3,616 reads
New Zealand's All Blacks wing Sonny Bill Williams vies with Argentina's (No. 8) Leonardo Senatore. AAP Image/AFP, William West
Related coverage
A consistent debate on The Roar is the idea that modern players are overly focused on physical preparation. It’s even suggested that a fixation on physical preparation has led to an overall decline in the general skill level.
My initial reaction has always been to label this notion complete and utter hogwash.
It is obvious that the game today is much faster, more physical, and requires more skill than was the case before professionalism.
To suggest that the average skills of top level rugby players was higher before professionalism is to offer an opinion that is not supported by any evidence.
But simply considering the average skill level does not paint the full picture.
I have an idea as to why modern players are perceived as less skilful than players from earlier generations.
Whilst it’s clear that the motor skill level of many modern players is exceptional, it’s also true that many players are able to reach the highest level of the game because they bring a different skill set to the table.
To be clear, when most pundits speak of skills, they refer to the motor skills: hand eye coordination and dexterity of movement.
As a youngster, I would burn through autobiographies of past and present rugby players and other sporting superstars.
In writing this article, I’m reminded of something I read about Danie Gerber.
Many Roar readers might not recognise the name, but Gerber is arguably the best centre that South Africa has ever produced.
He was dazzlingly quick, powerful and amazingly skilful.
It remains a travesty that South Africa’s isolation from world sport denied Gerber the chance to consistently showcase his skills at international level.
I remember reading in Gerber’s book that he was always naturally able to kick with both feet. This skill was not honed over hours of practise; he was simply born with it.
Of course, Gerber did train himself to further refine his skills, but he, like many skilful players past and present, started from a foundation of extreme natural talent.
Before the game went professional, players with the highest skill levels progressed most quickly through the ranks and ultimately ended up representing their state or country.
I look at many modern players and I wonder if they would have made it to the highest level in bygone eras.
In some instances, I think it’s fair to say that they may not have.
As an outside back in the 70s or 80s, if one did not posses the fine motor skills to impress, there was little avenue to exploit other natural talents. Being required to work full-time did not allow players to spend endless hours on physical preparation.
When I played for the Wallabies, it was obvious that there were many club level players who possessed much higher levels of skill than I did. My point of difference was never fine motor skills; no amount of “skills” training would ever alter that.
Sure, I could spend hours taking a weakness to the point that it was less so, but I would never send the ball 80m downfield in the manner of Mark Gerrard or Chris Latham, or throw pinpoint spiral passes in the mould of Steve Larkham.
But whilst I was a Wallaby, nobody in that team could outrun me over 40m. I realised early on that my talents tended more towards the raw physical rather than the fine motor.
Anyone who caught the Highlanders vs Hurricanes match on the weekend would have been introduced to the rare talent that is Julian Savea.
The former junior world player of the year, Savea stands 1.92m tall, weighs in at 108kg, and possesses the kind of explosive athleticism that has other wingers calling in sick for work on Saturdays.
In time we will learn just how far Savea’s rare blend of gifts will take him. I have the feeling it’s not passing, kicking or silky subtlety that will define his rugby career.
And so it is that modern rugby has given birth to a type of player not previously possible.
Advances in training, nutrition and coaching have meant that genetically gifted athletes can refine their physical talents like never before.
There will always be a role for exceptionally skilful players, and it’s likely that it’s these players that will continue to add the most value to a team.
As fans of the game, let’s appreciate the rapier vs. the broadsword battles that are possible in today’s game. As I’m sure you’ll agree, Savea vs. JOC would be worth the price of admission alone.
Former Wallaby Clyde Rathbone has returned to Super Rugby with the ACT Brumbies, following an injury-forced retirement from all forms in 2009. He writes guest columns for The Roar, and will blog his journey back to professional rugby in 2013.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, Super Rugby
May 18th 2012 @ 9:09am
allblackfan said | May 18th 2012 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Danie Gerber paid the price for the politics of the day. At the end of the day, the bigger picture wins out.
He could have played overseas (I think he did for awhile?) and received more recognition although he was always highly rated despite his lack of international game time.
