English opensides - a rare breed indeed...

I pointed out on the Wilkinson thread about Neil Back being ignored by England prior to the 1997 Lions tour. Englands reluctance to pick Back led to Rowells selection of Rodber, Richards & Ben Clarke at 7 - a beast of a back row, but another example of the English 6.5.

Besides Back, in the last 20 years, I can only think of one true other English 7 with more than a few international caps: Peter Winterbottom.

Am I missing anybody else?

Why is this? Dont we like them or dont we produce quality? Or are we still obsessed, like Rowell with big is better?

We produce 7s, just maybe not in the way that the bizarre fixation with the Poccock type that people love now seems to demand. There are all kinds of 7s in rugby and just because we haven't played a fetcher that often doesn't mean we aren't producing good opensides. Ritchie McCaw is only a fetcher in so far that he excels at every aspect of play and groundwork is one of these

Yeh I take your point there is no set player template, but nevertheless, we dont pick club 7s for international football.

Gary Rees won 24 caps from 1984 to 1991. A real scavenger, he would have won more if he hadn't been up against Winterbottom for the spot.

Andy Robinson won eight caps from 1988-1995. Rees and Winterbottom both kept him at bay at first but he actually made the 1989 Lions tour ahead of both. I can't remember if the other two were injured back then or if it was one of McGeechan's hunches. Robinson was playing well for Bath at the time, and did the kind of linking work associated with the Scottish back row.

I'm looking forward to this media obsession with 7 getting old and disappearing, like it's some mythical position where people versed in the dark arts can dominate an entire team....zzz

Fine, at the moment there are a few top quality players in the 7 shirt putting in some good performances, but the hype is excruciating.

If I think back to all the rugby I've seen in the last year, and all this drivel about specialist 'fetchers'....I'm pretty sure in that time I've seen more turnovers made by front-rowers and fullbacks than 7s.

Play to the ref, if he lets you lie on the ball and make a half-arsed attempt to roll away, do it. If he's straight on the whistle and waving cards...don't. First man at the tackle, get your hands on the ball and hang on for dear life.

Not ****ing rocket science.

I'm not buying into the Mccaw turnover machine hype...I just dont get why we keep picking blindsides to play 7. Maybe the game has changed & Im out of touch. The 7 always seemed to be the flyer who would try to mow down the stand off and pop up in the backs as a link - dont know when people started using the term 'fetcher'. Has it come from Aus or NZ?

As for these 'dark arts' at the breakdown, a good stamp....oops sorry....ruck would help free the ball up.

Surely everyone should be critical to the breakdown work.....

Its also nice having props like Corbs and Cole who seem to relish that part of the game...

I would also say that Robshaw has played most of the last 4 years at 7...

Kvesic seems to be the heir apparent to the 7 spot in the England team so it will be interesting to watch the next season or so.

But by god...what a back row this was...Ouch!
6 Rodber
7 Clarke
8 Richards

Now thats a proper back row, none of this fetcher rubbish!

GeordieFalcon wrote:I would also say that Robshaw has played most of the last 4 years at 7...

Kvesic seems to be the heir apparent to the 7 spot in the England team so it will be interesting to watch the next season or so.

Robshaw is versatile, which seems to be as much a hinderance to him being seen as '7' as not. You need him at first receiver, he can do that, slick hands (sometimes!). Need him to be a pure fetcher, just look at the SA summer tour. Because he doesn't play the fetcher non-stop though we have all these (getting very old and tired) 'not a true 7' arguements.

Armitage isn't in contention, for who knows what reasons. Only SL will ever know why he isn't picked, and until he decides to tell us, the rest is speculation.

Kvesic needs to keep his eye firmly over his should at L. Wallace - he's slowly gaining plaudits, silverware, leadership experience and is more of the '7' mould of Popcock/McCaw

I think Tom Rees was the one of the best last proper '7s' we produced, but unluckly his career was cut short by injury. He was a cracking player. Good poacher and excellent link man.

To be honest, at the moment, I'm incredibly happy with the balance of our backrow from the NZ game.

6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

Bench: Haskell

Its probably interesting to mention also that one of Englands and indeed the often named "worlds best ever 6" - Richard Hill...was an openside by trade...

GeordieFalcon wrote:

But by god...what a back row this was...Ouch!
6 Rodber
7 Clarke
8 Richards

Yep pretty devasting, 3 great players, I think it was a for a test against the All Blacks in 1994.

