England Back Row Unit

I think the balance on the flanks was one of the more positive aspects of the game, I think Robshaw and Croft complimented each other, however I was disappointed with the performance of Phil Dowson. Ben Morgan should come in at number 8 against Italy, he was impressive with his ball carrying when he came on.

Defensively I think both Croft and Robshaw excelled, however Croft did miss an important tackle on Denton, which led to a large charge from the young zimbabwean/scottish no.8.

Ball in hand Robshaw offered himself more than any seven England have had in a long time, he carried well, passed well to teammates - bar one poor pass to Ashton.

Also what was interested was Robshaw's spat with Cusiter, you can just tell that he is so patriotic and competive and that is quite inspiring to the rest of the team, their captain led by example and in a match many thought England would lose, they grinded out a win. The platforms have been laid.

I was also particularly impressed by Strettle, Barritt and Parling when he came on.

I personally think Robshaw should have been in the England side for years, with the performance of Croft and Robshaw, Wood is going to have a really tough time getting back into the side.

And there goes the narrow mindedness of the England selection committee in the past 4 years - picking people on past glories not on form. My back-row 18 months ago would've been Croft, Robshaw & Ward-Smith.

Instead we got Haskell the doughnut (although he was playing well at the time), Moody who was held together with Gaffa Tape and Band-Aids and the big slow donkey that was Nick Easter. never mind...

botha was very physical today with lawes alongside him teams wont wanna run at them.farrell needs to play 10 with barritt 12 and tuilagi 13 or turner-hall.barritt was outstanding.morgan needs to play 8.

The back row is starting to look more promising. I'd prefer robshaw at blind but hey ho.........its all about building

As a neutral watching, I thought the England backrow was completely dominated today. I've never seen Robshaw look anything more than decent, Dowson was anonymous and Croft was poor. I can't help but feel England would benefit from dropping Croft and playing Robshaw at 6 with a more natural 7.

The spat just looked immature, an international captain needs a cool head, but perhaps the occasion went to his head.

You need to move out of the Robshaw fantasy world. He barely had the ball ( like the entire England team ) and certainly made no effective runs with it. Id love you to point out where all these passes came from in the game other than the Ashton one.
Morgan too, yep he did make a charge but its a bit sudden to judge him as he only got his hands on the ball a couple of times. Nick Easter in a typical England game wouldve put in several runs like that.

How can you be impressed by Strettle when he had the ball 3 times? He had to make a few tackles, but got beaten. The back 3 were getting in a mess positionaly at times, partly because they only had one kicker there.
I really dont think theres enough evidence to judge Strettle on in this game, but he didnt do anything of note, just ran into traffic and got tackled.

We can be impressed by Barrits tackling, but again he did nothing with the ball in hand. Excuse him due to the lack of opportunities he was given, but this seems a common thread when you go through the England backs.


England need to sort out getting and keeping the ball so these players can actually get a chance to prove if they can carry it effectively.

Scotland had far too easy a time of it in this game, for all we slate them for their inability to score at least they created. Englands only real chance came from a Cipriani like charge down.

I know it has nothing to do with this thread, but I can't say I have been impressed by Maurits botha.

i like robshaw and thought he did well today, one of few though. I also thought the team as a whole defended well.

but england were very disappointing in attack, they really didnt try to take on the scottish pack. i suppose the hodgeson try early in the second half didnt help in terms of motivation to attack the scots as england were leading. it would be interesting to see how england would have performed if hodgeson hadnt scored at that moment.

dispite what some people say the result is always more important than the performance.

biltongbek wrote:I know it has nothing to do with this thread, but I can't say I have been impressed by Maurits botha.

Really? I'd've thought as a saffa you'd have been able to appreciate the solid, unglamorous work? Guess you must play 10....10's never know what the second rows do I thought he did a really good job. Solid, strong, abrasive........

ultra wrote:

biltongbek wrote:I know it has nothing to do with this thread, but I can't say I have been impressed by Maurits botha.

Really? I'd've thought as a saffa you'd have been able to appreciate the solid, unglamorous work? Guess you must play 10....10's never know what the second rows do I thought he did a really good job. Solid, strong, abrasive........

I didn't think he was all that solid though. He hung about at the mauls, never really got involved in the grunt work, did hit a few rucks like a drunk to a sofa.

Myself, I am a loose head prop.

