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.

Well I normally play in the centres but I've played a couple of times in backrow (an experiment unlikely to be repeated), once at lock (never again), wing a couple of times, full back once or twice but now I seem to be stuck at 10 as we have 3 good centres but no 10 and I'm the best passer/kicker of the three of us.

Quite a diverse rugby career then!

I have played for quite a while and now play for a social club so I get around the positions a little bit, especially if we're short a forward or if the usual full back etc isn't there. As I said we have 3 good centres and I'm the most versatile of the 3 so it's me that gets shifted about. I remained more as a centre/wing when I was younger and played for a bigger team but at a social team it's never that simple.

Me thinks the anti-size brigade are probably a little challenged in that area themselves.

When I think of an extreme of what I'm talking about I think of Jonah Lomu. He wasn't particularly known for his rugby skills, brain or dancing feet but he was very fast and very big. Mike Catt and many other good players can testify to that..

Yes many of us can trot out names of nippy tiddlers that have done well. But I'm talking about creating a team that can take on the SH sides and win. Something the NH sides rarely do and that's the real problem. I believe its no coincidence that Wales have got a lot closer to the SH that they also have a very large back line. (1/2p excepted). They still failed in Aus though.

Its absolutely laughable to compare Lee Mears with Bismarck duPlessis, or Matthew Tait with Jean deVilliers, just laughable. But we see time and time again NH sides fielding these little guys and coming a brave second. For 'second' read loser.

What is clear also is that international defences are getting better and better from Portugal upwards. The idea that little guys with dancing feet and an eye for space will overcome them is again just laughable. The SH sides recognise that power across the squad is essential to be a winning team. Unfortunately, England in the recent past has not.

I'm not saying select England players 'purely' on size alone because many other attributes are required. Its just that big guys who have those attributes will generally prevail. So let's stand up and recognise that fact and put in development schemes to achieve it. Some like Banahan will fail of course but with the right and relentless focus, some will surely succeed.

englandglory4ever wrote:Me thinks the anti-size brigade are probably a little challenged in that area themselves.

When I think of an extreme of what I'm talking about I think of Jonah Lomu. He wasn't particularly known for his rugby skills, brain or dancing feet but he was very fast and very big. Mike Catt and many other good players can testify to that..

Yes many of us can trot out names of nippy tiddlers that have done well. But I'm talking about creating a team that can take on the SH sides and win. Something the NH sides rarely do and that's the real problem. I believe its no coincidence that Wales have got a lot closer to the SH that they also have a very large back line. (1/2p excepted). They still failed in Aus though.

Its absolutely laughable to compare Lee Mears with Bismarck duPlessis, or Matthew Tait with Jean deVilliers, just laughable. But we see time and time again NH sides fielding these little guys and coming a brave second. For 'second' read loser.

What is clear also is that international defences are getting better and better from Portugal upwards. The idea that little guys with dancing feet and an eye for space will overcome them is again just laughable. The SH sides recognise that power across the squad is essential to be a winning team. Unfortunately, England in the recent past has not.

I'm not saying select England players 'purely' on size alone because many other attributes are required. Its just that big guys who have those attributes will generally prevail. So let's stand up and recognise that fact and put in development schemes to achieve it. Some like Banahan will fail of course but with the right and relentless focus, some will surely succeed.

I'll see your Jonah Lomu and raise you one Lesley Vainokolo, Matt Banahan and almost every large back

How about instead of trying to copy GB, who are very good at rowing, which as a rower I can tell you is a rather different sport to rugby, and instead we copy the best rugby playing nations, like, I don't know, South African (naturally bigger than us anyway and their physical approach failed in the S15 this year), Australia (who have Genia, who isn't tall at all and JOC who is something silly like 13 stone) and New Zealand who pick on a very different basis to the one you are suggesting! The only large backline you suggest is Wales and frankly their backs have looked impotent a lot of this year, 2 of their best players have been 1/2p recently and Shane in the past, and players like North and Cuthbert are dangerous because of their skill, not size.

