Hookers: big or small ?

[Jaguares]

The openside flankers are both packed down on the openside side of the scrum (i.e. the side that has the most space - so if the scrum is closer to the left hand touchline, from an England perspective, the 7s would be on the same side).

Also, just to add to the before discussion about flanker numbers: Flankers are technically the third row in the scrum, number 8 the fourth, that's why they're numbered like that

Next question:

Sigesige00: And what about 4 and 5 in the picture?

 

[sigesige00]

1 2 3
4 5

How about changing the numbers to:




------------------1--------------------
-----2------------------------3--------
--------------4------5-----------------
--6-------------------------------7----
---------------8-----------------------
------------------9--------------------
---------------------10----------------
--11------------------------------12---
-----------13------------14------------
------------------15-------------------

 

[goodNumber10]

How about changing the numbers to:




------------------1--------------------
-----2------------------------3--------
--------------4------5-----------------
--6-------------------------------7----
---------------8-----------------------
------------------9--------------------
---------------------10----------------
--11------------------------------12---
-----------13------------14------------
------------------15-------------------

lol!

 

[sigesige00]

Next question:

Sigesige00: And what about 4 and 5 in the picture?

I am interested in the origin of scrum. Is there any record of the oldest Football with scrum before the formation of the Rugby and Association rules?

 

[TRF_heineken]

hmmm...

I wonder if the mods who pity Sige will address the issue of him not staying on topic??

 

[goodNumber10]

I am interested in the origin of scrum. Is there any record of the oldest Football with scrum before the formation of the Rugby and Association rules?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+history+of+rugby+union

 

[The Jones Boy]

Size doesn't matter...

As long as they are the goods, they're good enough, regardless of size.

 

[Big Ewis]

hmmm...

I wonder if the mods who pity Sige will address the issue of him not staying on topic??

heineken, shhh !!!! Let the artist express himself...

------------------1--------------------
-----2------------------------3--------
--------------4------5-----------------
--6-------------------------------7----
---------------8-----------------------
------------------9--------------------
---------------------10----------------
--11------------------------------12---
-----------13------------14------------
------------------15-------------------

I can so imagine the guy making this on his keyboard.

 

[Geordie]

I always thought :

4 was the tight head second row...ie the second row on the tight head side...the big monster beast. The Martin Johnson, the Simon Shaw, the Bakkies, or Brad Thorn.
The extra weight and power help the TH out...which is why somone like Simon Shaw who was massive but was a renowned world class scrum lock was so valuable...

5 is the lighter lineout lock...who doesnt need quite so much weight as he packs down behind the LH AND Hooker.

In Englands case at the minute though (Lawes and Launchbury)...neither Lock is massive nor brilliant actual scrum locks...so we are losing out a bit.

 

[Big Ewis]

I always thought :

4 was the tight head second row...ie the second row on the tight head side...the big monster beast. The Martin Johnson, the Simon Shaw, the Bakkies, or Brad Thorn.
The extra weight and power help the TH out...which is why somone like Simon Shaw who was massive but was a renowned world class scrum lock was so valuable...

5 is the lighter lineout lock...who doesnt need quite so much weight as he packs down behind the LH AND Hooker.

In Englands case at the minute though (Lawes and Launchbury)...neither Lock is massive nor brilliant actual scrum locks...so we are losing out a bit.

hah, had no idea there was really a difference between locks, but it's true you often get that big lock+mobile lock combination scenario.
"the big monster beast", I like that phrase...

 

[Geordie]

Yes the big monster beast...i think it sums it up perfectly

There is a difference in roles between the two...maybe its becoming a bit more blurred these days...but i have read reports from props who played with Simon Shaw...and they said it was litterally like having two extra men behind you pushing when he was there. Of course he was 6'9 and just shy of 20st so he IS the size of two men ha....but that makes a big difference in the scrums.

Old Canadian Favorite Norm Hadley - a legend, was the same. 6'8, 20st...a sheer powerhouse.

I think England are missing someone like that.

 

[Big Ewis]

Yes the big monster beast...i think it sums it up perfectly

There is a difference in roles between the two...maybe its becoming a bit more blurred these days...but i have read reports from props who played with Simon Shaw...and they said it was litterally like having two extra men behind you pushing when he was there. Of course he was 6'9 and just shy of 20st so he IS the size of two men ha....but that makes a big difference in the scrums.

Old Canadian Favorite Norm Hadley - a legend, was the same. 6'8, 20st...a sheer powerhouse.

I think England are missing someone like that.

and not an unsubtle creature either. He apparently paints too, and isn't too hard on the eyes, the whole package . A big monster beast + a romantic artsy smartypantt.

and yeah, 6'8 and 122kg. 20 stone to me just means 20 stones piled on the ground like an elephant dump.

Well today, Launchbury would play that role, even though I'm quite certain he can't paint, so not quite the same impact in the scrum.