Ireland's injury woes due to lack of muscle mass?

We are not the biggest race of people in the world and I definitely think Irish players suffer a little if they aren't carrying that kilo or two of extra muscle. Some of the other international sides are just naturally bigger.
Look at the backlines of the other Six Nations teams – with the possible exception of Scotland, all the other sides have bigger backlines than us. I’ve always thought we need that bit of extra bulk.
I don’t know if this has been a factor in the spate of injuries but it should be examined when they sit down to work out if there’s more to them than just bad luck.
The IRFU’s game management programme has protected the players from having to play too many games so we have to look elsewhere for a possible reason. I just think that if the players had an extra few kilos of muscle mass, they would be able to protect themselves a bit better.
What I’m talking about here is the top level, the international players. I wouldn’t like to see young players thinking they have to put on loads of muscle as teenagers before their body is ready for it. But definitely at the professional level, I think we have suffered in this Six Nations because of a lack of size.
It might not be the main reason for all the injuries. They might all just be freak injuries, fellas getting caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. But at international level, you can’t be putting everything down to bad luck. You have to try and find out if there’s more to it than that.

Muscle mass is too simplistic, general conditioning and strength work doesn't seem to be at the level it needs to be.

Questions need to be asked about the physios, coaches and backroom staff.

I think the tactics, forcusing so much on defence and agression at the breakdown is a big factor, as indeed is the weather...winters are considerably colder in Ireland over the past few seasons.

Maybe the player management system needs to be looked at again. Players in other countries are playing more often and getting injured less so maybe wrapping players in cotton wool isn't the way to protect them from injuries.

The injuries are too common and too plentiful to be concidence with Ireland. Let's not forget this 6N season isn't exactly a remote occurance. The occurances of injuries to Irish players and the wilting of their efforts both in physical and mental preparedness as they go through Championship periods (6N, WC - even HC could be added to as Irish players sink after trials in it and then lose out in Rabo) is too common to be just passed off as a jinx year.

Something is wrong. And one of the things I see wrong, and I mean I visibly see it, is that most of our players Do look more like robust GAA players than modern day Rugby players. I know all players on the team don't necessarily require bulk but we all too often overall look childlike against most teams today. It has to have a draining effect in hard-hitting sequences of games.

Apart from players like Cian Healy,Ferris,SOB,Sexton,BOD,Kearney,Bowe.

We have our bears...but not enough of them.

More Horse power and less Horse burgers is what we need.

Sprint running leg muscles will get us the horse power...plus, running bloody well erect with our spines up straight. So many of our speedsters are so tense around the torso that they impede themselves. We need sprint teachers to show them how to run at speed and it doesn't include running with a hooped back all the time. Get off their spines and work the thighs.

Too much static ball and running into contact is the killer, multiphase dirge.

The players don't know how to play anymore. Its all rabbit in the headlights stuff, and the rabblt always comes off second best.

It depends very much on the type of injuries your are talking about.

Knee, shoulder etc are ligaments and usually you need impact to tear or injure them.

Calf muscles, hamstring etc, aren't usually impact injuries. Hence it hints at conditioning.

Not necessarily Biltong, acute tears and pulls of the connective tissue and muscle can be the result of build up of micro damage due to insufficent recovery.

These things can be down to conditioning or poor technique or both.

Isn't it just a case of other countries having more players to cover for injuries, so:

1. We don't have to rush people back before they are 100% fit (England can leave Tom Croft out for a year, but Ireland have to rush Ferris, or O'Driscoll back as soon as they can stand up.)

2. If England lose Corbisiero, then they can pick Marler or Vunipola. If Ireland lose Sexton you either have to go back to ROG (which would be like England reselecting Jonny Wilkinson or Andy Goode) or pick a complete novice.

nlpnlp wrote:Isn't it just a case of other countries having more players to cover for injuries, so:

1. We don't have to rush people back before they are 100% fit (England can leave Tom Croft out for a year, but Ireland have to rush Ferris, or O'Driscoll back as soon as they can stand up.)

2. If England lose Corbisiero, then they can pick Marler or Vunipola. If Ireland lose Sexton you either have to go back to ROG (which would be like England reselecting Jonny Wilkinson or Andy Goode) or pick a complete novice.

A closer comparison.com example, nipnip, for Ireland would be Wales (consecutive 6N champs now).

