So, what did we learn this season?

[Niegs]

The first photo, that prick isn't supporting his weight - should be a penalty ot the defence. If you're not on your feet you're out of the game. Whether your tackling somebody or rucking, if you do it while on the ground it's a penalty

And that's a 'clean' one that should be easier to manage! I'm fine with the notion that collapses will occur if both sides are 'endeavouring' to stay on their feet, driving straight or upwards, but where one side dominates.

These, however, seem more common (or would-be jackaler gets croc-rolled).

[Biffer]

The first photo, that prick isn't supporting his weight - should be a penalty ot the defence. If you're not on your feet you're out of the game. Whether your tackling somebody or rucking, if you do it while on the ground it's a penalty

Exactly. Don’t need to change the rules, just enforce them.

[Niegs]

Brian Moore’s “they kicked it away again” outburst unheeded.

[MungoMan]

Poach/jackal is clearly a bad thing - a break that doesn’t result in a try is all but a guarantee of a turnover and therefore a bad decision

You want to remove the contest for the ball and turn it into rugby league with no tackle limit?

Rugby league had no tackle limit when I began playing it, and rugby union had the standing tackle until the late 70s.

Try again, this time based on historical fact.

[Certain Navigator]

Poach/jackal is clearly a bad thing - a break that doesn’t result in a try is all but a guarantee of a turnover and therefore a bad decision

You want to remove the contest for the ball and turn it into rugby league with no tackle limit?

Rugby league had no tackle limit when I began playing it, and rugby union had the standing tackle until the late 70s.

Try again, this time based on historical fact.

Current fact is that the tackle limit was introduced to league in 1966, i.e., almost 60 years ago. And it's hard to see what the pre-1977 standing tackle rule has to do with the point being made, since all the change did is specify the definition of a tackle, i.e., brought to ground.

Rugby is basically a contest for possession and attempts to weaken that do indeed "turn it into league with no tackle limit".

[Kawazaki]

You want to remove the contest for the ball and turn it into rugby league with no tackle limit?

Rugby league had no tackle limit when I began playing it, and rugby union had the standing tackle until the late 70s.

Try again, this time based on historical fact.

Current fact is that the tackle limit was introduced to league in 1966, i.e., almost 60 years ago. And it's hard to see what the pre-1977 standing tackle rule has to do with the point being made, since all the change did is specify the definition of a tackle, i.e., brought to ground.

Rugby is basically a contest for possession and attempts to weaken that do indeed "turn it into league with no tackle limit".

Nobody is advocating 'weakening' the contest for possession.

[JM2K6]

Brian Moore’s “they kicked it away again” outburst unheeded.

This seems silly to me. Tigers had a specific gameplan to counter Saracens' strengths and executed it well. Brian Moore was bemoaning aimless pointless kicking that wasted good opportunities.

[Torquemada 1420]

If you make it too hard to contest possession on the deck, attacking teams will just endlessly recycle possession until the defence cracks. England 2003 and Oz 1999 used to do this lots.

Yes. I agree. But that's why we should not be rewarding players for going to the deck so easily. Players should be trying to stay on their feet and not going all Tim Rodber. If you are genuinely tackled to the ground, fine. If you are stopped and held up and then try to make it a tackle under the current, stupid laws by wriggling like an Indian kid being kissed by an auntie to get a knee down, then it should be an automatic turnover. Scrum to opposition. Not even a tackle if supporting players drive you down.

[Torquemada 1420]

The first photo, that prick isn't supporting his weight - should be a penalty ot the defence. If you're not on your feet you're out of the game. Whether your tackling somebody or rucking, if you do it while on the ground it's a penalty

Exactly. Don’t need to change the rules, just enforce them.

A novel idea.

Offside, scrum feed, straight lineouts.

[Torquemada 1420]

Brian Moore’s “they kicked it away again” outburst unheeded.

This seems silly to me. Tigers had a specific gameplan to counter Saracens' strengths and executed it well. Brian Moore was bemoaning aimless pointless kicking that wasted good opportunities.

I assumed BCM was bemoaning it as a spectacle.

Rugby was intended to be a handling game played by players on their feet. How TF we got to the abortion we see today is something the law makers can only be accountable for.

[average joe]

Brian Moore’s “they kicked it away again” outburst unheeded.

