There are some who would suggest that the “traditional 7’s” should do less tackling. Certainly the likes of England and South Africa will try to engage the McCaws, Hoopers in as many tackles as they can, so that they are not the ones hanging off the tackle, waiting to pounce. Think Lydiate/Warburton.

One reason that Wales can be so effective with both Tipuric and Warburton late in games, is that it is very difficult to effectively target the pair of them.

So, I would view Burger more of the old-fashioned type 7. The ones we used to play against on a weekly basis in the West Country, who were hell-bent on smashing everything in an oppo shirt, and disrupting for the full 80 mins. That is not to belittle his skills, but I would bracket him, and his type separately to the 6.5 and the “ball stealer”.

This combination have gone up against 2 of the leading specialists in Hooper (who was ineffective) and McCaw (who was second best at the breakdown). With so much up in the air in the backs we should be giving the existing trio as many games together as possible so they continue to develop as a combination, not make a change to solve a problem we don’t have when we’ve finally found a balance that works.

I’m happier with this back row than any since the RWC 2003 vintage.

What are the essential jobs of a back row unit. Breakdown, tackling, linking and ball carrying. When we have had Wood and Robshaw in the backrow with a ball carrying 8, we have all of these jobs covered and indeed have outplayed many of the “famed” SH units. Oz this year, NZ last year. This backrow gives us the balance that has been talked about and is very effective. It might be that Robshaw wouldn’t work in other combinations quite as well, although I’m not convinced by this.

Also not convinced that Wales have the best NH backrow. I have been saying that Lydiate is a shadow of the player he was before injury for a long time and it seems that now everyone is finally waking up to this. Wales best unit now is Faletau, Warburton as a 6.5 and Tipuric as 7. It’s a good unit to be sure, but is it the best? I guess that the 6N will answer this question!

This is what frustrates me about people’s analysis of Robshaw. Why should being consistently excellent be any less important or admirable than being occasionally brilliant? I don’t have time to do it now but I’d imagine that if you looked back over the player ratings since he came into the England side, he’s unlikely to have got anything lower than a 7 (perhaps Wales game aside), with a few 8s/9s thrown in there. He may not hit that 8/9 level as often as, say, McCaw or Hooper, but neither is he ever an anonymous 5. That consistency is extremely undervalued in my eyes.

With the exception of McCaw, I cannot think of another player who puts out such good performances game after game.

Even in the debacle against Wales, Robshaw was a shining light and one of the few who could hold his head up. This autumn he played Hooper off the park and just lost out to the best open-side flanker in recent history.

I would take Robshaw over any other flanker in the Northern Hemisphere

Since Lydiate has been out of form, its made it clear that he was the player who allowed Warburton to shine and without him, Warburton has looked ordinary. Hooper entirely out-played him

O’Brien is good but I think this article exaggerates his turn-over prowess. His carrying is exemplary, but if stopped before he gets going, he sometimes fades into the background.

Of the southern hemisphere, the only flankers I’d take ahead of Robshaw are McCaw and Pocock. Louw is getting there but seems to be a bit of liability on occasion

Whatever the personnel, and whatever the merits of each, it is about finding the right balance, not just in the back row either, but with the complementary players in other positions.

A lot is made about the number of turnovers that Robshaw doesn’t make, but this is irrelevant if others within the team are making these turnovers. Engineering a straight swap of Robshaw and for example, a “classic” 7 like Armitage will not necessarily increase the number of turnovers from the team.

Dan makes a very good example of this, when noting Tom Crofts effect on the team balance.

The fact is that very few teams at international level manage a turnover at the first phase breakdown (because the attacking side is so well organised at this point), so having your master ball stealer at 7 is not necessary, as they can organise themselves (as a team) from that first breakdown, to ensure that the teams best ball stealers are in the positions most likely to get that opportunity.

Don’t forget also that these teams work very hard on nullifying these ball stealers, and will often engineer moves that are intended to take them out of the game. Not as in “injure”, but in fact to tie them at the bottom of a ruck, in order to launch a strike move away from their preying hands.

So the likes of McCaw and Hooper are often relegated so slowing the ball, which is not an insignificant skill in itself, but is a far more defensive action.

This whole conversation reminds me of the Second-Row article. If your big fella is not ruling the lineout he can often be forgotten, but he could still be offering himself as a lineout diversion, stopping their big runners around the fringes and providing the ballast to make the props look effective in the scrum.

Its the same with the openside. Just because he is not turning over the ball constantly, it doesn’t mean he is not making the team work well.