England forward pack as things stand
Moderator: Puja
-
- Posts: 6035
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:33 am
Re: England forward pack as things stand
I definitely don’t see Wilson as a 7. I much prefer him as a 6 and 6 only, but I thought he was far better than ‘stodgy’ at 8.
I still can’t fathom what you’ve seen in Ludlam to think that he’s a step-up on Wilson (who has had numerous stand out games for England and is consistently excellent at club level). Also if you think Ludlam is a step up and Curry a step down, this must mean you think Ludlam is superior to Curry which is certifiably insane.
I still can’t fathom what you’ve seen in Ludlam to think that he’s a step-up on Wilson (who has had numerous stand out games for England and is consistently excellent at club level). Also if you think Ludlam is a step up and Curry a step down, this must mean you think Ludlam is superior to Curry which is certifiably insane.
-
- Posts: 19643
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: England forward pack as things stand
That was exactly what I was going to say- save Wilson at 7 was better than Robshaw, even if a low bar- and I await the response on Ludlam. We are only a small jump away from Moody being declared better than Richard Hill.Scrumhead wrote:I definitely don’t see Wilson as a 7. I much prefer him as a 6 and 6 only, but I thought he was far better than ‘stodgy’ at 8.
I still can’t fathom what you’ve seen in Ludlam to think that he’s a step-up on Wilson (who has had numerous stand out games for England and is consistently excellent at club level). Also if you think Ludlam is a step up and Curry a step down, this must mean you think Ludlam is superior to Curry which is certifiably insane.
-
- Posts: 6035
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:33 am
Re: England forward pack as things stand
jngf only sees the shirt number when it comes to Tom Curry. If he’s not wearing 7, regardless of the role he plays or how well he plays, jngf will say he’s been ruined by the change of shirt number.
- Oakboy
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am
Re: England forward pack as things stand
No, Moody was better than Back, though! Lights the blue touch paper and . . .Banquo wrote:That was exactly what I was going to say- save Wilson at 7 was better than Robshaw, even if a low bar- and I await the response on Ludlam. We are only a small jump away from Moody being declared better than Richard Hill.Scrumhead wrote:I definitely don’t see Wilson as a 7. I much prefer him as a 6 and 6 only, but I thought he was far better than ‘stodgy’ at 8.
I still can’t fathom what you’ve seen in Ludlam to think that he’s a step-up on Wilson (who has had numerous stand out games for England and is consistently excellent at club level). Also if you think Ludlam is a step up and Curry a step down, this must mean you think Ludlam is superior to Curry which is certifiably insane.


- morepork
- Posts: 7541
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: England forward pack as things stand
Scrumhead wrote:jngf only sees the shirt number when it comes to Tom Curry. If he’s not wearing 7, regardless of the role he plays or how well he plays, jngf will say he’s been ruined by the change of shirt number.
I don't understand it. He is one of the better players in the entire squad.
- Puja
- Posts: 17935
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm
Re: England forward pack as things stand
[align=center]I HAVE BEEN SUMMONED[/align][/glow][/font]Oakboy wrote:No, Moody was better than Back, though! Lights the blue touch paper and . . .Banquo wrote:That was exactly what I was going to say- save Wilson at 7 was better than Robshaw, even if a low bar- and I await the response on Ludlam. We are only a small jump away from Moody being declared better than Richard Hill.Scrumhead wrote:I definitely don’t see Wilson as a 7. I much prefer him as a 6 and 6 only, but I thought he was far better than ‘stodgy’ at 8.
I still can’t fathom what you’ve seen in Ludlam to think that he’s a step-up on Wilson (who has had numerous stand out games for England and is consistently excellent at club level). Also if you think Ludlam is a step up and Curry a step down, this must mean you think Ludlam is superior to Curry which is certifiably insane.![]()
Puja
Backist Monk
-
- Posts: 2755
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:41 pm
Re: England forward pack as things stand
Run, Dors!
- Oakboy
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am
Re: England forward pack as things stand
I'm cringing - a bit like Catt with Lomu approaching!Danno wrote:Run, Dors!


