Foden - Outside Centre

by tom_watson Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:50 pm

First topic message reminder :

With Manu Tuilagi definitely out of the first international against Scotland, and potentially out for a further couple of games. England have the option of either playing the uncapped Gloucester centre Henry Trinder at 13, who has a lot of potential - but probably isn't ready for the step up just yet, or England could go with Turner-Hall and Barritt in the centres, however this would be a very one dimensional centre pairing, mainly focused on defence. However England will most likely go with Farrell and Barritt in the centres with Hodgson at 10, an all Saracens combination. Whilst this works at club level, at international level I have doubts over Farrells all-round game, his goal kicking is exceptional and he is a good ball playing centre, however defensively I've seen him slip off too many tackles, whilst his decision making in defence is questionable.

One player I feel could make a smooth transition to outside centre would be Ben Foden. England have a certain luxury at full back at the moment. Perhaps in this pecking order England have Ben Foden, Mike Brown, Alex Goode, Delon Armitage, Nick Abendanon, Rob Miller, Chris Pennell, and not forgetting Olly Morgan and Matthew Tait when they come back from injury all capable of putting in a decent shift at full back for England.

Mike Brown is in particularly good form at the moment, and there isn't an area of his game that is suffering. He seems to be rock solidly defensively and thrilling in attack, dominant under the high ball and he has a huge boot on him. He is the form full back in the northern hemisphere. His main problem at the moment is that probably the second best full back in the northern hemisphere on form is Ben Foden, who is arguably one of England's best players, with an untarnished reputation on and off the pitch.

However I feel England should accommodate both of these players who are in such wonderful form. I'd play Brown at full back and move Foden to outside centre. At outside centre, Foden wouldn't struggle defensively as he is a top class tackler and his acceleration and power would help him with front up tackling and cover tackles. In attack he would arguably be more dangerous, able to hit lines at pace, use his outside break and draw in defenders to release the back three. Also if you partnered Barritt and Foden together, you would get a good balance in the centres. Whilst I'd be willing to play Farrell at 10, simply because he is the future and has been goal kicking week in, week out for Saracens ahead of his rival for the England 10 shirt Hodgson, and
with Barritt and Foden outside him, he would have two players who are very strong defensively and offer lots of options in attack. Whilst with Hodgson on the bench, England have his experience to rely on if things don't work out for Farrell.

I don't think Lancaster should worry about dropping players into the deep end at this moment in time, therefore this would be my team against Scotland in the six nations...

1. J.Marler
2. D.Hartley
3. D.Cole
4. M.Botha
5. T.Palmer
6. T.Croft
7. C.Robshaw (c)
8. B.Morgan
9. B.Youngs
10. O.Farrell
11. D.Strettle
12. B.Barritt
13. B.Foden
14. C.Ashton
15. M.Brown

16. M.Stevens
17. R.Webber
18. D.Attwood
19. P.Dowson
20. L.Dickson
21. C.Hodgson
22. C.Sharples

by bobo Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:01 am

Comfort wrote:
beshocked wrote: Saints have only themselves to blame. Could have been 5/5 but the fine margins mean only an Amlin spot is up for grabs.

Sorry, but thats a ridiculous comment, the Scarlets tore them apart at Franklin Gardens. Absolutely tore them apart. WBP away and no LBP for Saints. Fine margins indeed

game at the gardens self inflicted, week after munster game, hangover, gifted scarlets all 4 tries, went to wales, beat them at home, saints on 12 points, scarlets on 11 with a round to go if were being picky

'absolutely torn them apart' i do not think so

by beshocked Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:19 am

Chjw131 wrote:Very well let's deal with your points in turn then shall we?

'One is in the EPS the other not good enough for AP rugby' - This statement is plainly erroneous. Farrell is, by matter of fact in the EPS, GF has played from the age of 16 in the AP. Currently he is not there, and does indeed find himself behind 36, Flood and Staunton as FH preference. I think that covers your second point.

Farrell is indeed currently second choice FH at Saracens (many would disagree that Saracens are a 'better' side). When the 'wonderful' Hougaard returns though will he still be second choice? A player spurned rightly by Leicester, but who found himself starting for Saracens.

This brings me in nicely to your criteria for judging rugby players. From what I can discern it is based on your hierarchy of appearances in the varying leagues and international level; and not based on any rounded assessment of a players attributes and potential etc...

Do you then live in a distorted world, similarly in it's level of absurdity to mine (as you claim) where unwritten rules of meritocracy are absolute and applied by all in uniform fashion? Whereby all get what they deserve and value is solely based on achievement? It, i think you would agree would lead to some odd selection issues in the arena we are currently discussing.

