Fast, big & Strong..... but why can't Visser tackle?

It's no surprise that I think Tim Visser is a gifted athlete. As an Edinburgh fan I have noted how usefull he'll be to Scotland when he qualified. He has and has already scored 4 tries in what 6 caps?

He's 6ft 5 and tips the scales at 16st 12. A big lad to say the least.

He and a few of his Scotland team mates had been recently snapped.... wearing not much shall we say and leave it at that. On a side note he man looks like he has been carved from granite, my Mrs often points out : "Why don't you look like that?" I have no response to said question, I go to rugby to watch the game not perv at the players.

Visser's size and strength are visable to all who see him play. With the ball in hand he is a threat and a fantastic strike runner (he has almost caught up with Sean Lamont's number of tries scored despit playing in 60 fewer test matches). He picks fantastic lines and with his blistering speed and power he often ghosts through defences and to his credit he has been the top try scorer in the pro 12 for 3 years running.

So ends the good news and onto the bad.

Why oh why does a man of his size, speed and power not put his opposition wingers on their asses when he is defending? He bought a rediculous dummy from Vainokolo and IMO it was criminal that he did not nail his man.

Everytime someone goes 1 on 1 with Visser in Visser's channel he should be thinking :

~ oh Jeebus! I'm going to get smashed! ~

But no, Visser's tackling is shambolic at best, and it's time to be open and honest about this embarrasing short fall. I still think he is Lions material, and the Lions would be very lucky to have him on tour. But unless he shores up his woeful defence he isn't going anywhere.

Why does it all go so wrong for Visser when he is defending? Has he been poorly coached? Is he a coward? Is he frightened?

Laidlaw is a small guy, about a foot shorter than visser and nearly 6st lighter, but Laidlaw never shy's away from contact. Sure he doesn't always bring his opposite number down but he always looks commited to stopping him. Let's just say it's not his heart I doubt, rather his strength.

With Visser it's the opposite. He looks like he doesn't want to make his tackles.

Discuss......

I think the tackle is the toughest skill in rugby to master. It's something you really need to be taught as a kid.

When did Visser take up rugby?

I think he played from a reasonably early age. His father was a Rugby player so I would assume he would have been encouraged down that path from a nipper.

It looks more like mental commitment rather than physical weakness.

The former is much more worrying.

Not sure it's something you can be taught, to be a tackler. You either relish it or not, teaching will hone your techniques but the will and desire is there or not.

Look at someone like Schalky, he'll just launch at anyone with the ball and no amount of teaching will make him a better tackler, whereas from yore someone like Latham had a good sense as well as good teaching to complete his tackles.. all my 2c worth only of course

It’s hard to say why Visser’s tackling is the weak part of his game.

I think it’s down to technique, I can’t remember who in the Tongan team it was against, but he was square on his man which left him flat footed when the lad ran past him.

At the same time there have been occasions when he’s been in the right position to bring his man down, he seems to fall off the tackle.

I know it’s an area he’s recognised/been told, is weak and he’s working on it, but it’s something that clearly needs a lot of work for him to know where to stand and how to bring his man down.

Oh and on the "why don't you look like that" chat, I also get asked this from the wife and my stock answer is "If my job required me to spend hours in the gym then I would"

...well for a start I suppose you need to draw a distinction between being able to tackle and able to defend as they aren't the same.

You can't make the tackle if positionally you are in the wrong place.

I'm not sure tackling ability is proportional to size anyways, often bigger players are at a biomechanical disadvantage against smaller players.

The likes of O'Driscoll, Gibbs, Bateman were the best defending backs for me and they were fairly small. This gave them an advantage though of being able to hit low to high and knock defenders backwards.

Taller players need to hit high to low on smaller guys, which requires more upper body strength and better positional play and timing. They don't have the same margin for error in terms of getting wrong footed because usually they don't have the same acceleration.

Big players usually defend better against other big players I think, especially out in the wider channels.

