Should Robshaw Captain England?

[nickdnz]

And Robshaw doesn't? If you think he doesn't, we'll have to disagree.

How can a man be a natural 8 if he's played most of his life elsewhere? By possessing all the natural attributes? By showing a natural aptitude when played there?

Robshaw's form has not dropped by being played at 7 or 8. He possesses the hands to play both positions, the brains to play both positions, the engine to play 7 and the carrying to play 8. There is no reason he can't switch to 7 the same way Wood has, or switch to 8 the way Read has. He has the ability to carry out those tasks. He is a complete player - and because he is such a complete player, he has the ability to fill all of the positions. He has done this up to International A level (played & for the Saxons this spring), why not try it at the top table? It would potentially allow us to pick our three best back-rows as a complimentary unit that covers just about base.

Incidentally, depending on how serious Easter's ankle injury is (not very admittedly from the last I've heard), Robshaw might will emerge as the outstanding English candidate for 8 come 6N time anyway. We're very thin on the ground there, there's quite a few long term injuries amongst those who might have made it, Narraway's not getting picked regularly for some reason, Morgan thinks he's a taff...

Anyway, disagree if you will - but if a man's got the talent to play more than one position, there's no harm in moving him around, and what I've seen of Robshaw says he has the talent for all of them.

darwin - I agree with you that the most important thing is they compliment each other, and like you prefer my back-rows to be complete players. However - and I don't know whether you agree with this or not - once you've got the three best players that compliment each other, they should be picked, irregardless of the number of the back of their shirt at club level, which after all might be two 7s and a 6. The only slight ****le in that is the 8 has to be able to control the ball at the base.

I also disagree with you about Croft, who for me gets through a lot of quiet work in the tight on his good days and is as complete as Robshaw and Wood. Yes, his good days haven't been so frequent recently - I don't know whether that's the coaching messing him around, lack of fitness, just simple poor form - but he offers a hell of a lot if we can get him back to form.

Well, I have to disagree. I think you need to have players whom are fimiliar with the roles and can play them at a complete standard, before you select them over a specialist. Take Adam Thomson for example. He's been moved from 6 to 7 to 8 most of his career. Now I think most people would be happy to say he is one of the better loose forwards in New Zealand (admittedly I don't especially rate him), but he would be ahead of the pecking order of Daniel & Luke Braid, Scott Waldrom and Matt Todd. Despite this, I'd pick any of them to play at openside flanker above Thomson. Vito and Messam are in the same boat. Both very good players, but when they are put at openside they lose their effectiveness. Why? Because they are not openside flankers. When Rodney So'oialo was in his best form, and then trialed as a replacement 7, he went downhill to the extent that there was no recovery.

To use examples outside of New Zealand, South Africa's loose trio was at it's greatest when they put a genuine fetcher in Brussow in openside over big hulking looseforwards who were not natural opensides. It's always occured to be that the reason England's loose trio has never really been a threat to me, is that they've constantly played Lewis Moody, an obvious blindside flanker, at openside, and thus they don't pilfer as much ball. One of the last decent opensides England has was Neil Back, who as Darwin mentioned, complimented the other two very well. We even see what happened when Australia didn't take the best openside but instead took the next best loose forward. They lost against Ireland. Had they taken Phil Waugh or Beau Robinson I would have predicted Ireland losing that match.

 

[Peat]

Lewis Moody's main problem was he was never fit. This was because he was permanently injured on account of being brittle and fearless, which is a bad combination. On those rare occasions he was fit, he was actually one of our better players and a fairly good 7. Not outstanding, no, but better than people give him credit for. Or so I feel.

Does Thompson's skillset compliment a conventional 6 and 8, or does it leave gaps in the back-row arsenal (i.e. does he have a 7's skillset and instincts?) If the answer is 'no', then I wouldn't advocate it, as the balance and all-round capability is the most important thing. You move on to the next best player who will compliment the other two. Likewise, as Brussow's work compliments the other South African back-rows better than another big man, that would be the choice I'd make (also, Brussow is comfortably one of South Africa's best three back-rows - the question for me is whether you then use one of Burger or Smith at 8, or make them fight to the death for 6 and pick someone else at 8 - me, given my philosophy (and assuming my rating of them is still in date), would try one of the Burger and Smith at 8 first).

