RugbyRebels

Just for nostalgia I watched the England V Scotland match from 1986 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0NqVGmWGJ) which despite England receiving a massive thumping from the Scots was a helluva match to watch nonetheless imo. As one might imagine, the tight 5 forwards of this area are rarely seen outside the set piece and rucks and mauls but the mobility of the flankers (Winterbottom and Calder in particular) seems incredible, making professional era flankers seem rather on the heavy, immobile side by comparison. For instance I can't see any of Curry, Underhill or Earl, as powerful and well conditioned as they underdoubtably are being able to get all over the ground in a test match in the same way as the two aformentioned legends did in thid match and similarly seem far less likely or even capable of supporting the backs in linking moves (to be fair Curry did used to do this at one point).

Maybe there's a bit too much emphasis on asking all the flankers to get as big and heavy as they can to be hard yards carriers and not enough on developing the skills and pace needed to be the link between the forwards and backs? This doesn't just apply to England and somehow backrow play in the professional era just doesn't seem quite as skillful with the noticable exception of the likes of Tipuric and some of the current French forwards like Woki, Ollivon and Secolou?

Your link didn't work, but that one did for me, looks like you cut a letter?

I've just watched the first 10 minutes from the kickoff, Scots have just scored a penalty and Eng restarted. There's been no more than 3 passes. 3 tackles + rucks (though advantage played out and stopped after each), 3 penalties, 3 scrums, 3 lineouts I believe, 3 kicks in play and a maul. Oh, and Brian Atkins needs to go and meet Gordon Parker .

Now maybe it gets going after that period, but there's no comparison as to which group would need to be fitter.

Next 6 minutes is another 3 passes (from the lineouts/lineout mauls). Another 4 kicks, 1 penalty (kicked to touch) another 4 lineouts, 1 tackle and ruck. 1 maul.

I'm stopping now. You cannot seriously believe that it's faster/harder than modern rugby, surely? Is there a particular passage of play you think highlights their superior fitness?

Raggs wrote:Next 6 minutes is another 3 passes (from the lineouts/lineout mauls). Another 4 kicks, 1 penalty (kicked to touch) another 4 lineouts, 1 tackle and ruck. 1 maul.

I'm stopping now. You cannot seriously believe that it's faster/harder than modern rugby, surely? Is there a particular passage of play you think highlights their superior fitness?

Watch England and Scotland no.7 flankers (especially in second half ) - my point wasn't the the game was faster/harder pre-professionalism which of course it wasn't - but that in certain positions (notably flanker) the skill levels and mobility have been sacrificed in favour of all out ball carrying power.
In the period of this match test flankers were often around the 14/15 stone mark now even the smallest of test flankers weigh in at 16 stone+ and I'm just saying I think something's been lost as result (to be honest one could say this applies to many modern day backs too, especially some inside centre crash ball merchants!).

By contrast locks and front rows have somehow managed to get even bigger yet more mobile with the advent of professionalism.

The reason the 7's seem more mobile is that their role was very much to be the only forward who were. They had to be first to every ruck because none of the other fat bastards were going to get there.

The most striking thing about this is how far we've come with cleaning up the brutality. The professional game is still brutal, but the controlled aggression is very much linked to fitness. Most of the forward play is just cheap shots bred from fatigue, even within the first 10 minutes!

Watching this makes me realise that while I loved playing the game (especially as a forward), lord knows if I'd ever bother to watch it if it was still like this...

Almost makes me feel sorry for the backs...

Raggs wrote:Next 6 minutes is another 3 passes (from the lineouts/lineout mauls). Another 4 kicks, 1 penalty (kicked to touch) another 4 lineouts, 1 tackle and ruck. 1 maul.

I'm stopping now. You cannot seriously believe that it's faster/harder than modern rugby, surely? Is there a particular passage of play you think highlights their superior fitness?