Warthog wrote:I think the tackle is the toughest skill in rugby to master. It's something you really need to be taught as a kid.

When did Visser take up rugby?

I dunno about that. Players are naturally gifted in different facets of play. In my old club the best tackler could only make the third team as he had terrible hands. It is much more technically difficult for a tall man to make a text book tackle. The ideal height in my view is between 5ft 7 and 5ft 10 for a text book backs tackle.
The big guys who are effective tacklers usually have an adapted tackle using more strength and grapple elements than the text book two arms around the legs. However the bigger guys are usually in the forwards where speed is not as much at play.
When you are required to make tackles on the wing at full speed with your opponent trying to go outside the textbook tackle is the most effective. If you are deficient in that area you will be shown up as many big wingers have been in the past. Including Bowe, Lomu and of course Cuthbert this weekend. It is actually quite an easy thing to correct through coaching.

Morgan got tapped up by Wales then capped for England before anyone noticed he couldnt tackle properly, its not unusual. If its just technique thats not an issue. If its timidity and a lack of agression/confidence and wanting to get stuck in (most flyhalves) then thats a real problem.

For wingers, its forgiveable if not ideal.

IMHO it's all to do with the area of skill aqcuisistion. I would suggest that Visser was an early developer as a child and was the 'big kid' who ran in 5 tries a game, received all the plaudits, and was selected for prof rugby by the time he was in his mid teens.

While in the junior system he probably destroyed every other player around him, and defencively was excellent, but never developed the tackle technique under pressure. More often than not he would tackle the smaller boys incorrectly but his size and strength advantage would compensate.

A skill is not a skill until it is performed regularly under pressure during a match, all the coaching and passive training in the world can't give a player the contact abilities, even high tempo training of tackling within small areas bias the defende too much and distort the defenders abilities.

I see this happen season after season, superstars at junior level who never quite develop an all round game, it's a huge flaw in the NH and the reason why the kiwis always perform the skills under pressure, make the right decisions etc...

Good shout bluesman ...nail on the head there sir

thebluesmancometh wrote:IMHO it's all to do with the area of skill aqcuisistion. I would suggest that Visser was an early developer as a child and was the 'big kid' who ran in 5 tries a game, received all the plaudits, and was selected for prof rugby by the time he was in his mid teens.

While in the junior system he probably destroyed every other player around him, and defencively was excellent, but never developed the tackle technique under pressure. More often than not he would tackle the smaller boys incorrectly but his size and strength advantage would compensate.

A skill is not a skill until it is performed regularly under pressure during a match, all the coaching and passive training in the world can't give a player the contact abilities, even high tempo training of tackling within small areas bias the defende too much and distort the defenders abilities.

I see this happen season after season, superstars at junior level who never quite develop an all round game, it's a huge flaw in the NH and the reason why the kiwis always perform the skills under pressure, make the right decisions etc...

Cracking post

So how would a player like Visser fix it?

Don't worry about it Radge.

Ultimately, his knockers should remember just remember one thing.

He's Visser. You're not.

I'd not think it was a cowardness thing with Visser

For me crashing into someone when you have the ball is the same as crashing into someone when they have the ball. We all know Visser has no issue crashing into folk when he has the ball.

Hopefully, now he is part of the Scotland set up, maybe he can work with someone like Shlong (another big man) in the arts of defense on the wing.

Hopefully though, he's already learned to take the man with the ball rather than the dummy

George Carlin wrote:Don't worry about it Radge.

Ultimately, his knockers should remember just remember one thing.

He's Visser. You're not.

I am worried GC, and I am now knocking him. The way he got caught out on Saturday was a disgrace!

thebluesmancometh wrote:
While in the junior system he probably destroyed every other player around him, and defencively was excellent, but never developed the tackle technique under pressure. More often than not he would tackle the smaller boys incorrectly but his size and strength advantage would compensate.

