RugbyRebels

Just looking at the period of time that I have followed test rugby , from end of the 80s onwards I was reviewing which forwards might have reasonably expected to earn a few more test caps during their peak playing periods. Note I am discounting those whom injury prevented them earning more caps e.g Jon Hall, Tom Rees and James Forrester.

So here goes my list, see if you agree ? Doubtless I've missed someone out

Late 80s/early 90s (Pre 1993)


Andy Robinson at openside (would be a hard call given who did get priority!)
David Egerton at No.8

early to mid 90s (93 to 97)

Neil Back at openside
Derek Eves at openside
Steve Ojomoh at No.8
Chris Sheasby at No.8

(97 to 2003)
We got this right imo

early to mid noughties (2003 - 2007)

Andy Hazell at openside
Pat Sanderson at openside
Lewis Moody (at blindside rather than openside)

Late noughties till arrival of Eddie Jones

James Haskell at No.8
Michael Lipmann at openside
Magnus Lund at openside
Hendre Fourie at openside
Tom Croft (at openside rather than blindside)
Chris Robshaw at blindside (i.e. the reverse of Burt's selection)
Tom Wood at openside ( '' " )

Sam Burgess.

Mellsblue wrote:Sam Burgess.

Ooo, how could I forget

I wish the stars had aligned and we could have seen this backrow.

6. Sam Burgess
7. Andy Titteral
8. Dan Ward-Smith

No Armitage or Kvesic?

Derek Eves was a stunningly good player and a hard man as well. Difficult to argue against Backy, but Evesy may have been slightly before Backy time wise ? He also had to contend with the Jack Rowell view that bigger was always better - at the time.

Dean Ryan could be included?

Coventry also had an excellent 8 in the80's - Graham Robbins

Phil Dowson.

Digby wrote:No Armitage or Kvesic?

Yes to both - Armitage scuppered by RFU policy (though Eddie could have made an exception rather than trying to pick the likes of Williams and Itoje at seven)

Tom Croft wasn't very good at openside, and it would have negated his strengths. He was deployed badly at 6 by both Tigers and England, Gatland got it right.

Imo Back was selected consistently for England when he was ready, he'd bulked up and improved his tackling/defence; even then, he was immeasurably helped by the ballast and sheer ability around him.

Steffon Armitage is the biggest crime. England robbed themselves of a genuinely world class player during a time in which he his his peak, England results weren't very good and there was no genuine competition for him in the 7 shirt. A travesty.

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Steffon Armitage is the biggest crime. England robbed themselves of a genuinely world class player during a time in which he his his peak, England results weren't very good and there was no genuine competition for him in the 7 shirt. A travesty.

But, on the flip side of that, we made it crystal clear that our selection policy was non-negotiable no matter who you thought you were. That now means that Premiership sides are not fighting bidding wars with Top 14 sides for the top English talent and the Premiership has been demonstrably improved by the players it's kept in the country.

It was a good decision for the long run and we're stronger for it.

Puja

Puja wrote:But, on the flip side of that, we made it crystal clear that our selection policy was non-negotiable no matter who you thought you were. That now means that Premiership sides are not fighting bidding wars with Top 14 sides for the top English talent and the Premiership has been demonstrably improved by the players it's kept in the country.

It was a good decision for the long run and we're stronger for it.

Yep. I imagine Hask in particular did very well out of not picking Armitage.

Puja wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Steffon Armitage is the biggest crime. England robbed themselves of a genuinely world class player during a time in which he his his peak, England results weren't very good and there was no genuine competition for him in the 7 shirt. A travesty.

But, on the flip side of that, we made it crystal clear that our selection policy was non-negotiable no matter who you thought you were. That now means that Premiership sides are not fighting bidding wars with Top 14 sides for the top English talent and the Premiership has been demonstrably improved by the players it's kept in the country.

It was a good decision for the long run and we're stronger for it.

Puja

How?

Sarries would be able to afford a good squad whatever, the rest (bar Exeter) aren't even much of a muchness, and England are still rank to watch whether winning, losing or drawing.

Mikey Brown wrote:Yep. I imagine Hask in particular did very well out of not picking Armitage.

very good.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Steffon Armitage is the biggest crime. England robbed themselves of a genuinely world class player during a time in which he his his peak, England results weren't very good and there was no genuine competition for him in the 7 shirt. A travesty.

But, on the flip side of that, we made it crystal clear that our selection policy was non-negotiable no matter who you thought you were. That now means that Premiership sides are not fighting bidding wars with Top 14 sides for the top English talent and the Premiership has been demonstrably improved by the players it's kept in the country.