I can't believe this idea is even worth speculating on. Which isn't to criticise the players back in the 70s and 80s, they played the game that was presented to them just as do the players of today. But there shouldn't even be a debate as to whether modern players are not only more powerful and explosive but also faster and covering far more ground, christ there's a decent chance props now cover more ground than did flankers then.

There is back then in relative terms to other players 7s would have looked quicker, but in absolute terms not even the beginnings of a prayer, and actually that would also hold if we compared the game back in the 90s or even 00s to today's game. But saying they look better in relative terms is like saying 80s standoffs looked like they had more time on the ball owing to their handling, movement and decision making threats rather than defences didn't put any pressure on them by comparison

The only interesting part of this is given the game of today is fundamentally different to even where we were 15 yers ago where will the game be in another 15 years?

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:The reason the 7's seem more mobile is that their role was very much to be the only forward who were. They had to be first to every ruck because none of the other fat bastards were going to get there.

The most striking thing about this is how far we've come with cleaning up the brutality. The professional game is still brutal, but the controlled aggression is very much linked to fitness. Most of the forward play is just cheap shots bred from fatigue, even within the first 10 minutes!

Watching this makes me realise that while I loved playing the game (especially as a forward), lord knows if I'd ever bother to watch it if it was still like this...

I wouldn’t have called any of Merve the Swerve, Andy Ripley and Hennie Muller fat basterds let alone slow ones and none of these played at openside
More seriously I do think flankers are conditioned to bulk up to the extent it does compromise their natural mobility if not necessarily flat out speed.

You've obviously got a nostalgia for pre-professional back row play, that doesn't really seem to be based in reality. All you need to do is look at Tom Curry who started his carrier as an albeit good, but underpowered 97kg flanker. He's now one of the best in the world and around 110kg. It's not rocket science, a good biggun will always beat a good littlun.

One might think that players in the 80s were more mobile, but putting to one side it's an odd thing to think the data doesn't remotely back that up. Which again isn't to criticise the former players of the game, they weren't playing the game as professionals and you'd quite reasonably expect professionalism and advancements in training techniques, nutrition and the like to play a significant role.

jngf wrote:

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:The reason the 7's seem more mobile is that their role was very much to be the only forward who were. They had to be first to every ruck because none of the other fat bastards were going to get there.

The most striking thing about this is how far we've come with cleaning up the brutality. The professional game is still brutal, but the controlled aggression is very much linked to fitness. Most of the forward play is just cheap shots bred from fatigue, even within the first 10 minutes!

Watching this makes me realise that while I loved playing the game (especially as a forward), lord knows if I'd ever bother to watch it if it was still like this...

I wouldn’t have called any of Merve the Swerve, Andy Ripley and Hennie Muller fat basterds let alone slow ones and none of these played at openside
More seriously I do think flankers are conditioned to bulk up to the extent it does compromise their natural mobility if not necessarily flat out speed.

I think you're ignoring the comparators that you get to see them against in the old videos. Winterbottom and Calder might look fast and mobile, but that's in comparison to the players of the time, who did not have professional sprint coaches, the speed of the game and defence of the time, which could kindly be described as casual, and the amount of ball-in-play of the time, which was about 1/2 to 1/3 of current test matches. I promise you that if you put Curry and prime Winterbottom in any kind of race or mobility or endurance test, the results would be Curry, Curry lapping Winterbottom, then Winterbottom.

Puja

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:The reason the 7's seem more mobile is that their role was very much to be the only forward who were. They had to be first to every ruck because none of the other fat bastards were going to get there.

The most striking thing about this is how far we've come with cleaning up the brutality. The professional game is still brutal, but the controlled aggression is very much linked to fitness. Most of the forward play is just cheap shots bred from fatigue, even within the first 10 minutes!

Watching this makes me realise that while I loved playing the game (especially as a forward), lord knows if I'd ever bother to watch it if it was still like this...