This seems silly to me. Tigers had a specific gameplan to counter Saracens' strengths and executed it well. Brian Moore was bemoaning aimless pointless kicking that wasted good opportunities.

I assumed BCM was bemoaning it as a spectacle.

Rugby was intended to be a handling game played by players on their feet. How TF we got to the abortion we see today is something the law makers can only be accountable for.

"Rugby was intended to be what I want it to be"

Perhaps we should outlaw tackling al together, they can just play touchies. We can work in some hide and seek and hopscotch just for fun.

Maybe this will stop your constant moaning.

[Torquemada 1420]

"Rugby was intended to be what I want it to be"

Perhaps we should outlaw tackling al together, they can just play touchies. We can work in some hide and seek and hopscotch just for fun.

Maybe this will stop your constant moaning.

You are South African. When did you ever play rugby anyone else other than South Africans wanted to watch?!

If your lot controlled the laws, the game would be dead in a matter of years.

[JM2K6]

Brian Moore’s “they kicked it away again” outburst unheeded.

This seems silly to me. Tigers had a specific gameplan to counter Saracens' strengths and executed it well. Brian Moore was bemoaning aimless pointless kicking that wasted good opportunities.

I assumed BCM was bemoaning it as a spectacle.

Rugby was intended to be a handling game played by players on their feet. How TF we got to the abortion we see today is something the law makers can only be accountable for.

BCM was bemoaning the utter paucity of ambition, the aimlessness of it all, and the pointlessness of it all. Can't level the same criticism at Tigers.

[Tichtheid]

Rugby was intended to be a handling game played by players on their feet. How TF we got to the abortion we see today is something the law makers can only be accountable for.

When the game went pro the first thing we did was to work on defence, it was the easiest thing to do, adopt a RL style fan out across the pitch, ensure your guys make their tackles and you've already made huge improvements in that area, another way of saying that is that you've immediately made it more difficult to score tries.
Japan at the last WC, and at a much higher level, Carter's and McCaw's ABs showed that you don't need awesome power to win rugby games, not if you get good ruck ball and move it quickly. It will always be the case that a team with huge power will be successful, look at the Boks who won in 2019, but what gets overlooked somewhat about that side is that their backs were sensational too.
What I'm saying is that you need a solid set piece and a high quality defence, but you need an all-court backline now too, we are in a better position now than 20 years ago, even in the light of pretty dull finals and semi-finals last weekend.

On the laws, it seems to me that at the start of each season refs are hot on particular areas and they will penalised the arse off anyone transgressing in those areas, then a few weeks in they start to relent, but before the behaviour of the players has changed, it's like they lose their bottle. Or more like the authorities lose their bottle and tell the refs to ease up as they are "ruining the spectacle". The most recent area where this has happened is actually of grave concern, there were several cases of clear shoulder to head contact last weekend where the referee talked it down from a red to a yellow card.
Fuck player safety, that doesn't bring in the tv revenue or put bums on seats, we need a spectacle and we're not going to spoil it

For me the jackal, or how it is refereed, has become worse over the course of the season, the main points of where it's going wrong have already been covered, but it's very frustrating as a fan to see discrepancy of interpretation between referees.

However I don't really blame the refs, rugby as a whole talks about the hallowed Dark Arts, whether it's in the front row, in the maul or at the breakdown. Another word for dark arts is cheating, it's been that way since before I first played decades ago. You get away with what you can and you do it until the ref pings you.

I don't really blame the officials, rugby must be one of the most difficult games to referee, any blame is on the players and especially the coaches. As soon as new laws are introduced the coaches are looking for ways around them. It is the coaches who have spoiled the scrum, it's funny how well the scrum is set once a couple of props are binned, but on the other hand the lineout is a much better spectacle than it was in the old amateur days where there was no lifting allowed.

Biffer is right, the laws are mostly fine, just enforce them as they are. (aside: I really don't like the goal line drop out, it doesn't reward the attacking team)

[JM2K6]

Carter's and McCaw's ABs showed that you don't need awesome power to win rugby games

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I get what you're saying but NZ have always understood the value of size. Those AB sides frequently had huge backs and usually the two biggest locks on the field (with the except of the freakish Brad Thorn). Ever since they've moved to a smaller backline they've struggled.

