Reds 2014

[Train Without a Station]

Scoey I agree that players will mature and harden, however they will give a good indication of their abilities from their debut. Consistency is what will elude them.

As for physical growth, this isn't the 90s any more and even in the last few years professionalism has come a long way. The days of talented, but undersized players making it don't really occur any more.

I can't think of a forward since Mowen and Dennis 3-4 years ago that have significantly increased their bulk more than a few kilograms. This is because with academy set ups and GPS schools which train like full time professionals, they are already in that environment early and getting the most out of their bodies. Look at the players playing Under 20s, they are the size of pros generally, it's just the odd 195cm lock that slips through due to lack of quality taller alternatives.

Anyway this is probably getting away from the original point because I wasn't trying to shit all over McMahon and say he or any other young player wasn't any good. I'm just saying really, they aren't going to be any different a player than they are now. They'll just be more consistently what they are at their best now. And I agree McMahon will likely become a quality Super Rugby player, just not the type the Reds lack or need. If this was 2010-2011 he probably would be the perfect addition.

 

[tranquility]

Did you ever arm wrestle your dad when you were in your late teens?

You were probably at the gym 5 days a week, he hadn't done any weights in over a decade other than lifting his arm at right angles to get the liquid confidence in.

Bet he still rinsed you though.

The same applies for U20s players and fully professional rugby players.

They might be similar in size or strength in the gym, but the older bloke is going to win the contact most times.

 

[Gnostic]

I think the size thing is again getting out of control. Some blokes really have to learn the lesson that size isn't everything.

Tell Jason Robinson, Shane Williams, Brian Habana, and others that they could not cut it at the highest level due to size. Any opponent thought that they would dominate these blokes due to size is on a hiding to nothing. The thing they had was skill. Bulk makes up for a lack of skill in some many areas. I would still have any of the three named, indeed I would take Robbie Coleman over Nemani Nadolo simply because it is a matter of skill and also application.

In the forwards there have been many instances of "light weights" dominating in just the same way for the same reasons.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Every example is a winger. Size isn't everything and you don't just pick the biggest bloke. Though in the forwards, barring a 7 where you sacrifice size for mobility, there is a point where bigger is better.

A good big bloke will beat an equally good small bloke and that's just a fact. At the same time you should never pick an inferior player due to size.

Anyway im not saying anybody is too small for super or international rugby. I am saying they neither have the size, or frame to amass the size to be a line bender.

 

[RugbyReg]

You also picked three of the best wingers of the modern age. Absolute freaks.

 

[Jets]

Neil Back went ok and he was small. Probably a better example too.

 

[Gnostic]

Freak was also used to describe Lomu and Tuigamala. Then everyone went looking for their "lomu" so the French came up with Rougerie and other nations pursued size at the expense of skill. It took freaks like Robinson etc to show that size wasn't everything.

At super level I would say that players like Shatz and McMahon and the others being discussed as lacking size are playing to the standard and effect of "bigger" players like Tawake.

It is enlightening to consider the facts surrounding size when line bending forwards such as Jerry Collins weigh in at 108Kg and 191cm (Wiki).

 

[tranquility]

Lewis Moody and Thierry Dusautoir aren't too bad either. Despite barely tipping the scales at 100 kegs.

 

[TOCC]

Looking at individual players is going to skew the overall argument, great teams are built by having the right balance, there is no definitive answer for what the right build of rugby players is but having the right balance with the players you have is key. You can have a small back rower, as long as his deficiency in terms of power is made up by another players strength. You can have a big lumbering number 8, as long as his lack of manoeuvrability across the ground is made up by anthers players speed.

The balance of the Reds forward pack is currently off, they are too workmanlike without much individual x-factor/brilliance or powerful runners. Shatz, Quirk, Gill would all go well in other teams like the Rebels where there is greater balance across the whole forward pack, but the same can't be said about bringing players like McMahon, Hodgson or Dennis into the Reds, they are to similar to the players the Reds have already.

