England Rugby - what is needed for a successful future....

[London424]

Kermit power said:

London424 said:

But that was my observation about the AB's. They aren't all big monsters in their back division. Same for Australia. Genia, Cooper, Foley, Beale, Giteau, Mitchell etc.

OK, Genia and Giteau aren't huge, but Quade Cooper is 6'1" & 14 stone 8, Foley is 6'0" & 14 stone, Beale 6'0" & 14 stone 2 and Drew Mitchell 6'0" & 14 stone 7, so they're not exactly midgets, are they?

To the every day guy they are pretty big lumps. But in the arms race in the northern hemisphere back division they aren't much to write home about.

Wales in this years 6N:

Webb - 6ft 14.9 st
Biggar - 6ft2 14 st
North - 6ft4 17.2 st
Roberts - 6ft4 17.5 st
Davies - 6ft1 16.5 st
Cuthbert 6ft6 16.10 st
1/2p - 5ft10 13.5st

You're giving away 2-3 stone per player in quite a few cases.

I'd much rather go with the Oz and AB approach and pick something like Youngs, Ford, May, Slade, JJ, Watson, Brown than try and go and figure out how to get Burgess and Barrett and Farrell into a team.

[London424]

Equilibrium25 said:

Derek Smith said:

I thought replacements were introduced to overcome the problem of injuries.

You may well be right, but I can't help but think that it has made things worse in the long run. If you know that you only have to play 55/60 minutes then that must impact your ideal build. We now have bigger guys slamming into each other harder for a shorter time, then some more massive guys coming on fresh to hurtle into a mix of fresh and fairly tired guys.

Yep. Look at the England team that won the W/C. Off the forward pack Vickery was subbed at 86 mins and Hill subbed at 93 mins. Nowadays does a front row make it past 55-60 mins?!

[0000]

London424 said:

Kermit power said:

London424 said:

But that was my observation about the AB's. They aren't all big monsters in their back division. Same for Australia. Genia, Cooper, Foley, Beale, Giteau, Mitchell etc.

OK, Genia and Giteau aren't huge, but Quade Cooper is 6'1" & 14 stone 8, Foley is 6'0" & 14 stone, Beale 6'0" & 14 stone 2 and Drew Mitchell 6'0" & 14 stone 7, so they're not exactly midgets, are they?

To the every day guy they are pretty big lumps. But in the arms race in the northern hemisphere back division they aren't much to write home about.

Wales in this years 6N:

Webb - 6ft 14.9 st
Biggar - 6ft2 14 st
North - 6ft4 17.2 st
Roberts - 6ft4 17.5 st
Davies - 6ft1 16.5 st
Cuthbert 6ft6 16.10 st
1/2p - 5ft10 13.5st

You're giving away 2-3 stone per player in quite a few cases.

I'd much rather go with the Oz and AB approach and pick something like Youngs, Ford, May, Slade, JJ, Watson, Brown than try and go and figure out how to get Burgess and Barrett and Farrell into a team.

I hadn't realised the Aussies were that small. As an everyday 6'5 and 17.5 stone lump that's surprising - it's normally only scrum halves I look down on these days. I've no doubt they could run circles round me though - the size is pointless without pace and skill.

[Joey Ramone]

But the size is misleading. I'm 5'10" and a robust 14 st 12lbs, and far from a tub of lard. But there is light years difference between my strength and explosive power, and that of Drew Mitchell, for example. If I ran into him at top speed, he'd obliterate me. If he ran into me at top speed he'd knock me flying, most probably.

[Derek Smith]

0000 said:

I hadn't realised the Aussies were that small. As an everyday 6'5 and 17.5 stone lump that's surprising - it's normally only scrum halves I look down on these days. I've no doubt they could run circles round me though - the size is pointless without pace and skill.

I went with my two sons to see Quins play a Tolouse side. We're all around 6'3". We went to clap the French side in. I think there were just two who were noticeable smaller than us, and even then, not by much.

That is the problem in the NH: teams have to be built around players who compete with other teams.

[irocfan]

I get the impression that these days the 3 blondes (Reeves, Winterbotton , Back) wouldn't have got many 1st class matches - let alone international

[a311]

Derek Smith said:

0000 said:

I hadn't realised the Aussies were that small. As an everyday 6'5 and 17.5 stone lump that's surprising - it's normally only scrum halves I look down on these days. I've no doubt they could run circles round me though - the size is pointless without pace and skill.