HQ matt wrote:i like robshaw and thought he did well today, one of few though. I also thought the team as a whole defended well.

but england were very disappointing in attack, they really didnt try to take on the scottish pack. i suppose the hodgeson try early in the second half didnt help in terms of motivation to attack the scots as england were leading. it would be interesting to see how england would have performed if hodgeson hadnt scored at that moment.

dispite what some people say the result is always more important than the performance.

Really? Because I thought the excuse for this was that England were building for the future. Its damn important they got the W, but the next ones will take much better PERFORMANCES
England were as bad or worse in this game than they were in previous recent trips. Any team that gifts Scotland 4 clear try scoring chances and has a missed tackles count in the teens has not defended well, even more so when its a poor side they are facing.

England had problems in the set piece and retaining the ball in contact. The forwards could not win and keep the ball. Consequently we did not see any of their attacking threat via the backs.

Hats off to their D and they scrambled well when they had to.

Their discipline was hugely improved. Very few pens and hardly any 'silly, stupid and unnecessary' ones.

Overall the team had spirit and played for each other but have several areas to work on, mainly forward skills. 6/10 today but they look like a team which can improve and they will need to very quickly.

My back row would be Robshaw, Morgan and Wood. Mid-field would be Barritt and Tuilagi. 6/10

Having just watched the recording after a hairy journey back from WR - I felt the back row was not great. Dowson struggled, Croft did some good stuff (too much of which the effing commentators credited to Robshaw) but still looks more like a hard ground player. Robshaw was what he is, a decent but inexperienced player.

Croft/Robshaw/Dowson

Passes 0/1/2
Runs 3/8/5
Metres 3/1/21
Tackles 8/11/12

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:You need to move out of the Robshaw fantasy world. He barely had the ball ( like the entire England team ) and certainly made no effective runs with it. Id love you to point out where all these passes came from in the game other than the Ashton one.
Morgan too, yep he did make a charge but its a bit sudden to judge him as he only got his hands on the ball a couple of times. Nick Easter in a typical England game wouldve put in several runs like that.

How can you be impressed by Strettle when he had the ball 3 times? He had to make a few tackles, but got beaten. The back 3 were getting in a mess positionaly at times, partly because they only had one kicker there.
I really dont think theres enough evidence to judge Strettle on in this game, but he didnt do anything of note, just ran into traffic and got tackled.

We can be impressed by Barrits tackling, but again he did nothing with the ball in hand. Excuse him due to the lack of opportunities he was given, but this seems a common thread when you go through the England backs.


England need to sort out getting and keeping the ball so these players can actually get a chance to prove if they can carry it effectively.

Scotland had far too easy a time of it in this game, for all we slate them for their inability to score at least they created. Englands only real chance came from a Cipriani like charge down.

Robshaw went perfectly fine i thought. Easter may have made several of those runs, he would also be blowing out his piehole after 5 mins and arriving at rucks 30 seconds late. Dowson was very average at 8, Morgan looked ok in his cameo, and i'd rather either than a return to the lazy, feckless lump that is Nick Easter.

Even when we've had a very good team we've struggled at Murrayfield. We were pretty rubbish but not as bad as you suggest.

niwatts wrote:Croft/Robshaw/Dowson

Passes 0/1/2
Runs 3/8/5
Metres 3/1/21
Tackles 8/11/12

I know those are the official ESPN Srats, but they are wrong. I rewatched most of the game on iPlayer, specifically looking at both teams back row. Robshaw made that many carries in the time I saw, plus a couple of rolling mauls, and every time he reached the gainline and on several times he broke it for 5-6 m. He made over 10m on his maul alone, as did Botha btw, but maybe that doesn't count. Unless I missed a carry for HUGE loss then he made more than 1 metre.

The tackle stats are right, croft missed a tackle but made a couple of very good ones. A couple of Robshaw's were also very good. Both players forced turnovers that were ignored on the stats sheet. Croft and Robshaw both rucked well, to my surprise Croft looked better on review in the first half, Robshaw upped his breakdown game in the second half. Good clear up play by Croft on a couple of occasions. They were outplayed by their opposite numbers but not by much except in yards made. Dowson was completely outshone by Denton but he had a stormer.

Robshaw definitely stole some of Croft's credit on the floor but got his hands in well when he was there. He needs to be faster to play international 7. Both players put Parks under pressure. Morgan was solid but not amazing when he came on he got to do more than Dowson but Dowson did contribute (very) quietly. Can't believe that the stats give Robshaw no turnovers when his tackle in the first period won us our first penalty. They are basically, on review, not that accurate. Robshaw also made several rather late tackles on Parks and Cuisiter. Decide for yourselves whether that is a plus or minus.