What I'm saying here will result in a conventional 6, a conventional 7 and a conventional 8 95% of the time. It will likely represent the best balance and use of the best players - as afterall, the best players will gravitate towards the position they're best in. But if you have two incredibly talented blindsides or two incredibly talented opensides or whatever, the likelihood is they will compliment each other on the pitch if given different roles, and you should then ignore the position they've been labelled with to make sure you get out a balanced back-row of the best players.

Maybe I'm phrasing this badly, as I honestly don't see how this should be so controversial. It happens all the time, often with brilliant effects. The Holy Trinity was born of such a reshuffle. Kieran Read became an 8 (I believe) after such a reshuffle. Dowson plays 6 to accomodate Wilson at 8 for Saints and so on. And yes, you get dumb ideas like "Haskell is an openside" but everyone can see that's a dumb one because it'll result in an imbalanced back-row.

Balance is the key, but a lot of good players can fit into that multiple ways.

 

[Darwin]

Peat - In general I agree with what you are saying: International players shouldn't necessarily be restricted to playing the positions they play at club level. I don't have much of an issue with players shifting to a different position at international level....as long as they have the prerequisite skills for the position. I believe each of the loose-forward positions requires are certain unique skills set, in addition to the basic 'loose-forward skillset'. There are clearly players who have the skills to play in more than one position, but there are some players who are really only suited to a single position.

Unfortunately there are numerous examples of international coaches making a huge error by shifting players to positions that they are not suited to. I personally wouldn't pick a player in a position at international level if they haven't proved that they are capable of playing that position at club level yet. Someone like Robshaw has played plenty of club rugby at 8 - and according to reports he has been pretty successful there - so I wouldn't necessarily rule out playing him at 8 at international level.

 

[nickdnz]

Lewis Moody's main problem was he was never fit. This was because he was permanently injured on account of being brittle and fearless, which is a bad combination. On those rare occasions he was fit, he was actually one of our better players and a fairly good 7. Not outstanding, no, but better than people give him credit for. Or so I feel.

Does Thompson's skillset compliment a conventional 6 and 8, or does it leave gaps in the back-row arsenal (i.e. does he have a 7's skillset and instincts?) If the answer is 'no', then I wouldn't advocate it, as the balance and all-round capability is the most important thing. You move on to the next best player who will compliment the other two. Likewise, as Brussow's work compliments the other South African back-rows better than another big man, that would be the choice I'd make (also, Brussow is comfortably one of South Africa's best three back-rows - the question for me is whether you then use one of Burger or Smith at 8, or make them fight to the death for 6 and pick someone else at 8 - me, given my philosophy (and assuming my rating of them is still in date), would try one of the Burger and Smith at 8 first).

What I'm saying here will result in a conventional 6, a conventional 7 and a conventional 8 95% of the time. It will likely represent the best balance and use of the best players - as afterall, the best players will gravitate towards the position they're best in. But if you have two incredibly talented blindsides or two incredibly talented opensides or whatever, the likelihood is they will compliment each other on the pitch if given different roles, and you should then ignore the position they've been labelled with to make sure you get out a balanced back-row of the best players.

Maybe I'm phrasing this badly, as I honestly don't see how this should be so controversial. It happens all the time, often with brilliant effects. The Holy Trinity was born of such a reshuffle. Kieran Read became an 8 (I believe) after such a reshuffle. Dowson plays 6 to accomodate Wilson at 8 for Saints and so on. And yes, you get dumb ideas like "Haskell is an openside" but everyone can see that's a dumb one because it'll result in an imbalanced back-row.

Balance is the key, but a lot of good players can fit into that multiple ways.

Let me try it a slightly different way to argue what I sort of disagree with.