I remember at the time everyone was assuming Back would get the 7 shirt. We had a sweep at my club & everyone picked Back, bar me. I picked Rodber, Clarke & Richards and everyone pi$$ed themselves laughing until I won the £150!!

From then on people thought I had some great Rugby brain. I didnt let on that I'd read it in the paper the day before.

Armitage isn't in contention, for who knows what reasons. Only SL will ever know why he isn't picked, and until he decides to tell us, the rest is speculation.

erm... he's in a contract that won't release hip to the EPS training sessions.

its that simple.

I agree Vedder our current back row looks very nicely balanced and should be continued with...

bluestonevedder wrote:I think Tom Rees was the one of the best last proper '7s' we produced, but unluckly his career was cut short by injury. He was a cracking player. Good poacher and excellent link man.

To be honest, at the moment, I'm incredibly happy with the balance of our backrow from the NZ game.

6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

Bench: Haskell

Ah..... I forgot all about Tom Rees. Theres our missing 7.

Shame Armitage is in France, but that said, I like Wood & Robshaw. Could one of them do a Dayglo & move to 8 to allow Armitage to move into 7?

damage_13 wrote:Armitage isn't in contention, for who knows what reasons. Only SL will ever know why he isn't picked, and until he decides to tell us, the rest is speculation.

erm... he's in a contract that won't release him to the EPS training sessions.

its that simple.

Yes but there are exceptions if required such as young Launchbury...which still makes you think Armitage isnt really in their sights...

[quote]Shame Armitage is in France, but that said, I like Wood & Robshaw. Could one of them do a Dayglo & move to 8 to allow Armitage to move into 7?.[/quote]

Cant see that at all.

Wood (despite his leaner appearance) gives a real physical edge, powerful breakdown (he can play 7)...AND Lineout options...as well as leadership.

Robshaw give physicality, a non stop engine, good link play, an alternative lineout option and captaincy

Morgan gives you a real lump at the back of the scrum and some serious go forward with ball in hand.

Its very balanced...though Morgan is still a work in progress and needs to improve other aspects of his game...

MotelMoneyMurderMadness wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:I think Tom Rees was the one of the best last proper '7s' we produced, but unluckly his career was cut short by injury. He was a cracking player. Good poacher and excellent link man.

To be honest, at the moment, I'm incredibly happy with the balance of our backrow from the NZ game.

6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

Bench: Haskell

Ah..... I forgot all about Tom Rees. Theres our missing 7.

Shame Armitage is in France, but that said, I like Wood & Robshaw. Could one of them do a Dayglo & move to 8 to allow Armitage to move into 7?

Yeh, Rees was a heck of a 7. Tough as nails. I remember the NZ tour when he was one of the few players to come back with his dignity in tact. He was excellent against McCaw and rightly received great plaudits. Such a shame he's gone. Though if he was around still, we'd have an even bigfger head ache!

Not sure if Robshaw or Wood could play 8. Wood I don't thikn has the bulk, and playing him on the flank can make the most of his speed. Robshaw's played 8, but likewise, I think is best at 6 or 7, and although can deputise at 8 ok, isn't a long term option there. Armitage's situation is a funny one...

Back wasn't just ignored by England pre Woodward.... McGeechan only had him as a sub and preferred Richard Hill as his openside.... last test didn't really count in terms of selection.

Brussow has been cast aside by Meyer for being too small preferring Louw, Coetzee and Burger as his opensides (Burger is captain elect going into RWC15 in all probability).... in reality its because his form has been poor since the 09 experimental year.

bluestonevedder wrote:I To be honest, at the moment, I'm incredibly happy with the balance of our backrow from the NZ game.

6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

Bench: Haskell

Yeah, i'd agree with that. 2 Flankers that are both right up in your face (boarderline off-side, and good a reading refs), tackling their guts out, both very smashy in the breakdown, as opposed to having one as dedicated poacher. I think that play really gives an edge, but it all relys on making sure of precise play, and ensuring a loose ball doesn't squirt out the side of a ruck or a McCaw/Pocock will punish you!

Morgan getting the carries off that, and Haskell being ..... well, Haskell off the bench.

AlastairW wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:I To be honest, at the moment, I'm incredibly happy with the balance of our backrow from the NZ game.