These are the guys who regularly played Jerome Kaino at 6 (6'5, 110kg), Ma'a Nonu and/or SBW at 12 (absolute units), a powerful winger in the form of Savea or Sivivatu or Rokocoko (ish), the gigantic Brodie Retallick and Sam Whitelock, and some absolutely massive props and hookers.

They're not like a French side or a South African side, but it's very telling that once they lost some size in the backline they really started to look mortal again. That fast ruck ball is a lot easier to get if it's SBW or Retallick or whoever carrying it or clearing it out.

Sorry, just a little bugbear of mine... your overall point about wanting to get quick ball and wanting to use quick ball & using speed, footwork, and snappy distribution instead of big lumps running into other big lumps is of course completely fair. But it's very hard to consistently win rugby games without the big power runners in the modern game. And it's an arms race of size.

[Tichtheid]

Carter's and McCaw's ABs showed that you don't need awesome power to win rugby games

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I get what you're saying but NZ have always understood the value of size. Those AB sides frequently had huge backs and usually the two biggest locks on the field (with the except of the freakish Brad Thorn). Ever since they've moved to a smaller backline they've struggled.

These are the guys who regularly played Jerome Kaino at 6 (6'5, 110kg), Ma'a Nonu and/or SBW at 12 (absolute units), a powerful winger in the form of Savea or Sivivatu or Rokocoko (ish), the gigantic Brodie Retallick and Sam Whitelock, and some absolutely massive props and hookers.

They're not like a French side or a South African side, but it's very telling that once they lost some size in the backline they really started to look mortal again. That fast ruck ball is a lot easier to get if it's SBW or Retallick or whoever carrying it or clearing it out.

Sorry, just a little bugbear of mine... your overall point about wanting to get quick ball and wanting to use quick ball & using speed, footwork, and snappy distribution instead of big lumps running into other big lumps is of course completely fair. But it's very hard to consistently win rugby games without the big power runners in the modern game. And it's an arms race of size.

I'd add Brad Thorn (edit, sorry I skim read and missed your mention Thorn, he is one of my favourite players), but my point is really that those ABs didn't rely on battering the opposition into submission, they more than held their own up front, but it was all about running around them or kicking very well. They were probably the smarted team I've ever seen.

Nonu is a brilliant case study and imo he personifies my point, He started as a bulldozer, albeit a very quick one but he turned himself into a player with the lightest and quickest of hands, he had very good vision and kicked well too.
It didn't hurt to have Carter and Smith either side of him right enough. Also if peak Nick Evans is your back up, you're doing okay

I think the ABs have struggled, in relative terms, because they don't currently have two players vying for the jersey in a World XV, that period was unreal and they are probably the best sports team of all time. It was also unsustainable.

[average joe]

"Rugby was intended to be what I want it to be"

Perhaps we should outlaw tackling al together, they can just play touchies. We can work in some hide and seek and hopscotch just for fun.

Maybe this will stop your constant moaning.

You are South African. When did you ever play rugby anyone else other than South Africans wanted to watch?!

If your lot controlled the laws, the game would be dead in a matter of years.

Coming from a Frenchman, I'll take it as a complement.

[JM2K6]

Carter's and McCaw's ABs showed that you don't need awesome power to win rugby games

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I get what you're saying but NZ have always understood the value of size. Those AB sides frequently had huge backs and usually the two biggest locks on the field (with the except of the freakish Brad Thorn). Ever since they've moved to a smaller backline they've struggled.

These are the guys who regularly played Jerome Kaino at 6 (6'5, 110kg), Ma'a Nonu and/or SBW at 12 (absolute units), a powerful winger in the form of Savea or Sivivatu or Rokocoko (ish), the gigantic Brodie Retallick and Sam Whitelock, and some absolutely massive props and hookers.

They're not like a French side or a South African side, but it's very telling that once they lost some size in the backline they really started to look mortal again. That fast ruck ball is a lot easier to get if it's SBW or Retallick or whoever carrying it or clearing it out.

Sorry, just a little bugbear of mine... your overall point about wanting to get quick ball and wanting to use quick ball & using speed, footwork, and snappy distribution instead of big lumps running into other big lumps is of course completely fair. But it's very hard to consistently win rugby games without the big power runners in the modern game. And it's an arms race of size.

