jamie roberts

reading delme parfitts view that jamie roberts was too one dimensional on saturday and I couldnt help but agree with him. He would have James Hook or Gavin Henson (personally id consider Ashley Beck) moved to the inside centre as a second playmaker and then Jamie shifted to outside Centre. Do you agree with this?

no


Ashley Beck? and it's well known Roberts doesn't like playing at 13.

Turkster wrote:no


Roberts doesn't like playing at 13.

Excuse my ignorance but is there really a massive difference between 12 and 13.
As far as my limited knowledge allows I believed Roberts was always more suited to 13 with a 12 inside with better distribution.

Yet in the World Cup and Lions tour (i.e whole series/tounaments, not one off games) he was highly effective and was nominated for man of the series/tournaments. Therefore, perhpas it is the people around him and the service he gets that is the problem. I'm not sure who to blame for Saturday's poor performance from him? Jamie Roberts is one dimensional, and that's one of his greatest strengths. He boshes holes in defences to make space for others. He did it all world cup and during the Lions. When has he ever been '2 dimensional'? And if he has been then what is this second dimension because I've certainly never seen it even when he's been playing at his best? It's not his kicking. Or his silky clean breaks and sidesteps. He doesn't have a second dimension!

It's sometimes hard to work out who to apportion the blame to when a player can't get into the game. Is it the player, or are others not passing to him, etc. For me Priestland didn't bring him into the game enough. He managed it in the world cup but it didn't happen on the weekend.

So, in summary I think if it can work well for a whole tournament, i.e. the world cup, then saturday could have been a bit of a blip and the tactics didn't work to get him running onto the ball at pace and punch holes in the defence. That doesn't mean that we should change the team, as it was effective against SA, France, etc. only a month or two ago.

Turkster wrote:no


Ashley Beck? and it's well known Roberts doesn't like playing at 13.

alright my apologies, longer term i should have said

Henson, back to his best, at 12 and Roberts at 13 does sound good I must admit. Just a shame we're producing so many 12's and no 13's, and yes, to Dai Tryin, there's a difference, although mainly in the defensive part of the game.

World cup showed an evolution, be it just a glimpse of one, of Dr Rob his distribution, playing as a link player and also was used as a dummy runner.
Yes in the past he was a crash baller but hes still developing at has the intelligence to continue to evolve, granted he will never be a stepper thus will never see him on strictly, unless ballroom dancing undergoes some serious changes!

Jamie Roberts is the best 12 in the world right now, certainly in the top 2 with Nonu, why the flip would you move him to 13?

Wales problem on Saturday was that they were far too eager to get the ball wide, probably to get Williams in to the game, rather than use the tactics that were so effective in the RWC i.e. use North, Fatetau and Roberts bashing up the middle. That is why Roberts was quiet for a lot of the game.

roddersm wrote:Jamie Roberts is the best 12 in the world right now, certainly in the top 2 with Nonu, why the flip would you move him to 13?

Wales problem on Saturday was that they were far too eager to get the ball wide, probably to get Williams in to the game, rather than use the tactics that were so effective in the RWC i.e. use North, Fatetau and Roberts bashing up the middle. That is why Roberts was quiet for a lot of the game.

I actually disagree with this and also think he would make a better 13. He can still crash up the middle at 13, and if he developed an offloading game he could do some serious damage with North/Halfpenny running support. I think Nonu is still heads above Roberts, just because his game is so varied. Roberts does one thing, but better than anyone else in the world as centre - crashing up the middle. Pairing him with a creative 12 I think would actually enhance his game and the Welsh backline.

Delme an idiot and i wouldn't pay him that much attention.

Roberts was back to his best form during the WC - I do think he benefits from a more creative centre partner though. The whole team performance was flat on Saturday, very poor. We didn't have a front 5 platform, there was little narrow direct running and we reverted to clueless wide play. I wouldn't judge Roberts on one poor team performance.