- Puja
- Posts: 17935
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm
Re: England forward pack as things stand
I have the physical mass of Lomu. It's not proportioned in anywhere near the same way and I might take three or four times as long to do 100m, but I do have his weight currently.Oakboy wrote:I'm cringing - a bit like Catt with Lomu approaching!Danno wrote:Run, Dors!![]()
Puja
Backist Monk
- Oakboy
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am
Re: England forward pack as things stand
Are you saying you are a fat boy now? Do you remember Micky Skinner welcoming John Major into the England changing room and greeting him, "Hello, fat boy." It's got nothing to do with anything but it tickled me.Puja wrote:I have the physical mass of Lomu. It's not proportioned in anywhere near the same way and I might take three or four times as long to do 100m, but I do have his weight currently.Oakboy wrote:I'm cringing - a bit like Catt with Lomu approaching!Danno wrote:Run, Dors!![]()
Puja
-
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: England forward pack as things stand
Was Micky Skinner looking into a mirror rather than at John Major?
- Oakboy
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am
Re: England forward pack as things stand
I can't remember the occasion. It was Twickenham obviously. Somebody else must have seen it.Digby wrote:Was Micky Skinner looking into a mirror rather than at John Major?
- jngf
- Posts: 1625
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:57 pm
Re: England forward pack as things stand
I think it might have been “hello top man” from recollection and was before we got humped out of the ERM in 92’ and interest rates hit 15% ....opps wrong forum!Oakboy wrote:Are you saying you are a fat boy now? Do you remember Micky Skinner welcoming John Major into the England changing room and greeting him, "Hello, fat boy." It's got nothing to do with anything but it tickled me.Puja wrote:I have the physical mass of Lomu. It's not proportioned in anywhere near the same way and I might take three or four times as long to do 100m, but I do have his weight currently.Oakboy wrote:
I'm cringing - a bit like Catt with Lomu approaching!![]()
Puja
-
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: England forward pack as things stand
It's just Major wasn't that fat, and Skinner was a bit lardy. Though from what one hears this still might represent the best joke Skinner ever madeOakboy wrote:I can't remember the occasion. It was Twickenham obviously. Somebody else must have seen it.Digby wrote:Was Micky Skinner looking into a mirror rather than at John Major?
- jngf
- Posts: 1625
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:57 pm
Re: England forward pack as things stand
We had some Rolls Royce 6’s in those days: Teague, Jon Hall, Skinner - all could do a job!Digby wrote:It's just Major wasn't that fat, and Skinner was a bit lardy. Though from what one hears this still might represent the best joke Skinner ever madeOakboy wrote:I can't remember the occasion. It was Twickenham obviously. Somebody else must have seen it.Digby wrote:Was Micky Skinner looking into a mirror rather than at John Major?
-
- Posts: 13436
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am
Re: England forward pack as things stand
I don't remember Hall, Skinner could do something and you might describe it as a job but limited seems more on the money, Teague was class and the only one I could make that assertion ofjngf wrote:We had some Rolls Royce 6’s in those days: Teague, Jon Hall, Skinner - all could do a job!Digby wrote:It's just Major wasn't that fat, and Skinner was a bit lardy. Though from what one hears this still might represent the best joke Skinner ever madeOakboy wrote:
I can't remember the occasion. It was Twickenham obviously. Somebody else must have seen it.
- Oakboy
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am
Re: England forward pack as things stand
Hill, Croft, Moody, Teague would be my top four 6s.
- Stom
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am
Re: England forward pack as things stand
I come a little late to the table, having only really started watching rugby in the mid 2000's. But I'd go with Dayglo at 6. Him, Hill, Croft, all class.
Moody I liked...but more as a flank than a 6, so to speak. Not that Hill wasn't. What I'm trying to say is a backrow of Hill, Dayglo and Croft would have been immense.
Sorry Puja. I'm a huge Back fan, and he was my favourite of the 3 when I was a youngster...but as I've grown up, I've come to appreciate the other two just more.
Moody I liked...but more as a flank than a 6, so to speak. Not that Hill wasn't. What I'm trying to say is a backrow of Hill, Dayglo and Croft would have been immense.
Sorry Puja. I'm a huge Back fan, and he was my favourite of the 3 when I was a youngster...but as I've grown up, I've come to appreciate the other two just more.
-
- Posts: 19643
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: England forward pack as things stand
Skinner was pants compared to Hall and Teague. Huge mistake not playing Deano in the 91 RWC knock outs, one bit hig from Skinner on Cecillon notwithstanding.jngf wrote:We had some Rolls Royce 6’s in those days: Teague, Jon Hall, Skinner - all could do a job!Digby wrote:It's just Major wasn't that fat, and Skinner was a bit lardy. Though from what one hears this still might represent the best joke Skinner ever madeOakboy wrote:
I can't remember the occasion. It was Twickenham obviously. Somebody else must have seen it.