October 29th 2012 @ 4:59am
Mark Fredericks said | October 29th 2012 @ 4:59am | Report comment
I find it hard to swallow when people claim that Gerber was ‘arguably’ the best centre SA ever produced. What is the yardstick of measurement? Gerber was the beneficiary of a system of exclusion, which Springbok rugby of today celebrates. An example of the lunacy of Springbok rugby was highlighted when one Clyde Rathbone decided to move to Australia. there were howls of indignation, and even calls for Nelson Mandela to intervene. Around that same time, a player by the name of Bryan Habana emerged, and one wonders if he would had much game time had Rathbone stayed in SA. Many thousands of fine black rugby players were also denied doubly – they were denied the privileges that people like Gerber, Botha, Pienaar, Moolman etc. took for granted, and they have been denied even a place in history – through the retention of the Springbok, and Springbok history. SA Sports Illustrated – remains a fine example of how memory is adjusted to suit a certain agenda in South Africa.
Gerber may have been good, but to claim he was the best is pushing an inaccurate historical ideology. It is a travesty and crime to reflect on the price that black sportsmen & women had to pay, and still have to pay in the ‘Old’ and ‘New’ South Africa.
May 18th 2012 @ 9:16am
Spiro Zavos said | May 18th 2012 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Clyde, Everything in this interesting post (as usual) I would agree with. But the complaint from people like me about modern players is that they have spent too much time in the gym bulking up and this has restricted their athletic skills, and rugby skills in general. I reckon a classic case of this syndrome is the Waratahs. They tend to start each half with a hiss and roar and then, in most matches, fade away as their aerobic levels begin to deplete.
I read somewhere that Jonah Lomu NEVER did weights because he believed it would take the flexibility out of his running. He used to swim.
I would acknowledge that there is a place for intensive weights for the front row forwards. But for the rest of the team the emphasis, in my opinion, should be on strength training without undue use of weights and on aerobic fitness. In the great days of the Crusaders they were a team that even in the forwards had a lean and hungry look about them. The pack was a pack of wolves rather than a herd of buffaloes like their Australian counterparts.
May 18th 2012 @ 9:29am
Sam Brown said | May 18th 2012 @ 9:29am | Report comment
I’d agree with your sentiment about wolves v buffalos. In club rugby I’ve found the toughest, most intimidating and most effective forward packs are the ones made up of farmers, builders and labourers not the guys who swallow down protein shakes and hit the gym. They aren’t massive but they are tough, lean and hungry
May 18th 2012 @ 5:24pm
rl said | May 18th 2012 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
…and that’s probably why they are playing club rugby and not getting paid for it. And the ones hitting the gym and downing shakes are probably doing the “ego building” exercises or just wasting their time, and not the specific strength excercises cited by the former international level player and developing sports excercise guru writing this article.
May 18th 2012 @ 9:33am
Bakkies said | May 18th 2012 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Spiro, Rathbone was a good example of a player who bulked up too much. Not referring to his rugby skills and ability but the stress it puts on the body and injuries ended his career. Poor conditioning and coaching was his downfall. When I refer to coaching he came to Australia as a lean outside centre. When he debuted on the wing for the Brumbies after a year out due to injuries (he was never going to get the 13 shirt off Mortlock) he was a lot bigger and bulkier than his days for the SA under 21 team and the Sharks. As soon as Eddie Jones and co in the Wallabies got hold of him he was used as a battering ram off his wing which led too many concussions in matches against the Boks and PIs specifically. Still saw evidence of his finishing ability that he had at the Brumbies but little of the guile and evasiveness that he showed in his early days. He would of been a lot quicker if he wasn’t carrying too many kilos.
May 18th 2012 @ 9:34am
Ben S said | May 18th 2012 @ 9:34am | Report comment
I suspect that Lomu was guided by trained professionals, as opposed to deciding he wasn’t going to do weights of his own accord. I’ve certainly seen him do weights on various programmes on TV.
How do you do strength training without ‘undue use of weights’, and why the front row, but not the locks? I’ve also read lots of articles about how sides run and run and run in the pre-season until they drop.
The Waratahs aren’t exactly a herd of buffalo, they’re just a good to average side. That doesn’t mean they’re overmuscled. How can any side with Mumm, Halangahu and Carter, for example, ever aspire to greatness… Their lack of tangible success isn’t down to a gym culture, it;’s simply down to average players.
May 18th 2012 @ 10:19am
Rath said | May 18th 2012 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Bakkies, with all due respect to your opinion you have drawn conclusions that are not supported by the facts. You would do well to better understand that correlation does not imply causation.
