Obsession with size?

[MarleyWasp]

One of the things that in my view has really held England back over the last 16 years is the emphasis on bulk over skill. There are some players who have been someway shot of being the most skillful in their position but due to their size have a lot more England caps then the players they blocked from international duty. Players such as Shontayne Hape, Brad Barritt and Matt Banahan spring to mind.

I wonder if it's a reaction to Jonah Lomu steamrolling his way over Mike Catt, but then given how the game has developed, would Jonah have had the same impact had he been a 20 something at last year's RWC?

I echo Heathen's comments on Dan Baugh. Our fitness levels have never really filled me with confidence since he arrived and we've always had a number of players out long term. A few years ago I read somewhere that Sale spent the most on strength and conditioning, and had the lowest injury rates in the league, which allowed them to survive on a smaller squad size.

On the subject of weight, Gatland tells a good tale about Trevor in his autobiography.

Craig White worked out Trevor's optimal weight was 123kg and given his fondness for KFC he was weighed twice a week. For weigh in after weigh in he was hitting the scales at 123kg and eventually someone smelt a rat. It turned out that Trevor was positioning the scales at a place where he could offload weight by leaning against a wall. They weighed him and he was 6kg or so over. So Gatland told him not to come in until he had shifted the excess weight. Nobody heard from him for a fortnight so they called him in and he'd put on another 3kg...

[Hymenoptera]

Are size and skills mutually exclusive? You can have both just as you can have neither.
I'm going to say it because of the constant ref to Wade. I don't believe his size had anything to do with his overall rugby progress. He was excellent something and not so much at others, when balanced out, i guess he was deemed less rounded over all by multiple coaches. I dont believe he was much if any smaller than Jason Robinson and he did ok.

[mike909]

Are size and skills mutually exclusive? You can have both just as you can have neither.
I'm going to say it because of the constant ref to Wade. I don't believe his size had anything to do with his overall rugby progress. He was excellent something and not so much at others, when balanced out, i guess he was deemed less rounded over all by multiple coaches. I dont believe he was much if any smaller than Jason Robinson and he did ok.

A quick answer, no

A longer answer - I think Wade (and I'm as guilty as anyone of thinking him hard done by) was probably the best attacking winger I've seen of his sort (small and quick in pace and feet) but looking back at repeated Wasps games on BT for lock down, it was more obvious from a time distance that his all round game did probably require work.....and whether that was him or the coaches (we always picked him if available) I don't know. But if was probably only Jones who for England made that decision. Lancaster was faced with an injured player having selected him at age 22 and losing him to the Lions.....

[Trevs Big Tackle]

What does "all round game" mean? If you mean defence, say defence. Specifically you could say positioning or tackling technique, or willingness to put his body on the line etc.

For me, his all round game was great. Watch back the highlights of Tom Varndell's tries and you'll see lots of them set up by a Wade break and pass/offload. Too many wingers would have taken it into contact. I can't remember if it was Wade's England appearance or his Lions game but I remember him running about 50 yards, beating a few defenders, before passing to support. That player gets tackled and Wade is straight in acting as scrum half recycling the ball quickly. I was impressed that despite being new on that stage, and young, he had taken that responsibility and had that quick decision making.

It's a shame he never got to work with Shaun Edwards day-to-day. Shaun knows how to make defence & tackling fun. I think that kind of coaching could have made Wade the complete player.

[westwaleswasp]

Shane Williams has regularly stated he came close to not making it having had the 'too small' label applied throughout his career. We hear that  a lot in Wales.

As for Wade, we often hear 'if he was x he would have had many caps', but really Lancaster did pick him and he was just injured and unavailable at the wrong time in a four year WC cycle. Not sure we should be hailing the man as a selector who picked Sam Burgess at centre after a season in the back row at Bath, but he did try to have a look at least and that was when Wade's defensive positioning was under most scrutiny. 

Had we had SCW or Brian Ashton I am sure he would have had a closer look. SCW as a pundit had been vociferous in his support of picking Wade from  2013. Easy as a pundit of course.

 Jones has reportedly previously said in private that Dan Robson is too small, and is not a man to change his mind on anything. His only public comments on Wade were 'brilliant player, not what we are looking for'. Really he is the only coach to persistently overlook Wade, and given his selections at times, it is always hard to see what is in his mind, he is not exactly forthcoming. So we will never know exactly what was going through his mind.

[mike909]

Ok Trev

In lock down, I've watched loads of Wasps games from when Wade was playing. All of his game, ball in hand, was for me as good as any in the game. However, when looking at positioning in defence, work rate, and tackle technique, looking back without my rose tinted glasses, there were issues and he wasn't quite top level.

Edwards would have made a material difference.

And I've been a really persistent supporter elsewhere online, suggesting it was England's loss. I still do think so, but I do think now that he probably needed to improve in those areas. Sometimes he just looked a bit lost when the opposition was ball in hand. He would have needed work at international level. I still think it would have been worth it. I wanted an England back three with him and Watson to scare teams!

