Tom Wood is he as good as we think?

Just a quick question to the fans out there, I hear a lot about Tom Wood being England's new Neil Back, and that he does a lot of the "unseen work" or "unglamorous work" or that he's a grafter etc

Now I know he does get through a fair few tackles per game, and he is a good option in the lineout. But After that what does he actually bring to the team? To be the new Neil Back he'd need to do things that really effect the out come of games. Right now he doesn't seem to have much baring on a game, just tackling people close to rucks.

For Saints this season and against NZ on the weekend i've tried to keep an eye our for Tom Wood to see his effect on the game. To be honest I struggle to remember many positive impacts. I failed to see any gainline stopping tackles, any turnovers or any good support or link play from him.

The stats for the game seem to back this up as he made 9 tackles and missed 1,made 1 clean break, 3 offloads and a total of 10m's from 5 runs.

So he had a pretty quiet game, perhaps fatigued after two finals last month. He made little headway against NZ and missed a tackle while making a fairly low number anyway.

Now compare this to Haskell from the week before, he made 13 tackles none missed, 9m's ran from 4 runs but no clean breaks.

Fairly similar stats tbh.

What I do remember, and this is obviously just my opinion, is that Haskell made a lot more impact on the game in the first test. His tackles had power to them, he pushed the opposition back over the gainline and if I could find a stat for it I'm sure he won at least one turnover.

Two different players but should Lancaster be looking at guys like Haskell a bit more? Do we lack power at 6 with Wood there? Do we miss someone that can make momentum changing tackles and turnovers in the 6 shirt? With Robshaw do we still have two guys who do everything pretty well but nothing spectacularly?

Sorry about the long ramble! It's just been on my mind for a while, not sure if it's necessarily Wood at fault of the whole backrow/locks. Just feel like we're missing some parts in there.

I've heard him compared to Hill more than Back to be honest but I do think him, Robshaw and one of the big carriers are the best choice of backrow. Haskell has all the attributes to be amazing but has never quite lived up to it so far although when encorporated into Lancaster's teams he's always looked pretty good. Think he got a bit of rep in giving away needless pens.

In relation to a big ball carrying six, and I know the likelihood of him being ready for international rugby is a distant vision, Burgess?

I think the problem with the forwards at the moment is a bit of nastyness.

But at 6 I really like Tom Wood. He is one of the worlds best. He might not be a Kaino or Haskell in terms of power...but i think hes a excellent.

Our pack has looked very good...but in the 2nd test we did look like we lacked a little power overall. But its a young side. They will develop that.
For example Launchbury looks a little tired but hes been seriously good and he will add bulk to his young frame. He will be immense.

The biggest concern for me is the carrying ability of the pack. Marler has never brought his carrying game to this level. Wilson is a great carrier but its very sporadically on view, Lawes and Robshaw are ok. Hartley was immense at this in the 6n and then we have Billy or Ben Morgan.

Attwood would add a huge amount and physicality...but do you leave out Launchury or Lawes?

Difficult isn't it? We definitely need another bigger carrying option in there, just look at Kano, or Picamoles and the effect they have on their teams. But who would give way to allow that.

I just think that against the very best Wood and Robshaw can contain the opposition (when their on form), but can't really impact them like other world class players can. They're too defensive.

Well its certainly an idea Yappy.
 
I think most people thought haskell would be that type of 6 when he first emerged...but aside from a few top class games never really was consitantly that. The other question is....who else is there? Garvey may well have got a call up had he been fit. Maybe Fearns?
 
The thing to remember is that we're not that far away from the AB's which is a hell of a standard with such a young team. I dont think Wood or the pack are that bad  

For me, Wood should always be in the team when fit, I still haven't seen Saturday's game so can't comment on that, but when him and Robshaw are together I still don't think we've been dominated at the breakdown

The acid test for the pack as a whole is going to come against the Boks in the autumn, the sight of Alberts and Bismarck throwing our team around when we toured them needs to be put to rest

For me, Wood should always be in the team when fit, I still haven't seen Saturday's game so can't comment on that, but when him and Robshaw are together I still don't think we've been dominated at the breakdown

We were given quite a tough time on Saturday there.

That's why I said I still haven't seen Saturday's game so can't comment!

 

I never notice him on the pitch but for a 6 i think that means he's good ? I think he's a coaches player, not flashy but hits every ruck, tackles everything, natural leader and good in the lineout. I wouldn't say hes a big ball carrier and thats why i spose he doesn't stand out.