I'd add Brad Thorn (edit, sorry I skim read and missed your mention Thorn, he is one of my favourite players), but my point is really that those ABs didn't rely on battering the opposition into submission, they more than held their own up front, but it was all about running around them or kicking very well. They were probably the smarted team I've ever seen.

Nonu is a brilliant case study and imo he personifies my point, He started as a bulldozer, albeit a very quick one but he turned himself into a player with the lightest and quickest of hands, he had very good vision and kicked well too.
It didn't hurt to have Carter and Smith either side of him right enough. Also if peak Nick Evans is your back up, you're doing okay

I think the ABs have struggled, in relative terms, because they don't currently have two players vying for the jersey in a World XV, that period was unreal and they are probably the best sports team of all time. It was also unsustainable.

I sort of agree - it's just that if Ma'a Nonu was built like Shane Geraghty he'd never have been world class. They definitely do not pick guys who are just big or powerful. Even the most one-dimensional ones - say Julian Savea or Ngani Laumape - still had decent ball skills and weren't anywhere near as 1D as some of the guy you see in NH rugby. But it's certainly a much harder game to play if you consistently lose the gainline, like NZ did against England at the RWC - smashed in the tackle, no big runners to get them over the line. You only had to look at the lineup to see they didn't have that "out" when they needed it:

New Zealand: B Barrett, Reece, Goodhue, Lienert-Brown, Bridge, Mo'unga, A Smith; Moody, Taylor, Laulala, Retallick, Whitelock, S Barrett, Savea, Read (capt).

Replacements: Williams for Goodhue (53), J Barrett for Bridge (49), Perenara for A Smith (53), Tu'ungafasi for Moody (62), Coles for Taylor (49), Taavao-Matau for Laulala (53), Tuipulotu for Whitelock (66), Cane for S Barrett (41).

Retallick and Whitelock not being in great form hurt them a lot, but that backline is very weedy by modern All Black standards.

[Tichtheid]

Yeah JM2K6, that's probably fair about them not having that "out" in that game.

It always been that way, I guess, for Nonu in his generation we could say that Sella was similar in his time, forget his skills and pace, he was solidly built and never backed out of the physical side of the game

[JM2K6]

Yeah JM2K6, that's probably fair about them not having that "out" in that game.

It always been that way, I guess, for Nonu in his generation we could say that Sella was similar in his time, forget his skills and pace, he was solidly built and never backed out of the physical side of the game

Even worth mentioning that Carter and Barrett - both world players of the year - were physically superior to almost all their contempories at flyhalf.

Actually, looking at the world player of the year, being physically dominant for that position comes up most of the time. McCaw wasn't huge but he didn't lack for power - I wouldn't call him a good example of this though, as he really was just that good at the game regardless.

But this is the list:

Keith Wood
Fabien Galthié
Johnny Wilkinson
Schalk Burger
Dan Carter (x3)
Richie McCaw (x3)
Bryan Habana
Shane Williams
Thierry Dusautoir
Kieran Read
Brodie Retallick
Beauden Barritt (x2)
Jonathan Sexton
Pieter-Steph du Toit
Antoine Dupont

Galthié and Williams didn't have physicality as a big part of their game. McCaw I'll give a pass to as above. The rest... Sexton probably not (though not small for a 10!), but Wood, Wilko, Carter, Habana, Dusautoir, Read, Retallick, Burger, Barritt, PSDT, and Dupont all had either a surprisingly level of physicality for their size/position, or were genuinely one of the physically most imposing players in their position in world rugby. Obviously a variety of skills on display and they are all also very good rugby players, but I don't think it's coincidental that the 3 10s with the most power + impressive physiques have 6 wins between them...

[iarmhí]

In response to op.

Ireland don't have the cattle to beat really big packs
England are also too light
South African team won URC because Leinster went all out for Champions Cup
ROG is still a pain the hole for Leinster
Sarries a pale shadow of their former selves
Summer series will be 3-1 to SH with only France winning in Argentina
France v South Africa would be a brilliant match to see who is the more powerful set of forwards

[Biffer]

The first photo, that prick isn't supporting his weight - should be a penalty ot the defence. If you're not on your feet you're out of the game. Whether your tackling somebody or rucking, if you do it while on the ground it's a penalty

Exactly. Don’t need to change the rules, just enforce them.

A novel idea.

Offside, scrum feed, straight lineouts.

