'Natural' Openside

I rarely post here, but something has been bugging me recently.

Why do people have this obsession with this 'natural' openside? I can only name a few international players who fit into this mould of a natural openside (McCaw, Pocock, Warburton) and these players are freaks, not natural.

It appears certain fans, pundits lose all sense of who's the more effective, impactful player when considering the No. 7 shirt. Their first selection criteria is 'is he a natural openside'. Therefore on England's behalf you hear players like Andy Saull and Luke Wallace being name as potential squad players because they 'fetch', when it doesn't occur that they are actually pretty s***.

Chris Robshaw, in my opinion, is one of the most natural 7s out there. His work rate, tackling, and breakdown work are all top notch. He had the most turnovers out of anyone in the Summer tours. Therefore, he was technically the most 'natural' 7 in the world this summer.

However it seems as if almost everyone disagrees with me. Everyone thinks you need this breakdown warrior. Am I wrong?

A good AI's could see Robshaw get recognition as a World Class 7.

Chris Robshaw, in my opinion, is one of the most natural 7s out there. His work rate, tackling, and breakdown work are all top notch. He had the most turnovers out of anyone in the Summer tours. Therefore, he was technically the most 'natural' 7 in the world this summer.

However it seems as if almost everyone disagrees with me

.

Who disagrees with you?

The people who say we still need to find a natural openside. We already have one.

rugbyathletics1 wrote:The people who say we still need to find a natural openside. We already have one.

I would say that when a player receives international praise for what he does well, then he will be widely regarded by fans alike.

As I said above, Robshaw has a lot to prove, and the stage do it on this Autumn.

Completely agree with the OP, Robshaw appears to have been labelled as something other than a "fetcher" and so he now just isn't one. Regardless of the fact that in the Summer tour he made more turnovers than any other 7 across the globe. Yet he is still not a fetcher like Warburton or Pocock. I have heard people claim he shouldn't play for the Lions because we have to have a fetcher to combat Pocock.

Its ridiculous.

Robshaw is a work in progress who has crossed from 6 so i can understand why people are a little hesitant...but some of his performances in SA...and over the last few seasons really shouldnt leave people in any doubt of his ability.
I think if he hits it right...this AI will see him elevated to a world class 7...in a few peoples eyes..which is where he should be...he has all the physical skills.

Personally im quite happy for him to be underated....but i suspect his actual opponents wont be so quick to.

Almost exactly the same height and weight as Richie mccaw, with both captaining a successful league team with a world class kiwi fly halfs:..robshaw is our mccaw!

If he's only a work in progress now, Lancaster and O'Shea will be rubbing their hands with glee at what he'll be like when he's fully formed. He's already been Premiership Player of the Year twice, and at club level he pushes a top class international 7 into the 6 shirt.

I suspect the reason his fetching isn't more appreciated is that he does so many other things well. He also plays several different roles for Quins and they don't always ask him to fetch, as in the AP Final last year, where he played first receiver for much of the game.

Ok maybe hes slightly more than a work in progress...but what i meant was he hasnt been at 7 for that long and has made it look an effortless change.

ANd i agree his workrate and tackling etc is also so good that it hides his fetching skills...

Im more than happy with him at 7 for England thats for sure.

The other thing I never understand in typical conversations about 'fetchers' is when people say something like "we need a natural openside to combat pocock/mccaw/warburton/brussow". They don't actually meet in that way. The role of a 'fetcher' is to win turnovers at defensive rucks, but by definition only one of them is doing that at a time because only one team has the ball. You might as well say "we need a powerful striker to combat the threat posed by Drogba".

In my view natural or rather specialist openside flankers are a thing of the past.

You just need to look at Richie McCaw and see how he evolved his game over the past 8 years.

People looked a Pocock last year and said he was the best 7 in the world (not all, but many).

Pocock is proficient in one aspect only, pilfering or slowing down ball. Apart from that he is pretty limited.

McCaw in a sense has become more of a Schalk burger, than Schalk Burger (who was pretty one dimensional himself before 2009) as he does it all, he was a pilferer first and foremost when he came onto the scene, but in recent years have added, ball carrying and distribution as major focuses to his game.

He defends, pilfers, runs, offloads and sets up rucks when there isn't any support.

Hence an all round flanker. The lines are blurring when it comes to specialist play as a flanker, 6 and 7 now does pretty much the same thing these days, these days it is whoever is first at the ruck that goes for the ball, there is no time to wait for your specialist pilferer.

Good post, rugbyathletics.

There are two different points here:

Q1. Is there a meaningful distinction between flankers who are 'natural' opensides' and other wing forwards and if so, what is it?

Q2. Which role best lends itself to Robshaw's skillset?

My six cents worth:

A1. Yes, there is a meaningful distinction as well as a historical one, although of course some countries disagree entirely. A lot of people think that in France, for example, they broadly don't really care. A flanker is a flanker to them, given their lack of a more defined set piece role. It's a bit of a cliche now but in South Africa too, recent teams have played the fetcher at 6 and the daisycutter at 7.

