Tom Croft....

Simple...

Should he be the England 6 or not....and give your reasons for and against....

If his form is good then yes. If it isn't then no. He's been playing well since his return from the RWC but wasn't at his best vs Ulster which wasn't a great suprise as neither team got their backs going so his ability to disrupt the opponents midfield rythm was not really needed. His presence in the lineout was good and he gave his usual 110%.

In my opinion it depends on the locks which they select and who they choose at 7 and 8.

If England decide to go with a lock combination of Lawes and Attwood for example Croft would be needed at 6 to help run the line-out.

If England were to go with a combination of say Lawes with either Robson/Parling, who can both lead the line-out. Then England may want a more physical 6 in the image of Robshaw or Fearns who could partner Wood who is most likely to start at 7.

A combination of Croft and Wood would simply not be physical enough. Neither of these players is a particularly strong ball carrier, whilst around the breakdown don't dominate as much as Robshaw or Fearns.

If Fearns manages to break into the Bath back-row when he comes back from injury, then an English back-row of...

6. Robshaw 7. Wood 8. Fearns
or
6. Croft 7. Robshaw 8.Fearns

would be potentially a very strong unit. Especially with Haskell coming back after his sabbatical in the southern hemisphere.

However we are more likely to see...

6. Croft 7. Wood 8. Waldrom

robshaw4england - i dare you to post something without mentioning your lover ;-)

Croft is dynamic, quick and a great linelout jumper. England miss an in form and on fire Tom Croft.

He may be 'dynamic' and 'quick' but how many times does he actually use his dynamism and pace in a game. Once or twice, supporting other players breaks?

He simply doesn't make the hard yards ball carrying going forward, which traditionally a 6 needs to be able to do, to help create a platform for the rest of the team. He also doesn't make particularly big hits either, neither does he dominate at the breakdown.

I agree that Croft could be a very good player, but only if the balance in the back-row is right and the structure which the players are working with is correct.

formerly known as Sam wrote:If his form is good then yes. If it isn't then no. He's been playing well since his return from the RWC but wasn't at his best vs Ulster which wasn't a great suprise as neither team got their backs going so his ability to disrupt the opponents midfield rythm was not really needed. His presence in the lineout was good and he gave his usual 110%.

I thought he wasn't great against Ulster either but the commentators said they thought he had gone well. Missed a couple of tackles and was pretty quiet in the loose.

I would still however have him in my starting 15, maybe even as Captain. Would be happy enough if he was picked at 6 with Wood and Easter making up the rest of the back row in the 6N. Would then have Robshaw or Ferns on the bench. Think if we are going to play Croft then Lawes should start. When Moody played everyone used to say that he was a 6.5 - well I feel Lawes is a 5.5 in so much as he does some of the work of a 6 and so enables England to play an unconventional 6 like Croft.

He should be in if we can find the balance in the other two backrowers as he is a class act. The problem is Wood is our best flanker and Croft doesn't suit playing alongside him.

I'd go Robshaw at 6 for 6N. He gives a physical presence and leadership we've missed. I'd like a backrow of:

6. Robshaw
7. Wood
8. Waldroum

I think that backrow has everything and plenty of balance which we've lacked. I'd probably still go Lawes at 4 but we'd need a good lineout op to partner him:

4. Lawes
5. Parling

I'd go Parling above Robson as Parling has a bit more grunt and Robson hasnt much of a carrying game. On the bench I'd like to see:

17. Attwood
18. Croft

Well, he's a proven international class player with a lot of positives to his game - great support runner and lineout operator, and his work at the breakdowns is much better than he's often creditted with.

On the downside, he is not a tremendously powerful ball carrier, so you need to balance his skillset with that of the 8 or a lock, who will need to do the job of taking the ball into traffic.

Also, I think he doesn't fit well with the style that Engalnd played in the RWC, but he would be a great asset to the more expansive game it looked like we were trying to develop last year.

In truth, I think if he was an AB or an Aussie, with their game plans and the quality of back row players alongside, he'd be an absolute superstar, but because of England's tactics and selections he's often a more peripheral figure than you would like your 6 to be. I think I'd still pick him if fit and on form for the 8Ns, but he's not one of the 'set in stone' names on the teamsheet (heck, I think only Cole, Lawes Tuillagi, Ashton and Foden are nailed on)

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
I'd go Parling above Robson as Parling has a bit more grunt and Robson hasnt much of a carrying game.