I wouldn’t have called any of Merve the Swerve, Andy Ripley and Hennie Muller fat basterds let alone slow ones and none of these played at openside
More seriously I do think flankers are conditioned to bulk up to the extent it does compromise their natural mobility if not necessarily flat out speed.

I think you're ignoring the comparators that you get to see them against in the old videos. Winterbottom and Calder might look fast and mobile, but that's in comparison to the players of the time, who did not have professional sprint coaches, the speed of the game and defence of the time, which could kindly be described as casual, and the amount of ball-in-play of the time, which was about 1/2 to 1/3 of current test matches. I promise you that if you put Curry and prime Winterbottom in any kind of race or mobility or endurance test, the results would be Curry, Curry lapping Winterbottom, then Winterbottom.

Puja

But Puja - what about your favourite flanker, Neil Back. All 5'10" and 14.5 st of him! (I'm not even sure he was 5'10".)

Spiffy wrote:

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:
I wouldn’t have called any of Merve the Swerve, Andy Ripley and Hennie Muller fat basterds let alone slow ones and none of these played at openside
More seriously I do think flankers are conditioned to bulk up to the extent it does compromise their natural mobility if not necessarily flat out speed.

I think you're ignoring the comparators that you get to see them against in the old videos. Winterbottom and Calder might look fast and mobile, but that's in comparison to the players of the time, who did not have professional sprint coaches, the speed of the game and defence of the time, which could kindly be described as casual, and the amount of ball-in-play of the time, which was about 1/2 to 1/3 of current test matches. I promise you that if you put Curry and prime Winterbottom in any kind of race or mobility or endurance test, the results would be Curry, Curry lapping Winterbottom, then Winterbottom.

Puja

But Puja - what about your favourite flanker, Neil Back. All 5'10" and 14.5 st of him! (I'm not even sure he was 5'10".)

Maybe in heels.

Back was one of the best flankers of his time. I am grown up enough to know that the last three words are essential.

Puja

The only viable discussion to be really had here, is how good those players from back yore would be if they were fully professional, with the time and training techniques available today. There is absolutely no question that a professional comes closer to maximising their innate capacity than an amateur.
As far as that question goes, my opinion would be that pretty much every player from back then, and put them through professional academies and development pathways; would either break mentally, and never get to actually play senior rugby; or they'd be the exciting, flair player, but not necessarily the most natural of athletes - which means that few of them would get as far as first team club rugby, and fewer would be trusted by national coaches.

Professionalism at age-grade seems to be about finding the most naturally gifted athlete you can, and teaching them to play rugby; you'd have to be exceptionally good at rugby to overcome that bias and be a naturally gifted rugby player who's taught to love the gym.

Which Tyler wrote:The only viable discussion to be really had here, is how good those players from back yore would be if they were fully professional, with the time and training techniques available today. There is absolutely no question that a professional comes closer to maximising their innate capacity than an amateur.
As far as that question goes, my opinion would be that pretty much every player from back then, and put them through professional academies and development pathways; would either break mentally, and never get to actually play senior rugby; or they'd be the exciting, flair player, but not necessarily the most natural of athletes - which means that few of them would get as far as first team club rugby, and fewer would be trusted by national coaches.

Professionalism at age-grade seems to be about finding the most naturally gifted athlete you can, and teaching them to play rugby; you'd have to be exceptionally good at rugby to overcome that bias and be a naturally gifted rugby player who's taught to love the gym.

I think that is quite an english thing though (I'm sure other countries may be similar). It comes from rugby not being being a very popular sport.

Imagine how much better we would be if all our players had been handling a rugby ball from the age of 4 so they had actually learned how to catch and pass with ease before they even got to an academy.

Watching ben youngs throw passes over peoples heads so they constantly have to jump to catch it and he is what - our most capped scrum half ever?

The sad thing is that Ben Youngs will have been playing with a rugby ball since before school age.

True. That said I reckon loads of english rugby players won't have picked up the game until their early teens.

