Answering questions about the intensity of modern rugby union these days, French coach Philippe Saint-Andre said, “If things continue to go this way, with much longer game time, we will have to recruit athletes with a huge VO2 max and then teach them how to play the game.”
True, the rugby played in 2012 isn’t the same as 100, 50 or even 25 years ago. To watch footage of the 1987 Rugby World Cup during last year’s World Cup was telling: most 1987 players would be dwarfed and outmuscled by today’s players.
All of us have heard John Kirwan, Serge Blanco, or David Campese say that players in the 1980s didn’t even do weights at training or specifically work to increase their maximal aerobic speed.
Today’s players are bigger, heavier, stronger, and faster and do this for 80 minutes. Yes, that includes props and hookers.
A few years ago, researchers at Massey University compared the physiques of the 2005 All Black side to the The Originals of 1905, the first New Zealand team to tour Europe.
The average 2005 All Black was 187 centimetres and weighed 102.5 kilograms. The Originals a century earlier were on average 175 centimetres and 81 kilograms. So they were 12cm shorter and 21.5kgs lighter.
One might argue that the general population is also heavier and taller now and that players of Pacific Islander heritage (on average stronger and heavier than Caucasians) are nowadays more present in the All Black ranks. Yep, that’s also true.
Yet we got the same results in France, when Top 14 side Clermont compared the weight and height of their players at the beginning of the 20th century and 100 years later. Forwards had on average put on 18kgs and 8cm, while the backs were 8.5cm taller and 12.3kgs heavier.
What these numbers don’t tell, though, is the difference of intensity, speed or sheer strength in today’s game. Nothing can mesure Nonu’s hits, Spies run bursts or the initial impact at scrum-time.
Yet the visual impression doesn’t lie. If you also take into consideration the number of phases or increased game time, you understand that today’s professional rugby players are first and foremost super-athletes, then rugby players.
In making this comment with a certain sense of humour, Philippe Saint-Andre underlined the changes rugby is currently facing.
Nowadays, to make the cut in a professional team, young players have to show exceptional physical abilities rather than technical ones. Power, speed and endurance, all components of maximal aerobic speed, are the main selection criteria.
Massey University researcher Jeremy Hapeta has witnessed first-hand this evolution.
“Traditionally, if you were short you were put in the backs and if you had a puku (belly) you were put in the forwards, but that was the amateur game. Now they want a prototype robot rugby player. Guys like Sonny Bill Williams are evening things up again,” Hapeta said.
Yes, players’ physique is becoming more uniform across the team.
Today, at 188cm and 102kgs, you could fit in any position of any back-row or back-line with the exception of scrum-half, although Mike Phillips could be seen as a precursor.
From number six to number 15, you need to have the same physical attributes to make the cut: speed, power and endurance.
Pierre Spies, Sonny Bill Williams and even, to some extent, a player like Radike Samo, epitomise what modern rugby players are all about: first and foremost super-athletes. How many rugby coaches would love to sign Usain Bolt?
AndyS
Guest
I'm inclined toward the view that the game has changed more because the players have got better, not just bigger. At the end of the day, the heroes of the past were just amateurs, talented as they were. Put together the best of the amateur ranks now and they would be broadly equivalent, except that now they look poor compared with the professional game we watch each week. Go back and watch with fresh eyes the Grand Slam or any games from the 80s - it was slow and by the end of the game you could drive a semitrailer through the holes in the defensive lines. Easy to have lovely sweeping backline moves when half the defense has failed to get into the line. The backs now are as good or better, they just have a fraction of the space which makes them look cramped and slow. Similarly with the forwards, they now only have a couple of seconds to contest the ball before three players arrive. What we seem to be complaining about is the game getting better. If it bothers you, focus on the grassroots game where it is all as it was and put your money into that instead - God knows they would appreciate it.
mattamkII
Guest
Jock, the game has changed no question. Learn to appreciate it or move on. I've been playing rugby since the mid 80's, yes I am late 30's and still playing premier grade rugby. The game today is more skilled, faster and more physical that ever before - other than the questionable ban on shoeing an off-side player. I almost cringe at how poor the defence was back in the day. Even old videos of my first years out of colts in the early 90's make me laugh. Having said that the sweeping full pitch back line moves are not nearly as prevalent as they once were, they are a thing of beauty. The Reds under Quades guide are about the only team who turns that on.....but I'm going to go out on a limb her and assume you also think he's a flashy show boat? The irony is (and I could be totally wrong about you) but most people who talk about the beauty of the old days generally also whinge about the players like Quade, Kurtley and JOC who try their hardest to play the style of game they love.
Jock M
Guest
jameswm, too true.well written. And the free for all was exhilerating to play and something out of this world to watch at Test level. I heard a game played between Australia and France in Brisbane many years ago described as an afternoon of exquisite beauty.
Jock M
Guest
I beg to differ. One of these days I might even prove that you are wrong. You are not contesting the ball-your player is playing it on the ground-the defence barely have a chance of stealing the ball. Check out the stats-there are very few turn overs.
jameswm
Guest
Yeah but in Jock's time it was more of a free-for-all, coming in from the side, off your feet, not allowed to place it etc. It's not the same contest it used to be. If a forward does a pick and drive and stays close to his pack, it's almost impossible to steal it. Look how teams run down the clock at the end of a game (something which needs to be outlawed).
