Tom Wood

One of the biggest topics that has come from the AI's and the balance of our back row.

There has been many comments for and against.

Tom Wood is a jack of all trade and not as good at that as Robshaw.

Tom Wood is one of the best 6's in the world on top form

Tom Wood is Englands least specialist player and we have other players who could do his job better

.

So come on....what your thoughts on Tom Wood.

Is the back row imbalanced with him and Robshaw.

Do we have better 6's or at least players who could do his job for England better or is he by far our best option there.

I like Tom Wood as a player. Loads of hard work and nitty gritty stuff, which is what you want from a 6. He's also a decent athlete, pretty quick over the ground and adds a nice option at the tail of the lineout.

A fully fit and returning Tom Croft will make things interesting, but I think the balance of Wood, Robshaw and Morgan is ok. If there's a problem I'd say it's more than none of the trio is world class, and by that I mean an outstanding player on the world stage in that position, and each are probably in the tier below. There's no McCaw, Pocock, Kaino, Vermeulen, Read etc., which means that each players' position is up for grabs band ecause each of the English trio is a match for the other, it causes a heated debate when it comes to tinkering and who can be dropped. There's no stand out player. I still don't think balance is a particular issue though.

From what I can gather as an outsider looking in is that you have a better 6 currently playing at 7 but no one better to then take over at 7. Is that about right or am I getting wrong end of what some say?

Also as a bit of an aside Morgan would be my choice at 8 over Billy V every time.

I think you pretty much sum up what I think also Bedford.

And I agree on Morgan aswell.

bedfordwelsh wrote:From what I can gather as an outsider looking in is that you have a better 6 currently playing at 7 but no one better to then take over at 7.  Is that about right or am I getting wrong end of what some say?

Also as a bit of an aside Morgan would be my choice at 8 over Billy V every time.

Robshaw is a good 7 who might be a better 6. It all depends on what you want/expect. I don't think he would play any differently at 6, and he is never going to be a devastating ball carrier but pretty much everything else he is consistantly good at.

Morgan is a much smarter player than Billy and he can really shift for a big guy when he wants to. Billy V was better overall last year and its nice they are pushing each other, but there is no doubt who is no.1 at the moment.

GF,

Other than you know who out in France who are or who could be your other options at 7? Wouldn't it have been better to play Robshaw at 6 and try and develop a No7.

The main other option right now would probably be Fraser at Sarries. Kvesic was very much on the radar a couple of years back but currently probably not. Other than Armitage- which has been much discussed - the talked up possibles of the last few years have in general failed to fulfill their promise.

It is an issue for us in that we could put out a second choice front 5 that would be competitive against any other 5 in the world, but the back row situation is much more complicated.

I think Woods is proper, he's basically Robshaw mk2.

I think he's dispensible though, as you say, unless he starts out Robshaw'in Robshaw. I'd like to see England try one of the following 2 options:

6. Haskell 7. Robshaw 8. Morgan
6. Robshaw 7.S Armitage 8. Morgan

I reckon the locks (Lawes/Launchberry) get through plenty enough work from lock to allow you a bit more of a destructive force in the backrow.

When I look at the English back row I see a pretty good unit in Wood, Robshaw and Morgan.  Maybe you've got 2 6's and a 8 but that's picky.  I think SL has more problems at half back and mid field than he ever has to worry about at back row.

Well the main contenders at 7 would probably be Will Fraser at Sarries and Matt Kvesic at Gloucester.

Fraser has had some injury problems but when he has played he has looked very good.

Kvesic has been playing in a poor Gloucester side but Gloucester fans seem to be in agreeance he is playing well.

Whether they are ready to take Robshaws spot though is another question.

If you're looking for an out and out 7 playing in England then Fraser is probably the best of the lot, but with injuries he hasn't been able to put together that compelling run of games to really put pressure on Lancaster. It's also worth noting that English 7s do seem to run in and out of fashion pretty quickly. From Andy Saull, Matt Kvesic to Luke Wallace at Quins, there's been no shortage of pretenders, but no-one who has really had that extended injury free run of compelling form to push through.