We got to see the much vaunted Henson Roberts combo against Italy few years back and it didn't work, not say it won't if tried again but Roebrst best form of late has been at 12 with Davies alongside him.

Jamie Roberts had a great world cup, and is surely one of Wales' "go to" players. He is one of the top 12s in the world. It's not his fault that Wales reverted to the old flat line lateral running game.
Delme Parfitt's argument is simply an argument, that's his job. For me it overlooks the obvious, that is to say that JOC had probably the best debut as a full international fly half in the last ten years that there has been. (and I've seen several matches!)
B Barnes is a fine player, but JOC and Genia are the two half backs you would want to play inside you. Even if the Welsh pack had the upper hand I sense the Aussies would have still won through these three.
Parfitt is wrong. Hook is a liability where-ever he plays( The Peter Bonetti of the world cup I have heard it said, though I'm not entirely sure what it means!) And Henson, let's face it it's unlikely he'll mount a serious challenge at 12, though I hope he does.

In the short time Henson was on the field against England in the warm up matches, Jamie looked pretty good at 13. But the main thing about centre partnerships is how they can complement each others skill set and attributes.

For e.g. When Henson and Shanklin played together, Shanklin would often play a Jamie type role off first phase ball and crash it up, then in the next phase Henson would be an extra pair of hands yet Shanklin wore 13. I dont think it really matters what number they're wearing as long as they can work together effectively.

Just another thing. One of the reasons i think we didn't see the back line working so well in the OZ game was the loss of Mike Phillips. Lloyd Williams didn't offer enough of a threat around the fringes so all the pressure was then on Priestland and Roberts to run it.

the good thing about Henson at 12, when he's back to his best of course, is that he's a big specimen as well, so he's capable of bosh tactics too, seems the best of both worlds. We can only hope he gets back to his best, just depends where his head is currently, in the rugby world or in the minor celebrity world.

In my opinion, the difference between IC and OC is all dependant on the type of 10 that is playing.

Traditionally, the weakest defensive channel was always 10/12 because fly halves are rarely known for their tackling / defensive work.
As such, the IC was always needed to be one of the best defenders on the team. This, I found, often meant that the better runners were at OC.

These days, I think that fly halves are generally better defensively than they were even just 10 years ago.
As such, it isn't as important for the 12 to be the best defender, providing their is good defensive organisation in general.
Obviously, a big strong Scrum Half can also help out if the 10 is a little bit tackle shy.


The one thing I always look for in a 13, regardless of anything else, is the ability to include the winger and full back in attack.
There's no point having a dangerous back 3, if the Outside centre is incapable of passing to them when needed.
This also means that the 13 must run straight lines so as not to close down the space outside.

For Wales, I think that Roberts could make a great 13, if he could ensure that he is always looking to offload to a fast back 3.
However, if someone like North is considered to play at 14, you have to wonder if it is necessary to have yet another big player out there.

Wales already do have three big men in Roberts, Davies and North in the back line. I honestly think you could have a backline of 6 foot 4, 17 stone players as long as the balance was right, but that is rarely the case. 12s like Nonu/Jauzion, who are both big and skillful, are quite rare. I think the creative player should be at 12, with the more direct runner at 13. Roberts at 13, with North outside him would be terrifying.

An awful lot of people mentioning Henson I see. Ignoring his many past indiscretions and controversies, I'd have every current centre of every region in over Henson at this moment in time. Why? Because at least they've played. You just can't pencil someone straight back into their national side after a lengthy injury spell without at least having them play once or twice first!

Roberts played out of his skin during the WC and had a quiet game in comparison against Aus. He still put in a hit or two and was also coming straight in off an injury which had caused him to play next to no time at all since New Zealand. This and he wasn't used nearly as effectively by his teammates. I've said it before, you can't just lean on big centres and expect them to produce fireworks by themselves. The Tuilagis, Nonu, almost every power runner in the game that has made a name of himself has done so as a team player, not an individual. This was the case with Roberts in NZ and with the Lions, though not in Cardiff on Saturday.