6. Wood
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

Bench: Haskell

Yeah, i'd agree with that. 2 Flankers that are both right up in your face (boarderline off-side, and good a reading refs), tackling their guts out, both very smashy in the breakdown, as opposed to having one as dedicated poacher. I think that play really gives an edge, but it all relys on making sure of precise play, and ensuring a loose ball doesn't squirt out the side of a ruck or a McCaw/Pocock will punish you!

Morgan getting the carries off that, and Haskell being ..... well, Haskell off the bench.

Yeh, both very in your face! Wood surprised me in that regard during the AIs. When he started against SA, he really seemed up for the physcial confrontation, and continued that against NZ. Even though he's always been quite physcial, he seems to have taken it up a notch. Compliments Robshaw and Morgan very well.

Like you say, Haskell is Haskell off the bench. Never sure what you're going to get, but he's a good impact player and adds some serious size and power.

Yeh, both very in your face! Wood surprised me in that regard during the AIs. When he started against SA, he really seemed up for the physcial confrontation

Vedder, his performance v Ireland (2 years ago) when we went backwards at will, showed what he had...he was the only one that barely took a backward step...
It was actually that performance that made me such a fan and want him at 6 for England...and hopefully he will make that spot his own now.

I think he's got the jersey, form dictating, for a little while Geordie. He was immense last 2 tests.

Haskell seems to have stopped being such a penalty machine (for the time being!) and bringing great power and impact play as Vedder said. I specifically remember hearing Haskell coming on in the the NZ test and thinking 'excellent! More go forward' NOT 'oh dear, we've just given them a bucket load of pens'.

Yeah i often wonder if next year Haskell might move to 8 at wasps...and give Morgan some competition for that 8 spot.

Haskell could be a crackin 8 if he was given lots of club time there first...

Well I will stick my neck out and say that I do like a poacher at 7. I would love them to pick Armitage at 7, Robshaw at 6 and Morgan at 8. That is a balanced back row! We have a wealth of riches at 6 (Wood, Robshaw, Croft - although I see Croft long term in the second row), and less at 7 as the title of the thread suggests. We have some 7s coming through: Kvesic, Wallace, Saul, Abbott.

We do produce typical 7s, just don't often pick them. Hazel has been the best 7 in the prem for many years (star starting to dim now). Few caps. Sanderson was an excellent 7 - but Robinson of all people played him at 8 (with Moody and Corry). Robinson had the personell for a balanced back row but determined to mix it up a tad!!!!

Hazel was on record as saying that Armitage was the best 7 he played against in the prem (not a bad refernce to have). At the moment Lancaster will continue as he is doing. But I predict that barring injury - Armitage will be are starting 7 for the World Cup.

Dont know about Haskell at 8, big fit lump yes, but does he have it between the ears? Maybe hes destined to be Lancasters bench replacement, like Corry was for Woodward. I hear good things about Billy Vuinipola. Is he Morgans competion for 8?

Really don't think we'll be seeing a lot of Haskell at 8 for Wasps in the near future. Especially with Vunipola's cracking form at the moment. Isn't Sam Jones also seen as an 8 first and foremost? I think Haskell was brought in more as the 6 and 7 cover....even possibly because they see Launchbury as a permanent lock now and needed a good flank replacement...?

Robshaw is developing into a fine 7, but still lacks a bit of pace to be the world's best. Let him fight it out with Wood. Pairing either with Croft, when fit, would add pace. Haskell at 8 (Morgan on for last 20). That's got some power and pace. They say a big good 'un is better than a small good 'un. I say a fast good 'un is better than a slow good 'un.

Ive never been a huge Croft fan....although i admit i thought he was excellent in the last 6n.

However on form Wood offers far more to England at 6 than Croft imo. We've landed on a cracking balanced back row and we need to stick with that.

I dont see Armitage ever wearing the white again...and hopefully Will Welch (and Mark Wilson) will be back in contention next season

Armitage will have to come back to England if he wants to get into the squad - and demonstrate that he has the kind of attitude and 80 minute non-stop engine that are pre-requisites for Lancaster.

In the meantime, it will be interesting to see if Kvesic or Wallace can force themselves into contention. Wallace has stated his intention to force Robshaw back to 6 (and, by implication 2 of Fa'asavalu, Easter and Guest out of the starting XV) at club level - if he achieves that, we may have an answer.