Players like Cristian Wade at wasps and Joseph at London Irish are young lads just starting out...and their game is based on speed, skill and avoiding contact..ie hitting the gaps. They dont need size.

"game is based on speed, skill and avoiding contact..ie hitting the gaps. They dont need size."

They will when they meet the big guys. Believe me.

What you littleist people ignore is the time when a little guy gets caught by one or two big guys in a tackle. They just get picked up and dumped backwards every time. Then the backrow get blamed for being too slow to get to the breakdown and are usually faced with the breakdown being cleared out by the opposition.

"Players like Cristian Wade at wasps and Joseph at London Irish are young lads just starting out...and their game is based on speed, skill and avoiding contact..ie hitting the gaps. They dont need size."

And your point is??? What exactly have they done on the international scene yet?? I haven't seen them slaying any SH opposition yet have you? Have they won a RWC? Did that pass me by?

"The only large backline you suggest is Wales "

Don't you know anything about rugby?

Should be working instead of this, but here is a list of some f the best players in the world in each position:

15- Beale (6ft0, 90kg) or Rob Kearney (6f1, 95kg) or Israel Dagg (6f1, 95kg). Others at top level inc Foden (6ft), 1/2p (5ft10), AAC (5ft11 1/2), Lambie (5ft10), Medard (5f11)

Wings- Ioane (5ft 10 1/2), JOC (5f11), Jane (6ft), Gear (6ft2), North (6ft4), Ashton (6ft), Pietersen (6ft4), Bowe (6ft3)

13- Smith (6f1), BOD (5f10), Tuilagi (6f1), JD2 (6f1), Fourie (6f3), JDV (6f3),

12- SBW (6f4), Nonu (6f), Roberts (6f4), Fofana (5f10), Steyn (6f3), Barnes (6f)

10- Carter (5f10), Cruden (5f9), Michalak (6f), Cooper (6f1), Steyn (6f), Sexton (6f2), Evans (6f1)

9- Genia (5f8 1/2), Care (5f9), Youngs (5f10), Parra (5f11), Smith (5f7), Reddan (5f9), Yachvilli (5f11), Phillips ( freak and IMO the worst player on this list at 6f3), Peel (5f10).

My World 15 backline would be:

Beale (6 ft), Ioane (5ft 10 1/2), Smith (6 ft 1), SBW (6ft4), JOC (5ft11), Carter (5ft10), Genia (5ft8 1/2). The only player you'd be able to pick is SBW there. Now I'll do forwards

formerly known as Sam wrote:

FHs are mostly sub 6 foot.

Interesting that England use Flood, Ireland have Sexton and Wales have Priestland who are all over 6 foot and are pretty heft number 10s. Yet the young guns on their way through for all three countries Ford, Jackson and Morgan are all closer to five and half feet than six foot. Is that a sign that the fad for bigger players was indentified a few years back and is now being seen to be less important than finding players with the ability to read the game or is it pure co-incidence?

Yeah but the best FHs in the world would probably be Cruden and Carter right? Both 5'10 or below. So is Lambie. So is Ford, right? And JOC. And Cooper is taller than 6ft1 but he's the biggest defensive liability I've ever seen

englandglory4ever wrote:"game is based on speed, skill and avoiding contact..ie hitting the gaps. They dont need size."

They will when they meet the big guys. Believe me.

What you littleist people ignore is the time when a little guy gets caught by one or two big guys in a tackle. They just get picked up and dumped backwards every time. Then the backrow get blamed for being too slow to get to the breakdown and are usually faced with the breakdown being cleared out by the opposition.

Conversely, you could say that when these larger players meet smaller ones, they will need agility, pace and guile to beat them. Bit of a moot point to be honest, since it can be argued anyway.