Jon Hall was great though, just a bit injury prone.
Last edited by Banquo on Fri May 22, 2020 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 19643
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: England forward pack as things stand
Who is at 8 if dayglo is at 6?Stom wrote:I come a little late to the table, having only really started watching rugby in the mid 2000's. But I'd go with Dayglo at 6. Him, Hill, Croft, all class.
Moody I liked...but more as a flank than a 6, so to speak. Not that Hill wasn't. What I'm trying to say is a backrow of Hill, Dayglo and Croft would have been immense.
Sorry Puja. I'm a huge Back fan, and he was my favourite of the 3 when I was a youngster...but as I've grown up, I've come to appreciate the other two just more.
- Puja
- Posts: 17935
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm
Re: England forward pack as things stand
Corry.Banquo wrote:Who is at 8 if dayglo is at 6?Stom wrote:I come a little late to the table, having only really started watching rugby in the mid 2000's. But I'd go with Dayglo at 6. Him, Hill, Croft, all class.
Moody I liked...but more as a flank than a 6, so to speak. Not that Hill wasn't. What I'm trying to say is a backrow of Hill, Dayglo and Croft would have been immense.
Sorry Puja. I'm a huge Back fan, and he was my favourite of the 3 when I was a youngster...but as I've grown up, I've come to appreciate the other two just more.
Puja
Backist Monk
-
- Posts: 19643
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: England forward pack as things stand
on my wayward son?Puja wrote:Corry.Banquo wrote:Who is at 8 if dayglo is at 6?Stom wrote:I come a little late to the table, having only really started watching rugby in the mid 2000's. But I'd go with Dayglo at 6. Him, Hill, Croft, all class.
Moody I liked...but more as a flank than a 6, so to speak. Not that Hill wasn't. What I'm trying to say is a backrow of Hill, Dayglo and Croft would have been immense.
Sorry Puja. I'm a huge Back fan, and he was my favourite of the 3 when I was a youngster...but as I've grown up, I've come to appreciate the other two just more.
Puja
- Stom
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am
Re: England forward pack as things stand
Well, indeed. But this was theoreticalBanquo wrote:Who is at 8 if dayglo is at 6?Stom wrote:I come a little late to the table, having only really started watching rugby in the mid 2000's. But I'd go with Dayglo at 6. Him, Hill, Croft, all class.
Moody I liked...but more as a flank than a 6, so to speak. Not that Hill wasn't. What I'm trying to say is a backrow of Hill, Dayglo and Croft would have been immense.
Sorry Puja. I'm a huge Back fan, and he was my favourite of the 3 when I was a youngster...but as I've grown up, I've come to appreciate the other two just more.

-
- Posts: 19643
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: England forward pack as things stand
Hill was a decent 8 in fairness, but then you have no openside. Croft, Hill, Dayglo would have been very interesting.Stom wrote:Well, indeed. But this was theoreticalBanquo wrote:Who is at 8 if dayglo is at 6?Stom wrote:I come a little late to the table, having only really started watching rugby in the mid 2000's. But I'd go with Dayglo at 6. Him, Hill, Croft, all class.
Moody I liked...but more as a flank than a 6, so to speak. Not that Hill wasn't. What I'm trying to say is a backrow of Hill, Dayglo and Croft would have been immense.
Sorry Puja. I'm a huge Back fan, and he was my favourite of the 3 when I was a youngster...but as I've grown up, I've come to appreciate the other two just more.
- jngf
- Posts: 1625
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:57 pm
Re: England forward pack as things stand
Croft was always a bit of an enigma, great athletic skills in particular his pace and lineout ability. On the other hand imo he always looked more suited to playing at 13 or wing to me (a threequarter‘s build with a forward’s height). I never, ever saw him as a natural BSF (at least in the context of England’s historic use of the blindside role). However, if he’d been French his style would definitely suit the kind of athletic carrier they more often than not play at 7 in their left-right system.Banquo wrote:Hill was a decent 8 in fairness, but then you have no openside. Croft, Hill, Dayglo would have been very interesting.Stom wrote:Well, indeed. But this was theoreticalBanquo wrote: Who is at 8 if dayglo is at 6?