I'd be almost equally happy with either, but I'm curious as to where your opinion on Robson's carrying game compared to Parling has come from. It wasn't an impression I had be given, and looking at their stats for the AP season so far, Robson averages 5 carries/game to Parling's 6, with Robson averaging 1.4m/carry to Parling's 1.1, not really a big difference. In the HC Robson has averaged 5 carries/game to Parling's 3.5, Robson averaging 1.3m/carry to Parling's 0.



Regarding Croft, I'd have few problems with him being selected, but I don't think he is in as good form as he has been and I have my suspicions about whether he would work in a partnership with Wood. I might be tempted to start him on the bench (but give him decent game time) to see if a bit of competitive pressure spikes his performances.

Parling has only recently returned from injury but he seems to be much more physical than Robson in the contact. Robson seems a little like Borthwick as in he seems to go backwards more than forwards.

I'd be very dubious of those stats also, Parling seems to make ground whenever he carries and also has a decent offloading game.

I tend to find professionally collected stats by specialised companies like OPTA more reliable than people's opinions, which seem to vary greatly person to person, preconceptions often having an effect, and invariably no one watches every or indeed most games, so opinions lack full information.

Interesting that you mention Parling's offloading game, the stats say he made none in his HC matches, compared to Robson's three.

Again, I tend to find some stats a little off. I remember watching Pocock gain about 7 turnovers in one match and many of these stat sites had him down for none.

I'll stick to my opinions thanks.

Have to agree that stats can often be wrong.. Faletau's "not one missed tackle" stat which everyone raved about is definitely false, as I saw him miss a few tackles during the RWC.

On topic however, when it comes to Croft and Wood, I think only one of the 2 can play on the same team. I also believe both are out and out 6s, even though Wood is playing openside right now I think he is a 6. I think Wood is the better of the two also.

Last year I watched a video on OPTA's website (I think it might be on youtube as well), showing how they collect data. They have video analysing software that collects in real time, along with a couple of analysts doing the same manually, then after the game another analyst goes through the recording to check the data.

Seems a lot more thorough than the recollections of viewers who aren't being specific or concentrating as much in what they are looking for, aren't recording their observations and might be having a beer or two at the same time.

As they make their money from selling data to betting organisations, broadcasters, newspapers and the clubs, they have to be pretty rigorous in making it accurate.

I'd say him and Wood could work together actually. Would be intresting to see it given a go.

No. He doesn't do what a 6 should - carry, tackle, and make a nuisance of himself at the breakdown. Even for Leicester he hangs out in midfield and on the wings. Ironically the only time against Ulster that he tackled his opposite man was when Ferris had blown himself to a standstill and was having a rest on the wings.

Pick your best players then build your game plan round it. Croft is one of the best players in England (in my opinion), so build a game plan he fits into. As someone else said, if he was a kiwi or an Aussie he'd be a big deal...

Would Croft be ahead of Elsom or Kaino?

No! I know he is very fast, but none of the world's best players are flyers - McCaw, Smith, Jones etc etc. You certainly have to be fast enough, but the area you need blistering pace is in the backs. I think he hangs around in the backs too much. I think he could be a good 8, if he were to convert, but that isn't going to happen.

Our best combination is Robshaw at 6, Armitage at 7 and hope somebody decent and English sticks their hand up for 8.

tooboredtowork wrote:I think he hangs around in the backs too much.

He hangs around in the backs for Leicester because he is told to by the coaches. They trust their other players in the forwards to do a lot of grunt work so Croft can mix it up a bit. He then adds bulk where it's not expected and clears out rucks etc when the backs get tackled. When Leicester play teams with a lot of grunt in the forwards they tend to get Croft to rein it in a bit and he plays very well in the tight, making more than his share of tackles and doing plenty of the dirty work. That's why he is held in high regard at Welford road. No one down at Leicester likes a pretty boy who doesn't get stuck in.

Croft plays in a different way to many flankers, but then there have always been players that play a bit differently and he can play in the traditional manner if required.