Our playing numbers are similar (we probably have more players, they probably have more ability in numbers based on the idea that the sport is more ingrained into their culture at club level.)
We have four Provinces, they have four Regions.
They can play for 80 minutes, even whilst losing and don't seem to have much of an issue with continuity when they need replacements.
We can only play for 40 even if we win and seem to go completely off form if one, two or three seasoned players are missing.

The answer is simple and it's all to do with tactics, or more specifically the lack of them.

The Irish players are having to "put their bodies on the line" far more frequently under Kidney than under EOS for example. Eddie's whole strategy relied on picking the same players all the time so he had to keep them fit and that meant playing a lot smarter. If the team is playing as a unit they spread the workload much more evenly and reduce the occasions where they expose themselves to injurious situations. A good approach that backfired on Eddie though because he built no depth to cover tournament long campaigns when inevitably there would be a few injuries to his Untouchables.

OTOH Kidney has introduced lots of new players BECAUSE his teams are incurring injuries. This is building depth but no continuity so players are having to make up for the lack of understanding in the team with passionate personal commitment - ergo more injuries. This same cycle of less understanding requiring more commitment also applies to the Lions, and is one of the reasons so many Lions' players come home injured or jaded through their "beyond the call" efforts to make up for their lack of team coherence.

Kidney's rugby philosophy seems to be that the players should know what to do themselves without being coached and a simple "give it a lash" in their ear should be enough to ensure success - that and them putting their bodies through pain that the opposition won't match. To reduce the injuries the answer isn't to play harder but smarter.

hugo124 wrote:We are not the biggest race of people in the world and I definitely think Irish players suffer a little if they aren't carrying that kilo or two of extra muscle. Some of the other international sides are just naturally bigger.
Look at the backlines of the other Six Nations teams – with the possible exception of Scotland, all the other sides have bigger backlines than us. I’ve always thought we need that bit of extra bulk.
I don’t know if this has been a factor in the spate of injuries but it should be examined when they sit down to work out if there’s more to them than just bad luck.
The IRFU’s game management programme has protected the players from having to play too many games so we have to look elsewhere for a possible reason. I just think that if the players had an extra few kilos of muscle mass, they would be able to protect themselves a bit better.
What I’m talking about here is the top level, the international players. I wouldn’t like to see young players thinking they have to put on loads of muscle as teenagers before their body is ready for it. But definitely at the professional level, I think we have suffered in this Six Nations because of a lack of size.
It might not be the main reason for all the injuries. They might all just be freak injuries, fellas getting caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. But at international level, you can’t be putting everything down to bad luck. You have to try and find out if there’s more to it than that.

Is this article plagarised? Seems similar to alan Quinlan's in todays times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/lack-of-bulk-could-be-the-reason-behind-ireland-s-chronic-injury-crisis-1.1331591/lack-of-bulk-could-be-the-reason-behind-ireland-s-chronic-injury-crisis-1.1331591

I think the Irish tactics under Kidney are more to blame than the size of our players. under EO'S we had a relativly low injury list and indeed it wasnt uncommon to see the same 15 lineout much more often.

Biltong wrote:It depends very much on the type of injuries your are talking about.

Knee, shoulder etc are ligaments and usually you need impact to tear or injure them.

Calf muscles, hamstring etc, aren't usually impact injuries. Hence it hints at conditioning.

Read this article Bill. Most of the injuries are impact injuries.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/lack-of-bulk-could-be-the-reason-behind-ireland-s-chronic-injury-crisis-1.1331591/lack-of-bulk-could-be-the-reason-behind-ireland-s-chronic-injury-crisis-1.1331591

'Small' men - (and let nobody tell me Ireland was ever stuffed with giants) - playing a Smal (South African) game.

And it isn't working because the Irish guys just can't do it over and over and over again. It's torture for the guys who have to stay on the field for a full game. Torture. And it takes any little individual inventive drive out of them.

Hit that, hit it again, hit this over here...quick! back here, hit him - get up, hit that guy, take that ball into contact.... don't offload, take the hit, take the pain. It'll harden you up. It'll make a man of you. It'll tire them out, it'll grind them down. The second half will be yours then.

You think??? As late as last year I heard words to the effect that Ireland first grind down teams before 'going wide'

Really? Against modern sides like England? Wales? New Zealand? Italy? Grind them down? With our boys? We're not that big Declan. We're not that big Foley. We're not that big Smal.

