How important is size in modern RL?

[menpond]

Three true greats from the past R.Gasnier, A.Davies and D BELL and all on the small side. They all were key centre components in top test sides. The first two were outstanding athletes, and Bell ran hard top of the ground style and was hard as nails. Is it much harder now for the smallin the age of bigness to compete ?

[butt monkey]

Three true greats from the past R.Gasnier, A.Davies and D BELL and all on the small side. They all were key centre components in top test sides. The first two were outstanding athletes, and Bell ran hard top of the ground style and was hard as nails. Is it much harder now for the smallin the age of bigness to compete ?

Put it this way.... my wife doesn't complain :eusa18:

[thegimble]

Three true greats from the past R.Gasnier, A.Davies and D BELL and all on the small side. They all were key centre components in top test sides. The first two were outstanding athletes, and Bell ran hard top of the ground style and was hard as nails. Is it much harder now for the smallin the age of bigness to compete ?

Put it this way.... my wife doesn't complain :eusa18:

But would she if she would have seen a bigger Rugby player.

[butt monkey]

Three true greats from the past R.Gasnier, A.Davies and D BELL and all on the small side. They all were key centre components in top test sides. The first two were outstanding athletes, and Bell ran hard top of the ground style and was hard as nails. Is it much harder now for the smallin the age of bigness to compete ?

Put it this way.... my wife doesn't complain :eusa18:

But would she if she would have seen a bigger Rugby player.

I'll ask her

[cpwigan]

Three true greats from the past R.Gasnier, A.Davies and D BELL and all on the small side. They all were key centre components in top test sides. The first two were outstanding athletes, and Bell ran hard top of the ground style and was hard as nails. Is it much harder now for the smallin the age of bigness to compete ?

Attitude, ability and athleticism are far more important.

Size matters most as a junior (Jeff Clare was huge as a junior!) Size cane also be a weakness as well as a strength.

P.S Alan Davies was more brain and skill than athlete not that he was lacking there either (my late father rated him incredibly highly)

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news- ... rue-legend

[Owd Codger]

Three true greats from the past R.Gasnier, A.Davies and D BELL and all on the small side. They all were key centre components in top test sides. The first two were outstanding athletes, and Bell ran hard top of the ground style and was hard as nails. Is it much harder now for the smallin the age of bigness to compete ?

Attitude, ability and athleticism are far more important.

Size matters most as a junior (Jeff Clare was huge as a junior!) Size cane also be a weakness as well as a strength.

P.S Alan Davies was more brain and skill than athlete not that he was lacking there either (my late father rated him incredibly highly)

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news- ... rue-legend

'Size matters more as a junior'

I wonder what Rob Burrow would think about that comment.

Or even Little Steve Pitchford, the prop forward who was known as the pocket size battleship.

[cpwigan]

WW, you are talking height or lack of it which can be an advantage. I would argue that being short in stature is far better than being average height. Short or tall is better than average albeit extreme lack of or excessive height is normally not productive. Far more advantages to being very short than super tall. Short guys always have a place; Geoff Toovey, Tommy Bishop, Roger Millward etc etc.

I think you have mentioned Pitchford before. No idea why. The pocket battleship build is fantastic in sport. Andy Gregory was a classic example. Keiron Cunningham another. Lacking height but having a powerful build makes you well balanced and extremely difficult to handle as their balance is often fantastic. Such people usually have another advantage like speed short distance, speed off the mark etc. Pitchford was not lightweight BTW.

[Wiganer Ted]

I think size is mattering more and more these days.
SW said after the WCC that we were "outsized" or words to that effect.
Our 3/4 next year will be big. Gelling, Thornley and Burgess are around the 6'5" mark and that's huge.
We have Joel who's of that size. Also a lot of our forwards are 6'3" which isn't small either!

Gasnier was small but so was Johnny Raper compared to todays forwards, Ken Irvine wasn't a tall man but one hell of a player just as the other two were. I somehow remember that Langlands was quite tall compared to other 3/4 of that era.

[Owd Codger]

WW, you are talking height or lack of it which can be an advantage. I would argue that being short in stature is far better than being average height. Short or tall is better than average albeit extreme lack of or excessive height is normally not productive. Far more advantages to being very short than super tall. Short guys always have a place; Geoff Toovey, Tommy Bishop, Roger Millward etc etc.

I think you have mentioned Pitchford before. No idea why. The pocket battleship build is fantastic in sport. Andy Gregory was a classic example. Keiron Cunningham another. Lacking height but having a powerful build makes you well balanced and extremely difficult to handle as their balance is often fantastic. Such people usually have another advantage like speed short distance, speed off the mark etc. Pitchford was not lightweight BTW.

And I will no doubt mention him again as he was a outstanding Prop Forward for his size even as you say he was not lightweigh!

[slimshady]

Its the size of the fight in the dog not the size of the dog in the fight.