Marty Holah was at one point considered one of the best Flankers in the world. Good tackler, extremely good in the rucks carried reasonably well. But he wasn't effective when paired with Richie McCaw. As Darwin mentioned, there is nothing wrong with playing Victor Vito at 8 when he's playing 6 for Wellington. He's got great handling, is very skillfull and is super quick in the loose. That's fine. But that's because as Darwin said, he's got the skillset to be effective there, and it's probably his natural position. Same for Read, he's got a better skillset for an 8 than he did a 6. So the shift is fine. What I don't agree with is accomidating a "better player" outside what I believe is their skillset.

Stepping away from the looseforwards, this is what annoyed me most about moving Sonny Bill Williams on the wing instead of giving more wing time to a player like Hosea Gear. Is SBW a better player? Some seem to think so, but he's not a better winger than Hosea Gear. He's not quicker, he's not tested there and he's not earned that position. I feel the same way with almost all players in the same regard. I personally think any 6 can learn to play 8 and any 8 can learn to play 6 and any 7 can eventually learn to play six. But I genuinely don't think many blindsides or #8's can ever learn to play openside flanker to a high level, at least not as a fetcher which is what a good 7 is supposed to be (and what I don't think Moody is).

 

[gingergenius]

nickdnz and i are sort of reading from the same page...

Peat, your point about Lewis Moody pretty much sums up where we're disagreeing. Ignoring the fact that if he's injured he shouldn't be playing tests, Moody has played at 7 for England since after the Woodward era, and has always filled the role of a 6. He'll run around like the 'mad dog' he is, tackling everything that moves, but the fact of the matter is that when it comes to the breakdown, he's not actually there. Moody has been an excellent servant to England, but for me his Test career will always be tainted by the fact that he was consistently picked in a role that he didn't have the skill-set to properly perform in. A back row with Moody at 7 was never a weak back row, but it wasn't a great one either.

If you watched the Wales game on Saturday, I hope you'll see what I mean. We'll ignore Pocock because he spent most of his half carrying an injury, but watch Warburton. Every single time there's slow ball, or a turnover, you can be assured that Sam Warburton's face is going to crop up on the screen appearing from the ruck at any second. And it always does. Because that is what it means to be a 7; if Ryan Jones or Powell or Thomas or any other good Welsh backrow was playing instead they'd miss out on that. One of the things that has made this Wales such a good prospect is the fact that Gatland has picked players like Warburton. Martyn Williams, who was consistently the best 7 in Britain over the last decade, retired and Wales could have chosen a heap of 'backrows' to wear 7, but they went for a young guy who actuallly had the skills for the job. England, take note.

Bottom line - if you're telling me that I'm going to see Robshaw emerging from the bottom of every ruck having 'done a Warburton' when he's playing for England, then by all means he can be our openside. If not, he can wear 6. If you're telling me I'm going to see him standing in the 12 channel taking ball after ball at speed from the 10 and making 5m on the gainline/ taking a few tacklers with him/ able to get an offload away, then he can be our number 8. Otherwise, he can wear 6. Either way, he's never ever been tested at the highest level, and it might be fairer to him to pick him in his natural position...

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Its very interesting reading all this.

I personally never used to like the idea of playing a player at interenational level if they wern't starting that position at club level week in week out.....BUT if you said who do i want at 8 for england right now i'd say Robshaw so we can keep croft at 6!
I don't rate crofts england performances that much at all as i also find him too loose. But at the same time with the right coaches i think he could be playing really well. It does often annoy me though how he always seems to end up on the wing??? Lazy player maybe?

I also think we need a really hard nosed beast of a 2nd row to partener Lawes. i don't really think there are many 'great' candidates but i think thats something the pack has been missing. Lawes needs to learn to call the lineout and be the more mobile 2nd row with maybe Robson (is he hard nosed?) or attwood playing with him.