I despair at players selected on power - like Joe C - who has the turning circle of a super tanker and is targeted at club level for his defence. You see that in Prem games, teams know not to allow him any space, but because he's poor on the turn, positioning and catching, they know he's vulnerable to pace and stepping.  Joe is potentially a v good international (if England haven't crippled him) and it seems because he's huge, he gets more of a free pass for the areas needing work.

[Raggs]

Being huge is important though. It offers another power carry option, which really helps against tough defences. Wade could achieve the same with his footwork most of the time, but most can't.

Wade's defence was good enough for me, at least good enough to work on, whilst enjoying his threat in attack.

That said, I don't see Wade starting in the current England back 3. May is my first choice every time. Daly is looking more and more comfortable at FB, and then there's Watson, Nowell and Cokanisiga (and I think I'm forgetting someone).

[baldpaul101]

Picking a team is never as easy as just picking the 15 best players in their positions. Its about balance & picking a team that will play as  team & play to the game plan the coach is working on.

Its very easy for us arm chair pundits to suggest that a coach should pick player x, without understanding the real details of what that might entail.

As for size being everything, its not just England that suffer from this, all teams would, if they could field 15 massive but very talented players, it makes complete sense for all sorts of reasons. Look at how Sarries have dominated by having a massive pack of forwards who just bully everyone else into submission. South Africa & France are also good examples on occaision.

One of the issues is that big young players are picked to smash their way through smaller opposition & don't always develop the rest of their game. I've seen it time after time, big junior players getting to the adult game & really struggling for a few years to adjust to not being able to just smash their way through. The same also goes for pace & footwork though, adults tend to not fall for the same step or dummy and some very skill full players give up because suddenly rugby is not such fun when they can't run rings round everyone.

[Chunky24]

And quite often those larger junior players who dominated from positions in the back row for example are as suggested either lost to the game when they don't dominate in the adult game or are now being converted later on to front row positions. I have just read Tendaii Matawira book who is a prime example, dominated from the back row through his junior rugby and was only coverted to prop when at the Sharks academy.

[mike909]

Being huge is important though. It offers another power carry option, which really helps against tough defences. Wade could achieve the same with his footwork most of the time, but most can't.

Wade's defence was good enough for me, at least good enough to work on, whilst enjoying his threat in attack.

That said, I don't see Wade starting in the current England back 3. May is my first choice every time. Daly is looking more and more comfortable at FB, and then there's Watson, Nowell and Cokanisiga (and I think I'm forgetting someone).

May is 30 - so less likely to make the next RWC, so possibly not going to carry on being first choice - but its - as you say - a bit of a pointless task as when Wade would have been the best attacking wing - it was 2013 or so and as someone else said - injury got in the way.

Re England I still prefer Watson at FB but Daly is looking better. Nowell is very busy and solid and Joe could develop - but is vulnerable going back and may have been broken by England. Its probably Watson, Daly and May in the short term, but looking to those for 2023 (assuming...) I'd guess we'd be looking towards the next generation of players who will be at their peak next time around

Huge is important - but only if you still have an all round game. And that's what coaches get paid for - Manu T looks great ball in hand but is no passer, but England do have the numbers everywhere, except at 12.....

And this was on Joe C earlier - so we'll have to see

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/sport/other-sport/bath-joe-cokanasiga-injury-latest-3938291

[Neils]

Sorry didn't you realise Eddie has Jacob a shoe in for a winger.

[Hymenoptera]

Im with you mike, its way easier to remember the highlight reel stuff than the bits inbetween.

[westwaleswasp]

I don't think Sarries dominated by having a big pack of forwards. They dominated by winning the last 20 with a stellar set of replacements, often matches would be tight till fifty. I think if you want to see the effect of size you have a hard time, and certainly it is not a fair test to talk of Sarries when they were cheating.

I don't think teams do dominate up front as often as they used to. The days of say, a Bok team smashing the Welsh through size are long gone.

[mike909]

Just an observation

I've gone on and on about the last couple of years of Mitre 10 rugby which I saw a lot of due to playing NHS Top Trumps over that period and doing recovering on the sofa!

Now NZ rugby obviously have some big players - but pace and organisation are important to them and at that tier below SR, the games were very much about pace and space - and it also had (my other bug bear) reffing that facilitated pace and space, in the main by making sure the breakdown was within the laws!

But the upside of that - and many of the SR games I also saw, was an attractive game to watch and games where pace and vision were rewarded.

It may be selective memory, but over the last few seasons of Prem, there has been increasing emphasis on power and slowing the ball etc and supported by the reffing emphasis allowing too many breakdown shenanigans rather than quick possession. It seems to have been a progression over (perhaps?) the last 15 years.

Hopefully, the reffing review will ensure the laws are enacted.....

[welsh wasp]

For what's worth, I didn't see the interview as being in any way negative about Wasps - that would not have been sensible since he now has a career with us. May explain leaving Tigers.