The full post was very good, this bit highlights what I was going to say.

Tom Varndell is a similar case - at junior level his extreme speed and big size (maybe not as big as Visser but still 6ft 2 and nearly 16st) allowed him to get away with poor technique. If you watch him now he still offers players the outside before trying to then haul them down.

Glad to see there's yet to be Wumming on this thread - long may it continue!

Got a few points:

Totally agree with thebluesmancometh - I am a similar example (although significantly worse rugby player!) in that I developed very early and was a beast aged 12. I was a winger (must have been 5ft 10 at least as a 12 year old) and ran in around 5 tries a game, and didn't really need to properly tackle - I merely picked them up and threw them into touch! Anyway it meant that when everyone caught up with me I had rubbish technique. I am now a 6ft 13st centre/wing and have fairly poor tackling technique. I'd like to think I don't shirk away from any tackles - I'm just not overly good at it! I go in too high and sometimes take far too long to get someone down. I see the same thing in Visser - he tries to rely on his size and goes high - can't get away with that in pro rugby. I agree though it is difficult to get down low when you're 6ft 5 and running at speed


The other point is something that is a real bug bearer of mine - and this is something that definitely is coached. Visser, and pretty much all Edinburgh and Scotland wingers, defend far too narrow and deep. They effectively rely on the opposite man running past them and tackle them from behind. This is very risky and 1 - lets them get over the gainline far too easily, and 2 - you have to cover the distance quickly to get to them.

This tactic was plan to see against the ABs for Saeva's first try - Visser was far too narrow and deep and didn't get across quick enough to tackle him, so he was able to ghost past with ease.


So I think it's a few things - lack of ability from an early age, bad technique and bad coaching!

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Don't worry about it Radge.

Ultimately, his knockers should remember just remember one thing.

He's Visser. You're not.

I am worried GC, and I am now knocking him. The way he got caught out on Saturday was a disgrace!

Removing the tongue from my cheek, that is unfortunately completely true. I think that good coaching will help him and all positional play improves with experience. Took Shane Williams a couple of years to get his defensive technique up to speed, but he did in the end.

We need a good backs coach to help Visser as well as all of our younger players. Whatever Steve Meehan wants, we should pay it.

Sadly Radge I beleive there isn't a fix for the problem, when playing sport or training at junior level our body composition and psycological attributes get ingrained in us, skills or techniques become instinctive, and when at the top level 99% of hwat players do are not thought about beforehand but a reaction, an instinctive reaction to the situation at hand!!

IMHO there is very little coaching around at Vissers level to adress the problem for a number of reasons...

1) Visser and the coaching staff around him muct concede there is a problem, which is very unlikely as past experiences with professional players have proven them to be very defencive about their abilities!!!

2) Majority of coaching techniques from the age of 14 is far more biased toward performance than skill aqcuisition, basic warm up drills and energisers focus on ball in hand work, and any contact skills work done will be disproportionate in comparison to live game play situations, also a lot of touch and live game play done in training is very innefectual with regards to skill aqcuisition in adults.

3) With todays training methods, programmes and schedules finding the time to put into skill aqcuisition would be very difficult, and thats without the physical element of the tackle, he is a professional and therefore cannot risk injury by performing 100 tackle situations a way with non passive opponents, it would be too physically draining.

Has anyone heard the idea that it takes 10'000 hours of train/play to become a professional at something? Well if you take how large a proportion defence is in rugby and equate that to how often teams/players train for defence it's no wonder ball skills are far more developed. Also what a lot of people don't know is that this supposed 10'000 hours is calculated using junior participants who turn into adults, juniors aqcuire skill at a far greater rate than adults, infact I think it's something like 6/7 times faster.

Therefore if Visser needed 2500 hours of tackle trining/play and didn't get it as a youngster, he'll need to times that by 6/7 as an adult, where is that time going to be found???

I would probably blame the coaching to be honest.

