Men in Black 1950-1975

Remove this Banner Ad

B

Bloodstained Angel

Premiership Player
Mar 21, 2000
3,765
20
Sydney, Nsw, Australia
I have stuck with the normal 3-4-1 scrum formation for this era, although the 2-3-2 (and wing forward) and even 3-2-3 (and wing forward) formation was also used during these years as well.

Fullback : Don Clarke

Wingers : Bryan Williams, Grant Batty

Centre : Bill Davis

2nd 5/8th : Ian McCrae

1st 5/8th : Mac Herewini

Halfback : Sid Going

Number 8 : Brian Lohore

Locks : Colin Meads, "Tiny" Hill

Tighthead Prop : Ken Gray

Loosehead Prop : Wilson Whineray

Hooker : Bruce McLeaod

Bench : Tane Norton, Waka Nathan, Joe Karam and Chris Laidlaw


cheers
 
You certainly have some great ABs there.

More than a couple of points

1. How about Waka Nathan and Kel Tremain as starting flankers

2. A very young Andy Haden of the early-mid 70s not yet at his best as another locking reserve. I know your selection criteria of putting players into their best era so I easily expect if you ignore this selection

3. Bob Scott as a backup full back. Players from this era are picked on reputation, and Don Clarke's reputation (and points tally) is huge, but by all accounts Scott was a champion fullback in an awful backline.

PS do you know what exactly a wing forward was? I knew the controversial position was first made famous by Dave Gallaher, and his ability to fringe around the scrum, and predated the 3-4-1 scrum. Obviously I have always assumed it was some type of flanker.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

What little I know about the history of the scrum

1. Perhaps the most effective strategy in history. In early tests with first up-first down scrums (i.e. no set positions, first to the scrum was prop, second a hooker etc) the Springboks would only go down to engage after their opposition, ensuring they always had the loosehead.

2. The South Africans introduced the 3-4-1 scrum, a formation that killed opposition scrums for an entire generation.

The South Africa scrum rewarded strength, set piece play and scrummaging. On one typically hopeless Australian tour to South Africa Dr Danny Craven (this is a true story but I am not 100% about the South African coach) took the Australian backline away for half a hour taught them the 3-4-1 scrum then promptly watched the backline scrum the Australian forward pack into the ground.

The effectiveness of this formation is to channel brute force through two parallel axis (either side of the hooker) as opposed to New Zealand's 2-3-2 traditional formation with one point of drive.

The New Zealand scrum supposedly emphasised loose forward play, mobility, and the idea of total rugby. Unfortunately in reality the AB scrum was a victim of its own success. Tactics that were so successfully employed by the Originals and Invincibles repeatedly failed before the 2-3-2 formation was abandoned in preference for the 3-4-1. On one tour to South Africa the New Zealand scrum lost at least 80% of its own put ins.

The ultimate result was that from about 1935 until 1956 South Africa were the unofficial world champions.

I assume the 3-2-3 formation was similar to the 3-4-1, just without the same push.

In one test in the 1970s New Zealand used a three man scrum variation, stacking a large blind side with a backline of redundant forwards, however this is now illegal.
 
In one test in the 1970s New Zealand used a three man scrum variation, stacking a large blind side with a backline of redundant forwards, however this is now illegal
Click to expand...

Hey Player - I remember that incident quite clearly.

It was during the 4th Test, 1977 British Lions tour.

The Lions brought one of the greatest ever sides to run out on a Rugby field down to NZ for that tour. Their forward pack in particular was awesomely powerfu. lt boasted the "all Pontypridd"
frontline of Willy McBride, Geoff Wheeler and *shudders* Graeme Price.

This forward pack left a trail of destruction through NZ Rugby in the winter of '77. In one game (against NZ Universities I think) they shunted the opposition 60 metres on a tighthead to score a pushover try at the other end.

Like all touring parties, they just got better and better untill by the time the 4th Test came around, they were a possession-winning machine of the highest order.

NZ, by contrast was in a period of transition at this time. The old veteran players such as Going, Williams, Kirkpatrick, Wylie etc were being progessively retired and a whole generation lead by (my hero) Graeme Mourie were taking their place.