I went with my two sons to see Quins play a Tolouse side. We're all around 6'3". We went to clap the French side in. I think there were just two who were noticeable smaller than us, and even then, not by much.

That is the problem in the NH: teams have to be built around players who compete with other teams.

In the West something like 14% of men are taller than 6' only something like 3% are 6'2" or above.

Some may find this: interesting http://www.theguardian.com/sport/interactive/2013/...

Anyone else want to see proper lineouts back and ban lifitng? They used to be real contests!

[DocJock]

a311 said:

In the West something like 14% of men are taller than 6' only something like 3% are 6'2" or above.

Some may find this: interesting http://www.theguardian.com/sport/interactive/2013/...

Anyone else want to see proper lineouts back and ban lifitng? They used to be real contests!

Yes!!

No changing positions either.

[irocfan]

a311 said:

Derek Smith said:

0000 said:

I hadn't realised the Aussies were that small. As an everyday 6'5 and 17.5 stone lump that's surprising - it's normally only scrum halves I look down on these days. I've no doubt they could run circles round me though - the size is pointless without pace and skill.

I went with my two sons to see Quins play a Tolouse side. We're all around 6'3". We went to clap the French side in. I think there were just two who were noticeable smaller than us, and even then, not by much.

That is the problem in the NH: teams have to be built around players who compete with other teams.

In the West something like 14% of men are taller than 6' only something like 3% are 6'2" or above.

Some may find this: interesting http://www.theguardian.com/sport/interactive/2013/...

Anyone else want to see proper lineouts back and ban lifitng? They used to be real contests!

what's really interesting is that the team that has changed size the least is the ABs... I thought England had gone up a bit until I saw the Taffs.

As for the lineouts the amount of running around before the ball is thrown is staggering (all I can picture in my head is Mike Reid shouting "... runarahhnd nah..."). IIRC the reason they introduced lifting is because it was too difficult to police in the old days - these days with a milliontyone cameras everywhere it shouldn't be a problem... incidentally you'd also solve the problem of "interfering with the jumper" because the danger aspect would be vastly reduced

[bonkbonk]

London424 said:

To the every day guy they are pretty big lumps. But in the arms race in the northern hemisphere back division they aren't much to write home about.

Wales in this years 6N:

Webb - 6ft 14.9 st
Biggar - 6ft2 14 st
North - 6ft4 17.2 st
Roberts - 6ft4 17.5 st
Davies - 6ft1 16.5 st
Cuthbert 6ft6 16.10 st
1/2p - 5ft10 13.5st

You're giving away 2-3 stone per player in quite a few cases.

I'd much rather go with the Oz and AB approach and pick something like Youngs, Ford, May, Slade, JJ, Watson, Brown than try and go and figure out how to get Burgess and Barrett and Farrell into a team.

Is that really the Oz/AB approach? Both teams have got some talented "smaller" backs but they're certainly not short of battering rams either - SBW, Savea and Nonu for the all blacks and Folau, Kurindrani and Hooper (who sometimes acts as a centre in attack) for the Aussies are all north of 16 stone and very effective on a crash line.

If you completely forgoe size & power you'll lack a dimension in attack and likely get found out in defence - the 10-12 channel in your suggested team looks vulnerable

[London424]

bonkbonk said:

London424 said:

To the every day guy they are pretty big lumps. But in the arms race in the northern hemisphere back division they aren't much to write home about.

Wales in this years 6N:

Webb - 6ft 14.9 st
Biggar - 6ft2 14 st
North - 6ft4 17.2 st
Roberts - 6ft4 17.5 st
Davies - 6ft1 16.5 st
Cuthbert 6ft6 16.10 st
1/2p - 5ft10 13.5st

You're giving away 2-3 stone per player in quite a few cases.

I'd much rather go with the Oz and AB approach and pick something like Youngs, Ford, May, Slade, JJ, Watson, Brown than try and go and figure out how to get Burgess and Barrett and Farrell into a team.

Is that really the Oz/AB approach? Both teams have got some talented "smaller" backs but they're certainly not short of battering rams either - SBW, Savea and Nonu for the all blacks and Folau, Kurindrani and Hooper (who sometimes acts as a centre in attack) for the Aussies are all north of 16 stone and very effective on a crash line.

If you completely forgoe size & power you'll lack a dimension in attack and likely get found out in defence - the 10-12 channel in your suggested team looks vulnerable

It's very much their approach! Yes they have some bigger guys that can and do play. But of 6 backs on the pitch they'll have maybe 2 big boys. The rest are significantly lighter than what seems to have become the norm.