No. He doesn't do what a 6 should - carry, tackle, and make a nuisance of himself at the breakdown. Even for Leicester he hangs out in midfield and on the wings

That's because Tigers operate under a different backrow lay out to the conventional one. The 8 does the big yard making runs and tackles around the fringes, the 7 is in every breakdown tackling and trying to get hands on the ball and the 6 is in charge of pressuring the opposition midfield and supporting the backs. That's how Tigers have played for years. That's how Tigers play when Croft isn't in the team.

Its quite simple.

Stick Croft at Centre

I always think of him as a bit of an English Pierre Spies. He adds an extra dimension that few other forwards can give, but is ultimately a luxury player, who can only be played if the rest of his forwards are dominant, and if the gameplan is built to suit his strengths.

I agree, basically he should be the first name on the subs bench, then, only if the rest of the team gives the right balance and it fits the game plan he should be promoted.

"He simply doesn't make the hard yards ball carrying going forward, which traditionally a 6 needs to be able to do, to help create a platform for the rest of the team. He also doesn't make particularly big hits either, neither does he dominate at the breakdown."

This sums up Croft for me in a nutshell. He is a luxury which England can't afford. He never dominates when he plays and only seems good for line out and support running. He needs much more to his game to be an England player. I'd drop him completely, he was one of the England failures at the RWC.

Dropping him completely would be a bit drastic in my view, but he does need to add more to his game. His size isn't an issue, he is very tall and athletic and is a big man, not as big as some other physicaly specimens like Ferris, but he is still a big man. He is the sort of build of a typical French backrower actually, who are never the biggest, but very good athletes.

He needs to be told to get stuck in, a bit silly as that is what my scrum half on my old school team used to shout to our lazy forwards who thought they were wings, but that is what he needs to do. He should start making the hard yards, getting stuck in the breakdown, and continue to support players with the ball. McCaw is one of the best support players in the world, and he is always in the breakdown.

I don't see why we don't use the Six Nations for a bit of experimentation. I would probably start Croft and Wood on the flanks, and possibly Easter at 8. Then if that didn't work I would look to bring in Robshaw onto one of the flanks, or possibly Fearns in at 8 to see how he goes. Truth be told we don't know our best team at the moment, and not even Croft is a nailed on starter.

But if I was picking a team for tomorrow then yes, Croft would be my 6.

If i was picking my team tomorrow then i would go Croft because as much as you want a clean squad it won't happen and Croft will have the 6 shirt printed on his back.

But if i was to say look into the future for the end of season tour i'd go

4.Lawes
5.Croft
6.Wood - How is wood lightweight by the way? He carries like a monster!
7.Robshaw
8.Fearns

Croft and Lawes as your second rows.. now that is very lightweight indeed, don't think you could do that tbh.

I do , especially when Dan Cole is fast becoming one of the best tightheads in world rugby and Hartley/Corbisero/Mullen are no pushovers in the front row. By all accounts Lawes is one of the most powerful players in the England scrum.

Cole is becoming one of the best tightheads in the world? First I've heard.. Hartley has also been awful. And no, that is a very lightweight second row. Lawes is young and isn't a huge player, he is more athletic. He needs a heavy second row to partner him, and if Croft is said to be too lightweight/not strong enough for 6, he most definitely is too small for second row.

I wouldnt have Croft anywhere near second row at international level.
As Rory says you need a powerhouse next to Lawes.

I personally wouldnt start Croft at 6 either. I'd be looking at Robshaw...with Wood on the other flank.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I wouldnt have Croft anywhere near second row at international level.
As Rory says you need a powerhouse next to Lawes.

I personally wouldnt start Croft at 6 either. I'd be looking at Robshaw...with Wood on the other flank.

But isnt the flanker position quite near the second row?

PUt Croft at second row. Lawes is a big aggressive monster. He'll get even bigger and stronger as he gets older. Put the more skillful Croft with him.

IMO Croft doesnt seem to fit with English backrow. But he is a top player. Put him at lock.

I just feel he is not physical enough for the 6 position...and so he wont be physical enough for the 4/5 position at international level...

PS...i hope i am proved wrong...because he is an undoubted talent and athlete....which should be used.

Im not sure we have the team at the moment to accomodate that...

GeordieFalcon wrote:I just feel he is not physical enough for the 6 position...and so he wont be physical enough for the 4/5 position at international level...

Yeah I don't think he is physical enough in the modern game compared to the likes of Ferris, Kaino, O'Brien, Lydiate etc. He was blown away a few times in the Tigers v Ulster game, most noteably when Dan Touhy went straight over the top of him. You really need your 6 to be winning the collisions and be physically dominant.

