This annoys me a little. Don't get me wrong - I don't think Chris Robshaw is a proper traditional openside flanker, or at least not an outstanding one, and I do love proper opensides. I say this as a man who at heart will always regard himself as an openside, even as I get shunted around the team and despite my complete unsuitability for the role. I love openside play. I love rucks. I love winning the ball and providing the opportunity for my team mates to perform.
And the first thing I can tell you about winning the ball is it takes a team.
While it's amazing the difference an openside can make, there's only one of him covering an area of 100m x 70m with 15 from the other side trying to stop him. There's going to be about 180 rucks, give or take, and in multiphase play there's one about every six seconds as a rule. It's only common sense to suggest the other 14 on the pitch will have to muck in here and there. So if England are struggling at the breakdown, it can't solely be down to Chris Robshaw.
There are two possibly reasons why England are struggling at the breakdown. The first is it's not valued within the coaching team; that they do not pick players for expertise there or spending enough time trying to develop it. The second is that the coaching team are picking from a rugby culture that does value the breakdown, that does not seek to develop players that are skilled there. I reckon both are true. I've already talked about my belief in Farrell's influence and his virtually breakdown-free defence system. The English ambivalence to the breakdown is all around us. Look at some of the men who've played openside in the Aviva Premiership over recent years, or for England. Look at the struggle Neil Back had to get in the England team. Or, hell, look at Chris Robshaw. Back when Chris Robshaw started converting from blindside, two guys over the Irish Sea started on the same journey. Back around this time, there were a lot of Ulster fans wondered what Chris Henry was doing ahead of natural openside Willie Falloon. The answer - becoming a ferociously good openside who'd become a key part of Ulster's brief renaissance and a fixture in the Ireland team when fit, behind only the convert, Sean O'Brien. Nothing needs to be said about him. The conversion can be done - it's just in Chris Robshaw's case, it didn't happen, and I really think that would not have been the case elsewhere.
Truth be told, the criticism of Chris Robshaw's breakdown ability can be overdone. Anyone remember Robshaw getting more turnovers than anyone but Blair Cowan in the last Six Nations? Or Steve Walsh complimenting him on his skills in South Africa in 2012? There's a pretty good analysis of a good day from Robshaw here that shows exactly how much he adds when on form. The issue with Robshaw, why he has not consistently performed at a high level here, is two-fold. The first is he plays in a defensive system that puts a secondary importance on the breakdown - it is difficult to get turnovers when you're being told to fan out first and foremost, when you're blitzing up and guys are going high and falling blocking your jackal.
The second is he just a little slow for the role and it is this lack of speed that limits him as an openside more than anything. Getting to the breakdown first is a big part of winning their ball and securing yours and when a player is a little short of speed, it's hard. It's not such an issue competing on opposition ball as clever reading of the game is more important there as a rule, when England even bother. It's when you're supporting your own backs, the heart and soul of traditional openside play, that the lack of pace becomes an issue as you simply lag behind play at times if you're not as fast as they are. He does his best but it's not always enough. I did think he'd got over that in 2013, but on closer inspection it turned out the big blonde brute supporting all our breaks was actually Joe Launchbury. Which says it all.
If Robshaw's not superb at supporting and rucking over his own carriers, I don't really want to say what I think about the rest of the team. When watching the Six Nations matches again simply to see what was going on in the ruck, I was really struck by how high some of them seemed to be entering the ruck. George Kruis was the one that stuck in my mind for this but there were many other poor clear-outs. I associate that with getting your timing wrong entering the ruck as much as anything (well, ok, also being a lazy inept bastard) and it is remarkable to me just how late the English players set off to support the ball carrier at times. Often they seem to be waiting for the man to be tackled before even moving in support. I've seen it suggested that this is a deliberate tactic to allow two men to arrive at the time ensure a quick, clean ruck - if so, the coaches should have reviewed it after the Six Nations as it didn't do great. There are other possible explanations of course. If the word is true that the vast bulk of training time was spent on defence, players may have simply been unsure of attacking patterns and when to enter rucks and when not, causing hesitation. Or it might just be that the high body positions and timing is just poor technique that exists regardless of how quickly the clear out arrives.
