Chris Robshaw

I feel for Chris Robshaw this morning.

It seems he must have spent a large amount of his life in the preceding three months running from one ITV advertising video promo shoot or editing suite to the next. I don't think there's ever been a home captain who has played such a huge role in the marketing and advertising of the tournament.

It's understandable why he would be feeling the pressure to the extent he is. To then be spectacularly thrown under the bus by his coach in the post match interview like he was must be galling and a little baffling.

It's a dog eat dog world in top high profile jobs, and I can imagine that Stuart Lancaster was relieved to avoid talking of his controversial selections for the match (and his inability to settle on a stable side, especially mid field).

I think now though, his stabbing action is in danger of cutting a rift between captain coach and senior players. A disharmonious team is rarely a successful one. In light of Lancaster's direction of blame to his captain, does that not make it his duty to change captains or risk look ineffective? A slippery slope, surely?

I just think it shows that Lucozade Sport isn't as effective as some people think and clearly it impacts on cognitive performance and ability in pressure situations

Did he really throw him under the bus? Or are you on the wum?

It's hard to know what to feel for Robshaw.

On the one hand he comes across as a hard-working honest rugby player and ideal captaincy material. On the other he seems far too democratic in his decision making by listening to numpties like Farrell.

It was a monumentally bad decision with three minutes on the clock and both Ford and Farrell on the pitch both well capable of executing a clinching drop goal. If England don't make it through for the first time ever in their history it's inevitable that Robshaw will be blamed for the rest of his life.

OTOH it might be the moment that the team show some backbone by standing full square behind their captain and not accepting anything but a win against Australia. The next game will show just how much respect Robshaw has from his team mates.

nathan wrote:Did he really throw him under the bus? Or are you on the wum?

Both.

Robshaw's decision making has to be questioned, it isn't the first time he has made the wrong decisions when under pressure in key matches.

nathan wrote:Did he really throw him under the bus? Or are you on the wum?

Yes.

In that most English of ways, by repeatedly mentioning how he doesn't blame him for making the decision that cost England the game, then reiterating in different words how poor the decision was:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/englands-stuart-lancaster-absolutely-devastated-6525046

Here they are, Robshaw still sporting tyre marks on his head from the 0:41 second mark in the RObshaw/Lancaster video clip - and just look at the body language. Awkward.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3250308/England-s-RWC-2015-loss-Wales-huge-blow-Stuart-Lancaster-faces-tough-questions.html#v-4512027229001

RubyGuby wrote:I just think it shows that Lucozade Sport isn't as effective as some people think and clearly it impacts on cognitive performance and ability in pressure situations

take a bow sir superb

Glad you liked that one alive555

Lancaster has always been of the mind that he diss the coaching, then it's up to the players to go out on the pitch and be responsible for their performance.

The most disappointing thing is that Farrell didn't take the ball and say "I've got this". He could knock them over in his sleep.

If Robshaw isn't your captain, who would you pick?
I don't think he's as good a player as a lot of teams have at openside, he wouldn't break into the Wales team with Tipuric and Warburton, and he's no McCaw or Pocock, but he isn't an awful player. I think people are having a bit of a witch hunt in all honesty.

We have no better captain either.

And that's half the problem. It's a team of what seems like nice blokes, who quietly work hard, but none of them are that loud belligerent, combative son of a bitch that you need in a team.

There's no POC, POM, AWJ, Mccaw, Read type players in that team.

Robshaw is just too passive to be a strong captain. I have never seen him lay down the law to his team on the field.

As I said in another thread, Robshaw leads by example but is not a leader.

yappysnap wrote:We have no better captain either.

And that's half the problem. It's a team of what seems like nice blokes, who quietly work hard, but none of them are that loud belligerent, combative son of a bitch that you need in a team.

There's no POC, POM, AWJ, Mccaw, Read type players in that team.

Absolutely nailed it there Yappy. That's exactly the way I see it.

Bar Brown whos the only one with some real fight in him.

Brown is not a leader though, sadly.

In fact I'm beginning to worry that wood and Robshaw aren't leaders either. Both are surely good men to have around the camp. But once on the pitch both are too focussed on their own roles.

Haskell could be good, but he has a whole load of ? Too

I'd made Lawes the captain, or Billy V.

For me, Ben Morgan would be a good captain for England.

