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.”
Bruce Ross
Roar Pro
That's an extraordinary stat, Vented. An increase of about 40% in around 120 years! Some of that could be attributed to better nutrition; some more to changes in the gene pool from the migration of the post-WW2 years; and the remainder to modern training methods. Looking at the height of soldiers from WW1, there would have also been very substantial gains in players' heights, with better nutrition and the effects of migration perhaps the causal factors.
Chunks
Roar Pro
Of interest Bruce, in 1892, the QLD forward pack had an average weight of 80kg/person. You'd barely get an u15s team having a forward pack that light!
Rah Rah Rasputin
Guest
The strength of some of these young players is just amazing to. I've read that Pocock can bench 170 kg and Digby Ione 160 kg, and I think I've read that Will Genia is has fantastic power to weight ratio. On Saturday he never looked out of his depth in contact, whether cleaning out at the ruck or running with the ball. The increase in weight/ size of the players is just part in parcel of the game going professional. I doubt we will see similar increases over the next ten years.
Rah Rah Rasputin
Guest
The strength of some of these young players is just amazing to. I've read that Pocock can bench 170 kg and Digby Ione 160 kg, and I think I've read that Will Genia is has fantastic power to weight ratio. On Saturday he never looked out of his depth in contact, whether cleaning out at the ruck or running with the ball. The increase in weight/ size of the players is just part in parcel of the game going professional.
Bruce Ross
Roar Pro
We are in total agreement, Robbo.
Robbo
Guest
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.
Andrew Sutherland
Roar Guru
The professional era of all football codes has produced faster, stronger, heavier players who make the replays of the 1980's look like schoolboy carnivals. However I don't think the increase in weight has been all planned. Between games they pump weights because they've got NOTHING TO DO. During the NRL Grand Final week both teams were doing weight sessions! They could have been light, recovery-based, or to maintain regularity in training but I can't imagine a player getting anything from lifting heavy weights 5 days before the last and most important game of the season - except soreness, fatigue and lactic acid build up. And let us not forget mental weight. Cadel Evans said he knew he didn't have the strongest team but he did know that he could suffer more pain for longer periods than his opponents. However as you mentioned Bruce, a light weight body, however tough its owner, will struggle to survive brutal impacts over an extended period.
Parisien
Guest
I think that Simon Shaw was recently in the UK press warning English rugby not to get obsessed with "qym bunnies" at the expense of skill, speed, explosiveness etc. I was somewhat surprised by the comments coming from him as he had been part of the 2003 squad and those players were all very big and muscular. Robinson and JW excepted. Shaw had both size and skill.
Parisien
Guest
Or the beer they drink? Just kidding!!!!!!!
Derm
Roar Guru
No, no, no. It's the ELVs and the sanctions free kicks. It must be.
Knives Out
Guest
A fantastically dynamic athlete. Genia is another powerhouse. I can only conclude that it comes down to the shorter SH season.
Bruce Ross
Roar Pro
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
Guest
He was a lock forward until a few seasons ago, Robbo.
Bruce Ross
Roar Pro
It is an indicator of the proportion of fat in a person's body mass, Adam. The tester pinches the skin at a site such as the side of the abdomen and pulls the fold of skin away from the underlying muscle so only the skin and fat tissue is being held. Calipers are then used to measure the skinfold thickness. Typically measurements are taken at a number of positions on the body and these are then entered into an equation which gives a skinfold number or ranking. It is a useful and convenient form of measurement, particularly for athletes who may have a large density of muscle in their body composition. Simply comparing their body weight to their height may suggest that they are unfit, as in the case of the English front rowers who I would suggest would be much fitter and have a lower proportion of body fat than their predecessors from the amateur era.
Tifosi FC
Guest
adam. A skinfold test is used to determine ones bodyfat percentage. Low skinfold = low bodyfat. The problem is though its the bigger stick theory. As one team gets larger the others feel they must get larger and the cycle goes on until one day everyone playing is 150 kg !! Maybe they should have a body weight cap? I remember campo in his biography mentioning that between one world cup to the next he had put on 10kg because the trainers told him to, but he felt that it slowed him down. So sometimes size isnt everything !!
adam
Guest
whats a low skinfold ?
Danny
Guest
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.
Bruce Ross
Roar Pro
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.
Robbo
Guest
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.
Derm
Roar Guru
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.