There certainly does not appear to have been any strong attempt to try and rectify this. The problems in clearing out our own ball and turning over opposition ball has been there for every game of Lancaster's regime. It does not have to be this way: look at the success Schmidt has had in improving Ireland's rucking game. It is harder perhaps for England, as the breakdown is reffed more laxly in the Premiership, but a management that was concerned about the breakdown could have emphasised the skills involved in training and selection.
That they haven't couldn't be clearer. One only has to look at the lack of interest in Steffon Armitage, or the complete omission of Matt Kvesic after his sterling tour in Argentina, or even that of Calum Clark, my least favourite player ever but useful at the ruck. Look at the eight rucks on our own ball lost to Australia's Pooper back row - roughly one in ten on the night - as we crashed to a record defeat against them. Look at the seven kickable penalties conceded to Wales, from Mike Brown getting caught holding to Dan Cole going straight off his feet and Tom Wood failing to roll away. These errors do not happen to teams who are good at the breakdown with this sort of regularity and these errors have just cost England dearly. They will continue to cost England dear until we take the breakdown seriously
For most people, this will start with putting an out and out openside in the job. I would be in favour of that - it certainly wouldn't hurt - but there is an issue with availability. If something is not worked out on Steffon Armitage, then there are a small number of players who could potentially do the job available. Matt Kvesic is the obvious shout-out and has looked impressive in a white jersey but this would be a step up for him and it has to be hoped that Lancaster's reservations about him were misplaced. Yes, I am being very conservative here. Will Fraser would be the obvious rival in the Premiership, but sadly his injury record means he's more likely to be the heir to Tom Rees than Neil Back. Jack Clifford is the less obvious rival - an age group 8, he's currently retraining for the openside with the help of Richard Hill. Sale's two opensides, David Seymour and Magnus Lund, could possibly do a job, but I use the word possibly very deliberately here. The pool is very shallow and it's possible we may not have the quality come Six Nations time.
The start of the process for me though lies in having a head coach who respects that the breakdown is possibly the single most important thing in modern rugby. Catch, pass, tackle, ruck: those are the four key skills of the game and we must be seeking to make them as perfect as possible in every player. Even our wingers should be expected to pride themselves on their rucking, just like our props should be expected to pride themselves on their handling now. Where possible we should seek to involve the Premiership clubs, asking them to make it a priority as well. Speaking of Premiership coaches, the England set-up could do a lot worse than asking to borrow Lawrie Fisher from Glaws or Neal Hatley from Bath for a week or so to go over this aspect of play. It's even possible that the right thing for England to do would be to try and hire a coach like one of them and have them go into clubs and work with the senior players - and if the clubs won't let us do that, work with the academy players and create a better generation. There have been steps in that direction - I'm told Richard Hill mentors a fair few promising forwards, such as Clifford and Northampton's highly promising Lewis Ludlam, and works with the age groups from time to time - but maybe they need to go further. This needs to be mirrored in selection as well - we need forwards who can support breaks, melt rucks, get over the ball. Lancaster has emphasised fitness and work rate, which any good rucking game needs, but it is useless without pace and power. No disrespect to Tom Wood, who could still be a fine servant to his country, but he won't ruck as well as Maro Itoje can. Pace and power only gets you so far without technique. Having an openside tasked to seek and destroy at the breakdown will improve England, but not as much as having fifteen players who can all take up the mission when needed. We need both.
It takes a team to win the ball - and it only takes one lost ball to lose a team the game.
Or in England's case, their own World Cup before it even really started.
The second is he just a little slow for the role and it is this lack of speed that limits him as an openside more than anything. Getting to the breakdown first is a big part of winning their ball and securing yours and when a player is a little short of speed, it's hard. It's not such an issue competing on opposition ball as clever reading of the game is more important there as a rule, when England even bother. It's when you're supporting your own backs, the heart and soul of traditional openside play, that the lack of pace becomes an issue as you simply lag behind play at times if you're not as fast as they are. He does his best but it's not always enough. I did think he'd got over that in 2013, but on closer inspection it turned out the big blonde brute supporting all our breaks was actually Joe Launchbury. Which says it all.