Cheers
Rath
May 18th 2012 @ 10:48am
Bakkies said | May 18th 2012 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Clyde it was obvious to most supporters that you would have had a longer and more successful career in Australia if you had better coaching and support. To me those are the facts and if it wasn’t for injuries you would still be playing. We saw this with Ben Tune he was carrying a lot more bulk at the 1999 RWC and he hardly featured for the Wallabies after that due to injuries
May 18th 2012 @ 10:03pm
Pecs McGee said | May 18th 2012 @ 10:03pm | Report comment
I’m pretty sure the strength & conditioning coaches, physiotherapists and sports scientists who are employed by the Wallabies knew what they were doing Bakkies. Australia might not be at the top of rugby at the moment, but in general Australia excels at sports, in no small part due to their expertise.
May 19th 2012 @ 10:30am
Bakkies said | May 19th 2012 @ 10:30am | Report comment
There was no need for the Brumbies to bulk him up that much so early in his career. He was recruited as a centre and put on the wing. Look up the pictures from the Under 21s RWC in 2002 and you will see what I mean. They were never going to turn him in to a Mortlock or Herbert style player.
May 21st 2012 @ 7:53pm
mattamkII said | May 21st 2012 @ 7:53pm | Report comment
jesus, look at any athlete in any sport at the age of 20 and they’ll be bigger in 2 years….. In the future, how about you start forming some facts before you write.
May 18th 2012 @ 10:22am
Rath said | May 18th 2012 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Spiro, thanks.
It may be true that during his career Jonah never lifted weights (though I doubt it). I’m sure we can all agree that he is the purest example of a genetic outlier that rugby has ever produced.
Rugby conditioning is fairly complex because it’s a sport that requires a wide range of physical abilities. There is such a large degree of genetic variability amongst athletes that affective training programs must be individualized and positional specific. Sports science heavily influences modern training practices. The changes and evolution of modern rugby training methods are evidence based changes.
Any physical adaptation must be founded upon functionality. If a player wants to get stronger, faster, bigger, more powerful or enhance aerobic capacity the intended adaptation must be with a view to improve game specific performance.
Professional teams allocate large portions of available resources focusing on translating physical preparation into game performance.
Applying Occam’s razor would suggest that current training methodologies are likely to be optimal or at least close to optimal i.e. if the highly qualified scientists & professionals who manage athletic performance had reason to believe that current methods did not optimise performance then other methods would be employed.
If swimming or any number of various training options available were proved to improve rugby performance you can bet you’re bottom dollar that every team would employ this training.
In further support of my argument is the fact that all professional teams adopt similar conditioning practises. There are obviously variations in programs but there are far more similarities than there are differences. I find it compelling that the “free market” attitude to rugby conditioning produces replicated strength and conditioning programs across 3 different nations and 15 different teams.
At a base level I believe it’s a gross misunderstanding of the science of strength and conditioning that plants a seed of confusion in so many people. One example that many struggle with is the fact that it’s possible to lift heavy weights and develop minimal muscle mass in the process. The majority of professional rugby players do not lift weights to get bigger, they lift weights to get stronger and more powerful. Weight gain is in fact detrimental to the power to weight ratio that directly and measurably affects performance.
That said, given that rugby is a contact sport sometimes additional muscle mass can be advantageous. Again this needs to be considered in the context of an individual player and his position.
Ciao,
Rath
May 18th 2012 @ 10:28am
BennO said | May 18th 2012 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Great reply!
May 18th 2012 @ 10:42am
stillmatic1 said | May 18th 2012 @ 10:42am | Report comment
not so long ago rath, people thought the earth was flat!! and the centre of the universe!! just because 15 teams do something doesnt make it the best way to do it. remember, people are conditioned to conform, otherwise why would people believe what phil kearns has to say!?
one player eating a banana and the other eating an apple, doesnt mean that each player has individualized training. if the results are the same (ie: bigger, bulkier players), then it would seem that indeed the idea is to make people bigger and bulkier. why else would polynesians be getting into teams on an ever increasing level? they are naturally skilled, but also naturally bigger than other players.
as usual you give great insight into a world that many of us would love to get the chance to be involved in (except i would be playing for southland and the ABs!!), but this doesnt mean that the methods are truly effective just because everyone is too blind to see otherwise. i suppose though, if we want modern day gladiators in sport, then thats what we will get, warts and all. remember to every occams razor there is a law of unintended consequences ( see garryowns comment about injuries).