Take your picks for the Feb 4 th game, one's which as you know I concur. In such an instance you have picked Chris Robshaw at 6. A player who has in matter of fact won precisely bugger all (Amlin Cup aside), using your hierarchy and achievement only based assessment he should be nowhere near the England 6 berth. Above him should first and foremost be Tom Croft, a player who has won AP finals, a 6 Nations title, been a QF at a World Cup and won 3 Lions caps. Next in line should be Tom Wood, who has been in a HC final and won a 6N title, including WC QF. After that should be Phil Dowson who has been in an HC final and already won the Amlin Cup with Northampton.

Now whilst you nor I clearly agree that any of these should be ahead of Robshaw in this game, why do you pick him there. Your blunt attitude should be: If he hasn't achieved it he isn't as good a player and as such shouldn't be ahead of them. If you can accept that this is not your criteria for judging Robshaw then maybe we can go on to have a debate about the relative attributes and qualities of Farrell and Ford.

Just to finish this post in the format I stated: No I don't think JWC is the most important in the world.

No I don't need you to provide me with evidence of a sick note from Farrell's Mum to inform me that he was continually rated second best by the England U20 management team and IRB panel. No I don't accept that Farrell completely 'outplayed' Toby Flood in the AP final, a debate we could go into. I do agree U20's are not of the same intensity as some AP matches, but far better than others; and I don't accept that Farrell is so glaringly better than Ford at FH that it's ludicrous to even assert it.

I will answer your points in kind.

Actually Ford's debut was not in the AP - it was in the LV. He has played 11 times for Leicester - you are indeed correct there. My point about him not being good enough - is I and evidently the Leicester management don't think he's good enough for AP level standard rugby yet. He's only young so it is likely he'll get there in the end. Currently as you agree he is plying his trade for Leeds.

Saracens are currently a better side than Leicester in my opinion. Many would agree with me. Will it last? Probably not but if you look at current form,progress in the HC and recent head to heads then Saracens are ahead of Leicester. In regards to overall dominance of English rugby of course Leicester are still on top.

You say Chris Robshaw has done bugger all yet he is captain of the team currently top of the AP table. He has captained his side to some very impressive wins like Toulouse and Munster away. His side are one of only two English sides with a chance for the HC quarter finals. He has played his part too in Quins' flurry of wins. I would say he has done very well this season so far. It is right to compare Robshaw with Dowson and Croft because as you said all are contenders for the England backrow.

In comparison Ford is probably 8th choice fly half for England behind - Flood,Hodgson,Burns,Farrell,Lamb,Myler and Clegg. Should Ford be considered as England fly half? Of course not. Ford has done nothing to merit EPS recognition yet. As I keep saying he needs to play at AP level. Move on from 4th choice fly half at Leicester.

No you misunderstand me. There are two factors I like to look at - Form and Experience. Potential is simply just that till opportunities are taken.

You only have to look at where the two players now. Ford isn't out of place in the U20s because his small size isn't exploited as much. The AP is a lot more physical and higher quality. Currently in the FH pecking order Ford is far behind Farrell so shouldn't be considered yet. Burns and Clegg are much more comparable.

Ford is not playing AP rugby so cannot be compared to any other fly halves yet. He is all potential currently. He is potentially a very bright prospect at FH to prove he's more than just a prospect he needs to be at least 2nd choice fly half at Leicester. He needs to prove his worth in my opinion. You can praise him for his U20s but he needs to move from that to next levels - AP,HC then full internationals.

As mad as it sounds yes I do believe in meritocracy. If someone is in good form or has done something good in the past then yes it should be recognised.

In an alternate reality possibly Leicester did win the AP with Flood running the show. In the real world Farrell did outplay Flood. He scored more points than his opposite number. Had a decisively higher kicking percentage. Simply more assured.Just better on the day. You might say that Farrell just kicked - well that made all the difference!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outplayed - definition of outplayed.

Flood's two missed kicks meant Leicester lost.Do you genuinely think Flood was better than Farrell on the day?

Glad we agree about Burns.

Niwatts you are indeed correct. Hodgson is playing better. Maybe Farrell won't rise above 3rd choice but he's still a current contender at FH - certainly for playing in a certain style.

by formerly known as Sam Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:35 am

In comparison Ford is probably 8th choice fly half for England behind

He's not a realistic choice for an international 10 on account of him being 18 and tiny. The size difference at the JWC was enough of a disadvantage to him. Tigers and indeed England are waiting for him to fill out a bit (as most men do at that age) and then he'll be a little more assured when under physical pressure.