Considering all this, people are being highly reactionary and impulsive by jumping the gun on Roberts' form.

No ones jumping the gun on Roberts's form here. Most are just saying he could do with a creative centre next to him and moving to 13 could accommodate that.

Knowsit17 wrote:An awful lot of people mentioning Henson I see. Ignoring his many past indiscretions and controversies, I'd have every current centre of every region in over Henson at this moment in time. Why? Because at least they've played. You just can't pencil someone straight back into their national side after a lengthy injury spell without at least having them play once or twice first!

could you point out who is?

I don't think Nonu is the same type of player as your Roberts/Tuilagi big running style player. Nonu is big, but the main asset to his game nowadays is his distribution. He can break the gain-line or create space, and then effectively get the ball out to his outside backs. This is why he is such a good 12.

Roberts is used more as a battering ram, and he creates quick ball for the scrum half to use. He gains momentum for the team. I think he could do this more effectively at 13 however, being released by a more creative 12. Could be even more damaging to the opposition defence.

About that 2009 Italy game.

Wasnt that the game where Roberts and Henson hardly touched the ball?

Wasnt that the game where Henson left the field in frustration due to the kicking away possession tactics?

I would like to see Henson come back to form just to see this combination a few more times, though Davies/Roberts is developing

A physical presence at 12 works best, especially with modern day defences. It gives the FH more time on the ball, holds the defence better (also more likely to give fanning backrowers greater pause for thought) and gives more opportunties for the runners outside.

The extra bit of space that is available in the outside channel (more so with the above 12) is best taken advantage of by a creative runner.


At international level the second FH at 12 approach has more limited success these days if that player can't also be a physical go to man. And with all the invention concentrated in one area of the midfield a good defence will more easily close down and contain the threat.

alcoombe wrote:A physical presence at 12 works best, especially with modern day defences. It gives the FH more time on the ball, holds the defence better (also more likely to give fanning backrowers greater pause for thought) and gives more opportunties for the runners outside.

The extra bit of space that is available in the outside channel (more so with the above 12) is best taken advantage of by a creative runner.


At international level the second FH at 12 approach has more limited success these days if that player can't also be a physical go to man. And with all the invention concentrated in one area of the midfield a good defence will more easily close down and contain the threat.

Mm I agree and disagree with certain things about this. I actually think a creative, distributing 12 puts much less pressure on the 10, as they have another option who can lead the back line. However, a 12 must also be able to effectively break the gainline or create space for options out wide. Then the big runners, whether that is a backrow running support lines or one of the outside backs, can capitalise. It really depends on what tactics you are going for though.

I think that creative players do what they suggest; they create space for others. And the big direct runners are best at exploiting that space created for them, and putting holes in the opposition defence. That is what I think anyways.

Its all about combinations people it doesn't matter if you have a big guy at 12 if you have another big guy at 13 who cant pass it doesn't work well.

I think the problem is that although a creative player can produce the goods in tight situations (and that is often what is most memorable), they can't do it all the time, especially with the quality of modern top defences, and you need greater certainty and frequency in that position of the field. Physicality is more reliable in similar tight situations. If you look at players like Jauzion in his prime, who is both big and skillful, he used his physicality more often, turning on the skill as a change up.

Ten years ago the second playmaker at 12 was a very succesful option internationally, but defences have come on leaps and bounds since then and top defences are just too good. It can still be quite effective at club level though.

Probably the principle exponent of the second playmaker in recent years has been Australia, and against the top sides it has as often been what has cost them the game as what has won them it. If 10 & 12 are on fire it can be devestating, but if players aren't at their absolute best and the defence is targeting that area, play is more easily strangled, it quite quickly comes crumbling down and their isn't a plan B. It's part of the reason why until this year only NZ & SA had won the 3N over the last decade and why Giteau has fallen out of favour with Deans. Top teams that win trophies need greater consistency and security in certain key areas of the pitch, and that first and more frequent channel is one of them.