That's why Irish players are not the right shape - if we insist on this way of playing they would have to be. The only way around the issue is to change the plan and start avoiding the contact. But if the stubborn plan is to continue to try to bully big sides then the players just Have to get bigger themselves.

Fly, spot on and what some other people on here have been saying for some time. I think we have the front five (well four because Ross does nothing around the pitch) to play that sort of game, or at least compete. We don't have the backrow, or at least Kidney doesn't pick the right players. Munster playing the 'Munster way' had David Wallace and Alan Quinlan. We have a backrow doing pretty much nothing at he breakdown and totally ineffective carrying the ball.

SecretFly wrote:'Small' men - (and let nobody tell me Ireland was ever stuffed with giants) - playing a Smal (South African) game.

And it isn't working because the Irish guys just can't do it over and over and over again. It's torture for the guys who have to stay on the field for a full game. Torture. And it takes any little individual inventive drive out of them.

Hit that, hit it again, hit this over here...quick! back here, hit him - get up, hit that guy, take that ball into contact.... don't offload, take the hit, take the pain. It'll harden you up. It'll make a man of you. It'll tire them out, it'll grind them down. The second half will be yours then.

You think??? As late as last year I heard words to the effect that Ireland first grind down teams before 'going wide'

Really? Against modern sides like England? Wales? New Zealand? Italy? Grind them down? With our boys? We're not that big Declan. We're not that big Foley. We're not that big Smal.

That's why Irish players are not the right shape - if we insist on this way of playing they would have to be. The only way around the issue is to change the plan and start avoiding the contact. But if the stubborn plan is to continue to try to bully big sides then the players just Have to get bigger themselves.

Totally agree with that. We are small men playing a big mans game plan....and not doing it particularly well either.

John Hayes played every minute of every game to win the Grand Slam. He also lifted Paul O'Connell on his own in what was by far the best lineout (and which most tries were scored from).

I came across an article by Gerry Thornley about the failure of the world cup in 07. The only part of the team that went well was the scrum!

Boy, do we miss John Hayes.

Sin é wrote:John Hayes played every minute of every game to win the Grand Slam. He also lifted Paul O'Connell on his own in what was by far the best lineout (and which most tries were scored from).

I came across an article by Gerry Thornley about the failure of the world cup in 07. The only part of the team that went well was the scrum!

Boy, do we miss John Hayes.

maybe you should start a John Hayes article. that post has nothing to do with the above discussion

Over your head a bit - sorry.

John Hayes was well able to last for 80 minutes unlike our present lot for starters.
Secondly, he was fit enough to be a superb lineout lifter and not just be able to lock a scrum.

John Hayes was a freak of nature alright.

think you miss the point that we dont have too many players like this currently.

Sin é wrote:John Hayes played every minute of every game to win the Grand Slam. He also lifted Paul O'Connell on his own in what was by far the best lineout (and which most tries were scored from).

I came across an article by Gerry Thornley about the failure of the world cup in 07. The only part of the team that went well was the scrum!

Boy, do we miss John Hayes.

A team full of John Hayes'....well if you could breed a few of those clones to be elusive runners............ yeah, I'm with you, Sin.

I wouldn't mind a team full of 80 minute Haysers. But they will need to practice the offloading and the sprints for the line, with the one finger in the air for glory!!!

it's interesting. It wasn't that long ago that Wales were reduced to almost our U21 by injury. You will probably find that in the long run it will be a good thing for bringing through younger players.

mckay1402 wrote:it's interesting. It wasn't that long ago that Wales were reduced to almost our U21 by injury. You will probably find that in the long run it will be a good thing for bringing through younger players.

Getting rid of old coaches is maybe a better deal

hugo124 wrote:We are not the biggest race of people in the world and I definitely think Irish players suffer a little if they aren't carrying that kilo or two of extra muscle. Some of the other international sides are just naturally bigger.

According to people who spent their lives travelling from country to country measuring people Irish people actually are big ON AVERAGE. I've posted about this before. It really annoys me because not only is it factually incorrect but its a defeatist attitude.

The Irish players are leaner because they want to play a faster type of game. Thats what they're doing at the provinces. At the moment it's caught between two stools and the side looks a big disjointed and confused. NZ pick a similar type of athlete but they make use of the talent as well as having more talent.