Yep I very much agree with your point, just thought it a good way to further vent my frustration over Youngs! It is certainly an issue, and it’s not just picking up a rugby ball at a young age, which helps NZ, but also other similar games such as Aussie Rules and Gaelic football which have loads of transferable skills. In England you either play rugby or you don’t handle an oval ball.

Maybe one factor back in the amateur days was that there was always a place in the back row for the fastest one available from a list of otherwise similar candidates. That may not necessarily be the case now with England. Would Jones have picked Winterbottom, or in the earlier pro days, Croft? In a Billy V v Simmonds type choice, Jones will simply pick the biggger one perhaps.

The roles are also so much less defined. A 7 doesn't have to be the first to every ruck nowadays because there are other forwards with the fitness to get there first.

On playing from a young age, it's also the fact that there are so many other competing sports. I imagine the vast majority of pro players were also on the football team, the cricket team etc. Looking round my garden at the moment, we have a rugby ball yes, but also a football, a basketball, tennis racquets and a croquet set (he plays that with mum!). Whereas in NZ and the Pacific Islands, parts of Wales, South Africa and France, kids will know rugby and that's it.

Doesn't matter how deep the player pool is, you'll never get that kind of limited focus as an English kid. Also explains why so many children of former players are in academies atm.

I wonder if the exceptional athletes of yore would even be exceptional now since it feels like rugby has become better at attracting players from more diverse backgrounds. I don't remember much rugby pre 95 but I bet Watson has as good a step as Duckham.

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:The roles are also so much less defined. A 7 doesn't have to be the first to every ruck nowadays because there are other forwards with the fitness to get there first.

On playing from a young age, it's also the fact that there are so many other competing sports. I imagine the vast majority of pro players were also on the football team, the cricket team etc. Looking round my garden at the moment, we have a rugby ball yes, but also a football, a basketball, tennis racquets and a croquet set (he plays that with mum!). Whereas in NZ and the Pacific Islands, parts of Wales, South Africa and France, kids will know rugby and that's it.

Doesn't matter how deep the player pool is, you'll never get that kind of limited focus as an English kid. Also explains why so many children of former players are in academies atm.

I suspect many other countries are suffering similarly. There is more choice both for sport and social life. NZ is probably most resistant in terms of profile, but it's not that uncommon to meet kiwis largely disinterested in rugby.

Oh absolutely. But you get communities in all those countries where rugby is the only thing. Wales is closest to losing it I reckon, with football overtaking it in a big way. But England has never really had it.

padprop wrote:You've obviously got a nostalgia for pre-professional back row play, that doesn't really seem to be based in reality. All you need to do is look at Tom Curry who started his carrier as an albeit good, but underpowered 97kg flanker. He's now one of the best in the world and around 110kg. It's not rocket science, a good biggun will always beat a good littlun.

The thing is for me the example of Tom Curry expresses the counterfactual - in his lighter form playing for England pre RWC 2019 he was starting to develop a nice linking game (starting to recall the openside skills of the earlier era) - in his bulked up form I simply don’t think he’s as fast and in an effort to try and become this big ball carrier, this linking quality appears to have diminished - more the coaches fault than the players’s!

I can't believe I (or any of us) have been suckered in again by you slightly rephrasing the content of your weekly backrow/flanker thread, but here we are.

I think the term 'linking' is the key. The classic example in my mind is a 9/winger breaks through and there's the open-side right on their shoulder to keep the move alive, but are we playing that game anymore? I'd say the linking game between Curry and Underhill in particular has been very impressive, creating a number of linebreaks in the last couple of season. But you can only support the kind of play that is going on around you. Is there an instance you've actually seen Curry look short of pace or unable to keep up?

The game is so structured now, an openside can't just lurk for turnovers or line-breaks to support. Everyone has a job to do. It may not be the way you'd ideally deploy a player like Curry, or any 7, but it's what Jones is choosing to do. You could put Will Evans in the England side and Jones would probably just find that he doesn't do the core role as well as Curry, regardless of his fantastic pace/handling.