RugbyRebels

Even England might have baulked at playing someone with hands like Croft at 13, and they might have noticed he looked nothing like a 13 or wing whilst they were baulking

Digby wrote:Even England might have baulked at playing someone with hands like Croft at 13, and they might have noticed he looked nothing like a 13 or wing whilst they were baulking

Look who’s baulking two.

Croft on the wing lol. Reminds me of APR.

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
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.

Cripes.I nearly agree with you on left and right. The problem you have is that you have very fixed thoughts tied to jersey numbers.

Digby wrote:Even England might have baulked at playing someone with hands like Croft at 13, and they might have noticed he looked nothing like a 13 or wing whilst they were baulking

true enough, his handling was a tad basic. Maybe better than Moody, but not much.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:Even England might have baulked at playing someone with hands like Croft at 13, and they might have noticed he looked nothing like a 13 or wing whilst they were baulking

Look who’s baulking two.

very funny

(sh&tc8nt)

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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.

Cripes.I nearly agree with you on left and right. The problem you have is that you have very fixed thoughts tied to jersey numbers.

I'd never have thought that!

lol.

Croft was criminally badly used by England. Very, very good player.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:
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.

Cripes.I nearly agree with you on left and right. The problem you have is that you have very fixed thoughts tied to jersey numbers.

I'd never have thought that!

lol.

Croft was criminally badly used by England. Very, very good player.

Agreed- they did actually use him as a wing after lineouts. Mad. For a tall bloke he was very good over the ball, and his acceleration could have been devastating used a little closer in, rather than him never seeing the ball out wide.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Cripes.I nearly agree with you on left and right. The problem you have is that you have very fixed thoughts tied to jersey numbers.

I'd never have thought that!

lol.

Croft was criminally badly used by England. Very, very good player.

Agreed- they did actually use him as a wing after lineouts. Mad. For a tall bloke he was very good over the ball, and his acceleration could have been devastating used a little closer in, rather than him never seeing the ball out wide.

It's like they saw his rather gangly looking frame and acceleration and decided he was someone to be used wide.

Whereas he was powerful despite appearances, and would have been lethal in close, as shown in the few moments he was actually used there!

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
I'd never have thought that!

lol.

Croft was criminally badly used by England. Very, very good player.

Agreed- they did actually use him as a wing after lineouts. Mad. For a tall bloke he was very good over the ball, and his acceleration could have been devastating used a little closer in, rather than him never seeing the ball out wide.

It's like they saw his rather gangly looking frame and acceleration and decided he was someone to be used wide.

Whereas he was powerful despite appearances, and would have been lethal in close, as shown in the few moments he was actually used there!

Indeed.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
I'd never have thought that!

lol.

Croft was criminally badly used by England. Very, very good player.

Agreed- they did actually use him as a wing after lineouts. Mad. For a tall bloke he was very good over the ball, and his acceleration could have been devastating used a little closer in, rather than him never seeing the ball out wide.

It's like they saw his rather gangly looking frame and acceleration and decided he was someone to be used wide.

Whereas he was powerful despite appearances, and would have been lethal in close, as shown in the few moments he was actually used there!

Not sure about the powerful bit at all.Presumably at least as powerful as T Curry?

jngf wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Agreed- they did actually use him as a wing after lineouts. Mad. For a tall bloke he was very good over the ball, and his acceleration could have been devastating used a little closer in, rather than him never seeing the ball out wide.

It's like they saw his rather gangly looking frame and acceleration and decided he was someone to be used wide.

Whereas he was powerful despite appearances, and would have been lethal in close, as shown in the few moments he was actually used there!

Not sure about the powerful bit at all.Presumably at least as powerful as T Curry?

Err... Watch him again. He was a pretty powerful player. People just formed opinions because he looked all legs and arms. Whereas he had some ballast: he was just very athletic in build.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
I'd never have thought that!

lol.

Croft was criminally badly used by England. Very, very good player.

Agreed- they did actually use him as a wing after lineouts. Mad. For a tall bloke he was very good over the ball, and his acceleration could have been devastating used a little closer in, rather than him never seeing the ball out wide.