However, we should also think about some of the less conventional 7s of the last few years - Joe Worsley (did a very effective job against Wales one 6N, but it depended on a very specific gameplan), James Haskell (played very well at 7 in the 2010 6N - actually looked better there than at 6 or 8), and, erm, Peter Richards (who played 7 for the last 30 minutes of the 2007 RWC final after both Moody and Worsley went off injured. Which I think makes him one of only 5 men to have played 7 for England in an RWC final).

Painful as it is for me to admit as an openside, I tend to agree with those pointing out that the role has been over-hyped of late. The game has changed, particularly at the very highest level: every man, from 1-15, now has to be able to hold his own and do the right things in the tackle area. The ELV years and subsequent breakdown-focus has been all-encompassing, and sides fielding a solitary 'fetcher' just don't exist/prosper anymore. Even at my lowly club we often have training sessions almost fully devoted to improving breakdown skills, as this is where the modern game is won and lost - not just by the 7, or the backrow, or even just the forwards....everyone (in fact, I think our 13 probably steals more ball than anyone else - runners in that channel tend to get isolated at our level).

I am also increasingly bemused by the hyping of Stef Armitage as some kind of backrow messiah. He's not. For those who wax lyrical about his 'mindblowing' Toulon form (alongside a usually crazy-dominant pack, by the way), don't forget that he looked similarly impressive for Irish a couple of seasons back, only to fail to have an impact at international level. This, I believe, was, is and will be the story of his career. England fans need to avoid being press-blindsided into thinking he's the answer to England's problems just because the mainstream media will make a headline out of anything that comes out of St Wilkinson's mouth...

Finally, Wood was absolutely outstanding against the kiwis. But Croft is of proven international class, yet seems to be written-off by some. Going to be an interesting year ahead - will Robshaw's workrate and attitude be enough to retain his spot if Wood continues his NZ form and Croft gets back to his best? Can Croft and Wood play in the same backrow?.....all positive problems to have, in theory....

Adam

Whilst im not one calling for Armitage to come back its harsh to say he failed at international level...he was barely given a chance in reality.

And Croft is most definately an internationally proven...but i guess the debate of him or Wood depends on what you want your 6's role to be.

I personally want my 6 close in to the nitty gritty etc which Wood offers...rather than playing a little more on the outside like Croft has a tendancy to do. But its purely down to preferance.

It is harsh, Geordie - he wasn't given a massive go of it - but I just can't see him ever having a massive impact at international level, and I think that if Wilko hadn't given the press that soundbite then we wouldn't have heard nearly so much about it. And from the tone of some people, you'd think Lancaster had left Superman out of the squad when he failed to pick Stef for the AIs!

....I just don't think he stacks-up against England's other flank options - 'specialist' 7 or not.

Re: Croft, he is unorthodox so you're right - it's all about the type of game you want to play and whether you want to re-balance your backrow to accomodate him. My point was really that if Wood and Croft are on top form (and it's a pretty big 'if' - could take Croft a while to get back, and Wood has been injury-prone in the past) then I don't think there is room for Robshaw. And that is massively harsh on Robshaw, but whilst his graft is mind-boggling he just lacks the tools of the other two....

P.s - I don't rule out Robshaw proving me massively wrong by the way - he's done so in the past with a lot of people, and fair play to him for that!

I agree with you re Armitage...im not sure he should be rushed back...but i do still rate him.

However i think Robshaw gets a little unfair doubt.
He is tough, he just doesnt stop, tackles, rucks very very well, is a link man...pretty much everything McCaw does..though maybe not quite to his standard

What he does allows others space to do other things...and his partnership with Wood who is very similar that respect means the likes of Morgan, Tom Youngs, Tuilagi etc were able to get more ball in hand at pace...

The England WC team had Back and Richard Hill who were more than happy to just do the dog work and let others have the glory...in Robshaw and Wood we may finally have to new ones to do that aswell...

Can you play Wood and Croft in the same 15? I've heard it said they are too similar or taht lacks grunt but what do we think here?

Ksevic and Armitage both look like good 'fetcher' open-sides.

Armitage does have the advantage of playing behind Toulon's pack though. I'm not sure there's a team in the World including International sides that have a nastier set of forwards!