Overall my final impression is that Robshaw and Croft both had equally decent but not great games, but neither looks natural in their starting position and they do not compliment each other well. Croft played more like a 7 and Robshaw like a 6 in the first half strangely. Dowson was fine but not involved much in the loose. I have a sneaking suspicion that he was doing more breakdown work than Croft or Robshaw. When Morgan came on, they started to do more of it and Morgan was more conspicuous than Dowson had been due to more carrying opportunities. Robshaw should play 6, Croft should come on as a sub and score some tries. Keep Dowson to start until Wood gets back then start Morgan Wood and Robshaw with Croft on the bench.

As for Scotland, Denton got the plaudits but Rennie, error asIDE, had a fantastic game in defence, attack and on the floor. Really bloody dangerous player.

The turnovers in that ESPN stat sheet are turnovers conceded not won. Turnovers won aren't given, which has always annoyed me, maybe they're too difficult to correctly attribute at the bottom of a messy ruck.

The metres made in mauls wouldn't have been included in their individual totals. I don't know about the veracity of the metres made in open runs.

I said a couple of weeks ago that with Wood out I thought Dowson would be selected because the breakdown would be more critical in this match and that Morgan would get the start against Italy which will be more carry oriented.

niwatts wrote:The turnovers in that ESPN stat sheet are turnovers conceded not won. Turnovers won aren't given, which has always annoyed me, maybe they're too difficult to correctly attribute at the bottom of a messy ruck.

The metres made in mauls wouldn't have been included in their individual totals. I don't know about the veracity of the metres made in open runs.

I said a couple of weeks ago that with Wood out I thought Dowson would be selected because the breakdown would be more critical in this match and that Morgan would get the start against Italy which will be more carry oriented.

I agree but I'm still not sure a Robshaw, Croft and Morgan backrow is correctly balanced. Maybe Dowson could start at 6 with Croft on the bench next week? Although Dowson wasn't great but he did seem to get through a lot of work in defense. On a side note I would start Dickson against Italy - I know it's a controversial call but England need to up the tempo and he is the man for that. Overall Youngs is the better player but he is so off form at the moment.

JmD wrote:As a neutral watching, I thought the England backrow was completely dominated today. I've never seen Robshaw look anything more than decent, Dowson was anonymous and Croft was poor. I can't help but feel England would benefit from dropping Croft and playing Robshaw at 6 with a more natural 7.

The spat just looked immature, an international captain needs a cool head, but perhaps the occasion went to his head.

On the first camera angle it looked bad but when they replayed it looked like Cusiter was pulling Robshaw and he was trying to get out more than anything else. It was nothing.

I think one of the first thing for a back row unit to do is attack the breakdown. England were so poor across the board at the breakdown, that it is hard to give much credit at all. Dowson was one of the only guys to stick his head in there, but never had any effective help. Therefore, no real results. Each player showed flashes, but as a unit (ah, heck, as a team) not really effective.

doctor_grey wrote:I think one of the first thing for a back row unit to do is attack the breakdown. England were so poor across the board at the breakdown, that it is hard to give much credit at all. Dowson was one of the only guys to stick his head in there, but never had any effective help. Therefore, no real results. Each player showed flashes, but as a unit (ah, heck, as a team) not really effective.

I'm not sure I agree. I think they did reasonably at the breakdown. Maybe they were lucky in what the ref let them do but they effectively slowed opposition ball and won quick ball for Youngs to absolutely butcher. They also turned over a fair bit of Scottish ball. Dowson did quite a lot of this work, true, and we certainly lost the breakdown but given the (lack of) back row balance/any players in the right position, we held our own far better than I expected.

I thought there was very little pressure on Scotland at the breakdown when England were on defense. Though England did do enough to slow things down a bit. But very little turnover ball, less than Scotland it appeared to me.

On attack I couldn't agree more, it was OK, but the problem was Youngs was there when the ball came out. A very poor match for him.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I think one of the first thing for a back row unit to do is attack the breakdown. England were so poor across the board at the breakdown, that it is hard to give much credit at all. Dowson was one of the only guys to stick his head in there, but never had any effective help. Therefore, no real results. Each player showed flashes, but as a unit (ah, heck, as a team) not really effective.