Edinburgh are hardly known for their decent defense are they?

When half the Scottish side comes from a team with appalling defense it's hardly surprising most of them can't tackle.

Consequently Visser is a decent attacker because his team Edinburgh score a lot of tries and have a more expansive gameplan. Visser is obviously a big part of it. They bring him into the game a lot more and is their main attacking threat.

Visser is a true Edinburgh man - strong offensively but poor tackler.

Personally I think he should look to move to Quins. Imagine him at Quins!! They have great attacking style which would suit him but a strong underrated defence. A back three of Visser,Monye and Brown would be very potent.

Just for the record I wouldn't say Visser is a coward, he isn't mentally weak, and he isn't shy of the contact situation. It is amazing that ball in hand he is very brave and immensely destructive, although when the tables are turned he quakes.

IMO this is partly to do with the fact that he has never learnt to overcome the loss of his huge physiological advantages. It can be very difficult for teenagers to react when a kid they have thrown around like a rag doll for years suddenly turns the tables and in their view embarrasess them. I see it all the time, at junior level the most talented boys do the damage ball in hand and the less talented boys develop a far greater tackle technique out of necesity to stay competitive.

It's a downward spiral, child with the lesser ball skills makes more mistakes with it, gives the ball up and spends more time defending than the ball with better ball skills, the child with lesser ball skills never develops them and the child with the better ball skills never develop their defencive game. And this is all without the physiological advantages puberty adds.

So the children with the physiological advantage and therefore ball skills are selected for the elite teams, the lesser ball skills players are not (which drives me nuts because EVERY coach on the planet biases their sessions toward ball skills and the lesser boy who have great defencive qualities but lack the physiological advantage of the early onset of puberty would really benefit)

This has all just been compounded in Wales by a new and ultimately more flawed junior elite system where selection policy has been surrendered to PE teachers!!!

beshocked

But he wasn't brought up in edinburgh (was he?) and whatever the defencive system in Edinburgh an isolated one on one tackle should be bread and butter for a defender who IMHO holds all the cards and should control the situation!!

thebluesmancometh I agree it's physiological but that brings us back to the Edinburgh point.

I would like to see him at Quins.

Harsh on Edinburgh but it must be tough playing in a side losing and conceding so many points.

It's obvious - morale will always be higher in a winning side.

Mentally Visser must become tougher in defence and I don't think Edinburgh can give him that personally.

Well IMHO beshocked Visser will always be a weak tackler (see above) but yes the more the team struggles defencively the more his weakness will be highlighted!!

Being soft defencively is certainly not an Edinburgh thing, it's a UK wide problem, we are all working with the same junior systems, and coaches are all being tought the same techniques via the UKCC (don't get me started on that) not to mention the cultural problems of UK coaches!!

I tend to agree with Rodders,

Smaller guys do have the advantage when tackling...

I think we also need to remember that its not all about "smashing" a guy. If a guy isnt a confident tackler then just bringing them down is quite enough for me.

I wonder how honest the coaches are with players in Scotland - can you see them telling their start player that is tackling his crap and he's got to work on it?

Exactly RDW, everyone is applauding Visse for his carrying scoring, yetr not enough is made of his defence, IMHO he cost Scotland the result and scored what turned out to be a meaningless try v NZ, which was the more important action?

If you try to tell a prof player what he is doing wrong or how to improve the response will be the same 100% of the time.

Who are you? What do you know? Can you do it?

Coaches are too afraid of honesty, and when they do get the balls to give the team a rollocking it's a generic team one and not specific player. I'm not saying he needed to be screamed at in the changing room but certainly post game sat down with and told it isn't good enough at this level!!!

Geordie

Smallr guys have the advantage? That is such a generic non comment, similarly to smaller guys have the advantage at picking up a loose ball and taller guys have an advantage of vision around the park!!!

