england giant pack

imagine sides facing an england pack like this :

1.marler
2.hartley
3.cole
4garvey
5.launcbury
6vunipola
7.fearns
8.morgan

16.george
17.m vunipola
18.lawes
19.haskell

I think those sides would be kicking for touch a lot.

Marler is relatively light for a prop (I said relatively!), you could replace him with Corbisiero or Andrew Sheridan.

What is your point? You want to go back to dinosaur rugby? Be my guest, but a team who try to base it around a bunch of fatties in the forwards get nowhere in modern rugby. Ask Meyer.

anotherworldofpain wrote:What is your point? You want to go back to dinosaur rugby? Be my guest, but a team who try to base it around a bunch of fatties in the forwards get nowhere in modern rugby. Ask Meyer.

Or you could base a team around a bunch of chokers, like they did in New Zealand for a while...

The original poster is not suggesting that this IS the English pack that should be picked, he's saying that if it were, it would be BIG. Get over yourself GG.

My wife once told me that size isn't everything

anotherworldofpain wrote:What is your point? You want to go back to dinosaur rugby? Be my guest, but a team who try to base it around a bunch of fatties in the forwards get nowhere in modern rugby. Ask Meyer.

I don't think there was a point AWOP, just a bit of fun. No one's suggesting that is or should be the starting pack. Usually you're up for a laugh AWOP! Little too early? Or tube journey rough?

RubyGuby wrote:My wife once told me that size isn't everything

She was only humouring you

So what's the biggest pack England could field out of players from any era?

I'm sure some stats hound can find the biggies, but:

1. Sheridan
2. Thompson
3. Leonard (Vickery?)
4. Bayfield
5. Shaw
6. ?
7. ?
8. ?

Not sure who'd be the real back row monsters... can think of plenty of similar size etc, but no stand-outs...

anotherworldofpain wrote:What is your point? You want to go back to dinosaur rugby? Be my guest, but a team who try to base it around a bunch of fatties in the forwards get nowhere in modern rugby. Ask Meyer.

See your so quick to snipe again...thats a shame.

Now, whilst this is a bit of fun...there is actually a valid point in this that a few of us other England fans have been discussing.
England under Lancasters reign have been picking a pack thats maybe not as robust as many of us would like. Now thats not saying going back to dinosaur...thats saying picking people who can "punch" their weight so to speak.

Ie Botha is listed as well over 18st...yet often looks lightweight out on the pitch...as opposed to someone like Garvey who at just over 19st...seems to use every ounce of that weight.

SA - Most of their guys weight in the same as our pack in the SA tests...yet the difference in power and collisions was alarming.

NZ Dont have a particularly heavy pack...but each players physicality is collosal...they use every bit of that weight...and power.

Now we dont need to be looking at things purely on weight stats...but we need to start picking a pack where everyone is capable of using every ounce.

Dean RIchards was a huge number 8 for the time. Tipped the scales at about 19 stone didn't he? Not quite as conditioned as one would have hoped, but he was certainly decent!

Tim Rodber was huge. 6 or 8

Rodber- great shout.

Mick Skinner? Big lad from what I recall...

Size is important in the pack but not across all positions. Obvioulsy all forwards need to be around the 100kg mark minimum but for goliaths i think you a need huge tighthead, 1 enforcer second row type a big number 8 and big tackling and lineout winning 6. Then you can have technical experts in the other positions, your loosehead can be a bit smaller but techincally very good e.g jason leonard, trevor woodman, your hooker needs to be able to throw in more than anything else as long as your near the 16stone mark your'll be fine. One second row can be lighter but be the lineout man eg. victor matfield and your openside flank can give up alot of size but fill your fetcher role eg. neil back, brussow etc.

An awesome pack which fits this formula could be:

Domingo- small - technical expert and pocket battleship
Meleamu - medium - technical specialist and all rounder
Hayman - large rock for the scrum
Matfield - thinner jumper
Botha- monstorus enforcer
Kaino - big destructive carrier and lineout option
Reid - big destrucive carrier and lineout option
Brussow- fetcher and link man

Pretty sensible Chris..

Im sure matfield wasnt lightweight though...which in part made that combo so good.

Whilst size helps on the TH its not essential. I know someone like Julian White wasnt massive...but you'll not find a more destructive TH...likewise Sole and Tom Smith Scotland TH's werent huge...but by god they could scrum.

So whilst size most definately helps...its very much how you use you weight...

Energy: E= MCsquared.

So incremental increases in speed (C) have more impact than increases in mass.
Applying this to the rugby pack, involves a fine tuning of trade offs between weight & condition.
SA showed great kinetic energy against England, esp 2nd test.
NZ speed & vigour more than compensates for any lack of mass.

OP: yes I always instinctively liked a 'big' England pack in the old days , but the game has moved on, so mobility is more important than ever. But I still like this post.
PS: Jason Leonard was not that big ? say vs Vickery & Sheridan as examples.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:What is your point? You want to go back to dinosaur rugby? Be my guest, but a team who try to base it around a bunch of fatties in the forwards get nowhere in modern rugby. Ask Meyer.

See your so quick to snipe again...thats a shame.

Now, whilst this is a bit of fun...there is actually a valid point in this that a few of us other England fans have been discussing.
England under Lancasters reign have been picking a pack thats maybe not as robust as many of us would like. Now thats not saying going back to dinosaur...thats saying picking people who can "punch" their weight so to speak.

Ie Botha is listed as well over 18st...yet often looks lightweight out on the pitch...as opposed to someone like Garvey who at just over 19st...seems to use every ounce of that weight.

SA - Most of their guys weight in the same as our pack in the SA tests...yet the difference in power and collisions was alarming.