In an alternate reality possibly Leicester did win the AP with Flood running the show. In the real world Farrell did outplay Flood.

Depends what you describe as play. Farrell showed no passing ability or attacking intent. He kicked the leather off the ball and allowed the rest of his team to do the work. He won the points kicking battle but Goode's quick thinking for the counter attack that led to Short going over in the corner was the deciding factor. The man who did the most for Sarries in that final and who really won them the game was sitting in the stands and was the defence coach Gustard. That rush defence, the tactics at the breakdown and the kick chase were the simply brilliant (annoyingly).

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:37 am

formerly known as Sam wrote:
In comparison Ford is probably 8th choice fly half for England behind

He's not a realistic choice for an international 10 on account of him being 18 and tiny. The size difference at the JWC was enough of a disadvantage to him. Tigers and indeed England are waiting for him to fill out a bit (as most men do at that age) and then he'll be a little more assured when under physical pressure.

Maybe they should get Andy Goode back as a dietician?

by bluestonevedder Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:45 am

by beshocked Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:52 am

formerly known as Sam wrote:
In comparison Ford is probably 8th choice fly half for England behind

He's not a realistic choice for an international 10 on account of him being 18 and tiny. The size difference at the JWC was enough of a disadvantage to him. Tigers and indeed England are waiting for him to fill out a bit (as most men do at that age) and then he'll be a little more assured when under physical pressure.

In an alternate reality possibly Leicester did win the AP with Flood running the show. In the real world Farrell did outplay Flood.

Depends what you describe as play. Farrell showed no passing ability or attacking intent. He kicked the leather off the ball and allowed the rest of his team to do the work. He won the points kicking battle but Goode's quick thinking for the counter attack that led to Short going over in the corner was the deciding factor. The man who did the most for Sarries in that final and who really won them the game was sitting in the stands and was the defence coach Gustard. That rush defence, the tactics at the breakdown and the kick chase were the simply brilliant (annoyingly).

Exactly I think Ford has potential. Till he shows he has the physical attributes to compete he cannot be considered. He doesn't need to be a gym freak - just needs to punch above his weight in the tackle like Wilkinson,Carter,Smith and BOD.

You are right. Farrell didn't show much attacking intent but he stuck to the Saracens gameplan faithfully and it worked. His job was to kick,defend well and make sure Saracens won. He did that. Not saying he was the most important player - that was Brits. Farrell played his part though and did perform better than his counterpart Flood.

Very true about Paul Gustard - very important to Saracens.

Peter seabiscuit wheeler Laugh

Could maybe get some tips off Mathieu Bastareaud too!

by beshocked Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:59 am

Anyway back onto the topic - outside centres. Who are the contenders?

Ben Foden - not an outside centre, more suited to 15.

Delon Armitage - not an outside centre but has played there before I believe, more suited to 15. In Saxons.

Owen Farrell - plays outside centre at club but only as a stop gap, not quick enough to be international quality 13, more suited to 12.

Manu Tuilagi - the first choice 13 when not injured.

Henry Trinder -a good 13 - should be considered,Saxons

Jonny May - is he a winger or an centre?

George Lowe - bright prospect, how long is he out for?

Jonathan Joseph - exciting prospect should be considered too, Saxons

Who else have I missed?

by bluestonevedder Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:10 am

beshocked wrote:

Who else have I missed?

Tindall
Banahan
Hape
Flutey
Noon
Erinle
Hipkiss

by Guest Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:22 am

Sounds to me like people have the same concerns for Ford as I do for Matthew Morgan, in terms of physical immaturity.

by Poorfour Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:23 am

beshocked wrote:Anyway back onto the topic - outside centres. Who are the contenders?

Ben Foden - not an outside centre, more suited to 15.

Delon Armitage - not an outside centre but has played there before I believe, more suited to 15. In Saxons.

Owen Farrell - plays outside centre at club but only as a stop gap, not quick enough to be international quality 13, more suited to 12.

Manu Tuilagi - the first choice 13 when not injured.

Henry Trinder -a good 13 - should be considered,Saxons

Jonny May - is he a winger or an centre?

George Lowe - bright prospect, how long is he out for?

Jonathan Joseph - exciting prospect should be considered too, Saxons

Who else have I missed?