No one's denying that there aren't positions for which there are minimum physcia requirements-prop, lock, no.8, etc. But to suggest a whole team should be over a certain height threshold rather than valuing other attributes is a little ludricous.

englandglory4ever wrote:
Its absolutely laughable to compare Lee Mears with Bismarck duPlessis, or Matthew Tait with Jean deVilliers, just laughable. But we see time and time again NH sides fielding these little guys and coming a brave second. For 'second' read loser.

Well its only laughable because the latter are top class international players and the former aren't. Size might be a factor in that but its certainly not the only or main reason. If Mears was the same size as Bismarck he still wouldn't be ... Bismarck.

I think size is important in rugby, in some positions it's crucial but size alone doesn't compensate for a lack of other core skills, technical ability and having the right mentality and nous. Being big certainly doesn't equate to being good and in some cases it can be even be a disadvantage.

I'd take Jason Robinson or Shane Williams over Matt Banahan anydays.

People like SBW, Jamie Roberts and Hosea Gear aren't good because they are big.. they are good and big.

englandglory4ever wrote:"game is based on speed, skill and avoiding contact..ie hitting the gaps. They dont need size."

They will when they meet the big guys. Believe me.

What you littleist people ignore is the time when a little guy gets caught by one or two big guys in a tackle. They just get picked up and dumped backwards every time. Then the backrow get blamed for being too slow to get to the breakdown and are usually faced with the breakdown being cleared out by the opposition.

What about when a large player hasn't got the turn of pace required to turn and catch a runaway winger, or the ability to run in a certain try?

The point is; it takes all sorts to be a successful rugby team.

Now Forwards:

8- Picamoles (6ft4), Harinordiquy (6ft 3 1/2), Parisse (6ft 5), Read (6ft 4), Denton (6ft 5) - so fair enough, this looks like a position where size is important but I hardly think that's revolutionary.

7- McCaw (6f1 1/2), Poccock (6ft), Rennie (6ft1), Warburton (6ft2), Robshaw (6f2), SOB (6f2), Ouedraogo (6f3), Smith (6ft5), Alberts (6f4), Cane (6f 2 1/2), Wood (6f5)- so a lot of variation here, the best 7s a little shorter tbh

6- Dusautoir (6f2), Burger (6f4), Kaino (6f5), Brown (6f4), Higginbotham (6ft5), Croft (6f5), Ferris (6f4), Lydiate (6f4)- pretty consistent at 6ft4/5 if we count Dus as a 7

Locks- well, obviously they are tall...

THs- Cole (6ft3), Jones (6ft), Franks (6ft1), Mas (5ft11), Castro (6ft2), Ross (6ft2), JDP (6ft2), Kepu (6ft2)- so not that tall...

Hooker- Bismarck (6f2), Brits (6ft), Best (5ft11), Servat (6ft), Tincu (6ft), Mealamu (5ft 11 1/2)- Not tall

LHs- Corbs (6ft1), Jenkins (6ft2), Beast (6ft), Healy (6ft), Woodcock (6ft), Roncero (5ft10)

Notice a pattern emerging in about 2/3 of the positions on the pitch?

Basically any policy that makes Will Genia, James O'Connor, David Pocock, Richie McCaw, Thierry Dusautoir, Aaron Cruden, Brian O'Driscoll, Shane Williams, Jason Robinson, Rodrigo Roncero, Adam Jones, Ross Rennie, Schalk Brits, Rory Best, DAN CARTER!, Digby Ioane, Leigh Halfpenny, Adam Ashley-Cooper, Aaron Smith, Danny Care, Vincent Clerc, Maxi Medard, Patrik Lambie, Kurtley Beale, etc less likely to play rugby is inherently flawed

CJ; also, Jonny Wilkinson won't ever have had a career!

New Zealand CLEARLY have the best policy of youth selection, they have absolutely dominated this sport. They split up youngsters by weight not age so that size isn't a factor impeding the development of skills. That appears to be very nearly the opposite of this concept!

