England Rugby can learn from GB Rowing Team

I was delighted to hear Steve Redgrave speaking yesterday about the rowing development plan he had been involved with. Basically they had invited young people to trial for for rowing. One of the criteria set was that women had to be 5'11" + and men had to be 6'3"+ to be considered for the programme. They then went in to a further selection process based on aptitude.

Its clear from the Olympic swimming and rowing results that size matters in both the femail and male variants of the respective sports.

England rugby can learn plenty from this approach. If we want to beat the SH sides then a development programme based on these principles must be put in place.

AP sides must look to develop players that have the necessary physical attributes to compete with the SH sides. Indeed to win we must dominate and that means power across the the squad.

Let's say good bye to the days of fielding nippy tiddlers that are game losers. Let's look to develop a physically superior set of athletes that can dominate and win. Come on RFU rise to the challenge and just do it.

Yes. I say we exclude everyone from professional rugby under 6'3. That way we'll make the player pool smaller and focus our resources better.

No, its not about excluding anyone. Its about finding a pool of players over a period of time, that have supreme athletic qualities that can win. ie, beat the SH sides. Its possible it just needs someone in the right place in the RFU to believe.

How do you find that pool with out excluding people? Didn't they have to do that with the rowing because only posh people do it properly? Rugby's played by posh people AND people in the West Country and the odd other hotspot. The player pool is plenty big enough.

England 4ever

Theres also a lot of tall guys in the rowing who arent winning medals.

You would think that english rowers and english rugby players come from the same place- public schools- therefore both need to branch out and attract a bigger pool of players and stop seeming elitest- because at present they are possibly fighting over the same kids!

Slightly off thread SpringBoks rule of thumb for forwards was two players of similar abilities taller/heavier guy was picked always.

Learn from the GB rowers? Learn what, how to row a boat?

Not sure that's a good idea. It works in rowing, though there are notable exceptions who didn't come through the selection programme which is just a fat track- there are trials for the squads too based on more useful measures like ergo splits and a lot of racing-, because you need, on the whole, a certain body shape to get the times needed one rowing races. Rugby is completely different and lack of size is linked to things like pace and elusiveness. On your basis we would have a Phillips not a Youngs at Scrum Half

I don't think Britain's rowers need to branch out, they appear to be doing pretty well

But yeah, there are specific branch out rowing programmed. The head of one was very upset when Trenton Oldfield did his irresponsible, pointless, hypocritical, self-publicising stunt because it was a) all of the above b) based on incorrect claims and c) undermining programmes like his that actually aimed to remove elitism from rowing

The game of rugby will always have a place for nippy tiddlers. Some of these smaller guys were game changers, such as S. Williams and F. Michalak. Just imagine the low ebb English rugby would go through if englandglory4eva became your Elite Performance Director; you would end up having a Matt Banahan XV to support in the 6 Nations.

Oh gods, a Matt Banahan 15... *shudder*

Jason Robinson.....5'8.....should of been scrapped long before that 2003 WC shouldn't he.

Firstly I think how tall they wanted them and aptitude was probably not all they were looking at.

If they had a preset list of attributes they needed for rowers it would have been more comprehensive.

In rowing you do one thing only, row.

In rugby you need vision, instinct and ball skills. How tall a guy or how big a guy is doesn't depict how good a rugby player is.

If you said all backs must be 95+ kilos and 6"1' then guys like Andre Taylor, Patrick Lambie, Aaron Cruden etc wouldn't have graced our rugby fields this past Super XV

Sorry but the thing that ALL British and Irish teams can learn from the Rowing and Cycling teams is the winning mentality. Second is first loser....WE must win win win.

our cyclists do everything they can to have an edge(within the laws of the game)- And we are truely awesome at cycling..

Everyone needs to learn of them in truth- sport s are cynical these days- you need that edge

Rowing on the water is actually a little more complicated than people realise though Biltong

Just looking at Englands starting line up, most of the team wouldn't be there if you introduced 6'3 criteria. Just the second rows and some of the backs rows really.

Well, learning to swim is very important - the newspapers are full of reports of drowning. Learning to row is less useful. Looks kinda fun though. Mind you, that Katherine Grainger looks a bit scary - never seen such meaty hands and forearms on a girl (apart from the Williams sisters obviously).

WHAT A LOAD OF BS!!!

