England Rugby can learn from GB Rowing Team

First topic message reminder :

I was delighted to hear Steve Redgrave speaking yesterday about the rowing development plan he had been involved with. Basically they had invited young people to trial for for rowing. One of the criteria set was that women had to be 5'11" + and men had to be 6'3"+ to be considered for the programme. They then went in to a further selection process based on aptitude.

Its clear from the Olympic swimming and rowing results that size matters in both the femail and male variants of the respective sports.

England rugby can learn plenty from this approach. If we want to beat the SH sides then a development programme based on these principles must be put in place.

AP sides must look to develop players that have the necessary physical attributes to compete with the SH sides. Indeed to win we must dominate and that means power across the the squad.

Let's say good bye to the days of fielding nippy tiddlers that are game losers. Let's look to develop a physically superior set of athletes that can dominate and win. Come on RFU rise to the challenge and just do it.

I have no doubt we'd get better Oakey but at the expense of other things. It depends how much sport matters

That would be my ideal plan- centres of excellance one day a week for all kids.

be it a sport, a science, or anything.

clearly that costs money though. But we dont have to base it solely on sport

It's a plan that could work incredibly well mystir, but selectively admitting some children over others into the rugby school due to their physical attributes and not their talents, would count as discrimination unfortunately. Therefore, such centres would have to be open to any children, unless they weren't publc and had an application process....?

The trouble is relying on ensuring the criteria to select is correct (there will be many areas of overlap so the experimentation required would be extensive and arguably unethical) and trying to avoid an Alamanth situation

And we get into interesting philosophical debate over whether the best outcome for society overrules the best or preferred outcomes for individuals and where one draws a line

Starting to make me cross-eyed CJ. Got to stop. I'm at work and it's embarrassing.

but selectively admitting some children over others into the rugby school due to their physical attributes and not their talents, would count as discrimination unfortunately.

Someone better tell the private schools that hand out rugby scholarships that then otherwise the Guardian will be up in arms.

I couldn't agree more with this article. 6'3" is a great cut-off. And I'm sure that England would still have won the world cup in 2003 without Jason Robinson, Josh Lewsey, Jonny Wilkinson, Matt Dawson, Neil Back, Richard Hill, Steve Thompson and Trevor Woodman. After all, they were just game-losing nippy tiddlers and we could undoubtedly have brought in a physically superior set of athletes.

Do you think that perhaps rowing and rugby are rather different sports? What use is agility in a boat? What use foot speed? What use co-ordination? What use spatial awareness? And yet all of those are vital for rugby.

Actually spatial awareness is useful as is coordination

formerly known as Sam wrote:

but selectively admitting some children over others into the rugby school due to their physical attributes and not their talents, would count as discrimination unfortunately.

Someone better tell the private schools that hand out rugby scholarships that then otherwise the Guardian will be up in arms.

?

ChequeredJersey wrote:Actually spatial awareness is useful as is coordination

But not quite to the same degree of course.

No of course not, sorry I'm just a pedant and a rower who is tired and overly sensitive about other people inexpertly telling me that rowing doesn't involve any skill!

ChequeredJersey wrote:No of course not, sorry I'm just a pedant and a rower who is tired and overly sensitive about other people inexpertly telling me that rowing doesn't involve any skill!

It certainly does. I capsized a coastal skull once and got carried a mile down current towards the Channel. Terrible day.

Guys, some of you have missed the point and others have actually got it.

I mentioned 6'3"= in the context of what Steve Redgrave did for rowing. I was not suggesting that the exact same size be used for Rugby. Its the concept of choosing a certain type of player with international sized physiques to begin the selection process. I accept that not every big guy will automatically be an exceptional rugby player but a more tailored selection process would find this out..

However, big guys make good rowers, basketball players, etc. Small guys make good gymnasts, long distance runners, etc.

I'm also arguing that a NEW talent identification and development process is required for the FUTURE. Its pointless trotting out small guys names that have done well in the past. I'm talking about the FUTURE. Don't forget England RFU have money and huge numbers of players to choose from but we still rarely beat SH sides. The obvious answer is that we need to be forward thinking to make changes. I'm suggesting that England look to other successful sports to identify what they did to bring home the Gold medals. There must be lessons to be learned if only the RFU would accept that what they are currently doing is not working in relation to the amount of resources they have available to them.

We need more than changing the coach every few years and selecting on a pot luck basis from a pool of hundreds. We need to find the very best people that can be developed in to world beating elite rugby players. I just happen to think that 'size' ain't a bad place to start.

Eg4ever, I appreciate that, I just feel that by continuing and increasingly emphasising size as a be all and end all, as something that you have to have to play rugby, you make young players focus far more on bulking up and less on getting better at rugby. New Zealand don't beat us because they are bigger than us- they aren't. They are better than us and those two things are not related as far as I can see. Australia are smaller but better. South Africa, here you might have a point, but even there it's more about the way they physically go into contact than their actual advantage in size. I believe our pack had a slight weight advantage over SA's? I'll check up on it.


I honestly, and I say this as someone who is not small (though not 6,3 by any means), think that focussing on size at any point is not only not the answer but actively detrimental to the English game

England rugby can learn from the NZ rowing team.
Allow people to choose the sport the love.
Help them to develop.
Choose people who will give that sport their everything and help them as much as your puny funds will allow.
Its the heart of the competitor as much as their size.

All teams are as big as each other these days (perhaps apart from a few asian ones?). However, Rugby remains a game for people of all sizes; let it remain. I really don't understand your points eng4eva; but I rarely do. This article is just one of many cobblers you've typed out.

size isn't important, it's what you do with it that counts, ask Mrs Hersh

So as engglory4eva would put it; between him and HERSH who is 'smallest' ?