Yeah but the best FHs in the world would probably be Cruden and Carter right? Both 5'10 or below. So is Lambie. So is Ford, right? And JOC. And Cooper is taller than 6ft1 but he's the biggest defensive liability I've ever seen

I presume it's seeing those smaller players, particularly Carter, show that skill and rugby brains is more important than size led the NH nations to look at utilising 10s irrelevent of their size. The examples I mentioned would have come through academies in the mid 2000's where the NH had a brief and rather fruitless obcession with size and bulking up. That is less prevailent now.

englandglory4ever wrote:"game is based on speed, skill and avoiding contact..ie hitting the gaps. They dont need size."

They will when they meet the big guys. Believe me.

What you littleist people ignore is the time when a little guy gets caught by one or two big guys in a tackle. They just get picked up and dumped backwards every time. Then the backrow get blamed for being too slow to get to the breakdown and are usually faced with the breakdown being cleared out by the opposition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWdn8Adt7P8

NZ have naturally big dudes though.. Mouris, tongans, figians etc are just genetically massive.

So the fact that they are so big genetically surely helps then.

I agree with you about spliting them up by weight! weight is offcourse the relavant point here- not height!

mystiroakey wrote:NZ have naturally big dudes though.. Mouris, tongans, figians etc are just genetically massive.

So the fact that they are so big genetically surely helps then.

I agree with you about spliting them up by weight! weight is offcourse the relavant point here- not height!

Well, they have very big,powerful players in power positions, like 12, but as shown above, their current halfback pairing has an average height of 5'8!

Anyway, haven't England been playing monsters in the backline in our recent awful years? Hape, Tindall, Banahan? How did that go?

banahan needs another go- yep i know i am gonna get ripped!!

mystiroakey wrote:banahan needs another go- yep i know i am gonna get ripped!!

He's lost some weight, and looks lighter on his feet. Wasn't bad at all in the 7s competition, but I think he's tanrished from his early International career. We may well see him back in the EPS at some point.

Banahan, used sensibly on the wing = fine. Not my favourite but usable certainly. At 13 or 12 =

fingers crossed for him .I would like to see him given another chance. But not at the expense of a different more expansive england

banahan needs another go- yep i know i am gonna get ripped!!

If he earns himself another go with good form at Bath and in the Saxons then fair enough. Based on last season that is unlikely but you never know players develop over the course of their career there might be more to come from him. Currently I wouldn't have him near the team as I'm sure there's ten better wingers based on last seasons form, that may change.

englandglory4ever wrote:Me thinks the anti-size brigade are probably a little challenged in that area themselves.

When I think of an extreme of what I'm talking about I think of Jonah Lomu. He wasn't particularly known for his rugby skills, brain or dancing feet but he was very fast and very big. Mike Catt and many other good players can testify to that..

Yes many of us can trot out names of nippy tiddlers that have done well. But I'm talking about creating a team that can take on the SH sides and win. Something the NH sides rarely do and that's the real problem. I believe its no coincidence that Wales have got a lot closer to the SH that they also have a very large back line. (1/2p excepted). They still failed in Aus though.

Its absolutely laughable to compare Lee Mears with Bismarck duPlessis, or Matthew Tait with Jean deVilliers, just laughable. But we see time and time again NH sides fielding these little guys and coming a brave second. For 'second' read loser.

What is clear also is that international defences are getting better and better from Portugal upwards. The idea that little guys with dancing feet and an eye for space will overcome them is again just laughable. The SH sides recognise that power across the squad is essential to be a winning team. Unfortunately, England in the recent past has not.

I'm not saying select England players 'purely' on size alone because many other attributes are required. Its just that big guys who have those attributes will generally prevail. So let's stand up and recognise that fact and put in development schemes to achieve it. Some like Banahan will fail of course but with the right and relentless focus, some will surely succeed.

