RugbyRebels

There's been lots of talk of how Kruis was thought by Eddie to be our best scrummaging second row - this may well be the case but I just wondered is there any way of objectively comparing scrummaging abilities of test locks?

Weight / height = scrummaging power

Whoever goes tighthead. Lions tours helps show the balance between nations.

Stooke must be rather good, he was scrummaging at tighthead over Attwood.

Itoje's supposed to be rated very highly - it's why he was packing down at lock while playing flank in the 6N.

The biggest difference I've seen is when we toured NZ and Attwood was brought on for a back row every time Henry Thomas came off, so that he could scrum behind Thomas and Launchbiry could go on the flank. Turned a potential weakness into a strength.

Puja

Itoje was at tighthead over launch. Kruis goes tight when paired with itoje.

Puja wrote:Itoje's supposed to be rated very highly - it's why he was packing down at lock while playing flank in the 6N.

The biggest difference I've seen is when we toured NZ and Attwood was brought on for a back row every time Henry Thomas came off, so that he could scrum behind Thomas and Launchbiry could go on the flank. Turned a potential weakness into a strength.

Puja

I still don't get this. If Itoje was packing down at lock (which he was) then he was not playing flank, since, by definition, flankers pack down in the back row. He was also mostly operating at the front/middle of the lineout, not the tail end. So the number 6 on his back meant absolutely nothing and he played the same game that he usually does. Lawes was actually playing blindside flank, though listed and numbered as a lock - so his number was meaningless as well.
Yet is has come to pass that Itoje is now regarded as an international lock or a 6, when he has really not played for England as a flanker at all.

Spiffy wrote:

Puja wrote:Itoje's supposed to be rated very highly - it's why he was packing down at lock while playing flank in the 6N.

The biggest difference I've seen is when we toured NZ and Attwood was brought on for a back row every time Henry Thomas came off, so that he could scrum behind Thomas and Launchbiry could go on the flank. Turned a potential weakness into a strength.

Puja

I still don't get this. If Itoje was packing down at lock (which he was) then he was not playing flank, since, by definition, flankers pack down in the back row. He was also mostly operating at the front/middle of the lineout, not the tail end. So the number 6 on his back meant absolutely nothing and he played the same game that he usually does. Lawes was actually playing blindside flank, though listed and numbered as a lock - so his number was meaningless as well.
Yet is has come to pass that Itoje is now regarded as an international lock or a 6, when he has really not played for England as a flanker at all.

The thing is that there's a lot more to the role of flanker or lock than the set piece. Itoje may not have packed on the side of the scrum, but he was set the tasks of flanker in the loose, which was where he was so ineffective.

Puja

Mikey Brown wrote:Weight / height = scrummaging power

What's height got to do with it ?

If you wanted the best possible scrummager in the second row, you'd pick to more props.

Generally you want your heaviest lock on the RHS as the prop under most pressure is always the tight head.

For instance, I think Simon Shaw when he played for England, generally packed down on the right.

England's scrum was always better when Shaw played. Trouble was he was a klutz round the field but in the tight, he was awesome.

Yeah he was crap with his hands wasn't he?

Shaw was a klutz in what sense? If anything his skills were unusually high for a lock, still more so for an English lock

He might at times have taken to training as did Chris Sheasby in using pints as weights, but outside being inebriated I don't think klutz is giving close to an accurate impression

Rich wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Weight / height = scrummaging power

What's height got to do with it ?

If you wanted the best possible scrummager in the second row, you'd pick to more props.

Err. Are you being serious?

Mikey Brown wrote:

Rich wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Weight / height = scrummaging power

What's height got to do with it ?

If you wanted the best possible scrummager in the second row, you'd pick to more props.

Err. Are you being serious?

I think he may be suggesting that it isn't the most important thing to focus on when picking your locks.

I'm just not sure if a) he thinks that equation I posted suggests height is a positive thing b) he thinks it was serious in any way?

Mikey Brown wrote:

Rich wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Weight / height = scrummaging power

What's height got to do with it ?

If you wanted the best possible scrummager in the second row, you'd pick to more props.

Err. Are you being serious?

No, just making the point that height has nothing to do with a scrummaging for a second row.

Digby wrote:Shaw was a klutz in what sense?

In the number of penalties he gave away.

He wasn't a particularly skillful player with ball in hand.

The only reason you want tall locks in Union is because of the line-out


If Union had scrums instead of line outs ass they do in League, then second rows would be all around 6'2"

Dave Attwood is regarded as one of the best .

Digby wrote:Shaw was a klutz in what sense? If anything his skills were unusually high for a lock, still more so for an English lock

He might at times have taken to training as did Chris Sheasby in using pints as weights, but outside being inebriated I don't think klutz is giving close to an accurate impression

Have to agree with this, he was a very very good player. He had 2 problems without which he would have had 80 caps, first he was very very heavy and difficult to lift, less of a problem these days than then I expect, and second he was too similar a player to a certain Martin Johnson.

Rich wrote:

Digby wrote:Shaw was a klutz in what sense?

In the number of penalties he gave away.

He wasn't a particularly skillful player with ball in hand.

Are you perhaps thinking of Gareth Archer, maybe even Grewcock? Shaw had excellent hands, and a cracking offload (decision making and execution wise)

Digby wrote:

Rich wrote:

Digby wrote:Shaw was a klutz in what sense?

In the number of penalties he gave away.

He wasn't a particularly skillful player with ball in hand.

Are you perhaps thinking of Gareth Archer, maybe even Grewcock? Shaw had excellent hands, and a cracking offload (decision making and execution wise)

Danny just didn't have an off switch. I watched him in a charity a game post retirement and he couldn't even rein it in then. I remember Archer as just a thug but I could be doing him a disservice.

Rich wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Rich wrote:

What's height got to do with it ?

If you wanted the best possible scrummager in the second row, you'd pick to more props.

Err. Are you being serious?

No, just making the point that height has nothing to do with a scrummaging for a second row.

The '/' was there in lieu of a divide symbol.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Rich wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
Err. Are you being serious?

No, just making the point that height has nothing to do with a scrummaging for a second row.

The '/' was there in lieu of a divide symbol.

This has to be the most ridiculous argument we've ever had on here. I say this whilst remembering I was front and centre in an argument over whether Gary Neville was an appropriate personality to be addressing the England squad under Start Lancaster. An argument that lasted for days.

It was a yes to Gary yes?

Bringing Phil in also would have been good.