RDW_Scotland wrote:I wonder how honest the coaches are with players in Scotland - can you see them telling their start player that is tackling his crap and he's got to work on it?

I genuinely think he needs to move to one of the top English clubs. I am sure the likes of Saints,Leicester,Sarries and Quins would whip Visser's defence into shape.

Small guys have a mechanical advantage over taller guys when it comes to tackling...it's a generic comment because its a generic point.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Exactly RDW, everyone is applauding Visse for his carrying scoring, yetr not enough is made of his defence, IMHO he cost Scotland the result and scored what turned out to be a meaningless try v NZ, which was the more important action?

If you try to tell a prof player what he is doing wrong or how to improve the response will be the same 100% of the time.

Who are you? What do you know? Can you do it?
Coaches are too afraid of honesty, and when they do get the balls to give the team a rollocking it's a generic team one and not specific player. I'm not saying he needed to be screamed at in the changing room but certainly post game sat down with and told it isn't good enough at this level!!!

Sadly you get the feeling that this is right certainly for some players at least. You only have to see how some players (from all sports) react when they are criticised by an ex-player or pundit. You don't have to be an all time great to notice flaws in someones technique.

Crikey - this has all become a bit Freudian.

Ickle Shane didn't have a problem tackling man mountain Banahan. Perfect example of a little un being surprisingly good in defense.

Being big doesn't make you a good tackler - case in point Cuthbert getting run over on the weekend by NZ's no 4.

rodders

Biomechanically they have an advantage over tall guys using the techniques imposed by the UKCC, but taller guys have far more physiological advantage over shorter guys that will massively outweigh that, and a tall guy with a lesser tackling technique would still outperform a short guy in the same scenario.

There are reasons every sports governing body wants to create 6'4 athletes in their sports, it's just in rugby we're in an awkward in between phase of old style techniques coached across the board, by very poor coaches, and new style of junior pathways!!

Moving to a top English club will do Vissers persoanl defencive capabilities no good whatsoever, infact I'd go as far to say as that would make him even worse in the long run!!!

thebluesmancometh why do you say that?

Beshocked

Shane had far more strengths than Bananaman, firstly Shane was able to control the contact area (as he was very good at) because Bananamans agility, acceleration, speed, and ability to beat a man were all very limited. This proves my point exactly, Shane V Bananaman is the perfect scenario!!

Shane has played against players bigger and stronger than him all his life, spent ours working out how to stop these guys running over him (and they did for years) he was hidden at 9 for ages and noone trusted him at int level, until he developed an agility like no others, a tackle technique that was effective because bigger players tried to run over him, and the desire to put his body on the line to do his job (ala 1/2p)

He wouldve developed none of these attributes if he were an early developer at school, if he didn't have to struggle against every opposing player, and if he was hailed a superstar from the start.

So tackling Bananaman (who just tried to be the 12 yr old boys who run through Shane) was just what Shane wanted, it was when he was face with quick agile players he struggled!!!

So no Shane didn't have an advantage because of his size (he was always small and always a huge defencive liability) he got very strong defencively late on in his career because his size gave him a huge disadvantage for so many years!

Because beshocked if Visser is to progress defencively he has to get as much game time practice defencively as possible, ball carrying, beating a man and attack skills can be done in training but personal defencive capabilities (tackling( sorry if I'm being pedantic I prefer it to tackling it creates a sense of responsability)) has to be done in game. At Leicester, Sarries and Saints he will get much more of a ride than at Edinburgh, their defencive systems are far better with dare I say it better personell inside him and a simpler game to read regarding defence!

thebluesmancometh wrote:rodders

Biomechanically they have an advantage over tall guys using the techniques imposed by the UKCC, but taller guys have far more physiological advantage over shorter guys that will massively outweigh that, and a tall guy with a lesser tackling technique would still outperform a short guy in the same scenario.

There are reasons every sports governing body wants to create 6'4 athletes in their sports, it's just in rugby we're in an awkward in between phase of old style techniques coached across the board, by very poor coaches, and new style of junior pathways!!