It’s offside that annoys me the most. We hear over and over again that they want to introduce things to give players space to play, open up the game, give attacking players room, etc etc. rigidly enforcing the offside line does that, but for some reason they’d rather fuck about.

[Torquemada 1420]

"Rugby was intended to be what I want it to be"

Perhaps we should outlaw tackling al together, they can just play touchies. We can work in some hide and seek and hopscotch just for fun.

Maybe this will stop your constant moaning.

You are South African. When did you ever play rugby anyone else other than South Africans wanted to watch?!

If your lot controlled the laws, the game would be dead in a matter of years.

Coming from a Frenchman, I'll take it as a complement.

[Torquemada 1420]

Carter's and McCaw's ABs showed that you don't need awesome power to win rugby games

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I get what you're saying but NZ have always understood the value of size. Those AB sides frequently had huge backs and usually the two biggest locks on the field (with the except of the freakish Brad Thorn). Ever since they've moved to a smaller backline they've struggled.

These are the guys who regularly played Jerome Kaino at 6 (6'5, 110kg), Ma'a Nonu and/or SBW at 12 (absolute units), a powerful winger in the form of Savea or Sivivatu or Rokocoko (ish), the gigantic Brodie Retallick and Sam Whitelock, and some absolutely massive props and hookers.

They're not like a French side or a South African side, but it's very telling that once they lost some size in the backline they really started to look mortal again. That fast ruck ball is a lot easier to get if it's SBW or Retallick or whoever carrying it or clearing it out.

Sorry, just a little bugbear of mine... your overall point about wanting to get quick ball and wanting to use quick ball & using speed, footwork, and snappy distribution instead of big lumps running into other big lumps is of course completely fair. But it's very hard to consistently win rugby games without the big power runners in the modern game. And it's an arms race of size.

Not forgetting the move to giant wingers was all started with Lomu.

How was Brad Thorn an exception though? He was the lump enforcer whereas Ali Williams was more the mobility merchant.

99% on the arms race. I'd caveat with size and/or power. The success of Fre sides this season has been very much down to that. LaR v Leinster and RCT v Sarries being perfect examples. It's not that there isn't skill there too but it all looks like attrition being the decisive factor in winning out in the end.

Tichtheid's post is accurate on the rest.

[JM2K6]

Carter's and McCaw's ABs showed that you don't need awesome power to win rugby games

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I get what you're saying but NZ have always understood the value of size. Those AB sides frequently had huge backs and usually the two biggest locks on the field (with the except of the freakish Brad Thorn). Ever since they've moved to a smaller backline they've struggled.

These are the guys who regularly played Jerome Kaino at 6 (6'5, 110kg), Ma'a Nonu and/or SBW at 12 (absolute units), a powerful winger in the form of Savea or Sivivatu or Rokocoko (ish), the gigantic Brodie Retallick and Sam Whitelock, and some absolutely massive props and hookers.

They're not like a French side or a South African side, but it's very telling that once they lost some size in the backline they really started to look mortal again. That fast ruck ball is a lot easier to get if it's SBW or Retallick or whoever carrying it or clearing it out.

Sorry, just a little bugbear of mine... your overall point about wanting to get quick ball and wanting to use quick ball & using speed, footwork, and snappy distribution instead of big lumps running into other big lumps is of course completely fair. But it's very hard to consistently win rugby games without the big power runners in the modern game. And it's an arms race of size.

Not forgetting the move to giant wingers was all started with Lomu.

How was Brad Thorn an exception though? He was the lump enforcer whereas Ali Williams was more the mobility merchant.

99% on the arms race. I'd caveat with size and/or power. The success of Fre sides this season has been very much down to that. LaR v Leinster and RCT v Sarries being perfect examples. It's not that there isn't skill there too but it all looks like attrition being the decisive factor in winning out in the end.

Tichtheid's post is accurate on the rest.

Thorn wasn't huge, he was on the small side for locks even back then. He was powerful, but what made him special was the combination of incredible workrate and athleticism on top of a fine rugby brain and amazing commitment to the cause. It wasn't his size.

Ali Williams was 4 inches taller and a lot heavier.

[average joe]

You are South African. When did you ever play rugby anyone else other than South Africans wanted to watch?!

If your lot controlled the laws, the game would be dead in a matter of years.

