Rugby’s age of the low skinfold giants
Roar Rookie
By Bruce Ross, 8 Nov 2009 Bruce Ross is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- australian, Ayoola Enrile, body mass, body weight, England, James OConnor, robbie deans, rugby, skinfold, wallabies
In 1991 England’s international rugby forwards and backs weighed, on average, 100 kg and 83 kg respectively. Their counterparts in 2003 weighed 109 kg and 90 kg, according to the England Rugby Injury and Training Audit 2002-04.
By comparison in this year’s Test against the Wallabies the England squad’s average weight had further risen to 113.4 kg for the forwards and 93.4 kg for the backs. Thus in just 18 years elite level forwards had increased their weight by some 13 kg and the backs by 10 kg. And a much greater proportion of the bulk of the modern player is lean body mass.
Present day players are not just bigger, but also stronger and fitter and, certainly with the forwards, much quicker than those of the pre-professional era. Thus there is massively greater force being generated in the game’s collisions, even without taken account of the modern two-on-one techniques of tackling. Little wonder then that the coaches’ preferred teams have been decimated by injury from both playing and training.
For this Test the Wallaby forwards were outweighed by about one kg per man and the backs by two kg. But there was a very significant weight discrepancy in the front row. England’s engine room five averaged a massive 119 kg while their opponents were a relatively puny 114 kg.
One of the greatest differences between the squads was in the players’ ages. Ten of the home team’s squad of 22 were aged 29 or older. By contrast the Australians, who seem to be taking the view that anyone over 30 is ready for the Golden Oldies, had just three.
There is a ten-year age gap between the ages of the reserve outside backs. Ayoola Enrile is 29 while James O’Connor is just 19. But this is inconsequential compared to the massive difference in their body weights. Enrile weighs 110 kg, a full 30 kg heavier than O’Connor!
Small wonder then that The Australian in late October attributed to Robbie Deans the view that “there could come a time when the Matt Giteaus, James O’Connors and Will Genias of the game simply find themselves too small to survive at the top level.”
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Queensland ready for Super challenge
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (6)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (19)
- Wales’ Davies banned for ‘tip tackle’ (3)
- Graham Henry’s rugby future confirmed (14)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (21)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (16)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- australian, Ayoola Enrile, body mass, body weight, England, James OConnor, robbie deans, rugby, skinfold, wallabies
Matt said | November 8th 2009 @ 5:58am | Report comment
..and the bigger boys won? No, it was the nippy Genia who had the last laugh!
Rabbitz said | November 8th 2009 @ 6:10am | Report comment
It seems to me that wrt the Wallabies the search for fitness has been at the expense of skills. Could the “scientific” approach to selection and training has miss an intangible- Rugby ability?
Or, just maybe the piggies are supposed to be carrying a few % more fat? It seems the old fashioned way was more effective…
Lee said | November 8th 2009 @ 6:34am | Report comment
You would hope that players are selected on skill first as it is more possible to bulk a player up than it is to teach someone certain skills properly – look at the Canterbury backline from last who won the Air NZ cup, none of them were huge but all very skillfull.
Unfortunately I don’t think this happens to often, especially amongst the forwards.
Pippinu said | November 8th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
This seems a very natural development – coaches and recruitment staff will seek to have their cake and eat it too (in terms of hte trade off between size/strength/athleticism and skill) – because clearly, if modern players have both sets covered, then they are way ahead of players from just one generation ago.
Spiro Zavos said | November 8th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
I think that the bigger players in rugby union get on average, the more room there is for the smaller, tough, skilful player. Will
Genia was man of the match for the Australia-England Test and he was one of the smallest players on the field. The same applies to Jonny Wilkinson who was magnificent and if England had won would surely have been the man of the match.
The thing about rugby is that it is still a game for all the bodies types. You need the taller timber, the squat props, the aerobicly strong and big flankers and so on.
In this regard the relatively tubby Benn Robinson was one of the Wallabies best, not only in the scrums but in the loose where he made breaks and won more turnover ball than George Smith.
CraigB said | November 8th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
there was no way the english front row had low skin folds, soft pie eaters all of them.
pothale said | November 8th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Talking of big and small, looks like KO picked the right match to go and watch an Englishman.
England’s David Haye beat the Russian Goliath giant, Valuev, in Germany this evening, to take the WBA World Heavyweight title.
Robbo said | November 8th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
and the man of the match was – Will Genia. At 174cm and 84kg he was the smallest player on the field. Go figure. Meanwhile Matt Banahan (the winger who at 201cm and 115kg looked a lot more like a lock forward) seemed to be one of England’s worst.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 5:36am | Report comment
He was a lock forward until a few seasons ago, Robbo.
Bruce Ross said | November 9th 2009 @ 5:52am | Report comment
And the man who carried three Poms at least 10 metres to score the Wallabies’ second try was the 98 kg Adam Ashley-Cooper, demonstrating that the combination of size, strength and speed can provide an advantage.
Knives Out said | November 9th 2009 @ 6:15am | Report comment
A fantastically dynamic athlete. Genia is another powerhouse. I can only conclude that it comes down to the shorter SH season.
pothale said | November 9th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
No, no, no. It’s the ELVs and the sanctions free kicks.
It must be.
Parisien said | November 9th 2009 @ 7:02am | Report comment
Or the beer they drink? Just kidding!!!!!!!
Robbo said | November 9th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Bruce – I’m not saying that size isn’t important. But, all other things being equal, picking a big player for the sole reason that he is big (which is what England seemed to do with Banahan) is plain stupidity.
I hope Banahan is still playing come the Six Nations – the 5’6 Shane Williams will run rings around him.
Bruce Ross said | November 9th 2009 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
We are in total agreement, Robbo.
Bruce Ross said | November 8th 2009 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Actually, Spiro, Genia’s published body weight was 85 kg and Wilkinson’s 88 kg. The smallest man to start was England’s halfback, Danny Clare at 84 kg. Their replacement half, Paul Hodgson, was 78 kg while James O’Connor, who didn’t get on, was 80 kg.
A decade or so ago an 85 kg halfback would certainly not have been regarded as small.
You correctly state that rugby “is still a game for all the bodies types.’ I have often heard your fellow journo, Peter Fitzsimons, express the same sentiments as “rugby is a sport that caters for all shapes and sizes.” Easy to say when you are 195 cm with a playing weight around 120 kg.
Craig, I agree with you that “there was no way the english front row had low skin folds.” But I would bet that 18 years they would have weighed at least 10 kg less but would have required over-size calipers to measure their skinfolds.
Danny said | November 8th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Interesting facts Bruce,
No doubt we have seen the professional era allow players to train to be bigger. I thought the English front row had been on the Beer and Kebab diet. They were huge men and did not have the same involvements of the aust front row in general play. Basic physics will tell you that the bigger-faster stronger guy will always win the contact. There is a place for the smaller agile guys, but power to weight and ability to survive the contact component of the game is something i see as the key element still moving forward. You will find Johnny Wilkonson defines my thoughts. Yes he is smaller at 88kg. But is one of the most gifted athletes in world rugby i am led to believe.