Lowe was due back this week, but didn't make the A league squad. I expect he will be back playing sometime during the 6N and has a chance of being in contention to tour - though he'll have to be on fire to overtake Tuilagi, Trinder and Joseph. There's a big debate running on the Quins fansite about Matt Hopper and whether he's better than Lowe. Personally, I don't think so, but if his defence improves he could be in contention.

Have Sarries ever tried Strettle at OC? Quins coaching staff said they thought it was potentially his best position in the long term, and England could have used his ability to create something out of nothing.

And then there's always Matt Banahan...

by bluestonevedder Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:24 am

IronMike wrote:Sounds to me like people have the same concerns for Ford as I do for Matthew Morgan, in terms of physical immaturity.

True, but at least at an international level, Wales have a backrow that could offer Morgan some protection at least, to play his game. England don't have this as of yet (hard to say regarding the new squad).

by formerly known as Sam Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:40 am

Sounds to me like people have the same concerns for Ford as I do for Matthew Morgan, in terms of physical immaturity..

They are pretty much the same size and age. Not similar in terms of playing style though. Ford is a little general ushering his troops into the gaps with little flat passes and moving the team around with good O'Gara esque flat kicks from hand. Morgan seems to be more of an attacking maverick able to find holes in a solid wall. Be interesting to see them go head to head in the under 20 6N.

by funnyExiledScot Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:56 am

On Foden - why move your best attacking player from the position in which he's established himself as a class act?? 13 is far from being a problem position for England, Tuilagi, Trinder and Joseph are already excellent attacking players.

On Morgan and Ford - both are still kids in the grand scheme of things. As a Scot I am hugely jealous of both talents, I just (genuinely) hope that they are managed properly and that both the Ospreys and Leicester bring them through at 10, and don't go down the usual path of mucking them about at 12 and 15. Both have the abilities to be top class.

Regarding Morgan, with Priestland currently establishing himself at 10 for Wales (and he looks like he'll hog that jersey for a while), Morgan could become an excellent Plan B impact sub for Wales. If Wales need to break up a game and play loose, I think Morgan could ultimately fit that bill nicely.

Regarding Ford, he's got a better and clearer progression in front of him I think. England don't really have a top drawer incumbent at 10 looking to be the fly half of an era. Flood has as many fans as he has detractors, Hodgson has never looked convincing in an England jersey and Owen Farrell is looking more and more like an option at centre rather than fly half. That leaves the likes of Clegg and Burns for competition. I'd say in a couple of years, assuming Cockerill gives him a chance (Twelvetrees isn't a 10 and Staunton is average), Ford could well be in with a big shout.

by Poorfour Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:08 am

The principal issue with Foden is that they need to develop cover for him. The obvious backup is Brown, who is an out and out FB. So do they drop Foden for some games, pack a player who only plays one position on the bench, hope that Brown is fit the next time Foden's injured, or try to accommodate both?

It strikes me that a bit of rotation is probably the order of the day - it's a shame Scotland is first up; if the side had time to settle I'd suggest playing Brown against the Scots and Italy. As it is, he should start against Italy and gain some experience over the summer as well.

In the past, England have brought on new players but only when forced to. There needs to be a bit more a squad mentality where there are multiple players to cover each position.

Re Ford, the reason that countries shifted from playing U21 to U20 was that so much physical development happens in that year that the younger players were getting injured. Ford looks promising, but to bump him straight from U20 to full international would just be wrong from a player safety point of view.

by lostinwales Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:12 am

Probably already said but one of the reasons Foden looks good so often is that he has space at fb to get moving - and at pace he takes a lot of stopping for a guy his size. I just dont think he would get enough space at OC to look anything other than ordinary

Long term its just great to have someone like Tuilagi available - the only worry is that he might be the type to get injured often - but he looked completely happy (and very dangerous) all the way through the RWC which was a rare thing in the English ranks. He has got a lot to his game and is far more than the bosh merchant you expect when you first see him.

Croft - like everyone else he has good games and bad games. He has had a lot of very good games - some at the very highest level but its easy for the doubters to pick up on the bad bits. I think he is a very very good player

by funnyExiledScot Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:33 am

Poorfour - England need to find their 1st XV first and foremost, I don't think they need to worry about rotation. Summer tours are the place for that in any case, not the 6 Nations.

Brown's stellar performances this season have clearly had an effect on Foden, he's had to up his game, which is exactly what you want. Foden is rightly first choice 15. If his game drops, England should have no hesitation in picking Brown - he's ready for international rugby.