I'm not sure I agree. I think they did reasonably at the breakdown. Maybe they were lucky in what the ref let them do but they effectively slowed opposition ball and won quick ball for Youngs to absolutely butcher. They also turned over a fair bit of Scottish ball. Dowson did quite a lot of this work, true, and we certainly lost the breakdown but given the (lack of) back row balance/any players in the right position, we held our own far better than I expected.

If you look at the percentage of ball they turned over it was very low. The number of turnovers was average, but only because of the sheer number of rucks Scotland went through.

England lost a greater percentage of their ball than scotland did.

At points it seemed like the 2 srum halves were involved in a novel production of Annie Get Your Gun:

Youngs: any kick you can kick, I can kick s****er. I can kick any kick s****er than you.

Cuisiter: No you can't

Youngs: yes I can... Etc

Repeat for any ball you can pass I can pass slower

ChequeredJersey wrote:At points it seemed like the 2 srum halves were involved in a novel production of Annie Get Your Gun:

Youngs: any kick you can kick, I can kick s****er. I can kick any kick s****er than you.

Cuisiter: No you can't

Youngs: yes I can... Etc

Repeat for any ball you can pass I can pass slower

In both cases you have to look at whats outside them and how well organised the defence was.

How much quick ball did youngs get? Did England ever stretch Scotland except on kick returns and turnovers? Were Hodgson Farrell and Barrit offering him anything?
England had little possession, little go forward, little quick ball, and little invention or even organisation from the midfield. Aside from the one that went direct to touch when did Youngs kick that badly? England as a team were certainly better at turning the defence and getting pressure on the takers than Scotland were.
I do really see that Youngs is to blame for the lack of passing down the line. Doing that when its not on is worse than the endless box kicks. As a player Youngs is suited to the fast passing game, problem is England dont have the forwards creating the conditions for that or the midfield to do anything with it.

I actually thought that the centre pairing did reasonable well for considering it was their debut. What they lacked in attacking was more than made up for in their defence.

Defence and discipline was very good yesterday, offered very little in attack but then they didn't have to.

Lets hope they are stuck with and not cast aside, Tuilagi will obvioulsy come back in when fit but they are all young kids so stick with them.

I disagree, the defence was quickly upon them because Youngs took so long to pass the ball, and I didn't say he was always wrong to Box kick it, just to box kick it so poorly. The option to use one's forwards also exists. In a game in which you have less possession than the opposition as you pointed out, if you are going to kick away the possession you do have (this goes to Hodgson sometimes too) you have to do it competently.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion but my impression was that Youngs was in the worst 3 players on the pitch yesterday, which is an impressively bad accolade. Not that he isn't a talented player but yesterday he was utterly abysmal.

ChequeredJersey wrote:I disagree, the defence was quickly upon them because Youngs took so long to pass the ball, and I didn't say he was always wrong to Box kick it, just to box kick it so poorly. The option to use one's forwards also exists. In a game in which you have less possession than the opposition as you pointed out, if you are going to kick away the possession you do have (this goes to Hodgson sometimes too) you have to do it competently.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion but my impression was that Youngs was in the worst 3 players on the pitch yesterday, which is an impressively bad accolade. Not that he isn't a talented player but yesterday he was utterly abysmal.

Agreed. I also agreed with your take on England at the breakdown. We were a lot better than given credit for. Still nowhere near good enough, and our defence round the rucks was poor, but still better.

Oh and the Annie point made me spit out my coffee laughing. Top posting!

B91212 wrote:

niwatts wrote:The turnovers in that ESPN stat sheet are turnovers conceded not won. Turnovers won aren't given, which has always annoyed me, maybe they're too difficult to correctly attribute at the bottom of a messy ruck.

The metres made in mauls wouldn't have been included in their individual totals. I don't know about the veracity of the metres made in open runs.

I said a couple of weeks ago that with Wood out I thought Dowson would be selected because the breakdown would be more critical in this match and that Morgan would get the start against Italy which will be more carry oriented.

I agree but I'm still not sure a Robshaw, Croft and Morgan backrow is correctly balanced. Maybe Dowson could start at 6 with Croft on the bench next week? Although Dowson wasn't great but he did seem to get through a lot of work in defense. On a side note I would start Dickson against Italy - I know it's a controversial call but England need to up the tempo and he is the man for that. Overall Youngs is the better player but he is so off form at the moment.

Yes, I'd also go Dowson, Robshaw, Morgan. Croft isn't playing terribly, but he's not performing to the standard that he can, I think a bit more pressure on his place might challenge him on, as would getting worked up for 50mins on the sideline and coming on for half an hour with a fire.

eirebilly wrote:I actually thought that the centre pairing did reasonable well for considering it was their debut. What they lacked in attacking was more than made up for in their defence.