Stefan Armitage is of course the exception, although politics dictates that he's out of the frame.

offload wrote:When I look at the English back row I see a pretty good unit in Wood, Robshaw and Morgan.  Maybe you've got 2 6's and a 8 but that's picky.  I think SL has more problems at half back and mid field than he ever has to worry about at back row.

I don't think many would disagree with that statement...im just curious to peoples opinions of Wood.

Wood fits the role that Lancaster wants from his flankers. As does Robshaw. Fraser, Kvesic, etc do not. Lancaster does not rely on the openside being the first one to a breakdown.  That task is spread round to the whole pack (which means you don't have a stand out person making all the turnovers).  The way Lancaster wants his backrow is with two workhorses on the flanks and a carry at 8.  Robshaw may not fit the role of a tradiational openside but that is because Lancaster doesn't want traditional opensides.  If he did, he would need to rebuild the entire pack.

For me, Wood hasn't been in great form (although still good) and this has been most notible for giving away stupid soft penalties (which of course stand out in the mind because the ref stops the game).

So for me, I don't care about backrow balance. I care about pack balance. With Cole and Launchbury in the pack I think the balance is there. Without them (and no other compensation) I don't think it is there.  Whether this means switching Attwood/Wilson for someone else, or someone in the back row, is up for debate.  But balance depends on the game that's being played. If you've got a poaching 7 who isn't given the freedom to roam...what's the point? Same with having a great supporting winger who has issues in defence (Ashton) told to remain on the wing and be ready to defend.

1) Wood
2) Haskell
3) Croft

That's probably about where it is at the mo, Wood on form has the best all round game, Haskell when not getting over a weird bug brings a tonne of physicality, experience, flexibility across the backrow and leadership and Croft brings a real turn of gas, experience and amazing threat in the lineout. I'd be happy with all three playing/ taking it in turns to keep each other sharp. Robshaw we have no real decent cover for and the 7 shirt is without a doubt his until after the RWC world cup, and if he does ever get injured we are likely to see Wood shift over. The 6 backrow players for the final squad injuries permitting are likely to be Wood, Morgan, Robshaw, Haskell, Vunipola, Croft

Wood is a decent international flanker. Decent in the line out, determined, aggressive, fit, good tackler etc. But I do agree that Robshaw would be better off at 6 with preferably Steffon Armitage at 7 and as that won't happen then Haskell there instead.

Certainly Wood won't let us down, but if Croft returns to decent form then he could also be a better option.

hugehandoff wrote:Wood is a decent international flanker. Decent in the line out, determined, aggressive, fit, good tackler etc. But I do agree that Robshaw would be better off at 6 with preferably Steffon Armitage at 7 and as that won't happen then Haskell there instead.

Certainly Wood won't let us down, but if Croft returns to decent form then he could also be a better option.  

Croft would need to increase his work rate and get involved in the hard nitty gritty a lot more if he wanted to replace Wood. He might be slightly better in the line out, and a lot, lot quicker, but he is something of a luxury when it comes to clearing out or taking the short ball and trying to make a yard or two.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

hugehandoff wrote:Wood is a decent international flanker. Decent in the line out, determined, aggressive, fit, good tackler etc. But I do agree that Robshaw would be better off at 6 with preferably Steffon Armitage at 7 and as that won't happen then Haskell there instead.

Certainly Wood won't let us down, but if Croft returns to decent form then he could also be a better option.  

Croft would need to increase his work rate and get involved in the hard nitty gritty a lot more if he wanted to replace Wood. He might be slightly better in the line out, and a lot, lot quicker, but he is something of a luxury when it comes to clearing out or taking the short ball and trying to make a yard or two.