May 18th 2012 @ 11:03am
Rath said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Hi Stillmatic. I did not fall into the trap of using a heard mentality as a basis for my argument. Belief in something for which there is no evidence (flat earth) is completely different to a belief in things that are founded on evidence (sports science/rugby conditioning).
As I said in my response, I do find it compelling that 15 independent teams all taking input from different sports scientist and all focused on success all arrive at similar conclusions regarding conditioning for their sport. That is very different from a “10 billion flies cant be wrong” argument.
Thanks for all the comments, I’m off to Sydney, looking forward to picking this up later.
Cheers,
Rath
May 18th 2012 @ 11:50am
stillmatic1 said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:50am | Report comment
cheers rath. i could still argue to the point of nausea that many a scientist has claimed something to be true and other people would believe it based on who he/she was, irrespective of “evidence”. the flat earth theory was based on evidence at the time (with theology also) and the available technology. just like gene therapy or the concept of atoms or dna, sports science is at the mercy of the people who have the most to gain out of the belief. for instance, there is no concrete evidence that smoking is the cause of cancer, but we all believe it is. there is no concrete evidence of man made climate change, but a large amount of people believe in the idea even though there is nothing scientific about the theory.
i would almost suggest that the conditioning programs are based more on social lines ( ie: we want bigger stronger athletes to entertain us) than scientific ones. taking somebodies temperature and telling them they are hot is not science anymore than filling a cup with water will make someone a hydrologist. is building muscle science? or simply cause and effect ( which is what i suppose people would consider to be science!!)?
the words sports and science together just dont sit well with me, maybe its just the cynic in me, or the fact i hate that espn “sports science” show that funnily enough has little to do with science. just because someone can take your weight and height measurements doesnt make them scientific anymore than me using a calculator all day makes me a mathematician.
at the end of the day rath, im just splitting hairs!! could you be brainwashed into believing what you believe though??
May 18th 2012 @ 12:48pm
drop kick said | May 18th 2012 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
no concrete evidence that smoking is the cause of cancer????
no concrete evidence of man made climate change ????
Wake up Rip Van Winckle.
May 18th 2012 @ 2:38pm
stillmatic1 said | May 18th 2012 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
drop kick. there is nothing scientific in claiming that smoking is the reason for cancer. and nothing to prove it conclusively. just because a population believes it to be true doesnt make it so. how do you think a show like mythbusters has become so big??
smoking may increase the likelihood of cancer, but is not the cause by itself. carbon may increase the co2 levels in the atmosphere but thats doesnt mean it is the reason behind climate change. people still believe that the daddy long legs is the most venomous spider of all but doesnt have long enough fangs to deliver the venom!! eugenics used to be considered a complete and irrefutable science in the 20s and 30s in the U.S, but where is the science now?
its so easy to believe something drop kick, but much harder to actually prove what you are believing. theory and supposition are starting points for scientific discovery, not the answer to the problem. (sorry for getting off track, just reading a couple of books by physicist michio kaku, and they have got the mind in over drive)
May 18th 2012 @ 10:42pm
zhenry said | May 18th 2012 @ 10:42pm | Report comment
Cant let that one go about climate change, its results will be too devastating if we think our climate is just going through its so called normal cycle. James Hansen’s book ‘The Storms of my Grand Children’ gives you the science backgound and evidence: Its caused by human activity, mainly fossil fuels. The fact that its mainly fossil fuells will give the clue as to why there is so much doubt in the main stream media. Also depends on your definition of proof and causation, you can end up doubting everything, and should but there comes a time when the evidence is ‘considered’ overwhelming. If JH and over 90% of climatologists cant convince you then I would like to see your objections, because if your doubts are misplaced and we do nothing the consequences are dire for humanity.
However agree that your point of conformity and trends of observing and thinking are relevant. Depends on the thoroughlness and the approach science takes on its subject. Look at the different scientific thinking over time on foods and diet, fats etc.
