that tournament with a high chance of winning it. England as they have been were not in place to achieve those ambitions - they were playing the wrong style of rugby, unsuccessfully. Winning ugly is one thing - playing ugly and only winning occasionally is different. Now it's time to clear out the deadwood, and focus on building a team that can start winning Grand Slams, beating the 3N at Twickenham, and feeling confident rather than hopeful before the world cup.