Reckon that's just what the media pedal out, Leicester like him to lurk in the wide channels cause he's faster than most wingers so people hang onto the fact he's rubbish at the breakdown, but he's been a 6 his whole life, his clearing out is fine, he just does whats he's asked to do, during the lions against the most physical team in the world he was fine.

I think Croft is doubly useful in that he allows an extra back on the subs bench as he can cover 2nd row as well as back row if required. That could be useful considering it is the backs who need the most help.

Croft IIRC was far better at the breakdowns then people credit him.

It's funny that every one talks up Hooper of Australia for being great at the breakdown because of his speed to get there, but then ignores that for Croft. I can think of plenty of turnovers he's won because of his pace.

I have to say, I think Ben Morgan does have the potential to be world class in his position, every time I have seen him play for England he has been consistently good at the very least, and often brilliant. If he can continue to improve his work rate, he will be right up there with the very best. He has the bulk, but most importantly the brains. If there is space, he will go for it, rather than look for contact.

He is the star of the back row IMO. Great player and I would love to have an irish equivalent for us. Maybe with a bit less weight.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I have to say, I think Ben Morgan does have the potential to be world class in his position, every time I have seen him play for England he has been consistently good at the very least, and often brilliant. If he can continue to improve his work rate, he will be right up there with the very best. He has the bulk, but most importantly the brains. If there is space, he will go for it, rather than look for contact.

He is the star of the back row IMO. Great player and I would love to have an irish equivalent for us.  Maybe with a bit less weight.

Morgan played the full 80 against Australia, and I think that may be remembered as the day he came of age. If he can continue to combine his power with 80 minute fitness, he's got the potential to be very impressive.

Poorfour wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I have to say, I think Ben Morgan does have the potential to be world class in his position, every time I have seen him play for England he has been consistently good at the very least, and often brilliant. If he can continue to improve his work rate, he will be right up there with the very best. He has the bulk, but most importantly the brains. If there is space, he will go for it, rather than look for contact.

He is the star of the back row IMO. Great player and I would love to have an irish equivalent for us.  Maybe with a bit less weight.

Morgan played the full 80 against Australia, and I think that may be remembered as the day he came of age. If he can continue to combine his power with 80 minute fitness, he's got the potential to be very impressive.

He also looks very "up for it" these days. I often thought, despite his size and acceleration, he was a bit passive. He's getting in with the tries, controls the back of the scrum and seems to be a bit more 'shouty' now

He looked off his rocker against Oz, we need to bottle that and hand it around the dressing room.

Morgan looks like he has got fitter. The big thing for me with him is that whilst we all focus on his work with ball in hand his defensive performance was hugely impressive. He made some really key individual tackles like Lawes did.

If he can find consistency and keep getting fitter he will move into that top class bracket with Read etc.

As for Wood I rate him highly. I'm very critical at times of our forwards ability ball in hand and possibly focus on 6 too much as I see that as a position that should be a good carrier...being it hard yards or better running at space. I don't like relying on the 8 alone doing that.

Maybe the pack on a whole needs to work on this then the focus wouldn't come on Wood so much.

Morgan is a good old fashioned 'Deano' type No8

Gregor Paul of the New Zealand Herald named Chris Robshaw to his team of this round of Tests. On the blind side. He's the only Englishman to make the side. Richie Gray and Jamie Roberts are the only other Northern hemisphere players.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11368554

yappysnap wrote:Croft IIRC was far better at the breakdowns then people credit him.

It's funny that every one talks up Hooper of Australia for being great at the breakdown because of his speed to get there, but then ignores that for Croft. I can think of plenty of turnovers he's won because of his pace.

Yep. It get's muted a little these days because players are often allowed to handle in the ruck even after a ruck has formed, as long as they're on their feet.

Generally agree on Morgan.

Robshaw & Wood aren't perfect as a flanker partnership, but they do most of their jobs very well and I don't see anyone notably better in as many aspects to substitute them with.