The Battered Slav
Guest
Jock, I suspect it's been a long time since you've played a game of rugby. As a flanker I spend most of my Saturday mornings running from breakdown to breakdown, contesting possession, while my opposite number spends his Saturday morning doing exactly the same thing. 20 years ago when I started playing, there was much more mauling in the game. However, this slows down ball and limits your attacking options. Therefore, quick ruck ball is the favoured option. Just because ruck ball is quick, does not mean it was not contestable, it simply means that it wasn't contested hotly enough by the defending team. Furthermore, how do you explain the crucial role played by the modern flanker such as D. Pocock, G. Smith or R McCaw? Openside flanker has become the second most crucial position on the field behind fly half, simply because any team will find it difficult to win a game of rugby if they cannot keenly contest just about every breakdown. Jock, watch a game of rugby without your perception being clouded by your 'nostalgic cynicism', and whatever you do don't confuse quick recycled ball with uncontested ball, as that'[s simply not the way the game is played.
Ben S
Roar Guru
Modern Test backlines aren't all about size. That's just lazy. France has Parra, Fofana and Clerc. Australia has a small (ish backline). Dan Carter, Conrad Smith and Cory Jane aren't giants. Ireland had O'Gara for years playing alongside D'Arcy and O'Driscoll, and look at the current England back three. Bigger backs are creeping in, but there's a lot of exaggeration about the lack of skill in big players. Just take Jauzion, Nonu, SB Williams, George North and Tommy Bowe as an example. For every Mike Tindall there is a Nonu.
Jock M
Guest
mattamkill, I promise you there is very little contest for the ball these days.The player with the ball merely goes to ground and rolls over and places the ball making it virtually impossible for the opposition to steal posession. When I played Rugby the aim was to stay on your feet and to set up a maul. In defence you did all sorts of things to steal the ball such as turning the player wiith the ball around or throwing him to ground. There was an urgency at the breakdown-if you couldn't win the ball you at least tried to put pressure on by driving into the ruck. If yoiu were attacking you drove forward with the aim of having the opposition backs walking backwards.
mattamkII
Guest
Jesus Jock when was the last time you played? I am still playing a decent level of rugby and I assure you the contest for the ball at the breakdown is very alive and very committed. Your comments are so far off the mark I'm shocked.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
I agree with your analysis, Peeeko: forwards are now more skilful than before but that its probably not the case for the backs. I think what Saint-Andre meant in making this comment is that the physical dimension of rugby has now surpassed the technical aspect. Doors are shut to many young players because their physique doesn't correspond to the modern game (am talking at very high level). When English back Delon Armitage was playing rugby in france as a teen he was turned down because he was too tall and skinny.
Markus
Guest
Funny then that Australia have been knocked out of the last three world cups by teams whose forward packs dominated the breakdowns by committing more players.
Jock M
Guest
The defence might only be considered better in the modern game because the game is all about running at the defensive wall that has been formed, becasue there is no competition for the ball at the breakdown and forwards do not commit. You cannot compare Modern Rugby with the game of old because they are two different games.Modern Rugby is more like Rugby League than Rugby pre professional.
peeeko
Roar Guru
in some ways i believe that players were more skilful back in 87. i agree forwards are probably more skilful these days but i reckon backline play was more about clever passing and skill than todays power runners. players like michael lynagh, andrew slack, brett papworth and michael hawker are much smaller than todays centres. jason little and tim horan were only about 83 kgs when they became wallabies, by the time they finished they were around 100kg. this was probably due to rugby becoming full time half way through their careers
soapit
Guest
but smaller players will always have an advatage in agility so they will rarely be equal (when taking the cream of each)
soapit
Guest
it comes with the pressure increase, not just from the defence but from the fact it is now their livelihood with 100's of thousands watching their every move on tv.
soapit
Guest
1. theres more to rugby than the elite internationals 2. you can have different body types and still be strong and fit. even international rugby teams still allow for plenty of variety in body shape
Markus
Guest
It isn't really that surprising, a skilled small player will always be beaten by an equally skilled big player. I do question the constant use of Pierre Spies as the archetype modern player though. For all his size and speed, he is a poor defender and is notorious for going missing in tight matches. As for handling skills being superior in the amateur era, that has more to do with the increased co-ordination of defensive lines at the elite level. Just watch how all these supposed poor handling skills magically disappear when a Test player comes back from injury through club rugby, where they have 5 times the time and space available to them on attack.
redsnut
Guest
"This post is like listening to old men at the bar." Were you evesdropping on me then mattamkll? lol
mattamkII
Guest
Exactly Ben S. Most of the comments above a stupidly unfounded. To suggest that players passed and caught better back then is crazy. So crazy its laughable. This post is like listening to old men at the bar.
Ben S
Roar Guru
I'm not sure what some people are talking about re: handling skills. The average prop in 1987 could barely hold a rugby ball let alone chuck out a pass.