8"

Hersh you lose, if thats you stood up how bigs your man sausage ..?

It's gone up to 9" now that you're here damage

Wow, after all the times I criticised threads for devolving into Anglo-Welsh man-sausage measuring contests* I never expected you lot to literally start one.

Just remember to keep it fairly clean will you - we are a family friendly site



* All that arguing over who's the 4th biggest has always seemd pointless to me.

Is that size discrepancy when you are touching or when you are engaged?

methinks the joke went over some peoples heads

oh jeez, did it again

Morgannwg wrote:All teams are as big as each other these days (perhaps apart from a few asian ones?). However, Rugby remains a game for people of all sizes; let it remain. I really don't understand your points eng4eva; but I rarely do. This article is just one of many cobblers you've typed out.

I see the penny still hasn't dropped!!

Well it certainly needs to dropped on your head me thinks...and be dropped from a very high building!

Morgannwg wrote:Well it certainly needs to dropped on your head me thinks...and be dropped from a very high building!

Oooooh! The violence is tangible.

I thought it may 'knock' some sense into you . But seeing as everyone is telling you that this is a load of cobblers (just like you were told this on your last thread about the 6 Nations), why don't you get with the programme?

Ok Mogs calm it down- he makes an ok point if you forget the height parameter.

Discriminatory selection can actually utilse resources so much more effectively!

there is no reason why it couldnt provide a winning formula.

How about looking at the common dna factors of winning rugby players and using that as a starting point..

BTW i am not joking!

Common DNA factors, 6'3 and over only, discriminatory selection

Starting to remind me of what some fella in Germany tried to do once.

DNA similarities?

Height parameters?

Forget about discriminatory selections, youve crossed the line into an ethical minefeild!!

You can't perform tests such as muscle biopsies on juniors, and you can't judge a junior players adult height accurately!

Myster

I see your point for resource utilisation but that only proves usefull when playing numbers, resources, and selection is all limited! If it isn't it is near impossible to select candidates accurately, and therefore most resources will be plowed into the wrong potentials, and the right ones get lost!

The UKCC type systems are large net style, they look for biggest inclusion possible and select reselect and dump what doesnt work out.

I am just throwing this out there as a theoritical dsicussion mate..If we wanted optimum performace it could be a way of doing it..

However i am very much in favour of getting more kids into playing rugby and trying to rid this almost elitest feeling(within parts of london anyway). Because for me its more important to concentrate on sporting participation.

I couldnt agree more, I dont think Londons suburbs or inner city communities stand a chance of becoming more rugby focused than say football though.

All kids need is a football and a patch of concrete/quiet road and they can compete with each other. Rugby takes far more equipment/area/know how.

The EPL clubs just dont have the money to brand themselves and compete with the prem footy teams.

Without sounding bad, in general the more parks/pitches in London the more expensive the areas, the higher populated inner cities and surroundings have much fewer green areas and therefore will never be turned.

You could be right. however one reason i would like push sports like rugby and cricket on to these commities is the moral ethics it seems to teach the players. Dont get me wrong i love football, but its morally bankrupt.

And has been for 10 years plus! It sold it's soul to the devil!!!

But is that a product of the sport, or just the sports popularity? If rugby and cricket do become as popular I have no doubt whatsoever they would sell their souls too!

Ok everyone play my sport then- Golf.. Forget the rest. The purest of them all

Nah [i]'ll stick with Kabaddi, as close to rugby as you can get without actually having a ball.

I also play the purest version, not the uuber modern version.

You actually play it??

They used to show kabaddi on Channel 4, I loved it.

bluestonevedder wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:No of course not, sorry I'm just a pedant and a rower who is tired and overly sensitive about other people inexpertly telling me that rowing doesn't involve any skill!

It certainly does. I capsized a coastal skull once and got carried a mile down current towards the Channel. Terrible day.

Ha, I remember capsizing on the River Weyl and having to pull myself up about three foot of concrete wall to get out as the sides were boxed in. There certainly is a lot of skill to staying dry on the river.

mystiroakey wrote:Ok Mogs calm it down- he makes an ok point if you forget the height parameter.

Discriminatory selection can actually utilse resources so much more effectively!

there is no reason why it couldnt provide a winning formula.

How about looking at the common dna factors of winning rugby players and using that as a starting point..
BTW i am not joking!

Yes because Dan Carter, O'Driscoll, Johny Wilkinson, Jonah Lomu, Shane Williams, Brad Thorn, Brian Habana, Christian Cullen, Martin Johnson, Ritchie McCaw and John Eales all have so much in common....

Solution:

Flyweight Rugby..
Bantumweight Rugby..
Middleweight Rugby..
Heavyweight Rugby..
and Superheavyweight Rugby..

Afterall, if all Flyweights had to fight against Superheavyweights at the Olympics they'd all have wings by now instead of medals.

Back to the serious side though... let's forget the Arian solution to rugby and just say if you're good enough, you're big enough. Didn't the smallest man in the field win the canoe sprint gold?

No heightist comments on 606 please.

Great news. Its started and I hope it continues. First we have SIM doing a full review to find out why the richest rugby nation in the world can't make the top 3 and now we have SL recognising that there are things to be learnt from our GB Olympian teams. It can only get better when people with vision take control. People prepared to reject the status quo. Hats off to Richie the CEO he is already making a difference in my view.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2188365/I-want-England-learn-Team-GB-cycling-success-says-Stuart-Lancaster.html

Good times Eng4eva.

The fact is posters love to just have a pop rather than offer alternative solutions. It is about looking at the whole process in detail and how we can maximise output!