Your last comment is exactly what the England team thinking has got to, and I'd suggest looking at the AB's and Oz it's not true.

[Kermit power]

bonkbonk said:

If you completely forgoe size & power you'll lack a dimension in attack and likely get found out in defence - the 10-12 channel in your suggested team looks vulnerable

There haven't been many stronger defensive 10s than Jonny Wilkinson, and whilst other players may have grown somewhat since his peak, they did most of their growing before he started - by far the biggest increase in average player size was between the '91 & '95 World Cups.

He was 5'10 and 14 stone, and had a track record of breaking much bigger blokes into pieces. Technique comes well before size and power.

[London424]

Ireland seemed to do fairly well with odriscoll, d'arcy and sexton

[0000]

a311 said:

In the West something like 14% of men are taller than 6' only something like 3% are 6'2" or above.

It'll probably be higher in the UK than most and even higher in the, say, 20-35 age bracket. Would be interesting to know how the height increases, and weight for that matter, on the pitch compare to the general population over the last 20 years.

a311 said:

Anyone else want to see proper lineouts back and ban lifitng? They used to be real contests!

Gets my vote.

[CR6ZZ]

Just going back to scrums. The problem appears to be collapsing because the opposing props either don't bind correctly, bore in at an angle or lose their balance. Is allowing the props to hold themselves up using their outside arm (i.e. putting their hand on the ground) a way forward, or has this been tried before and I've missed it?

[Derek Smith]

Kermit power said:

There haven't been many stronger defensive 10s than Jonny Wilkinson, and whilst other players may have grown somewhat since his peak, they did most of their growing before he started - by far the biggest increase in average player size was between the '91 & '95 World Cups.

He was 5'10 and 14 stone, and had a track record of breaking much bigger blokes into pieces. Technique comes well before size and power.

I agree with the point of your post, but would point out that, if memory serves, Wilkinson did have one or two injuries in his career that kept him hors do combat for extended periods.

[DocJock]

He did indeed. Mostly as a result of tackling some big fellas as well.

[Kermit power]

Derek Smith said:

Kermit power said:

There haven't been many stronger defensive 10s than Jonny Wilkinson, and whilst other players may have grown somewhat since his peak, they did most of their growing before he started - by far the biggest increase in average player size was between the '91 & '95 World Cups.

He was 5'10 and 14 stone, and had a track record of breaking much bigger blokes into pieces. Technique comes well before size and power.

I agree with the point of your post, but would point out that, if memory serves, Wilkinson did have one or two injuries in his career that kept him hors do combat for extended periods.

True, but then again the Welsh giants have hardly been injury free, and George North is a good indicator of the fact that no matter how much you bulk up your body, there's only so much you can do to protect your brain from concussion.

[bonkbonk]

London424 said:

It's very much their approach! Yes they have some bigger guys that can and do play. But of 6 backs on the pitch they'll have maybe 2 big boys. The rest are significantly lighter than what seems to have become the norm.

Your last comment is exactly what the England team thinking has got to, and I'd suggest looking at the AB's and Oz it's not true.

I'd suggest it's absolutely true that they don't forgoe mass & power - from your own words they typically incorporate a couple of bigger guys in their backlines. My thoughts are that a backline of Youngs, Ford, May, Slade, JJ, Watson, Brown is a little light on those commodities and this could be problematic.

I completely agree with you that it shouldn't be prioritised at all costs and should come with ball-playing skills, and I could happily not see brad barritt in an england shirt ever again, but having one or two Tuilagi/Burgess (with a couple more years experience) type players in the set-up only makes the team stronger in my opinion.

That said I think that any one of the backlines fielded by England in the world cup was capable of winning the game - for me the problems came from a distinctly average back-row and poor decision making.

London424 said:

Ireland seemed to do fairly well with odriscoll, d'arcy and sexton

Yes but that's two of the best northern hemisphere players of the last ten years coupled with a very strong back row. And even then they've only ever done alright - got out-muscled by the welsh in the last world cup and I don't even know that they got out of the group stages the time before. I've often thought their lack of powerful ball-carriers has been one of the things stopping them from being a truly world-class team.

[Joey Ramone]

bonkbonk said:

I completely agree with you that it shouldn't be prioritised at all costs and should come with ball-playing skills, and I could happily not see brad barritt in an england shirt ever again,

Judging from the makeup of the RFU panel about to run the ruler over Lancaster et al, you may as well get used to seeing Barrit in the midfield. Or 7. As captain.

Shocking.