NZ went into the Test with a young and inexperienced Forward pack and were absolutely crucified during the game.

NZ just could not get any possession at all, not even from their own feed. As the game wore on, a by now desperate NZ pack made a snap decision to pack down the front row only on a NZ feed and stack the rest of the forwards on the blindisde.

It worked - for just about the only time in the entire match, NZ actually got clean pocession and were able to run the ball 50-60 metres up the sidline. It was the only decent attack NZ managed for the whole game.

Many NZ Rugby fans looked on the incident as a badge of shame - fancy NZ forward play being in such a woeful state that they had to resort to gimmicks like this to stay competitive ?

oh and btw - NZ won the test 10-9 in a desperately close and exciting finish - but thats maybe a topic for another time.

In fact I'm interested in revisiting the vaults of my Rugby Memory to write an article about the whole 77 Lions tour - it was a ripper and a great time for Rugby generally.

cheers
 
Good stuff regarding the '77 Lions BSA.

So what happened when one side wanted to pack down with 2 in the front row & the opposition wanted 3?How did the binding work?
 
As you would expect it to DIPPER

But the pack with two front rowers would pack down as two tightheads and god knows who's job it was to be hooker :p

... and the 3 strong front row would find themselves in the strange position of having two looseheads.

Thats about all I can say, 'coz we're talking about scrummaging and forward play that really is ancient history. I don't think anyone (not here anyway) can really say how forward packs operated in those days ...

cheers
 
Angel

You have the game right but, I think, the players wrong.

Willie John McBride was a 2nd row, and had retired after the 1974 SA tour.

Graham (scrum dropper) Price was the tight head. I think the loosehead was 'Charlie' Faulkner' also of Pontypool. The hooker was probably Peter Wheeler (Leicester and England - a fine all round player) although Bobby Windsor, the third member of the famed 'Pontypool front row' or 'Vient Gwent' was also on the tour.

The shame was, with such an outstanding pack, the back line partly due to the likes of Gareth Edwards being unavailable, wasn't up to the recent standard.
 
A Four test series? Unless it is the Lions the NZRFU does not bother to organise a three test series against anyone anymore.

The fact that the BBC called the Scotland v New Zealand test a friendly accurately reflects the direction test football is going.

Mind you it does sound like the '77 Lions had one of those twenty plus game tours of yesteryear with the great teams like 'West Coast-Buller-Nelson Bays' and 'North Otago-South Canterbury-Mid Canterbury' all getting a crack at the tourists.

Anybody else see that excellent documentary series following the Lions last year to Australia.

Considering the injury turnover they it is amazing any forward from any era could endure three months of solid rugby and still be expected to develop their game.
 
Check out the film of the 1974 Lions victory over the scum....err sorry Springboks.

It wasn't for the faint hearted, they basically sussed on to the fact that South African sides had always intimidated sides from Britain & they made the decision that not only was it not going to happen this time but that they would actually get their retaliation in first.

So they cooked up the '99' line out call which basically meant that every Lion had to try to punch the living daylights out of the nearest South African.

Those bully boys didn't know what hit em, there were Springboks being battered all over the place & my personal favourite was seeing JPR Williams come running over half the length of the pitch to deck one of the SA back rowers.Apparently one memebr of the SA pack had his glass eye knocked out when someone smashed him in the back of the head & both packs spent about 5 minutes on their hands & knees looking for it & when it was found he just plopped it back in with all grass sticking out of the side of it.:D

The tactics proved a winner with Lions winning every game on that tour , (3 Tests & about 20 odd other games) with the exception of the 4 Test which was a draw due to some of the most biased refereeing you will ever see(the poor bloke still had to live there I suppose).


Player,
That documentary showed how ridiculous the situation is in British Rugby with players having to play about 32 games (was more last season but they've set a maximum figure now) in a 9 month season & then be expected to tour in the summer.No wonder they were dropping like flies, it will always be a dissapointment to me not to know whether a fresher Lions side without so many major injuries would have been able to beat what was a great Wallabies side.

