The Physical Strength of Australian Players

The thing that has stood out the most to me this season has been that the Australian teams are simply being overpowered in the collisions.

It makes it hard to defend when every time the opposition players run at the line they are able to stay on their feet for that extra metre or two before being dragged down.

Likewise it makes it hard to attack when our players keep get caught behind the advantage line in dominant tackles.

It's not like Australian players are physically smaller than the kiwis and saffa's, in both weight and height they are comparable - yet they are consistently weaker in the collisions.

With effectively no reconditioning time before the international season the national S & C coach is more reliant than ever on the work of the super rugby teams' S & C programs. Should he have more control over what the super rugby teams are doing with their strength and conditioning?

I am standing by for Bruce Ross to see this thread.

This is a strange one as last year teams did physically dominate others. Reds did the Stormers and Tahs did the Chiefs. This year I would say the Brumbies are showing up physically. They are showing to be both fit and strong.

No Fainga'a twins creates a massive collision deficit - Digby as well.

Australia's best natural athletes are most probably not playing rugby union as it is a relatively small game here. Sure, with conditioning and training we can maximize the power and strength of the (private school) boys into what we have, but the saffas an enzedders using the same training will end up stronger as they (statistically) will be starting from a stronger base to begin with. And more mongrel.

(this is why I think the Australian rugby teams should always try to play smarter rather than the raw power or speed.)

Note: this view may or may not be completely biased having gone through the public school system watching the biggest and strongest consistently play rugby loigue and/or kick and giggle.

Across all the Australian provinces? They must have more influence than I credit them for

Ruggo picked 2/5, I mentioned 1 of his 2. From watching the Reds you can see how Robinson's game last year greatly benefited from the Fainga'a boys being there.

It's about attitude. Pure and simple. The Kiwi's and Saffa enter the collision with the intention to half kill you as well as secure the ball.

Several years back now my brother was sent off in a trial against SCEGGS Redlands after he rather ruthlessly pummeled his opposite, legally but ferociously hard at the ruck. When his coach asked why he was sent, the simple answer was 'he hit him so hard it had to be illegal'.

We have a serious attitude issue to forward play in this country at present. We discourage aggression at the breakdown. That's fine in terms of the illegal stuff but it carries through to all aspects. During my time I was sent off after I hit a Grammar player right in the diaphragm (there's video footage to prove the hit was legal) for a dangerously 'high' tackle, a team mate was sent for what was a textbook covering tackle against the Cranbrook School (again he just hit him ferociously hard but perfectly legal) and I was once approached by a ref back in U15s after the opposition complained to him at half time and requested the ref to ask me and I'll never forget these words to 'please stop playing so hard'.

We have a major issue with aggression in Rugby. It's seen as a bad thing particularly in the junior ranks. While we are at it let's stop keeping score so everyone wins. Until we address this we will always have this issue of being out muscled at the collision for some not so mysterious reason. This may seem over the top but I make no apologies, Rugby is a rough sport. The Kiwi's know this, the Saffa's know this but unlike us, they embrace it.

@wcr: just check the youtube clip of bakkies cleaning out that fatboy jones on youtube. 100% legal, but because Bakkies broke his collarbone, the cleanout had to have been deemed as illegal.

agree.

It's also technical - correct body height, latching on to the bloke with the ball etc

You could have left it at union being a relatively small game in Australia without bringing the public vs private school bullshit into it. What a load.

But is it?

Just going on simple logic - poorer people traditionally would have worked more manual labour jobs and over timed developed that strength in the gene pool. Until recent times rugby in australia has been quite a restricted sport due to its inability to expand into outer suburbs - hence it is entirely possible the gene pool is somewhat lacking. Sure there is plenty of athleticism there, but pure physical strength is somewhat lacking.

Of course this is not a hard and fast rule - it is just half baked logic, but I think there is some truth to it.

That's a false syllogism if I've ever seen one -- you hit the nail on the head with "half baked logic".

You're reading way too much into some posts.

gel clearly wasn't starting a private v public school debate, but rather highlighting the obvious fact that rugby union in this country relies too heavily on its private school catchments and thus limits the player pool.

The bigger they are the harder they fall.

I'd settle for seeing Aussie teams playing better close support for runners, i.e. pushing them through. Other than the Brumbies we seem to suck at it.

Thank you, that was exactly my point.

I think there are defiantly technique and defensive system failings - but at the end of the day without the raw physical strength and required conditioning to physically dominate opposition players, no defensive system will be successful.

Brumbies held their own against the Bulls last night. Both forwards packs had periods on being 'on top' but overall the honours were even I reckon. Very encouraging to see some aggressive Brumbies defence on the Bulls - particularly when the Bulls were attacking with speed, power and some finesse too.

This was a huge contrast to the way the Bulls swamped all over the Reds a few weeks ago - that was quite a worry at the time but I think the Reds have improved since then - though the Stormers did have it them physically on Friday night.

Physical conditioning and sheer size can give an advantage at present especially in the backs. But that conditioning shouldn't come at the expense of basic ball handling skills.

Probably the biggest gym monkey culture in world rugby can be seen in England where players are judged by what they can bench. But even with a huge pool of physical players they find it difficult to produce players with above average ball handling skills. Sometimes they can look impressive when they do physically dominate other teams, but if the other team matches them physically they can seem clueless as to how to break down a well organised defence.

Australia have always been known for their craft and guile. Their ability to cut open defences with running lines, set moves and support play. Adding a bit of grunt on top of that wouldn't be a bad thing. Just don't over do it and end up like England.

I so desperately want to see that side of our game make a return.

I have no doubt that strength and conditioning plays a big part in preparation, however I think we really seem to be moving away from what made us stand out in the first place. We won 2 world cups with clever rugby, where guys would constantly support each other and out-think the opposition. We have never, and will probably never have, the sheer numbers of the Saffas and the Kiwis. So what we have always done to get a level pegging with those countries is to approach our game in a way that advantaged us.

This is not happening anymore, and it is due to a multitude of reasons. I want it to stop though. I really want to see Australians out-wit their opposition again.