May 19th 2012 @ 9:43am
stillmatic1 said | May 19th 2012 @ 9:43am | Report comment
im not saying climate change isnt happening, just that there is no conclusive proof it is caused by man. zhenry, climate change was a big thing in the 20s, the same things were said about “dire consequences for the world and humanity”and then we had 50 odd years of cooling!! oops. great science there. eugenics was big and 90% of people and scientists believed it to be true, and look at the idea now. the science is absolutely refuted. point is, a lot of the ideas that are claimed as science are simply not, and are more to do with the social climate at the point in time. we have a larger middle class wealth and the advent of the internet, and people can associate anything for their guilt of being wealthy. we buy stuff and drive cars, but the poor soles in africa dont, so i feel guilty and need to assuage that guilt. as i say, im just reading some thoughts from michio kaku at the moment and the information is buzzing around.
zhenry, when climatoligists just happened to pop out of nowhere around the turn of the century, you of the old media conspiracy, could ask why? why now, did scientists from other vocations jump onto the “science” of climate change? perhaps because that was where the money was going! its very easy to believe something if its rammed down ones throat and appeals to the thinking of the population at the time. just look at religion. and the idea is getting to the point of religious fervour and any dissention in the ranks is called denial!! are we really still this easy to manipulate?
May 19th 2012 @ 11:18am
Justin2 said | May 19th 2012 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Still – I must have missed the episode of myth busters when they debunked the “smoking causes cancer myth”.
Blurry hell you coudnt make it up! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer
May 18th 2012 @ 11:54am
Riccardo said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Rath,
That is a superb explanation of a complex question.
While I can understand the rationale of even the smaller skillful players adding bulk in this professional era (IMO this will only continue) there can be no debate as the continuing importance of aerobic fitness, not just for speed but for the 65th-80th minute advantage it provides.
Savea is a freakish talent isn’t he. Imagine him as a barn-storming All Black in the next 12-18 months. Outstanding.
Mate, your columns are a refreshing insight and are much appreciated.
May 18th 2012 @ 2:17pm
Jack said | May 18th 2012 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
I notice a slightly different body shape in the Brumbies this year. They seem to be carrying more bulk lower down round the middle – not flab – reminiscent of a Wendell Sailor type build. Bigger abs and stronger core maybe. They have been better at staying on their feet in contact this year. CL is a particular case in point. Wonder if this is part of the conditioning that Jake out them through pre-season.
May 18th 2012 @ 6:30pm
maxikh said | May 18th 2012 @ 6:30pm | Report comment
agreed! they are not spending hours doing curls i front of the mirror, they are squatting, deadlifting, pressing and doing olympic lifts, these are not bulk building, they are for raw strength and explosive muscle fibre recruitment! a big guy is not always a strong guy! ie a 120 kg body builder vs a 56 kilo olympic lifter, Id back the little bloke with proper training and raw strength every time, cheers clyde
May 19th 2012 @ 5:20pm
bennalong said | May 19th 2012 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
Reth
Sport “science” like all medical science suffers from the inability to control variables. Double blind trials are virtually impossible.
Weight training using reps can be helpful but it is difficult for it to be truly physiological! Heavy weight training is excellent for ….
lifting heavy weights.
If you want to just run fast in a straight line like a 100m sprinter, maybe the modern sports scientist will get it right.
But if want to run fast and step off right and left, fend with either hand and chip over the top, my advice is lay off the weights and practice the skill. Use soft sand training, swimming and your own body weight
Torm hamstrings and ruptured achilles tendons IMO (and I am qualified) are not addressed by the so called science or by a highly suspect evidence base.
Sport is big money and a lot of people want to protect their own income source rather than protect the player who (they
hope) has a shorter career than their own and can be replaced when they break down. The young blokes love the bulk and
the coaches see such a result as evidence of hard work. But has the training made them better at their skill as a player?
Why are the players cosseted away from their own doctors even when (like Rocky Elsom) their own advisors seem to lack
answers?
A. Because everyone involved has a vested interest and they are afraid of their own ignorance
How did players survive so well as amateurs 30 years ago with moderate training schedules and work that was unrelated to the sport? All of the runners ran, passed, passed and ran, ran and tackled, tackled and ran. No big money science, but few torn hams and ruptured achilles.
(I choose these injuries because they invariably occur out of contact situations)
,
May 18th 2012 @ 11:36am
Jerry said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:36am | Report comment
The Wgtn Lions and Hurricanes used to use a gym in Wellington I went to.
Lomu did weight training.
May 18th 2012 @ 1:02pm
AB said | May 18th 2012 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Seconded, I remember reading Jonah’s book. He talked about lifting anything he could find that was of significant weight when he was growing up in South Auckland.