Firstly rowers are far different animals than team sports physiologically speaking.

They can use height as a predictor because it is closely linked to cardiovascular, aerobic capacity and especially cappilary and Mitocondria density. Oxygen and bloodflow are key. Lung size and space is far larger in taller people and aerobic capacity potential can be predicted from it.

This could be applied to rugby perfectly if it was a continous, one directional, medium to high intensity, non contact sport. But it is not.

Also look at the participation and size of the sport of rowing... it isn't very big at all, and as soon as a number of nations decide to really develop the sport in their country GB will soon lose their semi dominance.

Cycling? Who mentioned cycling? THE most corrupt sport on the planet, ergonomic aids range from cycle design, suit composition to drug design being made undetectible. The amount of horror stories Ive heard from that (non) sport is scary!!!

Just want to touch on the size subject with regards to rowing and rugby...

Participation numbers of Rowing in GB? Small
Participation or rugby players in GB? Much larger.

Participants in rowing at age grade are generally elite, and have much more money spent on them per participant than rugby. This could allow for physiological testing such as lactate, muscle fibre and sexual maturation. Adult heights can be predicted. Within rugby this is impossible, so adult height is very much guessed using a PHV system which is massively innacurate untile puberty hits. The only accurate way to predict height is to look at the father and use the participants PHV at the ages of 14 to 18, and thats still an estimate!

So how do you say you only want 6'3 players when the only way you'll find them is when they hit that height. Is a 14 yr old at 6'3 a better prospect than a 20 yr old who reaches it?

Tut tut bluesy.

tut tut?

I think your points are worthy- However I can also see the logic behind concentrating on less players and giving them a first class level of coaching over this approach we currently have(england) of having more depth than seems possible(2 mill- wtf does that represent) and mud fields and low quality guidance!

I dont agree that we should prioritise on size- however it has to be one of the factors if we were gonna pick players from day 1.

Thee tut tut was based on your cycling comment. I dont agree

Oh I see your points about rugby, centres of excellence are popping up everywhere these days and are generally following the Aus model implimented a few years ago.

But these centres can be argued to neglect exiled players or those willing to persue academic ventures first and foremost. They also create an atmosphere of favouritism, and unless are managed very proffessionally it'll fall into a jobs for the boys, and places for the boys sons etc...

It'll become a case of coaching the most connected kids to be internationals rather than selecting the most talented kids to be internationals.

We can't pick players from day 1 because of size. 90% (not official) of kids ate day 1 (U10's we'll say) are not in the height percentile they'll be in at 16, let alone adulthood.

Thats why IMO the NZRU junior system is far superior, kids promote and relegate through their weight categories as they develop, and they never face tiny or huge players so tend to develop better all round skills.

RE the cycling I can only go off what I hear from former GB cyclists retired through 'difference of opinions' in their early 20's, teenagers who go abroad to race for other teams willing to 'do more' and a former GB cycling development officer who quit on the spot when asked to do something not just unethical but outright illegal.

Its just such a great time to be british when it comes to cycling- so i am gonna stick to the positives!

hahahahaha

Glory supporter! By the way I'm not just talking GB, the whole cycling world is a joke, so technically GB are doing the best when everyone is cheating.

Don't get me started on Lance...

They try apparently...I thought the RFU were already just sitting on their arses and taking English rugby backwards?

What a load of sour grapes and 'smallest' comments.

We are talking about WINNING at the highest level. To win you need the best athletes you can get. To the Welsh supporters I'd say a lot of their recent success is Gatland's vision that sees 6 out of 7 backs in the very large category.

The RFU need to think along the Steve Redgrave lines for future success. We know England has more money and more players than any other country so those two items are not an issue. What is an issue is that we continually develop the wrong type of player that fails to compete on the world stage.

And to those who say Rowing is an elitist sport I say so is international Rugby. If you don't go to a posh rugby school in England you've got very, very limited chances of ever playing AP rugby let alone test rugby.

The RFU have a serious challenge about how they find and develop world class WINNING players. They should go and see Steve Redgrave tomorrow for some tips because they need a few.

Yeah agreed England

englandglory4ever wrote:

We are talking about WINNING at the highest level. To win you need the best athletes you can get. To the Welsh supporters I'd say a lot of their recent success is Gatland's vision that sees 6 out of 7 backs in the very large category.