Ah no I wasn't saying Brown for Captain, just highlighting the only player in the team who has some real aggression and plays with it.

I'm not sure Haskell will be in the squad post WC.

eirebilly wrote:For me, Ben Morgan would be a good captain for England.

But he's not guaranteed to start...as Billy is there.

donglewood wrote:I'd made Lawes the captain, or Billy V.

Billy? Really?

I might go for Ben Morgan myself. What about Youngs? I know England have depth at scrum half but he might be better in control of the decisions.

What about Ed Slater if he has good season with Leicester...hes a captain and a bruising mobile lock...

But will Lancaster look at him even just in the squad?

GeordieFalcon wrote:

eirebilly wrote:For me, Ben Morgan would be a good captain for England.

But he's not guaranteed to start...as Billy is there.

I personally feel that Morgan is the better player.

mid_gen wrote:Lancaster has always been of the mind that he diss the coaching, then it's up to the players to go out on the pitch and be responsible for their performance.

The most disappointing thing is that Farrell didn't take the ball and say "I've got this". He could knock them over in his sleep.

I think it was because George Ford came on and had the ball that Farrell did not say i will take the kick.

eirebilly wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

eirebilly wrote:For me, Ben Morgan would be a good captain for England.

But he's not guaranteed to start...as Billy is there.

I personally feel that Morgan is the better player.

I agree Wales wanted him as they thought he might be better than Faletau. England just havent given him the chance to prove it.

Shifty wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

eirebilly wrote:For me, Ben Morgan would be a good captain for England.

But he's not guaranteed to start...as Billy is there.

I personally feel that Morgan is the better player.

I agree Wales wanted him as they thought he might be better than Faletau.  England just havent given him the chance to prove it.  

I thought Morgan was carrying a knock. that is why he was not selected.

The thing with Robshaw is that whilst he merits being in the mix for selection, he does tend to make bad decisions at the big moments and you have to wonder if he was telling his players not to infringe, why they weren't listening to him.

If they didn't the quite simply they are not respecting his authority.

Personally I reckon Launchbury is the prime candidate albeit a little young. Hes going to be in the mix for the next 10 years at the highest level... he has that quality.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

nathan wrote:Did he really throw him under the bus? Or are you on the wum?

Both.

Robshaw's decision making has to be questioned, it isn't the first time he has made the wrong decisions when under pressure in key matches.

chatting with a mate on facebook who knows far more about rugby than me; have we ever clawed our way back in a match? have we ever had Robshaw show great leadership? he is clearly a quality athlete, proper grafter, great in the team and maybe, with the home players only rule, the best choice 7, but he just doesnt seem to have the nouse for decision making, or the roar of intimidation to pull his team up by the boots.

most other tier 1 captians are properly talismatic arent they? Robshaw is not.

but who else could do it?? Wood, who apparently was first choice, clearly isnt pulling the team forward either.

Ultimately, whilst I think Robshaw is a very hard working player, he doesn't seem to me to be the leader type.

I don't think the England players were giving away penalties on purpose. They're caught between a rock and a hard place in that they know they need to compete but don't have the skill set or training or knowledge to do it.

I hardly think it's players thinking 'oh I'd better get penalised now!' It's more likely guys thinking 'I'd better slow it down!' But being Poopie at doing it...

Captains in the Prem (14/15):

Hartley
Haskell
Marler
Mumm
Hooper
Twelvetrees
Welch
Slater
Skivington
May
Braid
Hargreaves

Of that list Twelvetrees and Hartley were both dropped for different reasons, before that both had a whole load of appearances and never looked like controlling the team. Marler played but isn't a captain (he stepped down this season citing its not for him). Hask was out standing for Wasps but has been mixed for England and has never had a chance to captain.

The rest are either NEQ or not good enough.

Bar Slater who was out injured nearly all season and has never played for his country.

So the long and the short of it is we stuck for better or worse with Robshaw as there is literally no one else.

majesticimperialman wrote:

Shifty wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

eirebilly wrote:For me, Ben Morgan would be a good captain for England.

But he's not guaranteed to start...as Billy is there.

I personally feel that Morgan is the better player.

I agree Wales wanted him as they thought he might be better than Faletau.  England just havent given him the chance to prove it.  

I thought Morgan was carrying a knock. that is why he was not selected.