I also don't think Manu is a certain for the 13 position, i'd much rather we bring in someone whos a bit more level headed for international rugby. Maybe

12. JTH/ Farrel
13. Trinder/ Woolduck

Who knows but at least we will never have the noon and tindall partnership ever again!

 

[McTallshort]

Since the leaked reports came out all manner of people have come out saying Robshaw this and Wood that which angers me a little because it was obvious that both Wood and Robshaw were a better choice than Moody and Croft before the World cup but no one in the mainstream press battered an eye lid when Robshaw was left behind or Wood was left on the bench. There seems to have been big support for both players but thier supporters kept very quiet until after the the shocker in NZ with lots of 'I told you so' advise.

Should Robshaw captain England? well on current form he should certainly start along with Wood and another. So if he starts I think he should captain, he has captained England before. Where to play him in the backrow is another question all together. I believe (quinns fans correct me if I am wrong) his best position is 6, which is fine as that would leave Wood to play 7 with Croft on the bench to cover both flanker positions and Robshaw to possibly move to number 8 if that was the player that was subbed. Which leaves the No8 position open. Despite the long winded debates above about backrow play a good flanker can play blind or open with ease but the No8 IMO is a bit more specialised and you need a player who plays 8 for his club. Narroway is the obvious choice to me and the rest of the english speaking world but if Wells stays we will have either Easter of Waldrom. Both are good 8s but I would like to see a quicker more dynamic English backrow than previous ones and believe Narroway is the man to deliver that.

 

[ranger]

Since the leaked reports came out all manner of people have come out saying Robshaw this and Wood that which angers me a little because it was obvious that both Wood and Robshaw were a better choice than Moody and Croft before the World cup but no one in the mainstream press battered an eye lid when Robshaw was left behind or Wood was left on the bench. There seems to have been big support for both players but thier supporters kept very quiet until after the the shocker in NZ with lots of 'I told you so' advise.

Should Robshaw captain England? well on current form he should certainly start along with Wood and another. So if he starts I think he should captain, he has captained England before. Where to play him in the backrow is another question all together. I believe (quinns fans correct me if I am wrong) his best position is 6, which is fine as that would leave Wood to play 7 with Croft on the bench to cover both flanker positions and Robshaw to possibly move to number 8 if that was the player that was subbed. Which leaves the No8 position open. Despite the long winded debates above about backrow play a good flanker can play blind or open with ease but the No8 IMO is a bit more specialised and you need a player who plays 8 for his club. Narroway is the obvious choice to me and the rest of the english speaking world but if Wells stays we will have either Easter of Waldrom. Both are good 8s but I would like to see a quicker more dynamic English backrow than previous ones and believe Narroway is the man to deliver that.

This line of thinking, and to a lesser extent the interchangeability of inside and outside centres is really keeping English rugby behind their NZ counterparts. A good 6 can NOT necessarily play 7 and vice versa. Moody, Kaino, Jerry Collins, Rocky Elsom etc are all outstanding at 6, but they are pants at 7. Holah, Braid and Pocock are the opposite. It takes a freak of a player to be able to excell in both, in the same respect that it takes a freak of a player like Kees Meeuws to exell in loose and tighthead scrummaging

 

[McTallshort]

Ranger there are players that specialize playing open or blind but a good flanker can play either, From what I have seen Wood and Robshaw can play both so I am comfortable having either at 6 or 7. Must have to remember also that much is down to the managements game plan. Years ago England started going for big backrows with players like Ben Clarke at 7. England did very well during that time (apart from a certain semi final we wont mention) but when SCW came he had to opensides to pick from one of which went to playing blind. NZ have enjoyed having an excellent openside and their game has been built around him, where the South African game plan over the last few years has been built around a solid set piece with the 2nd rows being the key players.

The point I am trying to make is...if your game revolves around a particular player or position then of course its not interchangable but if the team plan is around a more flexible, interchangable back row like the French 6 or 7 does not matter as much.