You also have coaches at underage level who will put any big players into the forwards even though they might be more suited to playing in the backline. On top of that you have to factor in the playing numbers per country.

Another thing to factor in is the class of people playing. Rugby isn't a very rural game in Ireland, thats GAA. We don't have enough of the farmers playing it only the occasional ones like Hayes, SOB and Best.

The schools game dominates in Ireland so if you don't go to a rugby playing school your chances of making it to professional level are extremely slim. The odd player will make it through like Hayes and SOB. Interestingly John Hayes brother is having a good career with Exeter. He never even got a chance with Munster.

profitius wrote:

hugo124 wrote:We are not the biggest race of people in the world and I definitely think Irish players suffer a little if they aren't carrying that kilo or two of extra muscle. Some of the other international sides are just naturally bigger.

According to people who spent their lives travelling from country to country measuring people Irish people actually are big ON AVERAGE. I've posted about this before. It really annoys me because not only is it factually incorrect but its a defeatist attitude.

100% agree. Its such a cop out, drives me mad. Ive no doubt there are other more relevant reasons for the injury crisis such as tactics or coaching.

GunsGerms wrote:

profitius wrote:

hugo124 wrote:We are not the biggest race of people in the world and I definitely think Irish players suffer a little if they aren't carrying that kilo or two of extra muscle. Some of the other international sides are just naturally bigger.

According to people who spent their lives travelling from country to country measuring people Irish people actually are big ON AVERAGE. I've posted about this before. It really annoys me because not only is it factually incorrect but its a defeatist attitude.

100% agree. Its such a cop out, drives me mad. Ive no doubt there are other more relevant reasons for the injury crisis such as tactics or coaching.

We maybe average, but what you really need to know are the teams we are playing against are also average i.e, South Africans & English are definately bigger than we are.

Sin é wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

profitius wrote:

hugo124 wrote:We are not the biggest race of people in the world and I definitely think Irish players suffer a little if they aren't carrying that kilo or two of extra muscle. Some of the other international sides are just naturally bigger.

According to people who spent their lives travelling from country to country measuring people Irish people actually are big ON AVERAGE. I've posted about this before. It really annoys me because not only is it factually incorrect but its a defeatist attitude.

100% agree. Its such a cop out, drives me mad. Ive no doubt there are other more relevant reasons for the injury crisis such as tactics or coaching.

We maybe average, but what you really need to know are the teams we are playing against are also average i.e, South Africans & English are definately bigger than we are.

No the just select bigger players because they have a bigger playing pool to choose from.

I'd say a lot of the English players are over weight rather than big.

There may be evidence that Saffa's because of their Dutch heritage are bigger than average but they also have some small guys like Habana and Steyn. Its not all about size.

Saffas eat a massive amount of meat and come from hardy Dutch farming stock (massive generalisation maybe)

I know a lot of tall Irish people (Men and women) - its the Viking blood

Did anyone else notice our guys were puffing badly by the end of the games?

profitius wrote:

The Irish players are leaner because they want to play a faster type of game. Thats what they're doing at the provinces.

I fully agree with that profitius. There is a reason why Irish players are leaner...but the same lean players, when asked to play the blunderbuss rugby they get asked to play at Ireland (players forced to adapt to a gameplan theory rather than a gameplan being adapted to suit the players) they almost in unison come out hollering in defence of everything they do at International camp.

It's a great place to be. They love their coaches. There's not a blessed thing wrong that's not their fault and their fault alone. Kidney is a fine coach and should be retained.... All that gets said week in and week out. And yet the results keep going downhill, the players' reputations go down, they fall off International pace like flies, they get injured, they miskick and mispass and knock on and run away from support..................... and hit, hit, hit the opposition until they're punchdrunk.

And the thing is, in reality, they know it's all wrong - and they know their shape and conditioning suits a different game. But they keep throwing out the needless excuses for a bad system. Kearney who is playing woeful International stuff at the moment constantly defends the crud that is so different from the kind of coaching he gets at Leinster.

If it's all so good guys (players) ..why is it all so bad - time and time and time again?

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:Did anyone else notice our guys were puffing badly by the end of the games?