The topic is abut dropping Robshaw from the captaincy, we were talking about the person who could replace him.

England of 2003 had a number of different leaders apart from their captain in Johnson. Dallaglio, Hill, Dawson, Wilkinson and Greenwood all did their bit.

Fast forward to 2015 and we have Robshaw in the captain's role, Wood as his deputy and Barritt when fit looks after the defensive duties. Aside from that there really isn't anyone putting their hands up. And unfortunately, Robshaw himself does not deal with pressure situations well. What frustrated me was that the decision was made to bring Ford on in the first place as everything was still working ok-ish at that point. Instead he kicked the ball away whenever he got his hands on it. The team would have known that changes were due to be made, but the Captain seemed to make no attempt to calm the team down and to advise them to keep doing what they had been doing effectively all game.

He wasn't backed up by anyone either. There is no structure to the leadership in this team. Everyone loves Robshaw and the team when it goes well, but he's on his own when it comes to decision making and there's no back up from his teammates. The ITV commentators have talked about NZ having a leadership group. Perhaps this is something that the England bosses should look at. Quite a few of our player have 20+ caps now - but individual brilliance does not make for a good team, instead allowing the players to implode when things go wrong and their captain is struggling.

Mr Bounce wrote:England of 2003 had a number of different leaders apart from their captain in Johnson. Dallaglio, Hill, Dawson, Wilkinson and Greenwood all did their bit.

Fast forward to 2015 and we have Robshaw in the captain's role, Wood as his deputy and Barritt when fit looks after the defensive duties. Aside from that there really isn't anyone putting their hands up. And unfortunately, Robshaw himself does not deal with pressure situations well. What frustrated me was that the decision was made to bring Ford on in the first place as everything was still working ok-ish at that point. Instead he kicked the ball away whenever he got his hands on it. The team would have known that changes were due to be made, but the Captain seemed to make no attempt to calm the team down and to advise them to keep doing what they had been doing effectively all game.

He wasn't backed up by anyone either. There is no structure to the leadership in this team. Everyone loves Robshaw and the team when it goes well, but he's on his own when it comes to decision making and there's no back up from his teammates. The ITV commentators have talked about NZ having a leadership group. Perhaps this is something that the England bosses should look at. Quite a few of our player have 20+ caps now - but individual brilliance does not make for a good team, instead allowing the players to implode when things go wrong and their captain is struggling.

I have been calling for his inclusion but even I have to hold my hand up now and say after this world cup.... bye bye Barritt.

Stephenson, Hill, Slade - We have better...

People keep saying long term the captain will be Itoje...but who knows.

Maybe Hartley comes back in as captain short term and Robshaw moves to 6.

Or Burgess is outstanding for Bath at 6 and he is a definite leader!

Mr Bounce wrote:England of 2003 had a number of different leaders apart from their captain in Johnson. Dallaglio, Hill, Dawson, Wilkinson and Greenwood all did their bit.

Fast forward to 2015 and we have Robshaw in the captain's role, Wood as his deputy and Barritt when fit looks after the defensive duties. Aside from that there really isn't anyone putting their hands up. And unfortunately, Robshaw himself does not deal with pressure situations well. What frustrated me was that the decision was made to bring Ford on in the first place as everything was still working ok-ish at that point. Instead he kicked the ball away whenever he got his hands on it. The team would have known that changes were due to be made, but the Captain seemed to make no attempt to calm the team down and to advise them to keep doing what they had been doing effectively all game.

He wasn't backed up by anyone either. There is no structure to the leadership in this team. Everyone loves Robshaw and the team when it goes well, but he's on his own when it comes to decision making and there's no back up from his teammates. The ITV commentators have talked about NZ having a leadership group. Perhaps this is something that the England bosses should look at. Quite a few of our player have 20+ caps now - but individual brilliance does not make for a good team, instead allowing the players to implode when things go wrong and their captain is struggling.

Good point about bringing Ford on. The logic doesn't stand up: Bringing on an attacking threat who is limited in defense when there is a leads to protect? Maybe Lancaster is not the leader type either, struggling to make decisions under pressure?

We have to assume that Ford came on with the strict instructions to kick everything.

So again, blame falls at Lancasters, and the other coaches feet

Robshaw, surely there is a village in England missing something today?