The aim of international selection is not "to give everyone a game". Lievremont took that approach last time round and his tenure was a complete joke, salvaged only by a group of world class players, some of whom had been ignored during his tenure whilst he was busy capping as many players as possible for the sake of "rotation". Caps handed out like sweets.

England need to figure out and bed down the 1st XV. Then they can introduce squad players through the bench, and on the summer tour.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:46 am

lostinwales wrote:Long term its just great to have someone like Tuilagi available - the only worry is that he might be the type to get injured often

Compared to our other recent 13's the guy has no injury problems at all. Given that was his first full seaosn as a professional followed by a world cup its hardly suprising he broke down eventually ( even if he did have a mid season rest )

When he gets a season ticket at the Matthew Tait Memorial Hospital then Ill worry about him being fragile. But hes a big tough lad, will need his workload managing though like any player.

by miteyironpaw Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:02 pm

I think Tuilagi was advised to do plenty of swimming as preventative therapy on his susceptible hamstrings. You can't fault his enthusiasm.

by funnyExiledScot Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:04 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
lostinwales wrote:Long term its just great to have someone like Tuilagi available - the only worry is that he might be the type to get injured often

Compared to our other recent 13's the guy has no injury problems at all. Given that was his first full seaosn as a professional followed by a world cup its hardly suprising he broke down eventually ( even if he did have a mid season rest )

When he gets a season ticket at the Matthew Tait Memorial Hospital then Ill worry about him being fragile. But hes a big tough lad, will need his workload managing though like any player.

by Chjw131 Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:14 pm

Beshocked, I feel that once again you have misunderstood the thrust of my argument re: judging Ford and Farrell as fly-halfs. You've also manage to mis-quote what i've said in regard to meritocracy and Robshaw. I think the position will have to remain that we profoundly disagree and save the next installment for a proper thread on the two players.

Back to the OP. I don't think Foden at 13 would be a good idea, for many of the reasons already stated. OC is not really a position where someone who was reasonably quick in another position can simply be chucked in and expected to perform at international level.

I feel a proper 13 or centre is required and Trinder would be my choice in the absence of Tuilagi. What Trinder offers over Tuilagi is a good kicking game aswell, which with Charlie at 10 Farrell at 12 and Trinder at 13 would give a number of tactical kicking options, if looking a little lightweight.

Banahan was mentioned earlier and I feel should not be mentioned again in an international backs context. The man's position is No.8 and i'm just waiting for someone to let him know that....

by Chjw131 Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:15 pm

FES most amusing, poor old Matthew Tait has been very unlucky. Anyone any ideas on when he'll appear for Tigers again?

by beshocked Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:23 pm

Yes Chjw131 we will have to agree to disagree. As far as I am concerned Ford is just potential till he proves otherwise.

by bluestonevedder Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:28 pm

Chjw131 wrote:FES most amusing, poor old Matthew Tait has been very unlucky. Anyone any ideas on when he'll appear for Tigers again?

Cockers said a few weeks ago that he wouldn't be back playing for quite a long time. He's suffering with a really bad groin injury, and it keeps resurfacing apparently. He's been to Zurich to see specialists, but could face a long, long injury lay-off. Wouldn't be surprised if he didn't feature until next season really. I'd rather see him take his time and come back fully fit ready to fight Murphy for the 15 role- especially since Murphy's found some good form this season.

by ChequeredJersey Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:50 pm

lostinwales wrote:Probably already said but one of the reasons Foden looks good so often is that he has space at fb to get moving - and at pace he takes a lot of stopping for a guy his size. I just dont think he would get enough space at OC to look anything other than ordinary

Long term its just great to have someone like Tuilagi available - the only worry is that he might be the type to get injured often - but he looked completely happy (and very dangerous) all the way through the RWC which was a rare thing in the English ranks. He has got a lot to his game and is far more than the bosh merchant you expect when you first see him.

Croft - like everyone else he has good games and bad games. He has had a lot of very good games - some at the very highest level but its easy for the doubters to pick up on the bad bits. I think he is a very very good player

I agree that Croft is a good player, but think his role is as an impact player - his athleticism and speed can make a big difference when he comes on, but I don't think he fulfills the specific roles of a 6 or 7 or 8 for international level, and at the beginning of the game can seem like a bit of a luxury player that some teams could afford and use to devastating effect but we probably cannot to begin with. To utilise properly as a starting 6 we would need a very physical 7 who is also a breakdown machine, which we don't have (or to redistribute some flanker roles to our 8 which we might be able to afford eventually but cannot with no international class proven specialist 8 in the EPS) and to use as a starting 7 our rucking is going to have to be fantastic! But he is very useful to have on the bench as he can really do a lot of damage in the loose, is a strong leader and lineout jumper and when players get more tired physicality becomes less useful and speed (especially fresh speed) more so.