This is true, and most noticeable against Wales. We are punch drunk by the end of any game we play against them nowadays and they are barely sweating. They're fitter and stronger. You can even see it in the muscle tone of the Welsh guys. And in how they finish every game against us.

Remember we experimented with this Polish freezer + very intense training stuff before the '07 RWC? Well the players say they were fitter and stronger than ever before after that. But we were a backs oriented attacking team (with very solid set piece). But we went into the tournament and played sh!te. They decided that they had spent too much time bulking up and not enough time playing rugby and changed their priorities in building up to a tournaments. Players like BOD visibly slimmed down. But that was at the end of the EOS era.

Then Kidney/Kiss/Smal came along and changed the Irish tactics from the backs oriented game to the "grind them down" style. And we've never re-looked at our conditioning. Maybe the '07 RWC preparations would actually suit us much more now? Have we mixed everything up? Have we discarded the prioritization of bulk, only to start playing a style of rugby that requires bulk and extremely high fitness levels? Did we bulk up to much in '07 only to try and play a game that required us to be leaner?

Feckless Rogue wrote:

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:Did anyone else notice our guys were puffing badly by the end of the games?

This is true, and most noticeable against Wales. We are punch drunk by the end of any game we play against them nowadays and they are barely sweating. They're fitter and stronger. You can even see it in the muscle tone of the Welsh guys. And in how they finish every game against us.

Remember we experimented with this Polish freezer + very intense training stuff before the '07 RWC? Well the players say they were fitter and stronger than ever before after that. But we were a backs oriented attacking team (with very solid set piece). But we went into the tournament and played sh!te. They decided that they had spent too much time bulking up and not enough time playing rugby and changed their priorities in building up to a tournaments. Players like BOD visibly slimmed down. But that was at the end of the EOS era.

Then Kidney/Kiss/Smal came along and changed the Irish tactics from the backs oriented game to the "grind them down" style. And we've never re-looked at our conditioning. Maybe the '07 RWC preparations would actually suit us much more now? Have we mixed everything up? Have we discarded the prioritization of bulk, only to start playing a style of rugby that requires bulk and extremely high fitness levels? Did we bulk up to much in '07 only to try and play a game that required us to be leaner?

Also Feckless.... I never know what people know about 2007 and what they don't. But even then there was rumours that the problems didn't really have much to do with the Mr Atlas Irish players and their lack of play time.

All I'll say is that I kinda had rumours then coming from sources that might be trusted that it wasn't all about form. Ireland at that world cup was not in altogether happy place.

I suppose I'm saying I'm not so certain the beefed up players not being match fit was really the full picture at all. I'd try the Welsh conditioning system again. They're proof that it is not the whole deal (as they can still lose) but it certainly seems to give them a boost in the stamina levels they need to keep a high pace going for a full 80 - mentally and physically.

I'm still completely in the dark about how Ireland were so bad in that RWC. I mean, they should have lost to Georgia. After a 6 nations in which they were probably the best team, despite finishing 2nd.

What had happened between the 6 Nations and the RWC to make them so unhappy? Suggestions on a post card because I have no idea.

Sin é wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

profitius wrote:

hugo124 wrote:We are not the biggest race of people in the world and I definitely think Irish players suffer a little if they aren't carrying that kilo or two of extra muscle. Some of the other international sides are just naturally bigger.

According to people who spent their lives travelling from country to country measuring people Irish people actually are big ON AVERAGE. I've posted about this before. It really annoys me because not only is it factually incorrect but its a defeatist attitude.

100% agree. Its such a cop out, drives me mad. Ive no doubt there are other more relevant reasons for the injury crisis such as tactics or coaching.

We maybe average, but what you really need to know are the teams we are playing against are also average i.e, South Africans & English are definately bigger than we are.

It said we're bigger than average, not average size. Looking at average sizes on wikipedia, of all the top rugby nations, Irish and Australians are just about the tallest on average with South Africans (Blacks outnumber Whites there) the smallest. Whether its wrong or right it blows the "we're small" nonsense out of the water. Welsh posters were saying similar things a few years back too and I called them out on it. Now they've a juggernaut team.


At the end of the day any country can field a big team. Its only 15 people out of a whole population. A big team with talent is another story...


Declan Kidney picks the best players and expects them to adapt to his gameplan. He changes gameplans sometimes but keeps the same players. I'm a more horses for courses type of fella. I think if you're going to pick a certain type of player then play to their strengths. If you want a certain type of gameplan then pick players suited to carrying it out.