ChequeredJersey wrote:Can you play Wood and Croft in the same 15? I've heard it said they are too similar or taht lacks grunt but what do we think here?

Personally I don't think you could, but I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong. I just think they're too similar in stature. A bulkier player like Robshaw provides a bit of grunt and extra power at the breakdown, while providing Wood or Croft with an option to use their speed in a loose game.

Personally i think Woods appearance hides the fact hes a brute at the break down and in the tight.

However him and Robshaw offer a cracking combination...with Morgan or Vunipola allowed to run riot...

Will Greenwood has long felt that Robshaw is the closest replacement England have had for Hill since the great man retired, and I think the comparison was apt.

Back and Dallaglio were so effective partly because Hill got through such a vast amount of work and with such a low error count.

I firmly believe that Croft's form in the 6N was at least partly due to having a back row partner in Robshaw who gave him a bit of capacity to do the other stuff he does. Ditto Wood in the SA and NZ games. The stats would appear to bear this out (and he does it week in, week out). I wouldn't expect Croft just to walk back in, especially as Wood and Robshaw seem to work really well as a partnership.

I don't disagree with anything you say about Robshaw GF. A season or two ago (when he was being talked-up for England by Quins fans) I shared the view of many that he was a bit of a 'jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none'. But through his attitidue and workrate he has proven a lot of people wrong by just getting better and better at everything he does and becoming a really consistent performer.

...but whilst there's nothing to say he won't continue to improve on the same trajectory, he still lacks (only slightly, and at the very top level, mind you) the things he has always lacked: namely pace and explosive carrying ability. Not everyone in a side needs this, as you point out, but all I'm saying is that it will be an interesting conundrum if and when all 3 of Robshaw, Wood and Croft are fit and firing, as the latter can have that bit more exceptional spark about them...

Yes hes not an explosive carrier i agree with that...but he is a very good link man...and this is where you balance the pack...play to the players strengths...

Have Robshaw, Cole, Corbs, Wood (your maybe less powerful carriers) hitting the rucks where they are exceptional good...and let Youngs, Morgan, Launbury and even Parling get the ball in hand and running...

Its all about the balance and using the players strengths...

SL has come out and said that there are concerns about Armitage's fitness, this coupled with the fact that he isn't free for a lot of the fitness assessments that they run mean he'll never play for England while in France.

Croft is a very skill full player and looked a fair bit more physical in his last 6N's showings. But I think he'll have a lot of work to do to get back to that form and to get the 6 shirt, Wood was SL's original captain so is rated very highly within the management group, I can't see him being dropped.

Guscott printed an article the other week comparing all the international NH 7s perofrmances throughout the year, including metres run, carries, turnovers, offloads, etc, and Robshaw came out the most weel-rounded of all of them. He had the second most turnovers, narrowly behind Rennie.

Culture,it's all down to the style they play and know, England have a few scavenger 7's but they prefer big men,
heard the sky team talk about it once saying beyond the Southern Hemisphere Wales are the only team that ever seem to focus on an out and out 7.

True View, although Dustatoir and Rennie are prototypical 7s.

But Either could play 6 at international level better than Willams,Warburton,Tupuric etc..

True with Dusatoir. Not sure if Rennie would make a great 6 mind.

Always thought Warbs could play well at 6. What do you think of Warbs and Tipuric at 6 & 7?

MotelMoneyMurderMadness wrote:I pointed out on the Wilkinson thread about Neil Back being ignored by England prior to the 1997 Lions tour. Englands reluctance to pick Back led to Rowells selection of Rodber, Richards & Ben Clarke at 7 - a beast of a back row, but another example of the English 6.5.

Besides Back, in the last 20 years, I can only think of one true other English 7 with more than a few international caps: Peter Winterbottom.

Am I missing anybody else?

Why is this? Dont we like them or dont we produce quality? Or are we still obsessed, like Rowell with big is better?

Unbelievable that no one has mentioned Andy Robinson. He was a very good openside number 7 for England from the victory over Australia at Twickenham match at the end of 1988 through to the end of the Five Nations Championship in 1989. Not sure if he won any more England caps after this as he had to compete with the likes of Peter Winterbottom for an England place.

But View in that regard so could McCaw, Schalk Burger, etc ...only maybe Pocock and Smith (in fact all the Aussie 7's) wouldnt be as effective in a 6 role.