by Rory_Gallagher Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:50 pm

Maybe you should move Tom Croft to 13 Run

Might actually become a good player then Wink

by ChequeredJersey Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:57 pm

Does anyone else think that with the increasing importance of subs in rugby, utility forwards/backs (like Haskell or Giteau, though he is also world class anywhere) and impact subs (like Croft or SWB) are the way forward? Or do you prefer to specialist cover the core positions like hooker, 8, 9, 10 and 15? Speaking of which, is it better to take 2 props to cover the technically different roles of 1 and 3 or one prop who doesn't cover either as well but can do a job at both?

by Rory_Gallagher Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:04 pm

To say something serious about Croft - people talk about how small he is for a 6 etc, but he is 6 foot 5 and 105kg+. Now I don't know about you, but I wouldn't say that is particularly small. It isn't huge, but not small. Harinordoquy is 105kg, as is Read, two of the best 8s in the game. I think Croft does have some qualities that are very good, but he focuses on these too much instead of the basics required of him.

What he needs to do is show a bit of aggression! He doesn't seem aggressive at all. He wouldn't even need to "bulk" up either. He just needs to carry himself about the pitch, using his size and scaring the opposition. Atm he runs into contact like a fairy. He needs some aggression, and with that he could become quality.

by formerly known as Sam Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:21 pm

He is a good bit taller than Imanol and Read who are both about 6 foot 3 where as Croft is 6 foot 7. I think Croft's problem with ball carrying is two fold. One is that he has extremely long legs which are easy to target and hence bring him down and the second is that his acceleration over 5m isn't very good. Over 10m he is rapid but less than that and he doesn't have the momentum he needs. The break from the Wasps game is a good example he has a much bigger Waldrom esque run up and powers through 3 tackles and makes 10+ metres.

Not many forwards have his handling skills though and he does make good use of those, he'll never be a smashy blindside but he has plenty of skills and I'm not sure England or Tigers are targeting him in the right areas. Really he should be coming off the 10s shoulder more in attack and defence and occasionally drifting out along side the 13 as a crossfield option.

by Rory_Gallagher Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:26 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote:He is a good bit taller than Imanol and Read who are both about 6 foot 3 where as Croft is 6 foot 7. I think Croft's problem with ball carrying is two fold. One is that he has extremely long legs which are easy to target and hence bring him down and the second is that his acceleration over 5m isn't very good. Over 10m he is rapid but less than that and he doesn't have the momentum he needs. The break from the Wasps game is a good example he has a much bigger Waldrom esque run up and powers through 3 tackles and makes 10+ metres.

Not many forwards have his handling skills though and he does make good use of those, he'll never be a smashy blindside but he has plenty of skills and I'm not sure England or Tigers are targeting him in the right areas. Really he should be coming off the 10s shoulder more in attack and defence and occasionally drifting out along side the 13 as a crossfield option.

A slight exaggeration Sam.. Croft is listed as being 6 foot 5, Harinordoquy 6 foot 3/4 and Read 6 foot 4. A difference of an inch or two. Very long legs is not a problem at all with ball carrying, you only have to look at Devin Toner for that who has legs longer than most rugby players. If he can get low, or even if he has momentum, the opposition has to take him low, leaving him the chance to offload. He needs aggression in contact, this wishy washy style of game he plays should be a supplement to his primary duties.

by bluestonevedder Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:28 pm

formerly known as Sam wrote: where as Croft is 6 foot 7.

Is he?! I thought he was 6'5 or 6'6 at most

by Rory_Gallagher Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:30 pm

He is 6 foot 5. Not a chance is he 6 foot 7.

by bluestonevedder Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:33 pm

That's what I thought. Lawes is 6'7 and does look quite a bit taller than Croft.

by beshocked Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:35 pm

It's not really about height or weight. It's about power and aggression as rory gallagher said.

Croft is not your traditional blindside. He is a skillful player with advantages but if he doesn't fit well into a side because it means the team balance has to revolve on him.

by Rory_Gallagher Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:37 pm

beshocked wrote:It's not really about height or weight. It's about power and aggression as rory gallagher said.

Croft is not your traditional blindside. He is a skillful player with advantages but if he doesn't fit well into a side because it means the team balance has to revolve on him.