Feckless Rogue wrote:I'm still completely in the dark about how Ireland were so bad in that RWC. I mean, they should have lost to Georgia. After a 6 nations in which they were probably the best team, despite finishing 2nd.

What had happened between the 6 Nations and the RWC to make them so unhappy? Suggestions on a post card because I have no idea.

I must watch that campaign again sometime - and watch it with the stuff I heard about a little bit later in mind, and see do the performances make sense to me now. Yeah, that's be a good exercise.

SecretFly wrote:We have our bears...but not enough of them.

I think you've got more power than the England team. But then I'd like a similar remedy so fair enough.

I don't think the Irish are smaller are they? Presumably you have the same problem as we do in England - the best athletes go into other sports. In England it's track and field or football, do your guys not get hoovered up by your national sports as well?

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:Did anyone else notice our guys were puffing badly by the end of the games?

Probably lack of lung mass.

I think we're all getting confused with the words 'small' and 'big'.

They can mean such different things. I'm sure Irish are tall enough naturally.

Do they bulk out as much naturally (before the gym)??? Not so certain about that at all. I think English (Anglo Saxon) types have more natural expectation to have ...em beefy bulk, as it were - than the Irish, who are more traditionally sinewy. Hard muscle yes, but with little flesh padding fluffing it up! Stringy by nature as in Toner.

We just find it harder to have bulk rest on us...it goes and comes and I do think it's genetic in a sense. We have to keep in the gym and keep eating!!!

So it's not about tallness it's about what we are in bulk before gym work is added.... I'd still say 'small' despite the scientific evaluations that seem to prove me wrong.

SecretFly wrote:I think we're all getting confused with the words 'small' and 'big'.

They can mean such different things. I'm sure Irish are tall enough naturally.

Do they bulk out as much naturally (before the gym)??? Not so certain about that at all. I think English (Anglo Saxon) types have more natural expectation to have ...em beefy bulk, as it were - than the Irish, who are more traditionally sinewy. Hard muscle yes, but with little flesh padding fluffing it up! Stringy by nature as in Toner.

We just find it harder to have bulk rest on us...it goes and comes and I do think it's genetic in a sense. We have to keep in the gym and keep eating!!!

So it's not about tallness it's about what we are in bulk before gym work is added.... I'd still say 'small' despite the scientific evaluations that seem to prove me wrong.

I'll post something I posted here before. There were papers written on the different races of Europe back in the olden days. Two of the biggest include Dalo-Falid types and Brunns. Dalo-Falids are found usually in Germany while Brunns are most common in Ireland.

Its worth noting that in Ireland we also have whats called Keltic Nordid which is more common as you go eastwards.

Like the Dalo-Falid type, Brünns are typically tall, broad-shouldered, and large-headed, with big bones and heavy musculature [ie they'd have no problem bulking up]. In its unmixed form the type is usually quite easily distinguished from other local varieties, such as the shorter-statured, more gracile and more leptomorphic Keltic Nordid, with which it is cohabitant.

The modern Brünn inhabitants of western Ireland are mesocephalic to sub-brachycephalic, whereas their more easterly Cro-Magnid counterparts are typically long-headed. This is possibly due to the presence of a shorter-headed strain (such as Borreby) in the former, or to a local process of brachycephalization. The ancestral Cro-Magnid skull form was clearly dolichocranial.

The Brünn forehead is high and broad, and the face broad and mostly orthognathous. The malars are wide, the lower jaw deep and broad (yet usually not as broad as in the Dalo-Falid type), and the chin is prominent and typically clefted (the latter is foremost a male trait).

As with the other Cro-Magnid types, male Brünn facial features can be very ruggedly masculine, often with exaggeratedly pronounced browridges and deep jaws; the degree of sexual dimorphism is high, and a corresponding ruggedness is not usually observed among the females. As with Borreby women, these are typically rounder-featured and larger-breasted than the European mean.

The nose is moderately large, mesorrhine to leptorrhine, and straight in profile, with a considerable concave minority. The tip is somewhat thick, and frequently upturned. The mouth is large and the lines around the oral cavity are deeply drawn, while the lips are moderately thick and little everted. The upper lip tends characteristically towards length and convexity.