Opensides conventionally had to be great at three things - (a) positional play and therefore phase reading, (b) reaching the breakdown fast/first and (c) providing supple link play between forwards and backs. As you have to be more agile and with better cardio to do that, opensides aren't used best getting tied up in mauls because their body shape (John Barclay is relatively slender for a forward, for example) doesn't lend itself well to it.

Because scrums conventionally wheel clockwise because of the position of the loose/tightheads, the blindside traditionally had to be larger because he performed the defensive role of stopping a rushing number 8 who'd just picked up. I met Richard Hill once. The man was built like an outside latrine.

The thing about professionalism is of course that players have got better all round the park and a number of players can do the above well, hence the distinction has been blurred a great deal. Breakdowns have become more fiercely contested too, making it not always obvious why they are won or by whom. Turnovers can be won by strength of single players alone in a tight 2nd phase midfield, for example, rather than at the 7th phase by getting to a breakdown first in open field play.

As Biltong says, it's just more difficult in this era to cleanly categorise players.

A lot of good players cover a large number of bases in the backrow but still do not quite do everything that some of the best opensides can do. The reason for all of the debate about (I'm going to take my life in my hands here) Sean O'Brien, for example, centres around the fact that he does a large number of things very well but does not (as yet, he's still a youngfeller) appear in the right place at the right time quite as often as Pocock and McCaw and his hands don't yet seem to be quite as slick as those chaps. But even that's subjective.

A2. Yes, I've always thought that Robshaw's positional play and foraging was excellent and I think England should definitely consider maintaining him at 7, giving Haskell or Wood a chance to fight for the role at 6 that they are clearly best suited for. Neither of those guys would be a good 7.

One thing is also true - I'm afraid that Robshaw won't be considered for the 7 position without a run of games in that position for either club or country or both.

George Carlin wrote:
Opensides conventionally had to be great at three things - (a) positional play and therefore phase reading, (b) reaching the breakdown fast/first and (c) providing supple link play between forwards and backs.

I first started playing openside in 1979. At that time, and for most of the time I played there (next 15 years or so) the primary job was to tackle. Get off the scrum/lineout/ruck/maukl and harry the Outside Half. If they passed it switch targets. I remember being told by one coach to be a limpet attached to the ball. Actually getting my hands on the ball was deemed surplus to requirements - the SH was the link man.

One thing is also true - I'm afraid that Robshaw won't be considered for the 7 position without a run of games in that position for either club or country or both.

He entered the Quins team as a 6/7 playing 6 when Will Skinner played (in this regard similar to the Blues who in the 09/10 season often saw Warburton at 6 with Williams at 7), 7 when Easter and Guest made up the back row. The last 30 months or so have seen him play almost exclusively at 7. His appearances for England have been at 7. He is as much a 7 as Warburton and McCaw are.

Schooled. Cannot think for the life of me why I thought he was on the blind.

Aside from that though, great post George Carlin

I think that specialist 7s are not necessary. Robshaw is nowhere near McCaw yet but he is a similar player. Frankly, so is Warburton, who is NOT a fetcher but another with an excellent allround game. Also, as ring good at fetching doesn't preclude being good at other things, I don't see how having a player who only focuses on one vital back row skill is particularly helpful anyway

Yeah, good post George, learnt something there

ebop wrote:Yeah, good post George, learnt something there

+1

Just go back and edit to change "consider" to "keep" on Robsaw at 7

George Carlin wrote:Schooled. Cannot think for the life of me why I thought he was on the blind.

Probably because posters complain so much about how he is a natural 6 not a 7. I used to do it but I am convinced he is proficient in both roles now

Robshaw always looked to me like he would make a good 7, even in his first two full seasons when he was an essential pick, but played 6 alongside two club captains who could only play 7.

Per George Carlin's otherwise excellent post, he's very good at (a), (b) and (c), though (b) he's not as fast as Back or Moody, so (b) is mainly by being good at (a). I was worried that that might be a weakness at international level, but it doesn't appear to have been.

By the way, people often forget that Richard Hill, for many people the definitive blindside of the modern era, invariably played openside at club level and only moved across to accommodate Neil Back.

Poorfour wrote:
By the way, people often forget that Richard Hill, for many people the definitive blindside of the modern era, invariably played openside at club level and only moved across to accommodate Neil Back.

Exactly... that's the point I was about to make.

The ultimate players are those with the most roundest skillset.
England's best back row in recent times was the Dallaglio, Hill, Back combo

Dallaglio was a 6 become 8
Hill was a 7 become 6
Back was just a genetic freak

Essentially, in a time when most teams had players who played specific positions, England had a back row that could cover lots of different positions almost as well as playing their main positions.