May 18th 2012 @ 2:59pm
sittingbison said | May 18th 2012 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
small white catts?
May 19th 2012 @ 6:24am
BennO said | May 19th 2012 @ 6:24am | Report comment
Gold!
May 18th 2012 @ 3:53pm
Spencer said | May 18th 2012 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Youths lifting things in South Auckland is tradition!
May 18th 2012 @ 5:07pm
rl said | May 18th 2012 @ 5:07pm | Report comment
and running away fast with them!
May 19th 2012 @ 5:34pm
bennalong said | May 19th 2012 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
Classic!
May 18th 2012 @ 5:21pm
rl said | May 18th 2012 @ 5:21pm | Report comment
Spiro, with all due respect, I found this article after about 2 seonds on google.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/jonah-lomu-rugby-star-interview.htm
Now, I know all good internet research needs more than one source, so there’s this one, where he’s quoted as saying “I’ve always loved lifting weights, just ask the All Blacks…”
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/jonah-lomu-to-debut-as-bodybuilder/story-e6frep5o-1225773685817
May 19th 2012 @ 11:05am
Justin2 said | May 19th 2012 @ 11:05am | Report comment
RL – are you really surprised? The amount of BS written on this site with no evidence or proof to back it up is astounding. And thats just talking about some of the “untouchables”!
May 18th 2012 @ 10:12am
Garryown said | May 18th 2012 @ 10:12am | Report comment
A couple of comments
1. Every decade has had attractive rugby and good players so I wish people will get away from trying to say players of todayarev better than yesteryear,
2.. I agrre with comments from Spiro , Sam Broiwn and Bakkies about over training and the trend to bulk up players. Everyone seems to be treated the same way- forwards are forwards and threequarters are threequearters and should have different gym routines.I am alsom inclined to believe that over training have resulted in a higher rates hamstring problems etc.
May 18th 2012 @ 11:43am
redsnut said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:43am | Report comment
“.I am alsom inclined to believe that over training have resulted in a higher rates hamstring problems etc.”
I tend to agree with that, as there seem to be a lot more injuries happening in training sessions than there used to be.
Not being any sort of expert, I wonder if too much muscle development overpowers the tendons and ligaments.
May 19th 2012 @ 10:39am
Bakkies said | May 19th 2012 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Elsom was another player that was told to bulk up early on in his career. When you look back I am not sure if it was needed. Pocock is probably carrying too much excess muscle considering his position
Don’t know if Mark Gerrard was on extensive weights programs when he was in the form of his career (2004 the same year Rathbone had his breakthrough with the Brumbies). When he was due for Wallaby selection after his Super 12 Final hattrick he picked up a horrendous hamstring injury. He did have a big step and Canberra Stadium can get heavy on the ground later on in the Super Rugby season. This was a couple of seasons after Gerrard made his debut
May 18th 2012 @ 10:37am
Worlds Biggest said | May 18th 2012 @ 10:37am | Report comment
The Waratahs are the ultimate gym junkies, they generally start out the season strongly before fading at the back end due to lack of aerobic fitness. This is staggering in the modern era. Also the Tahs skill level generally speaking is well below par which may be linked to conditioning issues. Agree regarding too much training and not enough football for our elite players.
Hey Rath, when are you doing a piece on Melon !
May 18th 2012 @ 11:09am
Bigbaz said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:09am | Report comment
I well remember when Justin Hodges left the broncos for St George ,he was a well built,fast centre or winger,when he came back he had built up to the size of a barn who couldn’t run out of site on a wet night.Over time the broncos reduced his bulk but he has never rcovered his speed.
May 18th 2012 @ 11:28am
Bakkies said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:28am | Report comment
I remember when Mark Gasnier came back from France and the Dragons said he was under weight and too light to play. They seemed to forget that Gasnier played most of his games for Stade Francais on the wing and he scored a fair amount of tries. The French are less focused on gym work and you rarely see French produced wingers bar Rougerie being used as battering rams. Rougerie is rather injury prone too.
May 18th 2012 @ 1:05pm
AB said | May 18th 2012 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Ummm Justin Hodges never played for St George.
May 18th 2012 @ 2:53pm
Spongy said | May 18th 2012 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
He played for the Roosters.