It wasn't so much lacking in attack as not being given the opportunity. Barritt received the ball 3 times. Farrell got the ball 8 times, but I suspect a chunk of that was when he moved to FH and ended up kicking it.

I hope they see a bit more ball next week so that we can evaluate them more in that regard.

niwatts wrote:Croft/Robshaw/Dowson

Passes 0/1/2
Runs 3/8/5
Metres 3/1/21
Tackles 8/11/12

Just took another look at the stats and it's obvious that when they give data 'live' they go back to review their accuracy from recordings and adjust.


Croft/Robshaw/Dowson

Passes 0/1/2
Runs 4/11/7
Metres 5/2/20
Tackles 5/15/11

Must admit i'd like to see start v Italy

6 Robshaw
7 Saul
8 Morgan

Its obvious Saul is the chosen one as a out and out 7...so give him a shot.

Geordie Saull isn't in the squad though is he? I must admit, he hasn't impressed me much recently. At the moment, I don't think he's anything more than a pacey flank option. His breakdown work seems to have disappeared a little.
For Italy, I'd like:

6. Dowson
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

As soon as Wood is back, I think:

6. Robshaw
7. Wood
8. Morgan

I think Dowson operates better as a six and is abrasive at the breakdown. Wood, when he returns, should be the fetcher. I thought Morgan looked good when he came on, and got a great barnstorming run off the back of a scrum

GeordieFalcon wrote:Must admit i'd like to see start v Italy

6 Robshaw
7 Saul
8 Morgan

Its obvious Saul is the chosen one as a out and out 7...so give him a shot.

I cant believe this post was so far down this thread. Well said good call.

England need a conventional backrow that will win ball and put the halfbacks on the front foot. Though they need two better halfbacks too.

maestegmafia wrote:

England need a conventional backrow that will win ball and put the halfbacks on the front foot. Though they need two better halfbacks too.

But Saull isn't doing that at the moment. Robshaw operating at a 7 is winning more ball than him!

If Saull gets his form back, start him. He is not on form. In a year or so, Wallace or Gibson might be up to scratch and they are actual 7s

GeordieFalcon wrote:Must admit i'd like to see start v Italy

6 Robshaw
7 Saul
8 Morgan

Its obvious Saul is the chosen one as a out and out 7...so give him a shot.

I havent seen much of Saul - he did play in that Saxons game vs Irish Wolfhounds and looked pretty poor! Didnt do himself any favours.
He was very good in the Big Game vs Quins though.
Sorry - others have said much the same.

maestegmafia wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Must admit i'd like to see start v Italy

6 Robshaw
7 Saul
8 Morgan

Its obvious Saul is the chosen one as a out and out 7...so give him a shot.

I cant believe this post was so far down this thread. Well said good call.

England need a conventional backrow that will win ball and put the halfbacks on the front foot. Though they need two better halfbacks too.

You can't swap out the halfbacks after one game together! Are you lievremont in disguise?

Ah you guys are probably right about Sauls form to be fair.

Wheres our openside coming from?

Almost all the flankers coming through these days in England are 6/7 hybrids....Gibson, Wood, Robshaw, The young lad at Saints Nuttal??, Welch at Falcons....

Is wallace a true 7...im not totally convinced...

Saull has dropped right off as far as i can see. He just looks too powder-puff, compensated at Prem level but very rugged colleagues like Burger and Joubert. I think both Wallace and Gibson have a better shot at being a long term 7 option for England, even Clark who played there at age grade and Kvesic who has the right physique and can do the groundwork look better options

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ah you guys are probably right about Sauls form to be fair.

Wheres our openside coming from?

Almost all the flankers coming through these days in England are 6/7 hybrids....Gibson, Wood, Robshaw, The young lad at Saints Nuttal??, Welch at Falcons....

Is wallace a true 7...im not totally convinced...

He's got elements of it. He's fast enough we just have to focus on the breakdown skills a bit which I'm sure we can do. He's more of an open than Robshaw and we made him from a pure 6 to a competent make-shift 7. Plus Mo and Skinner know enough to help train him up.

I think Wallace does have the makings of a very good openside. Harlequins just have to ensure that his main focus become the breakdown, rather than constantly swapping him between openside and blindisde. English teams are seriously bad at rotating players out of position, when they need to develop certain skills.