Someone like Potgeiter, Palu, McMalman, Higgers, Fardy, Samo etc who are effective ball runners is the type of player the Reds need to bring in.

 

[Ruggo]

Regarding THP, we don't need PAE back. Just another development prop. Owen is hitting his stride and he is the one we need to be locking in now moving forward.

 

[tranquility]

Looking at individual players is going to skew the overall argument, great teams are built by having the right balance, there is no definitive answer for what the right build of rugby players is but having the right balance with they players you have is key.

I wont copy the whole thing, but well surmised. I agree that our pack is unbalanced.

 

[tranquility]

Reckon Matty won't consider a return to Auyssie rugby until after 2015 World Cuip

I's say you"re spot on there. He will want to stick it out, and make Scotland into a defensive fortress. Apparently he is ruthless with players who miss tackles in the replay sessions.

 

[Tip]

Reds have the games against the Hurricanes, Blues, Crusaders, Rebels, Highlanders, Rebels, Force & Tahs.
Of these teams, only the Rebels are below us on the Table - and we play them twice. So it's not over yet, however we can only afford to drop 1 max 2 more games this season before it's lights out.

Looking at the Super Rugby Ladder, the Reds are tied 10th with the Lions, Blues & Rebels. The Bulls are 9th but have played an extra game (like the Lions). A bonus point this week puts us in 7th place and our season is well and truly alive and kicking.

 

[Lindommer]

Tip, re the Bulls and Lions compared to the Reds: other way round. The two Saffer sides have played 9 each and have seven left, the Reds have played 8 with 8 to go. This means the Reds SHOULD be able to pass these two on the table. See the road home thread: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/the-road-home-super-rugby-2014.14087/

 

[Tip]

Woopsies, that's what I meant Lindo - that the Bulls and Lions have played an extra game rather than have a game in hand.

The ladder looks bloody ugly with the Reds sitting on 12th, however a closer inspection means that we're really only 1 win off the pack.

Half way through the season, all three "wild-card" teams (4-6) on the ladder have lost 3 games. (Brumbies and Chiefs have lost 2, but they play eachother this week) It's not silly to think that due to the convoluted state of Super Rugby this year, that a team with 6/7 losses can still make the finals.

 

[redstragic]

Fuck the maths, let's go Reds!!

Sent from my GT-P5100 using Tapatalk

 

[Tip]

Fuck the maths, let's go Reds!!

Until we are no longer a mathematical possibility of making the finals.

Then it's GO THE FORCE

(I was born in WA and am therefore allowed to change allegiances at will)

 

[something]

Until we are no longer a mathematical possibility of making the finals.

Then it's GO THE FORCE

(I was born in WA and am therefore allowed to change allegiances at will)

I agree but with tahs for me hey. i live in nsw but was born in qld. its kind of nice having a second team (although mine is the no.1 enemy)

 

[I like to watch]

Until we are no longer a mathematical possibility of making the finals.

Then it's GO THE FORCE

(I was born in WA and am therefore allowed to change allegiances at will)

Oh no,a double blow......

 

[liquor box]

I think it's risky to get caught up in a players dimensions for a couple of reasons.

1. Unless you physically weigh and measure them personally, their height and weight as published will almost certainly not be accurate.
2. I've seen a few players play much bigger than their apparent size and I've seen more players than I care to remember, play a lot smaller than their size.

The young, like McMahon (and the Reds backrow for that matter) will grow physically into their early twenties and they will 'harden' into their mid to late twenties, perhaps even later. It's hard to judge a young 'un's worth until they develop a bit.

I think weight is not as important as often stated, especially for Australian players.
I would rather see Aussie players learn to lower their body height in contact to change their centre of gravity rather than put on a few kg's. Our players seem to be held up in a maul situation by NZ and SA teams regularly but it never seems to go the other way. Our players are comparable weights so the issue seems to be poor body positioning.

I think weight is not always the key, strength is more important (I realise that muscle mass and weight go hand in hand).