We don't pick by size though. We are just lucky to have massive backline players at the moment (with a few more coming through the U20s). Little guys like Harry Robinson or Matthew Morgan could break into the first team within the next couple seasons based on abilities alone. Halfpenny is there for what he brings to the team, we could easily select a bigger option in Byrne if it was all about picking the biggest players. Who is the better option at full back though?

I completely agree with Morg. Picking based on size would exclude some of the greatest players in the world and I think England already focus too much on siE anyway

The Maadi Cup in NZ has produced many rowing Olympic and World Champs with paltry financial resources. Sports can learn from others but what you can't substitute is excellent coaching and playing talent.

englandglory4ever wrote:I was delighted to hear Steve Redgrave speaking yesterday about the rowing development plan he had been involved with. Basically they had invited young people to trial for for rowing. One of the criteria set was that women had to be 5'11" + and men had to be 6'3"+ to be considered for the programme. They then went in to a further selection process based on aptitude.

Its clear from the Olympic swimming and rowing results that size matters in both the femail and male variants of the respective sports.

England rugby can learn plenty from this approach. If we want to beat the SH sides then a development programme based on these principles must be put in place.

AP sides must look to develop players that have the necessary physical attributes to compete with the SH sides. Indeed to win we must dominate and that means power across the the squad.

Let's say good bye to the days of fielding nippy tiddlers that are game losers. Let's look to develop a physically superior set of athletes that can dominate and win. Come on RFU rise to the challenge and just do it.

Yeah look this is carp

Haskell's take on SH after his season there suggests over-training and size is the problem not the solution. I think the best modern winger in the NH Shane Williams would take issue too. The natural result of playing big players is they will seek to gain territory through contact and that, metaphorically speaking, is not the way forward. Yes if you can get a lump like north to play like Williams then that is a plus but these freaks are few and far between. Rugby is a game for all sizes and speeds and we should not try and homogenize all backs to be fast lumps; yes of course having a physique that is workable in the contact area is necessary but Shane also proved you don't have to be huge to do that; ask Banahan. Skills and feet is what we need to develop

Skills and feet is what we need to develop

Better yet, develop a test the challenges the young players minds and their ability to spot space, hand to eye co-ordination, ability to think under pressure etc and then take these players and put them into the centres of excellence. You might not have the biggest or quickest team at the end of it but then again the biggest and quickest players are not always the best.

Give me an 'ickle George Ford, Jason Robinson or Shane Williams over Owen Farrell, Matt Banahan or Vainikolo. The old saying about the top 2 inches is still relevant today.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Skills and feet is what we need to develop

Better yet, develop a test the challenges the young players minds and their ability to spot space, hand to eye co-ordination, ability to think under pressure etc and then take these players and put them into the centres of excellence. You might not have the biggest or quickest team at the end of it but then again the biggest and quickest players are not always the best.

Give me an 'ickle George Ford, Jason Robinson or Shane Williams over Owen Farrell, Matt Banahan or Vainikolo. The old saying about the top 2 inches is still relevant today.

As an aside Banahan is reported in The Rugby Paper to have dropped a 1 1/2 Stone due to feeling that tipping the scales at nearly 19 stone for a winger was 'weighing him down' excuse the pun. He seems to have felt there was a lot of pressure on him to keep bulking up and that it has hampered his game.

Shane was great, as was Robinson in their era.
Shane did show up big Banaman in the last 6n. But Bananaman looked very good since in the recent 7s. having shed some pounds.
But last few years SH seem to be leading the charge to 'BIG' threequarters.
Gatland has also now gone for a large English winger (snigger) for Wales.
Wasn't like that back in the day, but heyy. The OP makes partly a good point. Not essential that front rows need to be over 6 foot. Also a good small modern SH still works well on nippiness. FHs are mostly sub 6 foot. So size selection remains partly position specific.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Sorry but the thing that ALL British and Irish teams can learn from the Rowing and Cycling teams is the winning mentality. Second is first loser....WE must win win win.

Problem in rugby is that somebody's already beaten us to that attitude. They're called the All Blacks and uprooting their winning culture and mentality in order to plant one of our own is easier said than done.

Not only them but Aus and SA also have that attitude more so than any NH side at present, accentuated by two World Cups each. So it's easier to talk about a British purple patch in rowing on home turf, a sport we may consider our speciality, than the equivalent in rugby, a sport that other teams can consider themselves more specialized in than we can boast.