NZ Dont have a particularly heavy pack...but each players physicality is collosal...they use every bit of that weight...and power.

Now we dont need to be looking at things purely on weight stats...but we need to start picking a pack where everyone is capable of using every ounce.

I keep saying it. Botha is an openside not a lock. He has the wrong physique and mentality. With a looser alignment he can be more destructive.

I just dont think hes international calibre whatever position.

I think Lawes will replace him this AI.

Botha doesn't do enough on the deck to be an openside, nor is he quick enough or good enough in the tackle. He'd be a six at a push, but I don't think he's a backrow player.

bluestonevedder wrote:Botha doesn't do enough on the deck to be an openside...

That's because he's currently playing lock.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Botha doesn't do enough on the deck to be an openside...

That's because he's currently playing lock.

Using the same logic, how can you say he would make a good openside when you haven't seen him play there?

bluestonevedder wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Botha doesn't do enough on the deck to be an openside...

That's because he's currently playing lock.

Using the same logic, how can you say he would make a good openside when you haven't seen him play there?

Like when I said they should move Tuilagi to 2nd 5/8ths.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Botha doesn't do enough on the deck to be an openside...

That's because he's currently playing lock.

Using the same logic, how can you say he would make a good openside when you haven't seen him play there?

Like when I said they should move Tuilagi to 2nd 5/8ths.

Hmmm...didn't work out great really.

Botha isnt great in the lineout
Isnt great on the floor
Doesnt have great pace
Isnt a great carrier...


He'll go along way....

He has his occasional good game for England, and granted I have seen him play well for Sarries. But I don't think he's international quality at all! He's somewhere between trying to be an enforcer, and an athletic lock, without fully being good at either one. He bumps off tackles, knocks on, and becomes anonymous for some parts of the game. I just think we have much better options at lock. I like the guy, I really do, and I think he puts a lot of energy into his performances, but he doesn't fulfill the role we ask of him.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Botha isnt great in the lineout
Isnt great on the floor
Doesnt have great pace
Isnt a great carrier...


He'll go along way....

In the Borthwick mould. Captain material if he can learn to wind up a referee...

anotherworldofpain wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Botha doesn't do enough on the deck to be an openside...

That's because he's currently playing lock.

Using the same logic, how can you say he would make a good openside when you haven't seen him play there?

Like when I said they should move Tuilagi to 2nd 5/8ths.

That isn't even a position in rugby, I do wish you'd talk English.

Jimpy wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

bluestonevedder wrote:Botha doesn't do enough on the deck to be an openside...

That's because he's currently playing lock.

Using the same logic, how can you say he would make a good openside when you haven't seen him play there?

Like when I said they should move Tuilagi to 2nd 5/8ths.

That isn't even a position in rugby, I do wish you'd talk English.

It's a welsh term by etymology. I told you I was learning.

I don't think botha is as bad as people are making out and he deserved his shot in the england team with a few stand out performances for one of the top AP teams. What botha and most saffas give is 100% dedication and dogged work around the pitch. At international level he tried his guts out but IMO didn't have the quality to step up to that next level of pace, execution and intensity...much like borthwick..great club player but not an interational lock.

I think with our second rows we have some real talent coming through so as fans I guess we are frustrated that average players are getting game time when units like launchberry, lawes, attwood, parling etc etc should be getting valuble experience at the top level (injuries to taken into account)

England have alot of quality and competition in most positions now and i'm hoping that personable lancaster will show a ruthless streak and begin to phase out some of his favourites such as botha and dowson and perhaps even guys like farrell and barrit IF the alternatives are playing better (burns, ford and twlevetrees).

In the all blacks if you have 1/2 bad games your out, even if you play okay but the coach has a young gun in the fringes your out, this mentality breeds winning you have to fight for your place week in and out and your only as good as your last game.

Rinsure wrote:So what's the biggest pack England could field out of players from any era?

I'm sure some stats hound can find the biggies, but:

1. Sheridan
2. Thompson
3. Leonard (Vickery?)
4. Bayfield
5. Shaw
6. ?
7. ?
8. ?

Not sure who'd be the real back row monsters... can think of plenty of similar size etc, but no stand-outs...

Think you could replace Leonard with Duncan Bell: 19st 10
8 Deano 19st 1
6 Ben Carke 17st 11
7 Joe Worsley 17st 5 (big for a 7 at least)

Bayfield was tall but not that heavy

What botha and most saffas give is 100% dedication and dogged work around the pitch. At international level he tried his guts out but IMO didn't have the quality to step up to that next level of pace, execution and intensity...much like borthwick..great club player but not an interational lock

Precisely Chris...absolutely noone can deny he works his socks off....but for me that alone is not enough to play at international level. You need enhanced skills in one area or another.

I think dean schofield tips the scales at just over 20stones with a couple of england caps he could be vying for lock position

Lay off botha,rugby's just his hobby.I'm sure he came here to be a removal man

sickofwendy wrote:Lay off botha,rugby's just his hobby.I'm sure he came here to be a removal man

No, a barman, like AWOP.

dummy_half wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:My wife once told me that size isn't everything

She was only humouring you

That's strange Ruby, because that's not what she told me when I left this morning (etc, etc).

She told me the same thing.

Some say its not the size of the ship but the motion of the ocean.

But I'm Asian.

nganboy wrote:Some say its not the size of the ship but the motion of the ocean.

But I'm Asian.

In my country's construction industry we have a saying that goes "A cute rhyme is no substitute for a pneumatic fluid stabilisised high rate percussive down-the-hole hammer drill"

nganboy wrote:Some say its not the size of the ship but the motion of the ocean.

But I'm Asian.

Back in my surfy days it was "its not the size of the waves but the motion of the ocean".