I can't believe that they called the Scotland/New Zealand game a 'friendly'-I've always thought that a major strength of Rugby over football was that there is no such thing as a friendly-it's a Test match & that should mean enough on its own.It's probably just the Jocks getting in their excuses early so that when they lose they can say that they were just using the game to experiment.
 
To whom it may concern,

The correct name of the team which represents the Celtic Nations and England when touring the Southern Hemisphere is “The British and Irish Lions.”
”The Lions” is also acceptable as is “The Irish and British Lions”.
There is NO team called “The British Lions.”

Yours in Sport,

The Blues
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sorry The Blues - thats wrong

the teams made up of the best from England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales that toured New Zealand in 1971, 77, and 83 were called the "British Lions' or more commonly just "The Lions"

Same with the touring parties that went to South Africa in 74 and Australia in 1989.

They were all called "the Lions"

Its only in these more politically correct times that the name has been change to "British and Irish Lions"

Ifv you don't belive me, try and dig some old footage or read some of the literature associated with some of these famous old tours.

I have video from the 1977 Lions tour, a book on the 77 Lions tour called "life with the Lions' written by a Daily Telegraph journalist. I also have some video of the Lions in South Africa from 1974 and also the Lions in Australia 1989.

Not once is this team ever refereed to as anything else but "The Lions"

cheers
 
First of all I was only messing, I thought it would be Dipper that would respond:D ;)

But, on a serious note, I know the history of the name and when/why it changed but my post was referring to the present time.

BTW, I'm a firm believer that they should simply be called THE LIONS
 
Originally posted by The Blues
First of all I was only messing, I thought it would be Dipper that would respond:D ;)

Click to expand...


Well I don't know what that's supposed to imply.:confused: :D


I've called them the Lions every time, although I did make a reference to teams from 'Britain' being intimidated in South Africa but you should feel happy not to be included in that.

For my views on the make up of The Lions read some earlier posts (maybe from before you joined BF) where I basically said (& I meant it:D ) that I reckon we should have left all the Jocks & Taffies back home & just gone in with Irish & English players.

We're the only 2 sides that are any good & that show any fight, on the last tour the only player from the 2 weaker nations who was half way decent was Scott Quinnell but even he gave away too many penalties & was an indicement of Henry's flawed tactical gameplan of turning the series into a bruising encounter up front rather than the more sophisticated style of play that the England & Irish players would have been able to carry out.

No mate I'm a fan of our friends accross the Irish sea & accord them all the respect they deserve unlike our other celtic cousins who we have to share this island with.;)
 
Dipper, I’m going to clarify. I felt this Rugby Union board had gone a bit quiet and I thought I might get a bit of banter going between the natives from either side of the Irish Sea , but, bloodstained angels educated response kind of killed my idea straight away.

Anyway, we’re only a couple of weeks away from the start of the 6 nations and I’m sure the temperature will rise a small bit around here then.
It’s just a pity there isn’t any sheep lovers , thistle growers or English speaking frogs contributing to this board.:)

As regards the Lions selection, I completely agree with you. Now while I can see how there should have been a Welsh and Scottish representation, I thought the selectors completely over did it, especially with Wales.
Then, to add insult to injury they only select 6 Irish and a couple of drafts. Of course, this had to include a couple of token Ulster players (even then they managed to leave Humphreys at home and took O’Gara).

That last comment is probably a bit harsh, but why in the name of God did they draft in Howe and leave Hickey in Dublin. The mind boggles….
:confused:

ps. i hope i didn't insult your goodself
 
Must agree on the Lions selection.

How the likes of Hickie and the flanker Wallace didn't go initially from Ireland is beyond me. Re the English players, Corry should have gone in the original selection but so should Worsley who was charging around the paddock like a wild rhino through the winter. Bracken should also have gone. Best passer in the Isles.

Way too many Welshman. The only Welsh forward I'd have taken was Charvis. Quinnell's a one trick pony, if you stop him running from the base of the scrum he gives you nothing.

From Scotland only Smith and Murray deserved a look in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top