RugbyRebels

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.

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.

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.

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.

Banquo wrote:

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.

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.

No, Moody was better than Back, though! Lights the blue touch paper and . . .

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.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

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.

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.

No, Moody was better than Back, though! Lights the blue touch paper and . . .

[align=center]I HAVE BEEN SUMMONED[/align][/glow][/font]

Puja

Run, Dors!

Danno wrote:Run, Dors!

I'm cringing - a bit like Catt with Lomu approaching!

Oakboy wrote:

Danno wrote:Run, Dors!

I'm cringing - a bit like Catt with Lomu approaching!

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.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Danno wrote:Run, Dors!

I'm cringing - a bit like Catt with Lomu approaching!

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.

Puja

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.

Was Micky Skinner looking into a mirror rather than at John Major?

Digby wrote:Was Micky Skinner looking into a mirror rather than at John Major?

I can't remember the occasion. It was Twickenham obviously. Somebody else must have seen it.

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I'm cringing - a bit like Catt with Lomu approaching!

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.

Puja

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.

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:

Digby wrote:Was Micky Skinner looking into a mirror rather than at John Major?

I can't remember the occasion. It was Twickenham obviously. Somebody else must have seen it.

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 made

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:Was Micky Skinner looking into a mirror rather than at John Major?

I can't remember the occasion. It was Twickenham obviously. Somebody else must have seen it.

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 made

We had some Rolls Royce 6’s in those days: Teague, Jon Hall, Skinner - all could do a job!

jngf wrote:

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I can't remember the occasion. It was Twickenham obviously. Somebody else must have seen it.

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 made

We had some Rolls Royce 6’s in those days: Teague, Jon Hall, Skinner - all could do a job!

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 of

Hill, Croft, Moody, Teague would be my top four 6s.

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 wrote:

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I can't remember the occasion. It was Twickenham obviously. Somebody else must have seen it.

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 made

We had some Rolls Royce 6’s in those days: Teague, Jon Hall, Skinner - all could do a job!

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.

Jon Hall was great though, just a bit injury prone.

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.

Who is at 8 if dayglo is at 6?

Banquo wrote:

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.

Who is at 8 if dayglo is at 6?

Corry.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

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.

Who is at 8 if dayglo is at 6?

Corry.

Puja

on my wayward son?

Banquo wrote:

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.

Who is at 8 if dayglo is at 6?

Well, indeed. But this was theoretical

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

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.

Who is at 8 if dayglo is at 6?

Well, indeed. But this was theoretical

Hill was a decent 8 in fairness, but then you have no openside. Croft, Hill, Dayglo would have been very interesting.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Who is at 8 if dayglo is at 6?

Well, indeed. But this was theoretical

Hill was a decent 8 in fairness, but then you have no openside. Croft, Hill, Dayglo would have been very interesting.

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.