Edited You utterly ignore the 'flies in the ointment' shall we say. You prattle on relentlessly about the SH sides without dealing with such annomolies in your argument as:

Gio Apoln

Will Genia

Quade Cooper

Digby Ioane

Conrad Smith

Fourie du Preez

Aaron Cruden

James O'Connor

Berrick Barnes

Anthony Fainga'a

Adam Ashley-Cooper

Drew Mitchell

Kurtley Beale

Cory Jane

Aaron Smith

Israel Dagg

Elton Jantjies

Bryan Habana

and last but not least Patrick Lambie, one of the brightest of all SA talents.

I can't actually believe I engaged you with that particular point, but the absurd tosh you were uttering forced me into it. Jog on.

On the Banahan point, as I said above he's lost over a 1 1/2 Stone so far and is said to be feeling a great benefit. He'll need to go very very well in the Jeff this season and he might get on the tour whilst the Lions are away.

Chjw, you've missed Aaron Cruden and Dan Carter

CHJ- he isnt a douche at all and makes a great point- you listing smaller olayers isnt gonna change that. In sport and development of sport sometimes you need to comprimise and become selective-pool your resources into making a few better over less resources for all comers.. we do not have the power to select 10 million englishmen and train them to a standard and then pick from them.

He is talking about a change in philosphy to maybe become better - his argument is a good one. Not sure if i completly i agree with him- but its an interesting and very valid concept

And Juan de Jongh

Ridiculous post that shouldn't have gone this far - think the OP is tall and gets some warped sense of superiority over other people because of it.

The idea that most current professional rugby players shouldn't be were they are cause they arent 6'3 is the most idiotic thing I have ever read on this forum.

But shouldn't the candidates for a academy (which I assume is where you are heading with this and which is a system already in place, actually...) be selected on aptitude at rugby, speed, skill and relevant factors rather than size which I genuinely think is way below all of the others on a list? I mean, bulk is far easier to add (even though it increases injury risk and doing so has ruined many promising players) than speed or skill or instincts, especially as an adult's size is very very hard to predict even with genetic information and epidemiology. And I can see no statistical relevance between height for slightly above averagely tall men and their eventual ability at the game of rugby. Whereas with rowing, your maximum speed and ability to move the boat are proven to be inseparably link to height and certain body builds

Artfull, I dont think anyone needs to concentrate on the 6'3 height- more about being selective- and is it worth spending more on a few players over less on loads. And if it is how to we select the few- what are the parameters

But the OP has very specifically stated that height is what he would use to be selective.....anyway I'm done with this post, its ludicrous.

ChequeredJersey wrote:But shouldn't the candidates for a academy (which I assume is where you are heading with this and which is a system already in place, actually...) be selected on aptitude at rugby, speed, skill and relevant factors rather than size which I genuinely think is way below all of the others on a list? I mean, bulk is far easier to add (even though it increases injury risk and doing so has ruined many promising players) than speed or skill or instincts, especially as an adult's size is very very hard to predict even with genetic information and epidemiology. And I can see no statistical relevance between height for slightly above averagely tall men and their eventual ability at the game of rugby. Whereas with rowing, your maximum speed and ability to move the boat are proven to be inseparably link to height and certain body builds

So why are our acamdemy players doing so well at age level yet not producing later on. You could argue because they dont get picked in the Arriva prem- well if thats the case why not develop the players that will get picked to play loads of games- and what is the common thing with them!

mystiroakey wrote:CHJ- he isnt a douche at all and makes a great point- you listing smaller olayers isnt gonna change that. In sport and development of sport sometimes you need to comprimise and become selective-pool your resources into making a few better over less resources for all comers.. we do not have the power to select 10 million englishmen and train them to a standard and then pick from them.

He is talking about a change in philosphy to maybe become better - his argument is a good one. Not sure if i completly i agree with him- but its an interesting and very valid concept

Sorry Mysti I don't think it is valid. The listing of those players does indeed have a bearing on the argument, completely regardless of whether we're discussing a future philosophical change in recruitment or not. The fact remains that with such ludicrous focus on one physical aspect you exclude others who can have a profound impact upon the game in a positive manner.