It was a good decision for the long run and we're stronger for it.

Puja

How?

Sarries would be able to afford a good squad whatever, the rest (bar Exeter) aren't even much of a muchness, and England are still rank to watch whether winning, losing or drawing.

You really think players like Itoje, Launch, Lawes, would still be in the Prem if they wouldn't lose their England place by taking the €? Not to mention the likes of Cipriani.

Puja

No idea. I'm only saying both the Premiership and England are at best okay, so I wouldn't be declaring the policy a success unless one had started with the ambition to be a better than meh but not good as such

Digby wrote:No idea. I'm only saying both the Premiership and England are at best okay, so I wouldn't be declaring the policy a success unless one had started with the ambition to be a better than meh but not good as such

I would take issue with the idea that both the Premiership and England are at best okay, but even if we accept that as true, they're both better for not having half the EPS getting flogged in France.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:No idea. I'm only saying both the Premiership and England are at best okay, so I wouldn't be declaring the policy a success unless one had started with the ambition to be a better than meh but not good as such

I would take issue with the idea that both the Premiership and England are at best okay, but even if we accept that as true, they're both better for not having half the EPS getting flogged in France.

Puja

What would you classify them as?

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:No idea. I'm only saying both the Premiership and England are at best okay, so I wouldn't be declaring the policy a success unless one had started with the ambition to be a better than meh but not good as such

I would take issue with the idea that both the Premiership and England are at best okay, but even if we accept that as true, they're both better for not having half the EPS getting flogged in France.

Puja

What would you classify them as?

Containing a team that's been European Champions for 3 out of the last 4 years surely counts for something and, while we have our gripes and had a shite end to the 6N, England are 4th in the world and are genuine competitors for the RWC.

I'd prefer both were better, but that's not "okay at best".

Puja

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Steffon Armitage is the biggest crime. England robbed themselves of a genuinely world class player during a time in which he his his peak, England results weren't very good and there was no genuine competition for him in the 7 shirt. A travesty.

But, on the flip side of that, we made it crystal clear that our selection policy was non-negotiable no matter who you thought you were. That now means that Premiership sides are not fighting bidding wars with Top 14 sides for the top English talent and the Premiership has been demonstrably improved by the players it's kept in the country.

It was a good decision for the long run and we're stronger for it.

Puja

How?

Sarries would be able to afford a good squad whatever, the rest (bar Exeter) aren't even much of a muchness, and England are still rank to watch whether winning, losing or drawing.

‘Rank to watch’ in comparison to who?

Ireland and Wales do not play attractive or inventive rugby at all.

In fact, I’d go as far as to say that we have the most attractive brand of rugby in the NH right now. Which is amazing considering we have Farrell at 10!

Scotland have some good moments, but not with any real consistency.

I’d say we’re frustrating to watch, but for the most part we are not ‘rank’.

I may be misremembering but.......wasn’t Armitage being ignored before the move to France? Once there, why move back for less money and worse weather just on the proviso that Eng might pick you. Given he was competing with the capt and the teacher’s pet for a starting jersey, I’m not sure I blame him for staying en France.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
I would take issue with the idea that both the Premiership and England are at best okay, but even if we accept that as true, they're both better for not having half the EPS getting flogged in France.

Puja

What would you classify them as?

Containing a team that's been European Champions for 3 out of the last 4 years surely counts for something and, while we have our gripes and had a shite end to the 6N, England are 4th in the world and are genuine competitors for the RWC.

I'd prefer both were better, but that's not "okay at best".

Puja

That answer is Ok, at best.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: What would you classify them as?

Containing a team that's been European Champions for 3 out of the last 4 years surely counts for something and, while we have our gripes and had a shite end to the 6N, England are 4th in the world and are genuine competitors for the RWC.

I'd prefer both were better, but that's not "okay at best".

Puja

That answer is Ok, at best.

How much worse would it be if a handful of EPS players were playing abroad?

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
I would take issue with the idea that both the Premiership and England are at best okay, but even if we accept that as true, they're both better for not having half the EPS getting flogged in France.

Puja

What would you classify them as?

Containing a team that's been European Champions for 3 out of the last 4 years surely counts for something and, while we have our gripes and had a shite end to the 6N, England are 4th in the world and are genuine competitors for the RWC.

I'd prefer both were better, but that's not "okay at best".

Puja

I did note I consider Sarries would have a quality squad even if more players were in France