I like the more expressive runners at OC because if you give creative players more space and time to operate in they have more options as to when and what they do, this allows them to produce more often and you maximise that talent. I don't think the similar extra space and time sees as great a return form the more direct runners, they're quite often just as consistently effective in tight situations.

I agree. I like the big guy at inside center and the faster more skillful guy at outside center. In their prime, Jauzion and O'Driscoll would have been my dream center combination.

Turkster wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:An awful lot of people mentioning Henson I see. Ignoring his many past indiscretions and controversies, I'd have every current centre of every region in over Henson at this moment in time. Why? Because at least they've played. You just can't pencil someone straight back into their national side after a lengthy injury spell without at least having them play once or twice first!

could you point out who is?

Well you for one thing, the author of this article and gowales by my count, plus I swear I've seen it mentioned on other threads.

Roberts' record at 13 is nothing compared to the success he has enjoyed at 12 so that's a no-brainer imo. The 12 slot isn't necessarily that which is reserved for creativity over abrasiveness. BOD has always played 13 and the combination he and Roberts contributed for the Lions needs no mention. Roberts is fine as he is imo, he just didn't have his finest game in Cardiff, nor did anyone else playing in red that day.

Knowsit17 wrote:

Turkster wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:An awful lot of people mentioning Henson I see. Ignoring his many past indiscretions and controversies, I'd have every current centre of every region in over Henson at this moment in time. Why? Because at least they've played. You just can't pencil someone straight back into their national side after a lengthy injury spell without at least having them play once or twice first!

could you point out who is?

Well you for one thing, the author of this article and gowales by my count, plus I swear I've seen it mentioned on other threads.

me eh, yeah right, so you put in at the end of your post exactly what I put in ALL my posts about Henson, i.e. he's got to get back to his best first, and then say I've been calling for him to go straight back in without even playing. Here's my proof. where's yours?

Henson, back to his best, at 12 and Roberts at 13 does sound good I must admit.

the good thing about Henson at 12, when he's back to his best of course, is that he's a big specimen as well, so he's capable of bosh tactics too, seems the best of both worlds. We can only hope he gets back to his best, just depends where his head is currently, in the rugby world or in the minor celebrity world.

Seems you literally can't post twice on the same thread nowadays without some cocky keyboard warrior calling you an idiot

In other words there are classier ways of disagreeing mate, if I made some mistake or misinterpretation I'd be willing to own up. You need only point it out and not get on my back about it and all would be well but no, insulting is apparently the integral part of modern debate...

what insult? I edited it 9 minutes before you replied, hoping you wouldn't see it to be honest.


do you get this problem often then?

I didn't refresh before posting then, twas still there when I replied.

As often as many I daresay, just recently seem to be on something of a rotten streak in terms of responses so am rarely in the best of moods when I post as a result

Anyway, just get exasperated seeing Henson's name pop up so regularly considering he hasn't played since August and it'll soon be four years since he contributed anything meaningful for Wales. Certainly wouldn't displace Roberts even when fit in my books as Roberts has been more reliable in his short career than Henson has been in his significantly longer one. Just saying...

Feckless Rogue wrote:I agree. I like the big guy at inside center and the faster more skillful guy at outside center. In their prime, Jauzion and O'Driscoll would have been my dream center combination.

Actually, Jauzion was/is very skilful. He may have been big, but he was very creative and a very elusive runner. Not many centres are like that. He is certainly not included in the bosh centre big guy stereotype.

Also I have to disagree about big runners being more useful against modern defences. If anything, modern defences can handle these players much better than ever. That is why there is nobody with Lomu's impact anymore. Everyone is big and strong now, and defences would rather defend the big runners than the clever, dangerous ones. A creative inside centre can generally split the defence up and then open the faster, more direct outside backs. That is how I see it anyways.