I have no issue with the decision to go for the lineout. It could very well have paid off.

I have an issue with whoever called the lineout to the front...but also how Wales were allowed to get back into it.

But it was similar in the Ireland game...

All we keep hearing from England is "intensity" "intensity" intensity" for 80 mins. But how often do they actually show that....

nathan wrote:Did he really throw him under the bus? Or are you on the wum?

I think he's mixed him up with Cips

I still think it's a defensible decision. Not one I would hope Jean de Villiers would make, but I'd be lying if I were to say I'd be calling for his hanging if he made the decision.

I think it is unfair that Robshaw is taking slack on this. He was right to go for the try, whoever calls the lineout was wrong to call for it at the front...! It's the easiest to defend against.

All black veteran Kevin Mealamu has backed Robshaw's call today saying "you play to win, not to draw." But to be fair he was in Wales and smiling ear to ear when he said it.

maestegmafia wrote:I think it is unfair that Robshaw is taking slack on this. He was right to go for the try, whoever calls the lineout was wrong to call for it at the front...! It's the easiest to defend against.

Correct.

Both kick and lineout were a risk. Had they taken the kick and missed, the same argument would be going on here about Robshaw not having the bottle to back themselves in a lineout.

So he took one of the choices he had. The issue was the execution. The reasons for going to the front at such a point in the game with the Welsh boys on fire with adrenaline................................... that's the real question. And maybe that's the question that should have been put to Robshaw over and over rather than the 'Why did you go for the lineout?' one

I am going to add my support to the surprising cross-border consensus for his decision. In a totally non-sarcastic way, I applaud him as I do think it was the right thing to do.
We (Scotland) certainly would not have gone down the line but it went 'nads up at the line-out. Had that been executed properly, Robshaw would have been praised to the heavens for having faith in his team etc.
Such are the fine margins between nincompoopery and great captaincy especially when you rely on 14 other guys to make or break your decisions.

SecretFly wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I think it is unfair that Robshaw is taking slack on this. He was right to go for the try, whoever calls the lineout was wrong to call for it at the front...! It's the easiest to defend against.

Correct.  

Both kick and lineout were a risk.  Had they taken the kick and missed, the same argument would be going on here about Robshaw not having the bottle to back themselves in a lineout.  

So he took one of the choices he had.  The issue was the execution.  The reasons for going to the front at such a point in the game with the Welsh boys on fire with adrenaline................................... that's the real question.  And maybe that's the question that should have been put to Robshaw over and over rather than the 'Why did you go for the lineout?' one

Sorry boys, but I disagree.  I do not 'beg to differ' as some might say.  I simply disagree.  Begging is unseeming.  

Firstly, time was about to expire.  There is only one chance to get it right.
Secondly, Wales were really on the up and England appeared tired and lacking confidence.  Why take chances against a team really turning on the heat when England needed to get off the pitch?
Point three:  Farrell is one of the best kickers in Rugby today.  That gives him a decided edge.  Frankly, I would likely have thought to go for the line-out if Ford was the kicker, such is my lack of confidence in Ford's kicking.  
Fourth:  Converting the line-out does not guarfantee a score.  There are still many opportunities to lose the ball, commit a penalty, or otherwise mess up if the ball stays in play.  
Finally:  For whatever strange reasons Wales have a poor record against Australia.  So, all things being equal, England would have a better chance against the Wallabies.

To me it is pretty shocking that this scenario appeared to not have been discussed between Lancaster and Robshaw before hand.  With most teams is professional sport, many potential game eventualities are discussed so there is alignment in case certain situations arise.  This is normal and typical.  The scenario of a kick to draw or go for the win is actually relatively common.  Bizarre.  Bizarre, and frankly, an indictment of both the coaching staff the the captain.

Now, I do agree with the notion of going for the win, rather than settling for a draw.  If this was a typical June or November International with little or no importance outside of the game itself, I would go for the win.  But this is a World Cup.  It is important to get something out of the game to stay alive.

Your post intrigues me somewhat.
On the one hand you're disappointed that Robshaw didn't take the match situation (which will always be unique) into account. On the other you're disappointed that he didn't have a preset plan in case England need three points to tie, but five to win. I don't see how the two can be married, to be honest, unless you go the NFL route and have fifteen plays for every possibility.