Moving to a top English club will do Vissers persoanl defencive capabilities no good whatsoever, infact I'd go as far to say as that would make him even worse in the long run!!!

OK lets pretent for a minute that I know what the UKCC is...

Ignoring all other menchanical advantages that the taller man has.... specifically here I am talking about a standard front on tackle or even side on tackle.

The easiest way to bring a man down is to hit him either above or below his centre of gravity. Now as most peoples COG is between the naval an sternum that leaves a small window to hit them above, whilst still beng a legal tackles. Therefore easiest method is to make the contact at thigh or rib level.... which is much easier for the smaller defender to target.

When the collision occurs the shorter player has the lower center of gravity and therefore is more stable.

Now if you want to go above the COG and knock the attack backwards the smaller defender can still go for a higher risk chest high tackle.

The taller defender generally has to go high in the smaller man, which can, but not always give the attacker an advantage in the collision.

Note I am sort of making this up but it makes for an interesting discussion.....

thebluesmancometh wrote:Just for the record I wouldn't say Visser is a coward, he isn't mentally weak, and he isn't shy of the contact situation. It is amazing that ball in hand he is very brave and immensely destructive, although when the tables are turned he quakes.

IMO this is partly to do with the fact that he has never learnt to overcome the loss of his huge physiological advantages. It can be very difficult for teenagers to react when a kid they have thrown around like a rag doll for years suddenly turns the tables and in their view embarrasess them. I see it all the time, at junior level the most talented boys do the damage ball in hand and the less talented boys develop a far greater tackle technique out of necesity to stay competitive.

It's a downward spiral, child with the lesser ball skills makes more mistakes with it, gives the ball up and spends more time defending than the ball with better ball skills, the child with lesser ball skills never develops them and the child with the better ball skills never develop their defencive game. And this is all without the physiological advantages puberty adds.

So the children with the physiological advantage and therefore ball skills are selected for the elite teams, the lesser ball skills players are not (which drives me nuts because EVERY coach on the planet biases their sessions toward ball skills and the lesser boy who have great defencive qualities but lack the physiological advantage of the early onset of puberty would really benefit)

This has all just been compounded in Wales by a new and ultimately more flawed junior elite system where selection policy has been surrendered to PE teachers!!!

As others have noted, I think there's a lot of truth in this. I wouldn't limit it to tackling either. So many basic skills are absent form the teaching system. The home nations have had a lot in common in recent weeks - countless examples of an inability to pass, catch, draw / hold an opponent, offload the ball and support the runner. Pretty much everything I was taught as a kid.....that and how to tackle.

rodders wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:rodders

Biomechanically they have an advantage over tall guys using the techniques imposed by the UKCC, but taller guys have far more physiological advantage over shorter guys that will massively outweigh that, and a tall guy with a lesser tackling technique would still outperform a short guy in the same scenario.

There are reasons every sports governing body wants to create 6'4 athletes in their sports, it's just in rugby we're in an awkward in between phase of old style techniques coached across the board, by very poor coaches, and new style of junior pathways!!

Moving to a top English club will do Vissers persoanl defencive capabilities no good whatsoever, infact I'd go as far to say as that would make him even worse in the long run!!!

OK lets pretent for a minute that I know what the UKCC is...

Ignoring all other menchanical advantages that the taller man has.... specifically here I am talking about a standard front on tackle or even side on tackle.

The easiest way to bring a man down is to hit him either above or below his centre of gravity. Now as most peoples COG is between the naval an sternum that leaves a small window to hit them above, whilst still beng a legal tackles. Therefore easiest method is to make the contact at thigh or rib level.... which is much easier for the smaller defender to target.

When the collision occurs the shorter player has the lower center of gravity and therefore is more stable.

Now if you want to go above the COG and knock the attack backwards the smaller defender can still go for a higher risk chest high tackle.