The skin, typically freckled, is very fair, and does not easily tan. The hair is brown and wavy, and often rufous (the Irish Brünn is known for its frequent red-headedness). Curly hair seems to be an Irish specialty. The eyes are light-mixed blue in the great majority of cases.

profitius wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I think we're all getting confused with the words 'small' and 'big'.

They can mean such different things. I'm sure Irish are tall enough naturally.

Do they bulk out as much naturally (before the gym)??? Not so certain about that at all. I think English (Anglo Saxon) types have more natural expectation to have ...em beefy bulk, as it were - than the Irish, who are more traditionally sinewy. Hard muscle yes, but with little flesh padding fluffing it up! Stringy by nature as in Toner.

We just find it harder to have bulk rest on us...it goes and comes and I do think it's genetic in a sense. We have to keep in the gym and keep eating!!!

So it's not about tallness it's about what we are in bulk before gym work is added.... I'd still say 'small' despite the scientific evaluations that seem to prove me wrong.

I'll post something I posted here before. There were papers written on the different races of Europe back in the olden days. Two of the biggest include Dalo-Falid types and Brunns. Dalo-Falids are found usually in Germany while Brunns are most common in Ireland.

Its worth noting that in Ireland we also have whats called Keltic Nordid which is more common as you go eastwards.

Like the Dalo-Falid type, Brünns are typically tall, broad-shouldered, and large-headed, with big bones and heavy musculature [ie they'd have no problem bulking up]. In its unmixed form the type is usually quite easily distinguished from other local varieties, such as the shorter-statured, more gracile and more leptomorphic Keltic Nordid, with which it is cohabitant.

The modern Brünn inhabitants of western Ireland are mesocephalic to sub-brachycephalic, whereas their more easterly Cro-Magnid counterparts are typically long-headed. This is possibly due to the presence of a shorter-headed strain (such as Borreby) in the former, or to a local process of brachycephalization. The ancestral Cro-Magnid skull form was clearly dolichocranial.

The Brünn forehead is high and broad, and the face broad and mostly orthognathous. The malars are wide, the lower jaw deep and broad (yet usually not as broad as in the Dalo-Falid type), and the chin is prominent and typically clefted (the latter is foremost a male trait).

As with the other Cro-Magnid types, male Brünn facial features can be very ruggedly masculine, often with exaggeratedly pronounced browridges and deep jaws; the degree of sexual dimorphism is high, and a corresponding ruggedness is not usually observed among the females. As with Borreby women, these are typically rounder-featured and larger-breasted than the European mean.

The nose is moderately large, mesorrhine to leptorrhine, and straight in profile, with a considerable concave minority. The tip is somewhat thick, and frequently upturned. The mouth is large and the lines around the oral cavity are deeply drawn, while the lips are moderately thick and little everted. The upper lip tends characteristically towards length and convexity.

The skin, typically freckled, is very fair, and does not easily tan. The hair is brown and wavy, and often rufous (the Irish Brünn is known for its frequent red-headedness). Curly hair seems to be an Irish specialty. The eyes are light-mixed blue in the great majority of cases.

Thats a lovely theory prof but with migration rates over the last 100 years or so I doubt there are many native western and eastern Irish still left. I mean for a start the 299 million Irish within the boarders of the USA had to come from somewhere???

My point is Dublin is hugely multicultural these days, not to mention packed to the rafters with U30's from all over Ireland, the gene pool will have mixed, people left and entered the city, there would be no way to categorise them into a strain of species around hundreds of years ago!!


To term Irelands current injury problems as 'lack of muscle' is ridiculous, the people are as conditioned as anyone, the whole rugby world is following the same techniques in that regard, an extra kilo of muscle is always tempting but in reality to focus on it will effect performance too much.


The only reasons I can see for an Irish tendancy to get injured is at club level, the day to day amount of training, intensity, frequency and type. Possibly conduced by maybe a certain lack of training methods provided to reduce injury such as prehab. There is a train of thought that injuries can be avoided and worked against by working with junior's fundamentals of movement, teaching them to land correctly, change angles of movement and improving flexibility at a young age, I'd say there were a number of Irish players who could improve flexibility.

Well on the Irish don't bulk out question

Paddy McAllister was Ulster born but brought up in Africa and he is huge.

Environment rather than Genes being the key perhaps

The genetics thing is a bit of a cop out, I believe it is down to the school system and age grade rugby.