That is my point though - Croft needs to add that aggressive edge to his game. He looks pathetic running into contact, and that to me is to do with attitude more than anything.

by Chjw131 Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:58 pm

Croft can be a sublime player, if used in the right way as some have outlined above. He did very well with the Lions, up against the most physical team in the world he put in some superb performances scoring (2?) tries.

Tying in what has been said very recently on this forum about Jeremy 'I wish i'd do more of my homework' Guscott he had this to say on the England backrow issue:

"Whilst Croft may not have being playing out of his skin for Tigers, he's played better for England and I personally would pick him. However, if interim boss Stuart Lancaster decides to go without him and goes for a Tom Wood, Calum Clark, Chris Robshaw back row and Croft on the bench, then I don't think the team looks much weaker." - BBC Website

Firstly, i'm sure Calum Clark can play 7, but can anyone let me know a) when he last played there for Northampton and b) who on earth would pick him there? Further, moving Robshaw out of position to 8 at international level for his first cap would seem to me wanton lunacy..?!

by Effervescing Elephant Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:02 pm

The man's an arse!

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:22 pm

Considering he said last year that Robshaw wasnt sharp enough for International rugby it seems odd hes been elevated to starting 8.

Re Croft : The problem with his tight ball carrying is that he is built for speed, not power. In broken play hes lethal though, but its not the meat and drink of the forwards game he excels in.
As a lineout spoiler though I dont think anyone in the England camp could touch him. As good a taker on own throw as any of the other backjrow options too. Again, not the primary role of a flanker though.

by funnyExiledScot Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:28 pm

England shouldn't consider picking players out of position. It doesn't work. Players should play the same position at international level as they do at club level. Yes, some players are versatile and can play two jersey's provided they regularly do at club level (e.g. Robshaw at 6 or 7), but the idea of sticking Robshaw or Croft at 8, just because you can't decide what to do at 6 is daft.

I watched Clark at the weekend. Seemed to take his lead off Dylan Hartley and exercise the jaw muscles throughout the game. Pity. Potential there to be a good player, wouldn't have picked him for the England squad personally. Saxons would have been a better bet at this stage.

by Rory_Gallagher Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:41 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Considering he said last year that Robshaw wasnt sharp enough for International rugby it seems odd hes been elevated to starting 8.

Re Croft : The problem with his tight ball carrying is that he is built for speed, not power. In broken play hes lethal though, but its not the meat and drink of the forwards game he excels in.
As a lineout spoiler though I dont think anyone in the England camp could touch him. As good a taker on own throw as any of the other backjrow options too. Again, not the primary role of a flanker though.

I don't get what you mean by he is built for speed and not power - how does that work? Power is a measurement of both speed and strength, and with that you also must be powerful in order to run fast (hence why any sprinter must do plyometric exercises). In fact to be an international rugby player you must be powerful. Croft actually has a very good athletic build that he could do huge damage with but doesn't. Like I said he has no aggression and that comes down to attitude. Infact I was just thinking, Juan Smith, one of the best blindsides in world rugby is practically the same size and height as Croft, and yet he is so destructive.

by bluestonevedder Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:52 pm

Sorry to butt in, but isn't it weird how two players of similar stature develop to play completely different styles of rugby? Croft is 6'5 and 105kg and considered athletic, pacey and not great at the breakdown. Conversely, Juan Smith who is also 6'5 and 106kg is a real breakdown guru...

by damage_13 Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:54 pm

Lancaster: See that bloke in the navy shirt over there?

Croft: Yarp

Lancaster: He thinks you're a ponce

Croft: ?

Lancaster: ... and he shagged your mum

Croft: ..Ggrr

by Rory_Gallagher Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:09 pm

damage_13 wrote:Lancaster: See that bloke in the navy shirt over there?

Croft: Yarp

Lancaster: He thinks you're a ponce

Croft: ?

Lancaster: ... and he shagged your mum

Croft: ..Ggrr

Exactly

by Rory_Gallagher Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:12 pm

bluestonevedder wrote:Sorry to butt in, but isn't it weird how two players of similar stature develop to play completely different styles of rugby? Croft is 6'5 and 105kg and considered athletic, pacey and not great at the breakdown. Conversely, Juan Smith who is also 6'5 and 106kg is a real breakdown guru...

You can't butt-in in a public forum friend thumbsup

Like I said - it comes down to attitude. You just watch Smith play, he puts his heart on his sleeve, and he will throw himself around the field, and make his presence known. He is very aggressive. Meanwhile, you watch Croft and he is standing with the backs watching his fellow forwards do this. Get in that ruck for flip sake! His pace, agility, handling and general athleticism are an added bonus, it should not be the only aspect of his game! He needs to get fired up. To me his attitude just looks all wrong as a flanker. Great as a winger/back, but as a flanker he should be smelling blood.

by bluestonevedder Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:26 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

You can't butt-in in a public forum friend

Haha, true true.