Farrell acknowledged it was a hard kick, makeable, certainly. But hard nonetheless. From there it becomes a game of percentages. Is a 55-60% shot at a draw better than a 40% shot at victory? I don't think thats a straightforward answer, and I don't think when taking the rhythms of the game into perspective, it's one you can decide beforehand. Discuss, certainly. Decide? Not for me

kingraf wrote:Your post intrigues me somewhat.
On the one hand you're disappointed that Robshaw didn't take the match situation  (which will always be unique) into account. On the other you're disappointed that he didn't have a preset plan in case England need three points to tie, but five to win. I don't see how the two can be married, to be honest, unless you go the NFL route and have fifteen plays for every possibility.

Farrell acknowledged it was a hard kick, makeable, certainly. But hard nonetheless. From there it becomes a game of percentages. Is a 55-60% shot at a draw better than a 40% shot at victory? I don't think thats a straightforward answer, and I don't think when taking the rhythms of the game into perspective, it's one you can decide beforehand. Discuss, certainly. Decide? Not for me

Interesting comments. Ultimately, I am disappointed Robshaw didn't elect to go for goal which I felt was the better decision. I said I am surprised this kind of situation was not discussed as part of any normal game preparation. Teams do discuss these kinds of things. I did not say what kind of play should be discussed (line-out to the front or to the back), just whether to go for the sticks or the try. As you said, taking the rhythms of the game into account, with Wales on the up, to me, only adds weight to the decision to go for goal.

Well, Doc, it doesn't matter how good Farrell kicks... that too had the potential to fail, every bit as much as the lineout was always going to be a shot to nothing too, even had the execution been better.

Obviously people there, in the heat of the moment, were unwilling to take the 'single-guy' responsibility for a loss.  Farrell obviously communicated to Robshaw that he wasn't confident under the circumstances.

I don't think it was a 'we'll win this' arrogance thing - more a 'let's try not to lose this'.  A chance not to lose.  It seems they took the decision to make the effort team based rather than reliant on one man with a massive kick to make (in terms of occasion) and a massive media circus to crawl through had he missed.

I don't think there could have been a considered right decision given that both eventualities by definition were only chances.  Nothing was guaranteed.

I know they discuss it, it was a little poorly worded. But "If we're trailing with X amount to go, we go for three" is not the same as "If we're trailing with X amount to go, and we've been overrun, and are Y metres away from the poles at an angle between A and B, under the assumption that our kicker has kicked at beta%, with a negligible wind, we'll go for three". No matter how much that gets discussed beforehand, I really can't see how you can make the decision on anything other than a gut feel at the exact time.

Like I said earlier, I'd hope in a similar situation we'd go for the three, but I don't think it's an indefensible decision.

doctor_grey wrote:
Sorry boys, but I disagree.  I do not 'beg to differ' as some might say.  I simply disagree.  Begging is unseeming.  

Firstly, time was about to expire.  There is only one chance to get it right.
Secondly, Wales were really on the up and England appeared tired and lacking confidence.  Why take chances against a team really turning on the heat when England needed to get off the pitch?
Point three:  Farrell is one of the best kickers in Rugby today.  That gives him a decided edge.  Frankly, I would likely have thought to go for the line-out if Ford was the kicker, such is my lack of confidence in Ford's kicking.  
Fourth:  Converting the line-out does not guarfantee a score.  There are still many opportunities to lose the ball, commit a penalty, or otherwise mess up if the ball stays in play.  
Finally:  For whatever strange reasons Wales have a poor record against Australia.  So, all things being equal, England would have a better chance against the Wallabies.

If only Robshaw had as much time to make his decision as you had to go through all those options. I thought he made the right call, but as others have said the execution was all wrong. Had they gone for the kick and missed I would have had no faith in England getting back up the field and scoring against that fired up Welsh team, not a chance that they were going to let anything past them at that stage having seen so many of their team mates having put their bodies on the line for the win.

Gents, I know Farrell is not infallable(!) and certainly we are talking odds, no? For instance, if England were coming back from a deficit and were shoving Wales all over the pitch, then perhaps the line-out might have been a better decision. But England seemed out on their feet and Farrell is a very good kicker. And the kick was not from 50 metres. From near the touch line, granted, but still in his zone. I am saying this because that is what I thought at the time.