Haskell is a better ball carrier but as said before penalty prone. Croft is better in a wide open game but goes missing more at ruck time. Garvey IMO could be a real option at 6 as he always makes ground, is a shaved yeti and great in the lineout. But SL doesn't rate him at all.

There was some suggestions Lancaster would have selected Garvey had he been fit. Maybe that was his chance gone.

Wood did have a poor game by his standards on Saturday, but so did many. For me he adds a great balance to the backrow and I'd have him nailed on at 6 regardless of last week. His performances for Saints have been excellent and it is his rather intangible game management that I like; he seems to make the right decisions at the right time. Robshaw is not a traditional 7, but I feel Wood's game does complement it well. His lineout work is excellent, his rucking too and normally he won't miss (m)any tackles.

Haskell did have a good game, but as part of a dominant pack. It's great he's pushing for a start, but Wood has to be there for me.

BamBam wrote:That's why I said I still haven't seen Saturday's game so can't comment!

Don't watch it BamBam- ignorance is bliss!

Reckon Wood is totally shattered, he has played in three finals pretty much in consectutive weeks (ap semis, amlin final, prem final) and his game style means his body takes a royal pounding (plus celebrations and jet lag). Not particulary surprising IMO that wood and burrell were sub par by their standards.

Thats a very valid point Chris.

I agree that Wood appears to be knackered, but that is why I thought Haskell should have been retained. That is not to denigrate Wood at all who has shown a high quality level of performance over a number of internationals but more a reflection that he is knackered and that Haskell is chomping at the bit and also able to play at a similar level plus has the NZ experience. I think Lancaster can be too loyal to some players at times. Changing winning side, or at least one that has performed well is a brave but necessary thing to do sometimes.

With Haskell starting at 6 tomorrow morning against Crusaders, and SL indicating that it would be hard but not impossible for a player playing tomorrow to get selected for the 3rd Test, I think we are looking at the same starting backrow, possibly with Morgan and Billy swapping places.

Harsh on Haskell, who deserves another shot at trying to tame the AB beast.

bluestonevedder wrote:With Haskell starting at 6 tomorrow morning against Crusaders, and SL indicating that it would be hard but not impossible for a player playing tomorrow to get selected for the 3rd Test, I think we are looking at the same starting backrow, possibly with Morgan and Billy swapping places.

Harsh on Haskell, who deserves another shot at trying to tame the AB beast.

Eddie, words from Rowntree echo that and would suggest the door is still open for everyone...

England forwards coach Graham Rowntree added: "We have a competitive squad and a big squad and that's the reason we've brought so many guys - to have a look at them in training and to play in this game."

"People like Ed have been excellent to work with - they've been patient and this is their big stage.

"We haven't yet finalised things for the final Test, so there is a lot to play for."

Ah, conflicting words from the coaching staff. A video on the rfu website contains an interview with SL that indicates otherwise. Who knows what's going to happen!

GeordieFalcon wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:With Haskell starting at 6 tomorrow morning against Crusaders, and SL indicating that it would be hard but not impossible for a player playing tomorrow to get selected for the 3rd Test, I think we are looking at the same starting backrow, possibly with Morgan and Billy swapping places.

Harsh on Haskell, who deserves another shot at trying to tame the AB beast.

Eddie, words from Rowntree echo that and would suggest the door is still open for everyone...

England forwards coach Graham Rowntree added: "We have a competitive squad and a big squad and that's the reason we've brought so many guys - to have a look at them in training and to play in this game."

"People like Ed have been excellent to work with - they've been patient and this is their big stage.

"We haven't yet finalised things for the final Test, so there is a lot to play for."

Rowntree certainly had a lot of praise for Slater though- he's right on the cusp of matchday 23 selection by the sounds of it.

I think there is a bigger issue of balance within the pack, and not just within the back-row.  There are certain types of games (or weathers) where a more robust pack is needed.  I would like to see Attwood or Slater, once in a while starting a test to give us that option.  Not overly keen on Lawes and Parling together as against many teams this may not be enough (Boks, France, Wales).

In terms of the second test, Launchbury looked a bit tired and maybe Wood.  Would have been time to have played Attwood and Haskell.  Not always impressed by the selection.

What will be interesting is what happens when Tom Croft is fully fit and firing for Leicester. In effect you then have a four way contest between Wood, Croft, Haskell and Johnson. Difficult call to make, so I think you just have to look to form and fitness to inform the decision. Wood is probably the best at the breakdown of the four, which I think is why he gets the nod from Lancaster as it addresses a perceived weakness in Robshaw's game.

Still, no need to play Lawes at 6 ever again!!