I was at a talk with Chris Shields a while back where he was saying that young players are coming into the academys with muscle imbalances due to incorrect, inefficient training at school and they need a couple of years working core exercises with light resistance to get them ready to play. This is something he and Brian McLaughlin are working at up here. These imbalances are causing a lot of the hamstring/groin and ankle ligament injuries.... look at Luke Fitzgeralds physique compared to Bowe or North for example....

Was also at a Q&A session with Niall O'Connor last night and again he was hilighting that the club teams don't train enough and he had to do loads of training by himself to make it as a pro.

The grass routes system simply doesn't work. Schoolboy rugby is an outdated system and we don't have a high quality age grade rugby or club system to bring players through or prepare them to play top level rugby...skills wise or physically.... the academy system should be about refining players not developing them from scratch.

Also...the fact that PED use isn't as widespread over here because of or systems doesn't help us either..... there I said it ....

Is there less of a 'gym culture' in ireland than in Britain ?

Swansea is full of perma tan roid heads with massive biceps, Bristol isn't far off

geoff998rugby wrote:Well on the Irish don't bulk out question

Paddy McAllister was Ulster born but brought up in Africa and he is huge.

Environment rather than Genes being the key perhaps

Jesus guys, you'd all try to argue your way out of a paper bag!

What?............................. I'd be the chief arguer in the bag???? ____ Don't be cheeky!

Well, to get back to it. All these discussions include a word called 'Generally' - as in Generally speaking. You can't discuss a topic based on lining up an entire population and isolating them as individuals, getting them to step on weighing scales, looking at their teeth, asking them for the creatine samples from their urine etc...and then choosing John Rafferty from 64 Mountview Estate who is 15 years of age, is 6 feet 7 inches and seventeeen stone - and saying he alone proves Irish people are big, beefy and wear size 15 shoes.

I'm old enough, and I've seen enough, and I've travelled around Ireland enough to know we exist at a shorter more sinewy level than certain other cultures (Generally speaking)...

Dublin on a Saturday in Grafton street does not represent the menfare of villages and towns throughout Ireland. I know, I've been in them. Dublin is like a different country as regards stature and bulk at times. And even in Dublin, if you shift yourself into the less salubrious districts of the city, you'll find the more natural Dublin of old shapes....small, wiry, cheekbony,...now be careful trying to walk backwards out of those areas BTW;)

Irish people are getting bigger, taller more bulky yes...but it's only beginning in general and it is not at the 'Generally Speaking' level yet. We're stuffed with chirpy smallish backs looking for work and Provinces to play in for a reason...and we're not too hot in the forwards department (Bent had to come calling for a chance) for a reason. These naturally big boned, heavy set yet athletic big guys will arrive...but in Irish rugby right now, we could be doing with more of them.

As regards Irish International sides and how they look beside their opponents at Anthem time....look, I see what I see and nobody is ever going to tell me we're ever the imposing looking side in physical terms... We're never the imposing looking side.

[quote="SecretFly"]

geoff998rugby wrote:Well on the Irish don't bulk out question

Paddy McAllister was Ulster born but brought up in Africa and he is huge.

Environment rather than Genes being the key perhaps

Jesus guys, you'd all try to argue your way out of a paper bag!

What?............................. I'd be the chief arguer in the bag???? ____ Don't be cheeky!

[quote]

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about.

I agree with Rodders this talk of genes is a load of bollo

[quote="geoff998rugby"][quote="SecretFly"]

geoff998rugby wrote:Well on the Irish don't bulk out question

Paddy McAllister was Ulster born but brought up in Africa and he is huge.

Environment rather than Genes being the key perhaps

Jesus guys, you'd all try to argue your way out of a paper bag!

What?............................. I'd be the chief arguer in the bag???? ____ Don't be cheeky!

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about.

I agree with Rodders this talk of genes is a load of bollo

You used ONE man to 'prove' to me that Genes isn't an issue.... That's what I'm 'on about', Geoff. I joke around of course, but I also use clear English.

Why are Pacific Islanders like Tuilagi the shape they are? There are clear distinct genetic reasons for people like him. There are genetic reasons why Pacific Islanders find it much easier to bulk up. It's there in the science bibles.

Not to mention the fact Paddy McAllister is half-French.