May 18th 2012 @ 11:17am
Spiro Zavos said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Thanks Clyde for a fascinating reply. To put what follows in context, I regard your column as a Roar highlight. Your information and insight into the inner life of the athlete provides Roar readers with far and away the best column of its type in sports writing in Australia and New Zealand. It is one of my favourite and most informative reads on The Roar.
I take the point made by stillmatic1 and suggest that because everyone does something that this means it must be right. A rule of science is that ‘the science is NEVER in.’
I have noticed a difference in the body shape of the New Zealand forwards, generally leaner except for the props, to the Australian forwards who tend to look weightier, even when they aren’t. My belief is that the New Zealanders do more aerobic work.
Example: when Brad Thorn came back a second time to the Crusaders he was told by Robbie Deans to take off several kilos, to get leaner in the Crusader mode. I reckon if he had come to the Waratahs, say, he’d be told to put on some kilos.
The point also about everyone doing it being slightly suspect is highlighted by the former trend for athletes, not just rugby players, to stuff themselves with carbohydrates before big matches.
Old timers like Colin Meads reckoned that this was nonsense and that they should eat steak and cabbage (perhaps not the props in case of flatulence at scrum time, I would add!) as he did before he played.
Meads was told he was talking nonsense by the experts. Pasta, they said, was the way to go.
Now the same experts have discovered that loading up on carbohydrates can lead to a certain sluggishness in performance.
The experts now reckon that a big dollop of protein, steak, does the trick before a big match much better than plates of pasta.
As one of my ancestors, the great Aristotle, once said: ‘Virtue lies in the middle way.’
I believe that to fill in the time between matches for professional rugby players they are given long,daily work-outs in the gym.
I think this time would be better off going for runs, playing squash, swimming and working on patterns and skills.
May 18th 2012 @ 11:25am
Bakkies said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Send that to Pierrespiestrainlessplayharder@gmail.com. Classic example of a player who trains like Tarzan, plays like Jane.
May 18th 2012 @ 11:39am
Jerry said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:39am | Report comment
“Example: when Brad Thorn came back a second time to the Crusaders he was told by Robbie Deans to take off several kilos, to get leaner in the Crusader mode.”
Partly true – it was in 2008 remember, and Deans (rightly) realised that with ELV relating to awarding a free-kick for ruck infringements, the game was going to be much quicker. I’m not so sure the same call would be made otherwise.
May 18th 2012 @ 1:50pm
Rath said | May 18th 2012 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
Spiro, Thanks for your comments, you’re praise of my writing reminds me of the following quote: ‘You’re never as good as everyone tells you when you win, and you’re never as bad as they say when you lose” Thanks all the same! I’m certainly enjoying using “The Roar” platform to communicate with your readers.
Your point regarding nutrition is a very good one. There certainly exists both bad and good science. Having read the work of Gary Taubes I’m amazed at how bad science was (and continues to) influence conventional wisdom about nutrition.
In the research that I’ve done the science influencing modern strength and conditioning adheres to the scientific model and as such should for the most part be considered “good science”.
Cheers,
Rath
May 19th 2012 @ 5:42pm
bennalong said | May 19th 2012 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
Rath
In nutrition todays good science is tomorrows bad science.
The money isn’t there for good science to flourish in nutrition.
May 18th 2012 @ 7:37pm
sheek said | May 18th 2012 @ 7:37pm | Report comment
Spiro,
Very interesting comment that protein rather than carbs is better before a game.
Many, many years ago, make it about 1974, when I played 1st XV for my school, there were 5 boarders each in the 1st XV & 2nd XV.
The boarding cooks had very generously arranged a late morning meal (brunch) of eggs, bacon, steak & sausages. We ate like kings! Anyone exposed to boarding school food would understand the beauty of this arrangement.
I honestly don’t know if it ever did me any good (or harm) since we were all 17-18 year olds with natural fitness.
On the other hand, the previous year I was walking down to training & spied our hugely self-confident, larger than life five-eighth munching on a cream puff before training. “I don’t know how you can eat that befoe training”, I scoffed.
Whereupon I was given a lecture on the benefits of sweets before activity. Now based on what you are saying, I don’t know if my hugely self-confident, larger than life five-eighth was ahead of his time, or not…..!
A few years later when I was surf rowing, the modus operandi was lots of pasta the night before, then eggs, bacon, etc the following morning & competition in the afternoon.