I have always thought the same thing. It's starting to tell with Lydiate as ell with just his tackling, we need more on offer.
Stuart loves hims to bits though and doesn't hut up about him after every game saying how great he has players but I don't see it myself.
He's good but Geoff Parling is back and he is one of the best line out jumpers around then you have other options in Joe, and Robshaw. He isn't that important tot he line out when Geoff is available which is why i prefer Haskell to him. Haskell stood out in the first test but Wood didn't in the second

I prefer Haskell to Wood, have said so from the start, but accept Haskell's form was poor for a while. Wood is better in the line-out, probably has a better engine and is more aggressive. But Haskell offers more in all other areas for me. Not a huge difference but I do like a 6 who can stop people dead around the fringes.

When Wood is really on form his team tend to win the physical battle and therefore the game. Haskell does the flash things well but can go missing where the matches are won and lost.

Simples....................


YES

Wood is more Hill than Back. Sadly he doesn't have Back's thieving ability or intimidating abrasive personality. He's developed very well and his work rate is good. He has a bit of the Deacon factor where you don't really see what he adds but the pack just seem to perform that 10% better when he'he's In there. Certainly last weekend we generated more quick ball for the backs.

I was a bit disappointed with Wood at the line out last weekend though. He did not connect with Parling at all and looked like he has struggling to work out the calls.

Tom Wood is a player I have a lot of time for; he always seems to be in the right place at the right time. He's also got a great engine and a lot of heart. Like others though i do have a niggling doubt his (and Croft's) power game when we meet the gnarly bastards of this world.

I do wonder (as I always do) where is the next generation of baby eating, tree cutting, tackle smashing, leg pumping blindside flankers are. There seems to be a gap between guys in their late 20s like Wood, Croft and Haskell and, well, everything else.

Looking at the options, I’ve given up on Matt Garvey ever getting another go. Carl Fearns is a perennial sick note and Calum Clark just doesn’t seem to be good enough. Jamie Gibson seems to be a good player, but does he have that extra little bit need for international rugby? Tom Johnson may soon be past it too.

Don’t get me wrong, short term we should be okay, the first up choices are good and some of the others I have mentioned could definieley do a job in a pinch too.

However, looking long term I think somebody needs to tell one of the more athletic carrying U20’s locks (Aw, hell I am just going to say it Maro Itoje!) that they might be better advised switching to blindside as the second-row is all ‘locked up’ for the foreseeable future. For what it is worth I reckon Dom Barrow might be worth a watch in this respect too, Deano has brought in about 500 new second rowers which suggests to me that Dom might be varying his position.

Wray from Sarries looks the real deal and we have 8's coming out in droves, most of them can play 6 and the young one look mobile enough. Trick will be, not to let them bulk up, 17.5st is ample for a 6 and allows them to stay mobile as long as their engine is good. Wood has a Rolls Royce ( or should I say BMW ) of an engine, unbreakable.

Funny you should say Itoje. I guess there is still time for him to grow but (and I find even saying this scary) maybe at 6'5'' he isnt quite tall enough for international lock? Does seem to have a huge future though.

I remember alot of people doubting Tom Woods physicality then he played that 6 nations game v Ireland where they tore us a new one.
 
Tom Wood was the only player to not take a backward step that day...he was simply immense. That game proved to me he was more than tough enough.
 
I wouldnt change the back row at the moment. My only consideration would be Robshaw. And despite him being one of the first names on the team sheet....IF there was a young English 7 who was pulling up trees like Stefon Armitage then i would have to consider it, but until then...no changes.

Geordie, just to be clear...you wouldn't change anything but if a better player than Robshaw came along you'd change him? Doesn't that apply to every player?   

Well yes its does Hammer your totally right...but at the moment im actually very happy with the general set up of the team.

What i meant was Ive always been on the fence over the "real" 7 debate but having seen what the likes of Armitage can bring its something that would be worth looking at IF we had a player doing that. At the moment of course we dont.

But thats the dliema as Robshaw is a cracking player aswell.

I also think our breakdown may have been hampered slightly missing Corbs and Cole. Those two are absolutely beasts in the breakdown.

So as things stand the threshold in 'ability' between replacement between Robshaw and a potential is a little low than for other positions? I get that. Don't agree but understand where you're coming from   

Do you think we have a 7 that is near the level of Robshaw?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Well yes its does Hammer your totally right...but at the moment im actually very happy with the general set up of the team.

What i meant was Ive always been on the fence over the "real" 7 debate but having seen what the likes of Armitage can bring its something that would be worth looking at IF we had a player doing that. At the moment of course we dont.  