We're not talking here about recruiting everyone and then picking the best, you completely misunderstand the point. We're talking here about the veracity of the selection criteria laid down in the first place, which is in itself completely invalid.

mystiroakey wrote:Artfull, I dont think anyone needs to concentrate on the 6'3 height- more about being selective- and is it worth spending more on a few players over less on loads. And if it is how to we select the few- what are the parameters

Mystir do you not think coaches are already selective?

When a coach has two players vying for a position, let's say midfield.

One weighs 85 KG and is 6 foot tall. The other weighs 102 KG and is 6 foot 3.

He will weigh up the strnegths and weaknesses of both players and decide which one is more suited to his gameplan and vision, that is te player that gets the nod.

What Englandglory4ever is suggesting here is you look at physical attributes first.

Now in a sport where there is but a single function to pump your arms and shoulders as hard as you can for 2km of rowing, it might well be a very viable way to select athletes.

But rugby is far more complex than just physcal attributes.

Skills, vision, mental capacity, hand eye coordination, speed, technique etc all all determining factors when deciding who should be selected,

Our academy players have only been doing particularly well at age level for a few years. On the whole they seem to have stepped up too. If you compare the way we play to that of New Zealand it is clear to me that the deficits are in basic skills and not size. The best way to develop these is by removing size from the equation at youth levels so that big players have to develop skills to stand out.

You are talking about everyone and then picking the best- your saying that all is welcome with any body shape- which could waste resources.

If we set physical parameters and then just 100% focus on them- who knows we might produce a brilliant team

We might, but the evidence suggests not: that is the OPPOSITE of what by far the most dominant force in current rugby, recent history and the foreseeable future does. If our big players were any good, that might help your cause, but I don't see evidence that big rugby players in general are any better than average sized ones except at playing a 1D game that doesn't work any more. Also it is against the spirit of rugby

ChequeredJersey wrote:Our academy players have only been doing particularly well at age level for a few years. On the whole they seem to have stepped up too. If you compare the way we play to that of New Zealand it is clear to me that the deficits are in basic skills and not size. The best way to develop these is by removing size from the equation at youth levels so that big players have to develop skills to stand out.

are these players going to get into top teams and push for england spots?

And if you are setting physical parameters, do you base them on what you think is best through pure conjecture or on what current evidence would demonstrate the ideal person to play each position is? Because they are all different! And several are smaller than average height! (SH, FH)! If you want to formulate objective parameters for selection, you have to make sure they are objectively correct and as the best HBs in the world are small almost without exception, you have to assume that is the best Size until proven otherwise

mystiroakey wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Our academy players have only been doing particularly well at age level for a few years. On the whole they seem to have stepped up too. If you compare the way we play to that of New Zealand it is clear to me that the deficits are in basic skills and not size. The best way to develop these is by removing size from the equation at youth levels so that big players have to develop skills to stand out.

are these players going to get into top teams and push for england spots?

If we stop obsessing over height, yes. If not, probably not.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Our academy players have only been doing particularly well at age level for a few years. On the whole they seem to have stepped up too. If you compare the way we play to that of New Zealand it is clear to me that the deficits are in basic skills and not size. The best way to develop these is by removing size from the equation at youth levels so that big players have to develop skills to stand out.

Great point. Is this the way NZ do it at youth level?

Ok imagine this- going of on a tangent here- But Rugby doesnt utlise the whole population, its not part of the circulum where I am from.

Should sport even be part of a schools make up anyway.

Maybe kids should go to seperate sports schools one day a week.

Say we stuck all our lumps in the specialist rugby school and taught them skills all day long!

We could do the same for other sports as well. China does stuff like this- but clearly in an imorale way- However they arnt going anywhere. There will just get better and better and better- untill india or australia or whoever becomes the next superpower..

Do you think we would build a better rugby team in the future

It also depends what you think the aim of sport in schools is. Is it to win national pride later on or is it to encourage teamwork, determination and exercise in kids? Not that I think either is done particularly well at either state or public schools...