Of course, all this was washed down by copious amounts of beer several times through the week & weekend…..!!! Rehydration was essential…???
May 19th 2012 @ 9:40am
Train Without A Station said | May 19th 2012 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Spiro,
I believe Brad Thorn is actually quoted in saying that he was allowed to relax his diet and put on weight upon returning to Rugby from League, as at League he was encouraged to stay at 110kg. Also I think your argument is a little simplistic ignoring that fact that there are different body types and people respond to the same types of training differently. Kieran Read for example looks to be the type of guy that could live in the gym, but never put on bulky muscle, much more of a lean build. Scott Higginbotham despite being approximately the same height and weaight responds differently and does appear to be large around the legs and the back. Jerome Kaino on the other hand, appears to have more mass than any of his Australian counterparts. It’s not like we are talking about a bunch of bulky arms running around on pin legs here. Sure bigger isn’t better, but with the naturally larger islander players from NZ and the naturally larger players from SA, there is a need to bulk up for parity.
May 19th 2012 @ 11:14am
Justin2 said | May 19th 2012 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Simplistic is right. Lots of hot air with little to back it up…
May 18th 2012 @ 11:43am
Worlds Biggest said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:43am | Report comment
Bakkies, spot on regarding Spies. The guy is an absolute physical speciman however doesn’t dominate on the field.
May 18th 2012 @ 7:38pm
sheek said | May 18th 2012 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
Yes, with his physique, Spies ought to be the most dominant player on the planet…..
May 18th 2012 @ 11:50am
redsnut said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Waaaaay back in the 50s, we were put through “periodic” exercises (I think that is what they were called) to improve ANaerobic fitness as well as aerobic work.
We often lost, but were always in better condition at the end of the match than the opposition.
May 18th 2012 @ 11:53am
kingplaymaker said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:53am | Report comment
A very good article.
I imagine the impact of highly developed and targeted muscle on the style of play over the last 15 years has been radical and changed the way skill is used and possibly the extent to which it is used too. So it could be that in terms of pure skill the players naturally have plenty now, but that it is only able to come out in more limited ways: fast, deadly accurate bullet passes, offloads, running into spaces in a certain way and so forth, but that the more instinctive, more spontaneous forms of skill no longer have as much of a natural outlet because the game is played out in more rigorous, onstrained, rigid forms, forms to a large degree dictated by the effects of muscle and power.
Look in fact at that Hurricanes/Highlanders game. Deadly boring: bash, bash, bash. There may have been instances of skill within this bashing but essentially it was a blockbusting fest. Now there are of course games where more space opens and broader and more colourful attack ensues, but these are surely determined in some way by the essential primacy of muscle-driven contact.
The essential ‘unit of action’ around which rugby revolves is more and more the force of contact and less and less the eluding of it. So muscle inevitably gets more opportunity to dictate how skill can be applied than skill does itself.
A further point is that even attack is more regimented and so skill cannot follow the instinctive and creative possibilities it might naturally explore, but rather has to operate within a lesser range of channels.
That Hurricanes/Highlanders game was banal in the extreme. In the late 90s there was less structure, less muscle, and more elaborate and exciting play.
May 18th 2012 @ 2:06pm
Elisha Pearce said | May 18th 2012 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
I loved that game! Haha. I thought it was facinating watching the Highlanders try to stifle the Hurricanes counter.
May 18th 2012 @ 12:02pm
Mals said | May 18th 2012 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Clyde, again a great thought provoking piece, cheers.
In your experience why are hamstring injuries so common in rugby union today?
May 18th 2012 @ 5:29pm
rl said | May 18th 2012 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
I second that Clyde – forget responding to the dinosaurs here about gym work, you are never going to change their view no matter what rational points you bring. But this is an interesting question and I suspect you have some insight into this. Rather than excessive GYM training, I wonder if there’s simply excessive training – are their bodies becoming too fatigued or stressed?
May 20th 2012 @ 10:23am
Wal the Hooker said | May 20th 2012 @ 10:23am | Report comment
Agreed fellas, fantastic article Clyde, always a good read and insightful. I’m sorry but Bard Thorn has to be a classic example of the modern day player if you like… Huge man, fit, hard and skilifull. How come he’s still playing and the word is the guy’s a freak in the gym and trains like no other… despite all that bulk??