PS. Moody may have fallen from grace a bit but he was not a 'pants' openside.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Yes he was. With Moody on the pitch you had two blindsides and no openside. He can't play 7 at all, just plays 6 in a 7 shirt. Worked in the 6N because Wood played 7 in a 6 shirt

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

 

[nickdnz]

Ranger there are players that specialize playing open or blind but a good flanker can play either, From what I have seen Wood and Robshaw can play both so I am comfortable having either at 6 or 7. Must have to remember also that much is down to the managements game plan. Years ago England started going for big backrows with players like Ben Clarke at 7. England did very well during that time (apart from a certain semi final we wont mention) but when SCW came he had to opensides to pick from one of which went to playing blind. NZ have enjoyed having an excellent openside and their game has been built around him, where the South African game plan over the last few years has been built around a solid set piece with the 2nd rows being the key players.

The point I am trying to make is...if your game revolves around a particular player or position then of course its not interchangable but if the team plan is around a more flexible, interchangable back row like the French 6 or 7 does not matter as much.

PS. Moody may have fallen from grace a bit but he was not a 'pants' openside.

And the point Ranger and I are making is that you are wrong.

Openside flankers play a different role than blindside flankers. Your blindside flankers are your Juan Smith, Rocky Elsome, Jerry Collins, Jerome Kaino, Stephen Ferris etc. The hard grafters who make a lot of tackles, run hard off the base of the ruck etc. That's their job. That's what they are there for. Their big and powerful and run hard. They're not the player who will make it to a breakdown every breakdown. They won't, cause it's not their job. You then have players like Marty Holah, Richie McCaw, Sam Warburton, David Pocock and Heinrich Brussow. Their job is to get the turnovers. That should be their most important job. Gingergenius put it perfectly when he pointed to Sam Warburton's performance. He is what a #7 is.

You mention South Africa having a great set piece which is why they've done well over recent years. Simply put, you're wrong. South Africa have done poorly with out Heinrich Brussow. He's been the player which has made the Springbok loosetrio actually functional. I rate him so highly for the simple reason that with him as their openside flanker, South Africa have not lost to New Zealand with him playing. Of the last 8 times the All Blacks have played the Springboks (since Brussow's introduction to the squad) New Zealand have won four and lost four. Of the matches that the All Blacks have lost, Heinrich Brussow started, and for the matches that the All Blacks won, he didn't play. That's how effective a genuine openside flanker is, and the reason why they won the Lions series and a Tri Nations in 2009.

Your suggestion is have a bunch of looseforwards who can be what ever the situation calls for, which leads to a jack of all trades, master of none scenario. Part of the reason England hasn't won against New Zealand in eight or so years.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Do you all think wood is a genuine openside flanker then? As a saints fan i have always seen him as a 6 rather than a traditional 7...but i might be wrong, the saints back row are very interchangeable.

After reading the points and putting seom thought into it i do think you need a specialist player at 7 more than 8. I think a lot of players who play 6 could play 8 with a little bit of training. But the same can not be said about playing 7 as stated in previous posts.

If Lancaster does take over as coach will he bring in Luke Narraway coz he has been a saxons favourite for a while now?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Do you all think wood is a genuine openside flanker then?

I do, yes

If Lancaster does take over as coach will he bring in Luke Narraway coz he has been a saxons favourite for a while now?

I think so - Him or Crane, who has also been around the Saxons a lot over the years.
Having said that, Waldrom only discovered he was qualified a little while before the World Cup, so we don't really know where he fits in in the grand scheme of things

 

[McTallshort]

Yes he was. With Moody on the pitch you had two blindsides and no openside. He can't play 7 at all, just plays 6 in a 7 shirt. Worked in the 6N because Wood played 7 in a 6 shirt

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk

So how did it work in the 2007 WC then? Because Corry was playing 6......

 

[McTallshort]

And the point Ranger and I are making is that you are wrong.