Knowsit17 wrote:

Anyway, just get exasperated seeing Henson's name pop up so regularly considering he hasn't played since August and it'll soon be four years since he contributed anything meaningful for Wales. Certainly wouldn't displace Roberts even when fit in my books as Roberts has been more reliable in his short career than Henson has been in his significantly longer one. Just saying...

no doubt he doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the Wales team at the moment, if he can get a few games under his belt and get anywhere near where he was 3 or 4 years ago then he's an option, Roberts hasn't exactly been on top form, except for the world cup of course, so why not? problem is with Henson he's got so much baggage with him it's a gamble and, as point out, Roberts is far more reliable. 4 class centres are better than 3 class centres as far as I'm concerned.

Was there not talk of Roberts giving up the rugby after the world cup to become a doctor?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Also I have to disagree about big runners being more useful against modern defences. If anything, modern defences can handle these players much better than ever. That is why there is nobody with Lomu's impact anymore. Everyone is big and strong now, and defences would rather defend the big runners than the clever, dangerous ones. A creative inside centre can generally split the defence up and then open the faster, more direct outside backs. That is how I see it anyways.

Can, but not frequently enough to consistently triumph against the best defences. With all the creative ability in the 10-12 channel, good agressive defences make sure they close down on that channel quicker, reducing its potential effectiveness. Something SA & NZ have been quite adept at against Australia's second playmakers over the last decade. This also restricts the options of the FH, who doesn't have an effective go to man behind him to offload to and secure position if the defence get a good jump and are bearing down.

Defenders might feel less confident marking more dangerous runners, but on the majority of attempts neither a physical or creative 12 will beat their defenders and it is then that physicality (less often being driven back or turned over) provides a better and more reliable platform for the next phase, which is key given the greater frequency a 12 is in that position, his relative proximity to the previous breakdown and the quality of top defensive backrows.

If you look at the most consistently successful international 12s in the last 5 years, they have all had a physical dimension and used it more often than any other weapons in their armoury. In the same time frame the second playmaker 12s have produced memorable moments of brilliance but been less reliable overall against the best teams.

1 of the main reasons Roberts wasnt as effective against Aus, was Wales missing Phillips, for all his negatives he keeps the fringe defence more honest than nearly every other scrum half on the plant (bar Genia and perhaps 1 or 2 others- Hougaard will be another). These defenders could fan out and wait for Roberts. And considering L.Williams was supposed to be the key to providing quick ball, well, he must have caught the 2-step bug thats been plaguing our scrum halfs for the last couple of years, delivery was no quicker than Phillips (although, this is possibly a bit harsh in the young lads starting debut).

Also, the fast flat passes to Roberts on the angle were at a premium, anytime this did happen, it didnt go to hand or the defence was lined up and waiting.

More to the point, Roberts was used very astutely in the World Cup, you'd often see him and JD2 switching between 12/13 in attack, as a smart centre partnership would. I actually think his partnership with JD2 is VERY underrated as to why Roberts plays so well with him.

The only other player I'd have right now with Roberts in the midfield (excluding JD2), is Hughes from the dragons, he's an out and out 13 and would compliment roberts aggressive style, he could run lines off roberts all day, we'd just need to get the big man looking up with his hands free.

Finally, Roberts IS one dimensional, its just one hell of a dimension, that if used smartly (as in the world cup) will put even the best defences in the world on the back foot.

Roberts, is still improving this year his defence has become much more aggresive and he is constantly aiming not just to stop opponents bud knock them back allowing people like Warbutton and Gethin a better shot at dispossessing them.
In attach, there is a lot of similarity between Roberts and Scott Quinnell, both have/had one great trick and for both Wales had to be on the front foot for it to work. Everyone new that if the Welsh scrum went forward Scott would pick up the ball and run left, if the opposition pack was on the backfoot, it didn't matter that they new what was comming they couldn't stop it and its the same thing with Jamie.
On Saturday Adam Jones wasn't there so we were going backwards at the scrum, confidence wilted everyone stood flat Jamie was great in defence but no attacking option.
We can talk about all young Welsh backs but is the chunky chap from Neath that is the key to Welsh performance.