I'd say the critical elements you want from your backrow are tackling, breakdown work, carrying, link play, lineout ability, workrate and engine.  The only one of those I feel we could particularly do with augmenting between the flankers is carrying.  There is an argument for the more jackling compenent of breakdown work, but I think Robshaw doesn't get his fair dues there (neither McCaw or Hooper showed him up in it for our matches this Autumn), plus England's first focus seems to be more on the other more systematic components of disruption.

The flankers I'd like to see in the EPS are Robshaw, Wood, Kvesic & Ewers.  Ewers addresses the carrying element whilst still having a huge engine and workrate (a lot of carrying blindsides tend to fade in the last quarter internationally), he's a heavy duty tackler and also makes a very good bench option with his equal ability to play 8.  Kvesic just about wins my choice as backup openside, a fit Fraser matches him in tackling and breakdown, but Kvesic is better carrying, support play and linking (that latter element being one that tends to rest a lot on Robshaw's shoulders and where for more joined-up attack we need more exponents/backup, though Wood had a few good moments in the Oz & SA games).

Short of injury Robshaw is cemented as openside, then I would switch between Wood & Ewers for blindside and bench depending on the demands of the match, though with Wood being such a huge part of our best lineout ball and that being an increasingly key factor in our play, I would envisage him starting most games.

I think when considering units with England it's the whole back 5 that needs to be considered together.
Both Lawes & Launchbury are effectively converted flankers & still perform like them in the loose. Launch in particular turns over a lot of ball. But for locks they are both deceptively fast.

The balance of that first choice back 5 is good & I personally would have either Haskell or Croft on the bench depending on form/game tactics.

Just hope Croft shows some form when he returns. I havent seen any numbers (and I know they exist with the gps units) but I'd be surprised if there were many other England players who cover as much ground in a test.

I have always rated Wood. I think that he is a better 6 than Robshaw is a 7, but with CR as captain, it is obvious that Bomber simply does not agree.

SL has always rated Wood extremely highly and but for his weird foot injury in 2012, he possibly could've been Captain. Lancaster has a very specific role for his flankers and both Robshaw & Wood fit the criteria well. People often refer to "The first name on the teamsheet" and I have no doubts that when everyone is fit, the first 5 names on SL's would be Robshaw, Wood, Corbisiero, Brown & Tuilagi. He does have his favourites.

I for one rate Mr Wood, despite him playing for Saints and me being a Wasps fan for my sins. He is a bit of an "unsung hero", responsible for much of the flanker's dark arts that not everyone knows about (McCaw being a Grandmaster at this!) but he's a useful lineout operator and generally hard as nails. He can do a decent job at 7 as he plays there for Saints regularly - but please don't play him at 8 again...

If you play Croft you go on the pitch with only 7 forwards and 3 wingers. I think our wingers are good enough to do the wide job themselves. Surely a fit Ewers and Sam Dickinson are way out in front of Croft?

englandglory4ever wrote:If you play Croft you go on the pitch with only 7 forwards and 3 wingers. I think our wingers are good enough to do the wide job themselves. Surely a fit Ewers and Sam Dickinson are way out in front of Croft?

In an SL team, I am ahead of Croft. Dickinson has yet to get back to full fitness and form, Haskell at 8 is still in the mix and probably ( I await the crucifixion) the Tank Engine on current form.

The thought of him covering lock is massively underwhelming, Morgan, wood or Robshaw are all heavier and more powerful, just because he has the height of a lock, doesn't mean he can play there. He was around 16.5 stone when I last saw ant stats on him, both Wood and Robshaw are a stone heavier and being 4" shorter more powerful.

I think a fully fit Tom croft is very much a part of lancasters plans,it's just he very rarely is.
Croft played very well in'12 6 nations in tandem with robgan (sorry)
The only other time he has been fit was the Cardiff massacre.
If he manages to stay fit I'm pretty sure he will overtake you well past it.
The man is a double lion!!!

bedfordwelsh wrote:GF,

Other than you know who out in France who are or who could be your other options at 7?  Wouldn't it have been better to play Robshaw at 6 and try and develop a No7.