FHs are mostly sub 6 foot.

Interesting that England use Flood, Ireland have Sexton and Wales have Priestland who are all over 6 foot and are pretty heft number 10s. Yet the young guns on their way through for all three countries Ford, Jackson and Morgan are all closer to five and half feet than six foot. Is that a sign that the fad for bigger players was indentified a few years back and is now being seen to be less important than finding players with the ability to read the game or is it pure co-incidence?

SAM you can add Freddie Burns (5'11) Tom Heathcote (5'10) and Duncan Wier (5'8) to that list.

It really does strike me as odd that we should be discussing prescribed height for any of the positions, bar those in the forwards where size can be a truly decisive factor.

We're not looking to build a Rugby League homogeneous type of player, Union has always been about varying sizes and some of the most diminutive have been some of the best as mentioned earlier. Even today players like Aaron Cruden, Will Genia and Qaude Cooper as obvious demonstrations of that. It's just a non-starter.

what is clearly the most important factor in a rugby build is width!!

no long jumpers here

what is clearly the most important factor in a rugby build is width!!

Certainly in the front row. I was always led to believe that shorter props could have an advantage getting underneath their bigger opponents and driving them up, so why aim for 6 foot somethings if you can get someone who is 5 foot 10 that has the same power and technique?

We're not looking to build a Rugby League homogeneous type of player, Union has always been about varying sizes and some of the most diminutive have been some of the best as mentioned earlier.

To true Chjw, the best tackler I ever played with was 10 stone wet through and not much over 5 foot. He always went hard and low and cut the bigger men down like a wood cutter taking a chainsaw to a tree.

Can you imagine if this happened?

Strictly considering the openside flanker postion, many greats won't have made the cut; Neil Back, Phil Waugh, George Smith....

Heck, even looking at present players; Pocock (5'10), Armitage, even Tipuric to a degree....

Ridiculous.

The body is merely a rugby tool; it's the mental edge and skill that sets a player apart.

Having considered all the above, I have to announce that the arbitrary height filter for RU selection is a load of love sacks.
(or 'cobblers awls' in rhyming slang)

Strictly considering the openside flanker postion, many greats won't have made the cut; Neil Back, Phil Waugh, George Smith....

Heck, even looking at present players; Pocock (5'10), Armitage, even Tipuric to a degree....

If you're talking 6 foot 3 then Richie McCaw is 6 foot 1 and out of contention as well. I think being shorter with a lower centre of gravity is a serious advantage to 7s and centres. It makes you a lot harder to bring down if you are the centre tasked with straigtening the line and if you're a 7 it makes it a lot harder for the opposition to prise you out of the ruck.

What about Lee Mears?

Best hooker in the NH.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Strictly considering the openside flanker postion, many greats won't have made the cut; Neil Back, Phil Waugh, George Smith....

Heck, even looking at present players; Pocock (5'10), Armitage, even Tipuric to a degree....

If you're talking 6 foot 3 then Richie McCaw is 6 foot 1 and out of contention as well. I think being shorter with a lower centre of gravity is a serious advantage to 7s and centres. It makes you a lot harder to bring down if you are the centre tasked with straigtening the line and if you're a 7 it makes it a lot harder for the opposition to prise you out of the ruck.

Damn straight Sam-I'm only 5'10, but like to think i'm an able fetcher. I'm often overshadowed in the backrow now, but I don't mind at all. Great to see the players like Pocock, under 6ft but dominating the international scene.

HERSH wrote:What about Lee Mears?

Best hooker in the NH.

Heralded as 'The Bismarck of the Northern Hemisphere'.

Damn straight Sam-I'm only 5'10, but like to think i'm an able fetcher. I'm often overshadowed in the backrow now, but I don't mind at all

I've played in the backrow a couple of times and if anything I'm to tall at 6 foot to be playing 7, especially if my opposite number is smaller and stockier than I am (not difficult to be fair). I stay in the backs but even there the taller you are the bigger target there is for the side on covering tackle should you make a break.

What position do you normally play Sam?
Like you said, Openside is all about centre of gravity and body positioning. I think there's a real trend now towards the 'smaller' (height-wise anyway) opensides, than the larger, bruising ones of recent years. Brussow and Pocock are good examples, and Rennie andWarburton aren't particularly tall for modern rugby players. It's good to see!