These days, as has said before, it is even more important for players to be proficient in multiple skills.
Therefore I would want all of our back row to be able to fetch, link, carry etc etc as well as each other.

wasps wrote:These days, as has said before, it is even more important for players to be proficient in multiple skills.
Therefore I would want all of our back row to be able to fetch, link, carry etc etc as well as each other.

+1

I get tired of people constantly claiming there to be a significant difference between openside and blindside (or inside and outside centre for that matter). I appreciate the flanker that is faster off the base of the scrum should play openside, as he is more likely to be able to run down the fly half, but when the ball is in open play i don't really give a flying on whether it is a mand with 7, 6 or 15 on his back that gets there first as long as he does his damnedest to either win the ball or make possession, legally, awkward for the opposition scrum half.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
I get tired of people constantly claiming there to be a significant difference between openside and blindside (or inside and outside centre for that matter). I appreciate the flanker that is faster off the base of the scrum should play openside, as he is more likely to be able to run down the fly half, but when the ball is in open play i don't really give a flying on whether it is a mand with 7, 6 or 15 on his back that gets there first as long as he does his damnedest to either win the ball or make possession, legally, awkward for the opposition scrum half.

Largely agree with that, although I think there are some differences in skills required between 12 and 13 (12 probably needs better long passing skills and more of a kicking game) or 6 and 7 (the 6 probably gets more opportunity to run in the open field), but given how much of rugby is played away from the set piece and first phase now, it is essential that all players have sufficient of the fundamental skills to not be a liability if the structure of play has broken down*. Certainly, all back row forwards should be capable of either stealing ball or making life hard for their opponents (whether legally or only as much outside the rules as they can get away with), and similarly all outside backs should take a leaf out of BOD's book and become good enough at the breakdown to be auxilliary flankers.

*OK, with the exception of Gethin Jenkins, I don't exect props to do much more than move the ball on to more athletic players when they find some open space, and 2nd rowers aren't usually great at kicking to touch unless they are Ali Williams, but they should all know how to buy time and not make a howling error.

dummy_half wrote:
*OK, with the exception of Gethin Jenkins, I don't exect props to do much more than move the ball on to more athletic players when they find some open space,

And a prop to do drop goals, a la Dunnings....

dummy_half wrote:*OK, with the exception of Gethin Jenkins, I don't exect props to do much more than move the ball on to more athletic players when they find some open space, and 2nd rowers aren't usually great at kicking to touch unless they are Ali Williams, but they should all know how to buy time and not make a howling error.

Actually, several of the new generation of props and hookers coming through are very different beasts from those that came before them. Marler and Cole, for instance, are both very good at the breakdown, and Marler has a fantastic carrying game at club level (that he hasn't yet shown at international level - but give him time). Tom Youngs, as a converted centre, is naturally very good in the loose. I think that's one reason the need for an out-and-out forager is declining - so many other players are now also able to do the role.

thomh wrote:The other thing I never understand in typical conversations about 'fetchers' is when people say something like "we need a natural openside to combat pocock/mccaw/warburton/brussow". They don't actually meet in that way. The role of a 'fetcher' is to win turnovers at defensive rucks, but by definition only one of them is doing that at a time because only one team has the ball. You might as well say "we need a powerful striker to combat the threat posed by Drogba".

The way to combat Poccock is to
A) offload so there is no ruck for him to steal/slow the ball
B) make him tackle all day so he's at the bottom of the rucks that do occur

Exactly, but that's not a job for your own 7 necessarily. My point was that the idea of a battle between 7s is a myth.

Anyway, in two and a half weeks' time, we shall have a much better idea of how important a "natural" openside is, how "natural" an openside Robshaw is, or both.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

thomh wrote:The other thing I never understand in typical conversations about 'fetchers' is when people say something like "we need a natural openside to combat pocock/mccaw/warburton/brussow". They don't actually meet in that way. The role of a 'fetcher' is to win turnovers at defensive rucks, but by definition only one of them is doing that at a time because only one team has the ball. You might as well say "we need a powerful striker to combat the threat posed by Drogba".

The way to combat Poccock is to
A) offload so there is no ruck for him to steal/slow the ball
B) make him tackle all day so he's at the bottom of the rucks that do occur

Another tested method is to:

(a) make sure the remnants of Superstorm Sandy is blowing through your stadium, the rain being horizontal if possible;

(b) get Al Strokosch and Ross Rennie to sit on young David's head for the entire match.

Worked a treat for us for 2 years now.

Richard Hill started out for England at 7, against Wales, I remember Jonathan Davies (his last match) pointing to RH as the main reason England won.

I do wonder how much better England's post-2003 performances might have been had Hill not had his knee injuries. Without them I am sure he would have played internationally until at least 2007. Considering how close the 2007 final was, at least until England lost Moody and Worsley...

some very interesting posts here, specially for someone like me who could never quite make the difference between an open side and blind side (appart from the obvious positionning at scrum time) but was afraid to ask ! (as someone mentionned, there is not a big deal of difference between both flankers a in france specially in terms of built)
thanks !