Fraser keeps getting injured

We lack carriers in the pack and Wood doesn't carry well.

The best I've seen us play over the last year or so was when we had Mako & Billy in the starting line up. It gave us options and freed up space for others.

When we only have one big carrier in the pack (Billy or Morgan), we become extremely easy to defend against. I'd seriously consider:

1. Marler/Mako
2. Hartley
3. Cole
4. Launchbury
5. Lawes
6. Vuinipola
7. Robshaw
8. Morgan

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:If you play Croft you go on the pitch with only 7 forwards and 3 wingers. I think our wingers are good enough to do the wide job themselves. Surely a fit Ewers and Sam Dickinson are way out in front of Croft?

In an SL team, I am ahead of Croft.  Dickinson has yet to get back to full fitness and form, Haskell at 8 is still in the mix and probably ( I await the crucifixion) the Tank Engine on current form.

The thought of him covering lock is massively underwhelming, Morgan, wood or Robshaw are all heavier and more powerful, just because he has the height of a lock, doesn't mean he can play there. He was around 16.5 stone when I last saw ant stats on him, both Wood and Robshaw are a stone heavier and being 4" shorter more powerful.

Wood is listed as 16.5 stone as well and 6'4 (2 inches shorter than Wood). But Wood seems to like the physical stuff more.
Robshaw is just over 17 I think at 6'3/4

Sgt,

Id be interested to see what Ewers could offer.

But regardless id just like to see them all showing a bit more intelligence and even doing the basics quickly.

Johnny Mays try v Samoa...quick handling by the Forwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbXi9UM0VQk

Again the Basics...Barritt crash ball, very quick ball....Tom Wood quick hands with support from Morgan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jAF5W1lLFA

Yes this was a poor attempt of a tackle and international is a step up...but we haven't seen this from Marler for England...running for the space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KJ7ERPbqq0

I just don't think Ewers has the fitness or mobility for Int rugby yet, one has to improve.

Sickofwendy, I should hope he would (no pun intended) as I am over twice his age ( might have been interesting 40 years ago). I am not saying Croft is not a good player; I am saying that his style does not suit SL's game plan as Croft does not do as much as Wood when it comes to the clearing out and the ruck and maul work. Like Robshaw, wood is very under rated when it comes to slowing down the opponents ball. Croft does not have those skills.

Saints have Wood down at 17 st (108kgs for those that like the French style of measure), the match day squad profiles tend to show him at around 17st 4lb. Robshaw is about 17 st 8lb from memory. Tigers have Croft at 16st 7lb, with the extra 3" to my mind it makes him less powerful in the contact and tight.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I just don't think Ewers has the fitness or mobility for Int rugby yet, one has to improve.

Very possibly mate. I think the coaches give players targets like Morgan to get fitter etc. Attwood lose weight and improve workrate

They probably have given Ewers some aswell. We shall see.

Well past it

Ah I see, on the recent England games wood was listed as 16.5.

Anyway we agree he's more physical than Croft

englandglory4ever wrote:If you play Croft you go on the pitch with only 7 forwards and 3 wingers. I think our wingers are good enough to do the wide job themselves. Surely a fit Ewers and Sam Dickinson are way out in front of Croft?

My god. You've seen the ball make it out wide?

englandglory4ever wrote:If you play Croft you go on the pitch with only 7 forwards and 3 wingers. I think our wingers are good enough to do the wide job themselves. Surely a fit Ewers and Sam Dickinson are way out in front of Croft?

I don't think Cockerill plays his blindsides (not just Croft) on the wing for their finishing skills. It's so they can play the ball wide knowing if it does pearshaped they have a back row specialist who can keep up. Also their for defence/counter-rucking if they get turned over.

HammerofThunor wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:If you play Croft you go on the pitch with only 7 forwards and 3 wingers. I think our wingers are good enough to do the wide job themselves. Surely a fit Ewers and Sam Dickinson are way out in front of Croft?