The power of some of the backrows now is just phenomenal, I mean O'Brien is a beast and even he struggled against Gorgonzilla. Croft just doesn't fit the bill.

I don't understand why he doesn't move to 7 and England could play Haskell or Wood at 6?

I don't get the idea of Croft playing lock, as that neutralises one of his greatest assets of his pace around the field. Just because he's a good line-out jumper, does not mean that his natural position is in the second row.

As I've said before, I think he should be given some game time at 8 at club level, because to me his skill set is the closest of any of our back row forwards to Harinordiquay or Parisse, and the 8 is usually given a bit more freedom to make the play in different parts of the pitch. He will need significant game time though before he shuold be considered for the ENgland 8 jersey, sufficient to prove (or not) both his ability to control the ball in the scrum and that he has enough power for the position.

dummy_half wrote:I don't get the idea of Croft playing lock, as that neutralises one of his greatest assets of his pace around the field. Just because he's a good line-out jumper, does not mean that his natural position is in the second row.

As I've said before, I think he should be given some game time at 8 at club level, because to me his skill set is the closest of any of our back row forwards to Harinordiquay or Parisse, and the 8 is usually given a bit more freedom to make the play in different parts of the pitch. He will need significant game time though before he shuold be considered for the ENgland 8 jersey, sufficient to prove (or not) both his ability to control the ball in the scrum and that he has enough power for the position.

I agree with that assessment. But would Croft at 8 work with our other back row options? Also, is it realistic to think he'll get time at 8 for his club, given that Leicester have Waldrom and Crane?

Cole is becoming one of the best tightheads in the world?

One of the best scrummaging tightheads. Scotland in the RWC aside no England scrum with him in it has been legally pushed all over the place in a game. Still think that was down to Stevens being destroyed by Murray though. He did his bit taking apart Court against Ulster as well. His strength in the scrum would allow for a lighter second row pairing was what Driver was getting at.

Yeah I don't think he is physical enough in the modern game compared to the likes of Ferris, Kaino, O'Brien, Lydiate etc.

He was physical enough during the Lions 2009 tour.

I don't understand why he doesn't move to 7 and England could play Haskell or Wood at 6?.

Because Tigers don't use their 7 like that. Tigers expect their 7 to be in or around every single ruck and the 8 to be standing just off it for the carry or the tackle. They want the 6 out in the midfield to close down any wide attack or to support their own backs move. Hence why when Croft isn't playing Mafi is at 6. Similarly they expect the 8 to be carrying into the tight exchanges, normally from the 8s shoulder so Croft won't be forfilling that role for England either.

It's all about balance rather than 'traditional roles'. Ideally you want one backrower who will be in the rucks making a nuisence of himself, one backrower ready to make the hard carries or the tackles around the ruck and the other out in the backline supporting the backs and looking for a quick steal in defence. For Wales Warburton is in the breakdown, Lydiate for hard yards and tackling and Faletau is ready for the midfield smash. For Ireland Ferris takes the tackling and breakdown, Heaslip the big carries and Wallace lurks with intent to disrupt further out.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Yeah I don't think he is physical enough in the modern game compared to the likes of Ferris, Kaino, O'Brien, Lydiate etc.

He was physical enough during the Lions 2009 tour.

The game has moved on and Croft hasn't I'm afraid. He's a smart and good player but he isn't physical enough.

The players you have mentioned including Wallace, Warburton etc. are all massively physical players who are phenomenal ball carriers. The fact that they have other roles to perform doesn't change the fact that if they are required to do the donkey work or take the hits they can do that. The same is not true of Croft.

screamingaddabs wrote:Pick your best players then build your game plan round it. Croft is one of the best players in England (in my opinion), so build a game plan he fits into. As someone else said, if he was a kiwi or an Aussie he'd be a big deal...

and when he gets an injury ..?

The players you have mentioned including Wallace, Warburton etc. are all massively physical players

I'd say neither of those two are actually. They are both intelligent players who are highly skilled and whose technical ability allows them make more of an impact than their strength and power allows. Neither go in for huge hits, if they can drive someone back they do but you'll find they generally go low stop the opposition on the gainline then compete for the ball.

Power is not everything as shown by the massive Ulster backrow and it's inability to break through the Tigers defence.