If Robshaw's not superb at supporting and rucking over his own carriers, I don't really want to say what I think about the rest of the team. When watching the Six Nations matches again simply to see what was going on in the ruck, I was really struck by how high some of them seemed to be entering the ruck. George Kruis was the one that stuck in my mind for this but there were many other poor clear-outs. I associate that with getting your timing wrong entering the ruck as much as anything (well, ok, also being a lazy inept bastard) and it is remarkable to me just how late the English players set off to support the ball carrier at times. Often they seem to be waiting for the man to be tackled before even moving in support. I've seen it suggested that this is a deliberate tactic to allow two men to arrive at the time ensure a quick, clean ruck - if so, the coaches should have reviewed it after the Six Nations as it didn't do great. There are other possible explanations of course. If the word is true that the vast bulk of training time was spent on defence, players may have simply been unsure of attacking patterns and when to enter rucks and when not, causing hesitation. Or it might just be that the high body positions and timing is just poor technique that exists regardless of how quickly the clear out arrives.
There certainly does not appear to have been any strong attempt to try and rectify this. The problems in clearing out our own ball and turning over opposition ball has been there for every game of Lancaster's regime. It does not have to be this way: look at the success Schmidt has had in improving Ireland's rucking game. It is harder perhaps for England, as the breakdown is reffed more laxly in the Premiership, but a management that was concerned about the breakdown could have emphasised the skills involved in training and selection.
That they haven't couldn't be clearer. One only has to look at the lack of interest in Steffon Armitage, or the complete omission of Matt Kvesic after his sterling tour in Argentina, or even that of Calum Clark, my least favourite player ever but useful at the ruck. Look at the eight rucks on our own ball lost to Australia's Pooper back row - roughly one in ten on the night - as we crashed to a record defeat against them. Look at the seven kickable penalties conceded to Wales, from Mike Brown getting caught holding to Dan Cole going straight off his feet and Tom Wood failing to roll away. These errors do not happen to teams who are good at the breakdown with this sort of regularity and these errors have just cost England dearly. They will continue to cost England dear until we take the breakdown seriously
For most people, this will start with putting an out and out openside in the job. I would be in favour of that - it certainly wouldn't hurt - but there is an issue with availability. If something is not worked out on Steffon Armitage, then there are a small number of players who could potentially do the job available. Matt Kvesic is the obvious shout-out and has looked impressive in a white jersey but this would be a step up for him and it has to be hoped that Lancaster's reservations about him were misplaced. Yes, I am being very conservative here. Will Fraser would be the obvious rival in the Premiership, but sadly his injury record means he's more likely to be the heir to Tom Rees than Neil Back. Jack Clifford is the less obvious rival - an age group 8, he's currently retraining for the openside with the help of Richard Hill. Sale's two opensides, David Seymour and Magnus Lund, could possibly do a job, but I use the word possibly very deliberately here. The pool is very shallow and it's possible we may not have the quality come Six Nations time.
The start of the process for me though lies in having a head coach who respects that the breakdown is possibly the single most important thing in modern rugby. Catch, pass, tackle, ruck: those are the four key skills of the game and we must be seeking to make them as perfect as possible in every player. Even our wingers should be expected to pride themselves on their rucking, just like our props should be expected to pride themselves on their handling now. Where possible we should seek to involve the Premiership clubs, asking them to make it a priority as well. Speaking of Premiership coaches, the England set-up could do a lot worse than asking to borrow Lawrie Fisher from Glaws or Neal Hatley from Bath for a week or so to go over this aspect of play. It's even possible that the right thing for England to do would be to try and hire a coach like one of them and have them go into clubs and work with the senior players - and if the clubs won't let us do that, work with the academy players and create a better generation. There have been steps in that direction - I'm told Richard Hill mentors a fair few promising forwards, such as Clifford and Northampton's highly promising Lewis Ludlam, and works with the age groups from time to time - but maybe they need to go further. This needs to be mirrored in selection as well - we need forwards who can support breaks, melt rucks, get over the ball. Lancaster has emphasised fitness and work rate, which any good rucking game needs, but it is useless without pace and power. No disrespect to Tom Wood, who could still be a fine servant to his country, but he won't ruck as well as Maro Itoje can. Pace and power only gets you so far without technique. Having an openside tasked to seek and destroy at the breakdown will improve England, but not as much as having fifteen players who can all take up the mission when needed. We need both.
It takes a team to win the ball - and it only takes one lost ball to lose a team the game.
Or in England's case, their own World Cup before it even really started.
No comments:
Post a Comment