I don't think Cockerill plays his blindsides (not just Croft) on the wing for their finishing skills. It's so they can play the ball wide knowing if it does pearshaped they have a back row specialist who can keep up.  Also their for defence/counter-rucking if they get turned over.

It's not just Cockerill. A lot of coaches do it from time to time. I agree it's not so much about finishing skills. But I think the potential physical mismatch on attack out wide is a huge advantage. As well as defending it all goes to perdition.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I just don't think Ewers has the fitness or mobility for Int rugby yet, one has to improve.

Very possibly mate. I think the coaches give players targets like Morgan to get fitter etc. Attwood lose weight and improve workrate

They probably have given Ewers some aswell. We shall see.

I don't see those as issues for Ewers, he really gets around the park for Exeter; he's big, but very lean and rarely doesn't play the full 80. I certainly wouldn't expect those aspects of the step up to international rugby troubling him anymore than it does quite a few of England's backrow squad.

He played for the Saxons last year and trained with the England squad this Autumn, so he's clearly not far from the coaches' minds. Unless there are a few injuries I doubt he will be brought into the EPS before the WC, but if he goes well for the Saxons next month you never know.

mbernz wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I just don't think Ewers has the fitness or mobility for Int rugby yet, one has to improve.

Very possibly mate. I think the coaches give players targets like Morgan to get fitter etc. Attwood lose weight and improve workrate

They probably have given Ewers some aswell. We shall see.

I don't see those as issues for Ewers, he really gets around the park for Exeter; he's big, but very lean and rarely doesn't play the full 80.  I certainly wouldn't expect those aspects of the step up to international rugby troubling him anymore than it does quite a few of England's backrow squad.

He played for the Saxons last year and trained with the England squad this Autumn, so he's clearly not far from the coaches' minds.  Unless there are a few injuries I doubt he will be brought into the EPS before the WC, but if he goes well for the Saxons next month you never know.

That doesn't mean much....so did Garvey and he was never seen again. Maybe Ewers face just doesn't fit.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

mbernz wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I just don't think Ewers has the fitness or mobility for Int rugby yet, one has to improve.

Very possibly mate. I think the coaches give players targets like Morgan to get fitter etc. Attwood lose weight and improve workrate

They probably have given Ewers some aswell. We shall see.

I don't see those as issues for Ewers, he really gets around the park for Exeter; he's big, but very lean and rarely doesn't play the full 80.  I certainly wouldn't expect those aspects of the step up to international rugby troubling him anymore than it does quite a few of England's backrow squad.

He played for the Saxons last year and trained with the England squad this Autumn, so he's clearly not far from the coaches' minds.  Unless there are a few injuries I doubt he will be brought into the EPS before the WC, but if he goes well for the Saxons next month you never know.

That doesn't mean much....so did Garvey and he was never seen again. Maybe Ewers face just doesn't fit.

But Ewers was seen again, that was exactly my point.  Like Slade, he played for the Saxons at the beginning of the year, then for England against the Barbarians this summer and was then brought into the senior camp this Autumn.  Unlike Garvey, both are clearly of renewing interest to the coaches and not that far from EPS consideration.

doctor_grey wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:If you play Croft you go on the pitch with only 7 forwards and 3 wingers. I think our wingers are good enough to do the wide job themselves. Surely a fit Ewers and Sam Dickinson are way out in front of Croft?

I don't think Cockerill plays his blindsides (not just Croft) on the wing for their finishing skills. It's so they can play the ball wide knowing if it does pearshaped they have a back row specialist who can keep up.  Also their for defence/counter-rucking if they get turned over.

It's not just Cockerill.  A lot of coaches do it from time to time.  I agree it's not so much about finishing skills.  But I think the potential physical mismatch on attack out wide is a huge advantage.  As well as defending it all goes to perdition.  

We'd have to get the ball out wide though