Sam sorry I disgree. Wallace is phenomenally powerful and has been Irelands primary ball carrier for the past 5/6 seasons. He nearly always gets across the gainline and his yardage is incredible.

Ask Clerc how strong Warburton is.

Ulsters back row is not massive. Ferris is though and Croft struggled to get to grips with him for much of last weeks game.

Ask Clerc how strong Warburton is.

Not hard to pick up someone half your weight and drop them.

Ulsters back row is not massive. Ferris is though and Croft struggled to get to grips with him for much of last weeks game

The one break Ferris made (handing off Forsyth and powering through) was ended when Croft tackled him 5m later. Croft had a pretty poor game by his standards even though he applied plenty of pressure in the lineout. Ferris was nothing to get hold off after the first 30 mins, his barnstorming (if rather one dimensional) start led into 50 minutes of him running sideways or just not be involved. A game that was built up as a battle of the 6s proved to be more of a battle of the 8s as they were the ones making the carries.

Wallace is phenomenally powerful and has been Irelands primary ball carrier for the past 5/6 seasons.

Wallace is a great player. He is more Back than Kaino though. It's not about raw power it's about foot work, body position and intelligence. Hence why even as he's aged his ability to make an impact is undiminished.

Sam we'll have to agree to disagree. For me Croft just doesn't have the skill set to play 6. He thrives on the front foot and when put in to space but when you are under the cosh and you need a player to get you over the gainline and put the tackles in he's as useful as t*ts on a bull.

A clever player yes but too much style and not enough substance.

Croft has shown that in the right team, he is a quality blind side flanker.
But the problem is that he isn't a normal traditional blind side flanker.
As such, to really make it work properly, you need the rest of your pack to not be of the traditional type either.

The modern day, total rugby type forward pack needs players that are capable of sharing the duties, from 4 to 8.
Even your front row need to be flankers in open play.

I think that England can play with players like Croft and Wood in the same back row, providing the hooker, props and locks are capable of mixing it up at the breakdown, tackling and carrying well.


I always like the idea of big locks.
I think that Lawes is pretty much nailed on these days... I'd like someone big like Attwood alongside him.
That will add physicalilty, and they're capable of tackling hard, and carrying.


Hooker is a good one though.
Hartley always appears to have the skills required, but I often think that he doesn't perform when required.
At times he was out-scrummaged by Thompson at the RWC, at others, Thommo appeared better around the park.
I don't think we really have the perfect hooker in the England setup at the moment... Webber would be good, but needs to do more.


All in all, it's awkward.
I think that at the last AI's we showed that mobility and pace was the important thing in our performances.
Therefore a back row of Croft, Wood and Haskell would tick all the boxes.... if only Haskell was better at the back of the scrum.

I think Wood is very strong at the break down...and although he has the same physical appearance as Croft (tall and lean) he is a markedly different type of player.

wasps

"Hartley always appears to have the skills required, but I often think that he doesn't perform when required.
"
I absolutely agree with this - Hartley appears to have all the physical attributes to be a top class player, but something is missing from his performances. The fact that he is a poor passer of the ball is part of it (i.e. that he so rarely passes and always takes the ball to ground), but also he doesn't make the hard yards as well as a guy his size should (body position in contact always appears a bit too high to me).

That he failed over the last 12 months t set himself clearly ahead of the aginnig Tommo says lot. The question though is where do we go next*

* Can Brits qualify through residency in the next couple of years, or has he played representatively in SA?

dummy_half wrote:wasps

"Hartley always appears to have the skills required, but I often think that he doesn't perform when required.
"
I absolutely agree with this - Hartley appears to have all the physical attributes to be a top class player, but something is missing from his performances. The fact that he is a poor passer of the ball is part of it (i.e. that he so rarely passes and always takes the ball to ground), but also he doesn't make the hard yards as well as a guy his size should (body position in contact always appears a bit too high to me).

That he failed over the last 12 months t set himself clearly ahead of the aginnig Tommo says lot. The question though is where do we go next** Can Brits qualify through residency in the next couple of years, or has he played representatively in SA?

Grey is performing well for Quins, Webber, whilst maybe not in great form is potential, Paice has been playing well, and maybe a little further down the line Lindsay has been getting gametime for Wasps aswell.

So there are options coming through...