RugbyRebels

I'm bored by the current games and Scotland has a break anyway so thought I'd start a wider topic making ridiculous oversimplifications.

We've all seen stats of how players have got bigger etc. What do we think are the minimum natural physical requirements to "make it" (as in become a high level pro with a shot at playing internationally). I suppose the question is: if you knew a youngster who had all the right skills and attitude, and you were trying to work out whether they have a chance of making it, how slow or short do they need to be before you just can't see it?

I'm focusing on height and speed as more or less (less in the case of speed) they cannot be fixed by hard work and training. I'm measuring speed by a hypothetical 100m time as, although I know 40m is a better measure, most people have a better idea of what a 100m time actually means.

I'll start off:

1. I don't actually think there are any minimum natural physical requirements. Two 5ft props might even be an advantage and they can be fairly glacial.

2. Same as above but think they need a bit of pace. Maybe 15s 100m, quicker if you are small?

3. See 1.

4 and 5 - minimum 6ft 5 but don't need much pace if you are fit although it would definitely help

6,7 and 8 - didn't want to separate as there are examples of teams mixing it up. I'd say generally if you are under 6ft you have to have one of those wierd naturally dolly poly body shapes (Waugh/Watson esque) or be properly quick - maybe 13s 100m. If you are over 6ft 2 you can probably bulk up to make up for a lack of pace but you would still need something (maybe minimum 15s 100m though not sure B Vunipola could make 100m in one go but I'd still take him)

9 and 10 - If you are skilful enough I think you can still get away with no discernable physical attributes (though they help)

12 and 13 - I'd say no minimum height but you will need to be quite stocky to get away with being short. You will struggle I'd you do slower than a 13s 100m I'd say.

11, 14 and 15 - I'd want you to be running 100m in under 12s but you can maybe get away with 13s if you are big enough. No min height (individually) but I can't imagine Darcy Graham's lack of height will do his chances of playing fullback for Scotland much good.

So basically, pro rugby is still a game for all shapes and sizes as long as you are willing to become fat and play prop or play 9 or 10.

That's not actually too bad compared to a lot of (active) sports. Not many pro tennis players under 6ft 2 and I can't imagine many people make the Premier League in football without being pretty quick compared to the average human.

You don't rate the front row eh!?

The physical capacity of front rowers is crazy - any international prop would destroy aabout 10 normal people, to carry that weight and go at full pelt for 60 mins is a big deal

the reality of test rugby is that there is no height requirement for a scrum half or wing/full back but as in other positions if you are not conditioned (and that means gain of muscle mass), you are going to be hammered, in danger physically, and exploited by the opposition.
Elsewhere, its much the same, and there has to be a balance. If you pick 2 6'5 locks and 3 back rows like scotland did last week, you have limited options on your own throw (compared to france with 2 6'6 back rows) and vulnerable to be attacked.

And all around the park, at ruck and maul, an undersized team will be simply blasted off the park

Rugby is a game for all shapes and sizes. Sort of.

exactly, the french half backs are so good because of their pace and skill, if they just had skill they'd play pro D2 tops

paddy no 11 wrote:The physical capacity of front rowers is crazy - any international prop would destroy aabout 10 normal people, to carry that weight and go at full pelt for 60 mins is a big deal

Agree on that but compared to some positions it is capacity that can be built through hard work.

For example, I used to play someone who was an outstanding prop with potential to play at a higher level. He thought he was more naturally suited to backrow, and he was at the level we were playing. However, I think to have any chance to make it pro, he had to stay in the front row as he simply didn't have the combination of height and speed to make it in the backrow. He could bulk up and become a quick prop but whatever he did he would always be a slow backrow.

paddy no 11 wrote:exactly, the french half backs are so good because of their pace and skill, if they just had skill they'd play pro D2 tops

Pace definitely helps but Laidlaw didn't have it and still made a fine career (arguably his skills weren't the greatest either!).

Agree on combinations and balance Septic 9, was more looking at it from the point of view of an up and coming individual. Certainly wouldn't want a whole team at those minimums!

On that note, who's the best "slow" back out there at the moment?

Or the best small forward?