The taller defender generally has to go high in the smaller man, which can, but not always give the attacker an advantage in the collision.

Note I am sort of making this up but it makes for an interesting discussion.....

Modern tackling isnt just about bringing the man down though, thats whats really changed since I was at school.

Players are now looking at driving theopposition back, and/or trying to wrap them so they cant offload, and/or turning them as they fall. There was of course also the short period where it was acceptable to try and pile them head first into the turf.

Theres a lot more to tackling than just getting low ...otherwise Peter Stringer wouldve played as a flanker rather that as a coward

Totally agree Peter. And again this is where the shorter player generally has the advantage.

That is why props are props and locks are locks. Because a short squat bloke with a lower center of gravity is more stable than a 6'8 guy stooped over.

rodders wrote:Totally agree Peter. And again this is where the shorter player generally has the advantage.

That is why props are props and locks are locks. Because a short squat bloke with a lower center of gravity is more stable than a 6'8 guy stooped over.

You could have said so many other unflattering things

UKCC is the governing body for coaching in most sports (some have decide to opt out understandably) and issues coaching certificates.

Right regarding props/locks, firstly locks height are advantageous at the lineout and props shorter frames and narrower levers suggest they would scrummage better (although I don't buy into both of these purely on that basis, and we wills start seeing taller and taller prop as science proves that taller men can output more strength to kg/cm ratio) It has nothing to do with the tackle or the tight 5 would be 5 big flankers!!!

Next the aim of the defender outwide is not bringing the man down, bringing the man down in the prof game out wide is the last resort, the key issues are wrapping the player up to avoid the offload, push the player into touch for the turnover or dislodge the ball somehow. Bringing the man down out wide simply creates a new offide line for your forwards to be pinged for, holding the player up is key as it slows the attack down and allows the defence to get in order, plus there is no offside line for longer. The attacker either wants to beat his man or go to ground quickly for a quick recycle!! There is an instance out wide where you would want to drop the attacker, when he's isolated and the defender can have a crack at the steal. But in general going low out wide is a risk you only take if you are really paniced (ala 1/2p v England and Shane V anyone)

Now there is a biomechanical advantage shorter guys have over taller guys but for the advantage of the biomechanics much more go against the smaller man, if your heading for a straight on tackle (of which there is no such thing as every angle of running and style of tackle occurs at some sort of angle, this winds me up when training coaches use narrow channels WTF) the forces behind a ball carrier coming from deep far outmatch the defenders coming out to meet him, and therefore the biomechanical advantage (which is small) is nullified, and thats not accepting possible weight differences, aggresion differences, the spear principle, and velocity aspects of thing, which all go in favour of the bigger man!!

COG is very difficult to judge and therefore should not (as a lot of players who go at hip level find out when they end up on their back) it is why players today tend to go high or very low (in the tight at least)

One big issue of defence today is winning the collision, not really outwide but definately in the tight. A taller man (where all varients are equal(weight, aggressions, angle, velocity etc)) will win the collision 10 times out of 10!!!

And all of this doesn't highlight the ability of taller men to perform at higher levels of intensity, for longer with much more cognitive function.

...and they have longer arms too

thebluesmancometh wrote:
And all of this doesn't highlight the ability of taller men to perform at higher levels of intensity, for longer with much more cognitive function.

Then why the flip is Devin Toner not better than Brad Thorn.....

You can be an international winger without knowing/wanting to tackle - look at Ashton

rodders

There are plenty more factors involved.

What I should have said was that taller men have the potential to outperform shorter men, the ideal height is 6'4 (being that height it is just a coincidence I swear)

I'm afraid this debate must be declared void due to the impartiality of at least one of the participants....

Are you claiming everyone else is neither tall or short?

At last a thread without a WUM and instead we get all "heightest"


(I'm only 5ft 8")

Put him in a ring for 6 rounds with Meatball and see what he learns!!