Openside flankers play a different role than blindside flankers. Your blindside flankers are your Juan Smith, Rocky Elsome, Jerry Collins, Jerome Kaino, Stephen Ferris etc. The hard grafters who make a lot of tackles, run hard off the base of the ruck etc. That's their job. That's what they are there for. Their big and powerful and run hard. They're not the player who will make it to a breakdown every breakdown. They won't, cause it's not their job. You then have players like Marty Holah, Richie McCaw, Sam Warburton, David Pocock and Heinrich Brussow. Their job is to get the turnovers. That should be their most important job. Gingergenius put it perfectly when he pointed to Sam Warburton's performance. He is what a #7 is.

You mention South Africa having a great set piece which is why they've done well over recent years. Simply put, you're wrong. South Africa have done poorly with out Heinrich Brussow. He's been the player which has made the Springbok loosetrio actually functional. I rate him so highly for the simple reason that with him as their openside flanker, South Africa have not lost to New Zealand with him playing. Of the last 8 times the All Blacks have played the Springboks (since Brussow's introduction to the squad) New Zealand have won four and lost four. Of the matches that the All Blacks have lost, Heinrich Brussow started, and for the matches that the All Blacks won, he didn't play. That's how effective a genuine openside flanker is, and the reason why they won the Lions series and a Tri Nations in 2009.

Your suggestion is have a bunch of looseforwards who can be what ever the situation calls for, which leads to a jack of all trades, master of none scenario. Part of the reason England hasn't won against New Zealand in eight or so years.

Yeah that world cup win in 2007 was a real low....Look this is a forum people are allowed to voice their opinion mine differs from yours but that doesnt make it wrong. As for part of the reason England have not beaten NZ, Wales and Ireland have had a specialist openside for 8 years and have not beaten you either. France dont have one but have.

 

[Peat]

Yes he was. With Moody on the pitch you had two blindsides and no openside. He can't play 7 at all, just plays 6 in a 7 shirt. Worked in the 6N because Wood played 7 in a 6 shirt

Moody was injured for that 6N... Also Lancaster can't bring in Crane as Crane is injured.... wake up Olyy!

Let me try it a slightly different way to argue what I sort of disagree with.

Marty Holah was at one point considered one of the best Flankers in the world. Good tackler, extremely good in the rucks carried reasonably well. But he wasn't effective when paired with Richie McCaw. As Darwin mentioned, there is nothing wrong with playing Victor Vito at 8 when he's playing 6 for Wellington. He's got great handling, is very skillfull and is super quick in the loose. That's fine. But that's because as Darwin said, he's got the skillset to be effective there, and it's probably his natural position. Same for Read, he's got a better skillset for an 8 than he did a 6. So the shift is fine. What I don't agree with is accomidating a "better player" outside what I believe is their skillset.

Right. This is where I'm either mis-expressing myself or you're not reading me wrong. Almost by definition, playing a better player outside their skillset leads to an unbalanced back row - so I'm not advocating the Holah/McCaw partnership. The balance has to be right; and for that - and I don't think I said this actually - every player needs the requisite skillset to fill out the position they're filling. That, or someone else in the trio needs to be covering it (but that starts to get risky). Situations like Read and Vito though - yes, and I believe some people here are ruling out such situations with a fixation on shirt number.

Stepping away from the looseforwards, this is what annoyed me most about moving Sonny Bill Williams on the wing instead of giving more wing time to a player like Hosea Gear. Is SBW a better player? Some seem to think so, but he's not a better winger than Hosea Gear. He's not quicker, he's not tested there and he's not earned that position. I feel the same way with almost all players in the same regard. I personally think any 6 can learn to play 8 and any 8 can learn to play 6 and any 7 can eventually learn to play six. But I genuinely don't think many blindsides or #8's can ever learn to play openside flanker to a high level, at least not as a fetcher which is what a good 7 is supposed to be (and what I don't think Moody is).

The supposed interchangability of centres and wings annoys me. There are some people who can do it, but its a lot less than many seem to think, and often ends up wasting a good player.

I'd agree that 7 is the most difficult position as a rule to slot into. There is a very different mindset needed. I also think that the attributes of an outstanding 7 are sufficiently different from the other two that most people with the potential are very quickly placed there.

nickdnz and i are sort of reading from the same page...