But thats the dliema as Robshaw is a cracking player aswell.

I also think our breakdown may have been hampered slightly missing Corbs and Cole. Those two are absolutely beasts in the breakdown.

Apart from of course the afore mentioned Armitage who is only stopped from playing by an internal policy.  We got hammered at the breakdown last weekend, if it happens again on Saturday then the calls for his inclusion will get louder.

Would Wood,Armitage and Vunipola work? Not as well as Wood, Robshaw and Vunipola for me. Would be a nice option off the bench though.

In what way would Wood, Armitage, Vunipola not work.  Looks well balanced to me.

Whats the realistic chances of Armitage though?

Aside from him...is there any stand out genuine ball winning 7's. Kesic looked decent v Crusaders...but they were missing lots of players and he hasnt set the world alight much this season.

Kvesic looked good towards the end of the season I thought (didn't see that many Gloucester games). Really shame that Fraiser has been injured with Saracens.

Just to clarify I don't give a flying fig about 'traditional' roles. It's about balance in the team not particular positions or groups. But Wilson doesn't contribute as much to the breakdown as Cole and therefore it should be accounted for. Possible the same for Hartley and Webber (not sure how much Webber does here).

That's why I'd prefer around 25 players who are all '1st choice' depending on who else in injured.

Ozzy3213 wrote:In what way would Wood, Armitage, Vunipola not work.  Looks well balanced to me.

Just not sure it would spread the workload around enough. Would place a lot on Wood for me.

a 6 + a 7 =13
a 6.5 + a 6.5=13

Thats why they compliment each other, both work the breakdown equaly well. If we had a Kvesic type, we would need a bruiser at 6 and lose the mobility we have now with both players being able to operate at the breakdown and keep going for the 80 minutes, if we use a bruiser like Haskell we would not be able to put Morgan on the bench as we would need sa 60 minutes replacement.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:In what way would Wood, Armitage, Vunipola not work.  Looks well balanced to me.

Just not sure it would spread the workload around enough. Would place a lot on Wood for me.

Would place a lot of what on Wood?  Tackling? Carrying? Breakdown?  Armitage does all those things, so not sure what more we'd be placing on Wood to be honest.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:In what way would Wood, Armitage, Vunipola not work.  Looks well balanced to me.

Just not sure it would spread the workload around enough. Would place a lot on Wood for me.

Would place a lot of what on Wood?  Tackling? Carrying? Breakdown?  Armitage does all those things, so not sure what more we'd be placing on Wood to be honest.

Yeah barring breakdown Robshaw betters Armitage in each and goes consistently for 80 min allowing Vunipola to go all out for 60. With Armitage I think you d be asking Billy to do a bit more detracting from his impact. Would see it ending up getting the best from none of them.

Wood is a good player...but on current form we don't lose anything with Haskell. No harm at all in that level of competition for the shirt. Haskell is a better 8 than wood if coming off the bench too.

Tired of hearing about Armitage. He doesn't want to play for England, plenty of players that do.

mid_gen wrote:Tired of hearing about Armitage. He doesn't want to play for England, plenty of players that do.

Doesn't want to play for England?  Really?  You know that do you?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:In what way would Wood, Armitage, Vunipola not work.  Looks well balanced to me.

Just not sure it would spread the workload around enough. Would place a lot on Wood for me.

Would place a lot of what on Wood?  Tackling? Carrying? Breakdown?  Armitage does all those things, so not sure what more we'd be placing on Wood to be honest.

Yeah barring breakdown Robshaw betters Armitage in each and goes consistently for 80 min allowing Vunipola to go all out for 60. With Armitage I think you d be asking Billy to do a bit more detracting from his impact. Would see it ending up getting the best from none of them.

Robshaw has a great workrate and is a leader, and tackles all day long. I'd dispute that he is a better carrier than Armitage.  It's a hypothetical discussion anyway, as he won't get picked, but I don't buy that having Armitage there would detract from the skills that Wood and Billy bring.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:In what way would Wood, Armitage, Vunipola not work.  Looks well balanced to me.

Just not sure it would spread the workload around enough. Would place a lot on Wood for me.

Would place a lot of what on Wood?  Tackling? Carrying? Breakdown?  Armitage does all those things, so not sure what more we'd be placing on Wood to be honest.

For me Armitage is a show pony, does all the flashy stuff but not the grind. That is his job at Toulon, he plays 8 and does the flashy parts of a flankers job. Lobbe and whoever do the grind. His style would not fit with England's two 6.5s and a heavy carrying 8.