There have been a couple of comments from Bog brush man and MarkM in recent weeks about the selection of younger players on the basis of their size rather than ability. That struck a bit of a chord with me when watching some of the U20 matches last year, because quite a lot of the players seemed to have a very similar build. So I have dug into the handbook and looked up the physical dimensions of our young back row players;

Currie 188cm, 100Kg
Bridge 185cm, 101Kg
Laithwaite 188cm, 101Kg

They look virtually identical, almost clones in fact. Yet in our senior players, we do have rather more variation with House at 192cm, 106Kg and Grix 180cm, 95Kg.

So the question is, have coaches made a selection early in their careers, or has it been a process of 'natural selection' as they progressed through the academy system. Is 188 cm and 100Kg the perfect size for a BR forward, where both quick speed off the mark combined with sufficient 'mass' meets the needs of the modern day forward ?

Rob Burrow has got a lot of catching up at 66kg & 165cm.

Yes, I think his aspirations of playing prop have gone I am afraid, but he could still make a decent BR if he worked hard.

Rob Burrow is a massive exception. There is a school of though (right or wrong) that seems to think if you can get a big, strong athlete you can then develop the core skills.

To coin an old phrase; "A good big un's better than a good little un".

Different sport, but there is a brilliant Brazilian documentary from a few years back made by Fernando Meirelles who directed City of God and The Constant Gardener.
It is called "Ginga: The Soul of Brasilian Football" and it focuses on young kids in various backgrounds in Brazil, and shows how they try to get into professional football.

One thing it touches on is how some of the best Brazilian footballers have come in all different shapes and sizes over the years, but how in modern day Brazil, you can not even get a trial at a club unless you are a certain height and build by 16 and you can run 100 meters within a certain time.

There is a certain truth in it, because 8 years later the Brazil team is full of tall, well built, athletic footballers, but they have lost that magic they once had and haven't won anything for a good few years.

As has already been touched upon, the thought process behind this, is that skills can be taught, but build, height, speed, athleticism cannot.

So at 183cm and 86kg, i'm a little short and lightweight, that actually makes me feel a lot better

Many of the best players in our league today - Burrow and Tomkins for two - have been told at some stage that they were too small. It's pretty lazy stuff and this idea that you can learn the core skills later is why the Aussies cane us at international level.

Tomkins was nearly let go at 16 by Wigan as they thought he wouldn't make it, some of that was due to his height and weight.

Your taller than Anthony Watmough (and not much lighter) and Paul Gallen. they wouldnt get a sniff in the massive Huddersfield pack.

Preston Campbell, how did he cope in the rough old NRL?

Avoided being tackled.

Perhaps if people spent less time studying body mass stats and a bit more time studying skills, we wouldn't be desperately trying to find an international half back pairing capable of timing a pass, and praying for Lee Briers recovery from injury.

Therein lies the very root of the problem.

If these small kids with great ball skills were so good then they would be running rings round the bigger guys and if the top clubs missed out on picking them up they would play their way through the lower leagues by showing how good they were.

Of course a few amateur coaches on here, know so much about junior RL, and unfortunately all of the professionals don't...

Yes and this is bull too, Brazil won nothing from 1970 to 1994 with all their skilful ball players and then they won World Cups in 1994 and 2002 with the likes of Dunga, Gilberto Silva and Kleberson playing grim defensive football and relying on one good striker up front (Romario or Ronaldo).

Its a shame they don't learn the Dutch way, focusing on ball skills from an early age as we are always told, and they have won fewer World Cups than England.

Lets see how the current generation of unskilful Brazilian athletes go on in the next World Cup....

Light the blue touch paper, then stand well back..........

he's 100% right though.

Loads of amateur coaches looking after junior teams seem to know better than the professional scouts/coaches employed by Warrington.... somebody should tell Mr Moran the is hiring the wrong people.

I'm well aware he's right, I'm just waiting for the reaction.

I find all this body size obsession, a considerable amount of testicles.

Since the inception of SL, we've been obsessed in manufacturing a perfect RL specimen (based on NRL players), where virtually all players are 6'1" and 15 stone.

I'll give a couple of old examples
Kevin Ward (under 6 foot, and a bit "broad in the beam"icon_wink.gif
Les Boyd (WELL under 6 foot and VERY "broad in the beam"icon_wink.gif
They are hardly classic RL bodies, but, could they play RL? Too right.

Yes, the game has changed since these two played, BUT, I'm damned sure these two (under today's training regimes) would have been just as effective, if not BETTER, even though they aren't built like your identikit 21st Century RL player.

A good player is a good player, no matter what their build

You only have to look at Myler & Michael Monaghan two fairly small in height players but Monas is a tackle monster and Myler is Lao developing into a similar type of solid one on one tackler. Small is beautiful and that's a fact. Don't believe me. Look at Gareth Hock!

I don't think there's much doubt that the style of the game these days calls for a relatively uniform RL player in terms of build and skills, as opposed to distinct body sizes and attributes between backs, half-backs and forwards.

Most tries, and breaks tend to come from tackle busts or overlaps these days, as opposed to dummies, chip kicks, sidesteps AS WELL as tackle busts, overlaps.

We're more fortunate than most in Tony Smith's philosophy but players and skills generally are much more generic - that may be down to those kind of players being ignored as too small, too risky, too suspect defensively or coaches focussing on defence and weight training against skills work.

Its called full time professionalism. The game is faster and more intense than it was back then.

In the amateur game there are still players of all different sizes.

According to the book I am reading "The Gold Mine Effect", you need the correct genes to succeed, but simply having those genes is not enough. The 'correct genes' means that its not much use being 5 feet tall if you wan't to be a basketball player, or having short fingers if you wan't to be an international pianist. And if you are a runner, you need plenty of 'fast twitch muscle' for sprinting.

There are quite a few other factors that are essential, but practice / training seems to be one of the most important. A figure of 10,000 hours practice seems to be commonly required whether you wish to be world class at running or playing the violin. Then there is self belief, single-mindedness, determination,competition etc etc. The correct facilities do not seem very important at all. Kenyan runners train on poor quality grass tracks, and Brazillian footballers in Rio practice in the back streets of their slums as children.

So my naive idea that sportsmen are 'born talented' doesn't seem to be correct. Yes, you need good eye / hand coordination, but it is the coaching and hours of practice that are much more important. And MarkM's point about a school of thought that you pick the build ( ie genes) and train them up, appears to be common.

Lets be honest.. Rugby league is a relatively low skilled sport compared to alot out there.

if you're big, strong and fast, you can have a fair crack at being a professional rugby player.

There are plenty of SL players plying their trade who's skill set can best be described as 'big, strong and daft'.

It's not like cricket, golf, boxing or football (although the way football is going you could make a similar argument). You cant just pick those sports up at 14/15 and sign professional contracts 2/3 years later.

You do get your Mylers, Gouldings, Longs' coming through now and again. But these players are coming from a strong RL background and have been almost bred to play RL from an early age.

The reality is the majority of your smaller players that might might be the next Briers are off playing other sports they are good at...