It's like they saw his rather gangly looking frame and acceleration and decided he was someone to be used wide.

Whereas he was powerful despite appearances, and would have been lethal in close, as shown in the few moments he was actually used there!

2009 Lions tour, where he was used as a proper 6 by Gatland. Showed us what might have been had he been used properly.

Puja

Luxury Giraffe.

Harsh. Tom Croft is only 34 and but for his injuries could have been a major asset in 2015 and possibly even 2019. He was definitely a better player than anyone else we had at 6 under Lancaster and I imagine Eddie would have loved him.

Scrumhead wrote:Harsh. Tom Croft is only 34 and but for his injuries could have been a major asset in 2015 and possibly even 2019. He was definitely a better player than anyone else we had at 6 under Lancaster and I imagine Eddie would have loved him.

If you mean the luxury giraffe thing, its a longstanding joke which pre-dates your time on the board. It was used by those in favour of forwards having no defining characteristic other than being big and strong. The idea of a pacy athlete was too much to cope with.

Its quite an English thing, someone with unusual skills puzzles people, and instead of thinking, wow, how can we use that.....its, doesn't fit my model, mock it.

Croft was a terrific player, and it took some balls to come back after breaking his neck. He did look at his best in a Lions shirt, as above.

Yep. Very much tongue-in-cheek. Quality player when used correctly. For me, he was the second best Lion in SA, after M**e Ph****ps.

Mellsblue wrote:Yep. Very much tongue-in-cheek. Quality player when used correctly. For me, he was the second best Lion in SA, after M**e Ph****ps.

Justice 4 Payne

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Agreed- they did actually use him as a wing after lineouts. Mad. For a tall bloke he was very good over the ball, and his acceleration could have been devastating used a little closer in, rather than him never seeing the ball out wide.

It's like they saw his rather gangly looking frame and acceleration and decided he was someone to be used wide.

Whereas he was powerful despite appearances, and would have been lethal in close, as shown in the few moments he was actually used there!

2009 Lions tour, where he was used as a proper 6 by Gatland. Showed us what might have been had he been used properly.

Puja

Just checked and it seems David Wallace was playing openside alongside Croft in the tests so effectively a combination of two 6.5s .Wallace was very much a ball carrier rather than a fetcher and I can see that this combination would work very well on fast SA grounds.

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:
It's like they saw his rather gangly looking frame and acceleration and decided he was someone to be used wide.

Whereas he was powerful despite appearances, and would have been lethal in close, as shown in the few moments he was actually used there!

2009 Lions tour, where he was used as a proper 6 by Gatland. Showed us what might have been had he been used properly.

Puja

Out of recollection who was the openside playing alongside him?

David Wallace and Martyn Williams for the tests.

Puja

Was that the tour when Ferris got injured just prior to the first test and was never quite the same player again?

I think so, yes.

Going back to the original purpose of the thread, I don’t think we’ve discussed our hooking options a great deal. I’d go as far as to say that George and LCD are currently one of the best starter/substitute pairings in test rugby, but beyond that the remaining options are untried and don’t seem to be trusted. Dunn’s been on the bench without getting any game time and Singleton’s caps have been nominal run-outs (including a couple where he’s come on as an auxiliary flanker).

Tommy Taylor probably should have been in the mix over the past few years, but bad luck with injuries mean his time’s probably passed.

Jack Walker was looking good this season and has enough time on his side to be a serious option, but he’s competing with Dunn at Bath when he probably needs to be first choice somewhere.

Alfie Barbeary’s had masses of hype and I’m hoping that he’ll get a chance to start living up to it next season. Other than that Will Capon has looked good for Bristol and will hopefully get more opportunities.

Anyone I’ve missed?

Barbeary has spent a lot of this season injured, which is a great shame. I'm still quite excited by Oghre at Wasps too. Hopefully both of them get some good gametime next time there's rugby.

Blimey. Thompson got absolutely folded there. Don’t see that too often

Raggs wrote:Barbeary has spent a lot of this season injured, which is a great shame. I'm still quite excited by Oghre at Wasps too. Hopefully both of them get some good gametime next time there's rugby.

Wonder what his nickname is?