Peat, your point about Lewis Moody pretty much sums up where we're disagreeing.

It means we disagree over Moody, I saw him do what you ask for from a 7 and do it well. That one is a tangential.

Bottom line - if you're telling me that I'm going to see Robshaw emerging from the bottom of every ruck having 'done a Warburton' when he's playing for England, then by all means he can be our openside. If not, he can wear 6. If you're telling me I'm going to see him standing in the 12 channel taking ball after ball at speed from the 10 and making 5m on the gainline/ taking a few tacklers with him/ able to get an offload away, then he can be our number 8. Otherwise, he can wear 6. Either way, he's never ever been tested at the highest level, and it might be fairer to him to pick him in his natural position...

I can't gurantee it (and prefer my 6 to take those crash balls anyway, as a fair few people do) but he's done both for Quins, he's done 7 for Saxons, I'd be happy to test it at full international level. It might well be kinder to play him at 6 first (just as it may be kinder for him not to be captain first up). But for one thing, I'm going to guess he'll be playing either 8 or 7 for Quins until then unless Fa'asavaalu gets injured (that, or they decide to keep Luke Wallace in there, which would be great for English rugby). If going up to the 6N the three outstanding back-rows are Robshaw, Wood, Narraway, then I'd say pick him at 6 easy peasy. If however they're Croft, Wood and Robshaw, and Robshaw continues to look good in an 8 shirt... then I'd at least look at it in training.

darwin - Robshaw has played more at 7 than at 8 at club level (and an international). Has so far looked very assured at both (took a bit longer to adapt to 8 iirc). Certainly, there are enough signs that I am happy to consider it (mindyou, I was calling for Robshaw to be switched to 7 over two years ago to find a way to accomodate him and Croft, so I've always been in favour of this experiment).

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Moody was injured for that 6N... Also Lancaster can't bring in Crane as Crane is injured.... wake up Olyy!

In my defence, I thought Crane was out for the rest of the year rather than season - I thought he was back after Christmas

The Moody thing: My mistake Got mixed up as neither Haskell or Moody are opensides, yet play there

Either way, he's not a 7, shouldn't play 7, and I don't recall our backrow being that great in 07

Robshaw has played more at 7 than at 8 at club level (and an international).

Was that for Saxons?
His only England cap was starting at 6 - Can't ever remember him playing anything other than 6, internationally, to be honest




This whole Moody debate is academic anyway, as he's out for 10-12 weeks which should mean he won't play in the 6N (unless he's rushed back and straight into international matches, which hopefully England have grown out of after Youngs, Moody and Sheridan all imploded when they did that to them)

 

[Peat]

Either way, he's not a 7, shouldn't play 7, and I don't recall our backrow being that great in 07

Had some good games in 09... but as you say, its all rather academic, particularly he's retired from international rugby.

Was that for Saxons?
His only England cap was starting at 6 - Can't ever remember him playing anything other than 6, internationally, to be honest

Captained the Saxons from 7 this spring. Did well.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

So he did - Forgot about those matches around the time of the Six Nations

 

[McTallshort]

In my defence, I thought Crane was out for the rest of the year rather than season - I thought he was back after Christmas

The Moody thing: My mistake Got mixed up as neither Haskell or Moody are opensides, yet play there

Either way, he's not a 7, shouldn't play 7, and I don't recall our backrow being that great in 07



Was that for Saxons?
His only England cap was starting at 6 - Can't ever remember him playing anything other than 6, internationally, to be honest




This whole Moody debate is academic anyway, as he's out for 10-12 weeks which should mean he won't play in the 6N (unless he's rushed back and straight into international matches, which hopefully England have grown out of after Youngs, Moody and Sheridan all imploded when they did that to them)[/QUOTE

Thats a silly thing to say, you obviously didnt watch the knockout stages of the WC in 2007 if you think that. I have a copy of the QF between England and Aus would be happy to lend it to you so you could see how wrong you are.....