You're right about Croft- he needs to learn to use his natural size, by getting aggressive as you said. I thought during the WC warm-up matches, he looked as if he had become more tenacious, but this seemed to tail off as soon as he arrived in NZ...he's a big guy, but needs to impose himself better. Heck, there are far smaller guys who use their size so well! i.e Barritt

by formerly known as Sam Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:36 pm

You can't butt-in in a public forum friend Like I said - it comes down to attitude. You just watch Smith play, he puts his heart on his sleeve, and he will throw himself around the field, and make his presence known. He is very aggressive. Meanwhile, you watch Croft and he is standing with the backs watching his fellow forwards do this.

Yeah you can never butt in here.

He does, off of the next phase. No point if Tigers or England play as wide as they do (possibly too wide) having all 8 forwards within 10m of each other. When the next breakdown happens 30m away it means they all have to sprint over. Better to have a flanker drifting out, keeping up with play and then providing support when the contact hits. It works for Tigers but hasn't for England of late, possibly because too many forwards are stepping wide and not dealing with the breakdown.

In previous seasons Brits and Joubert played left and right for Sarries so that there was always a mobile forward presence on each side of the pitch. It is well organised it works very well.

by ChequeredJersey Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:29 pm

What I implied about Croft's physicality was more to do with his lack of aggression and involvement in the tight rather than his size. That's what I understand by the word physicality

by Rory_Gallagher Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:33 pm

It is a similar story for Diack of Ulster - he is like 18 stone, 6 foot 4. Huge, with exceptional skills, and very silky hands. He is very talented. But his physicality is lacking big time, he just has no aggression to his game and he frequently gets knocked about, despite being bigger than nearly everyone else. It is all about the attitude.

by robshaw4england Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:09 pm

The real issue here is that Robshaw should have been picked for England ahead of Croft years ago. Imagine how he could have developed into one of the best flankers in the world if he'd been given more than one chance at international level. However his international development was hindered due to Johnson believing he was not 'sharp enough for international rugby' and picking the one-dimensional melonhead Worsley, show pony Croft and braindead Haskell ahead of him. Robshaw has not only shown he is the best tackling flanker in the premiership over the past few seasons, but he is by far the best footballing link-man flanker as well. He's also developed into a dependable ball carrier and a fine leader for Harlequins. He will be the next captain of England.

Previously England decided to go with Haskell, a player who has only recently started to live up to his potential and Croft, someone who so many of you have bigged up over the past few years and are finally coming round to the idea that he doesn't carry out the basic needs of a blindside flanker - grunt, ball carrying in the tight, a high tackle count, big hits and turnovers.

Croft is a luxury, however England should not turn their back on him. When Haskell gets back from his 'holiday' and Fearns gets a string of games together, England will have the choice of Robshaw, Wood, Croft, Fearns, Haskell and Morgan in their backrow, with the likes of Callum Clark and Matt Kvesic and more pushing hard as well. Exciting times ahead.

by B91212 Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:17 pm

robshaw4england wrote:The real issue here is that Robshaw should have been picked for England ahead of Croft years ago. Imagine how he could have developed into one of the best flankers in the world if he'd been given more than one chance at international level.

He could have developed into one of the best flankers in the world - but there is no guarantee that of that. There are plenty of top club players out there who for whatever reason have been unable to make the jump up to international level. I agree he deserved his chance before now but we need to see how he goes over at least the next 8 games before we can say he will be one of the best in the world and the future England captain. Everyone seems convinced that he is going to be an international for years to come yet no-one can state that until he has at least played a few internationals against decent opposition. Until the 6N begin then he is nothing more than a top prospect at international level.

robshaw4england wrote:When Haskell gets back from his 'holiday' and Fearns gets a string of games together, England will have the choice of Robshaw, Wood, Croft, Fearns, Haskell and Morgan in their backrow, with the likes of Callum Clark and Matt Kvesic and more pushing hard as well. Exciting times ahead.

I agree with this, there should be some decent back row options for England over the next few years.

by Gatts Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:36 am

Thought this was a Foden thread. have always rated him, not sure if he can change direction at pace/step but he is deadly in a straight line and has awesome timing coming into the line. If Brown is playing better at FB I think BF woudl make an excellent 13.

by Sponsored content