Coming from a Frenchman, I'll take it as a complement.

English is my third language. How's yours?

We've won three world cup's with our boring rugby. How many have you won with your French flair?

Funnily enough, I watched some old Top14 games the other day and saw absolutely no flair, it was the most turgid boring thugby I've seen in ages.

[Biffer]

So you'll have liked that then?

[Torquemada 1420]

Coming from a Frenchman, I'll take it as a complement.

English is my third language. How's yours?

We've won three world cup's with our boring rugby. How many have you won with your French flair?

Funnily enough, I watched some old Top14 games the other day and saw absolutely no flair, it was the most turgid boring thugby I've seen in ages.

You've been whooshed son. Plus which you might try reading any of my posts on Fre rugby before bandying around words like flair.

[Torquemada 1420]

Thorn wasn't huge, he was on the small side for locks even back then. He was powerful, but what made him special was the combination of incredible workrate and athleticism on top of a fine rugby brain and amazing commitment to the cause. It wasn't his size.

Ali Williams was 4 inches taller and a lot heavier.

I had to check this and you are right that Thorn was shorter and lighter than Williams although
- I wouldn't say materially so
- or that they were light for locks per se. Trying to think of a super heavy lock of that era and Shaw comes to mind but he can't have been more than a stone heavier? As an aside, wasn't there a rumour that Shaw was not being selected for Eng because he was too heavy to lift?

[JM2K6]

Thorn wasn't huge, he was on the small side for locks even back then. He was powerful, but what made him special was the combination of incredible workrate and athleticism on top of a fine rugby brain and amazing commitment to the cause. It wasn't his size.

Ali Williams was 4 inches taller and a lot heavier.

I had to check this and you are right that Thorn was shorter and lighter than Williams although
- I wouldn't say materially so
- or that they were light for locks per se. Trying to think of a super heavy lock of that era and Shaw comes to mind but he can't have been more than a stone heavier? As an aside, wasn't there a rumour that Shaw was not being selected for Eng because he was too heavy to lift?

I can't see how 4 inches and about a stone isn't material. You can see the difference in size here

Taking the most generous readings of his height and weight, Thorn was 6'5" (lol, no chance) and 114kg / 17st 13.

Compared with contemporaries at the 2011 world cup:

Sam Whitelock 6'8" / 117kg (18st 6)
Ali Williams 6'8" / 118kg (18st 8)
Dan Vickerman 6'8.5" / 119kg (18st 10)
Rob Simmons 6'7" / 115kg (18st 2)
James Horwill 6'7" / 117kg (18st 6)
Nathan Sharpe 6'7" / 115kg (18st 2)
Louis Deacon 6'6" / 117kg (18st 6)
Courtney Lawes 6'8" / 115kg (18st 2)
Tom Palmer 6'7" / 118kg (18st 8)
Simon Shaw 6'8" / 123kg (19st 5)
Pascal Pape 6'5" / 122kg (19st 3)
Romain Millo-Chluski 6'5" / 121kg (19st 1)
Lionel Nallet 6'6" / 117kg (18st 6)
Bakkies Botha 6'7.5" / 124kg (19st 7)
Victor Matfield 6'7" / 117kg (18st 6)
Danie Rossouw 6'6" / 119kg (18st 10)
Alun Wyn Jones 6'6" / 122kg (19st 2)
Bradley Davies 6'6" / 122kg (19st 2)

let alone Brodie Retallick at 6'8" and 124kg (19st 7)

All stats from Wikipedia so obviously huge pinch of salt, but then it's really obvious just looking at photos that Thorn was a lot smaller than the locks he played with and against. The vast majority of international locks were well over 18 stone, he was usually comfortably under it. The majority of them also had a few inches of height on him. All of the ones I found under 18 stone were a lot taller.

So, like I said, when it comes to having "the two biggest locks on the field", Thorn was an exception. He was quite often the smallest lock on the field.

He just didn't play like it. Absolute freak.

[Torquemada 1420]

Thorn wasn't huge, he was on the small side for locks even back then. He was powerful, but what made him special was the combination of incredible workrate and athleticism on top of a fine rugby brain and amazing commitment to the cause. It wasn't his size.

Ali Williams was 4 inches taller and a lot heavier.

I had to check this and you are right that Thorn was shorter and lighter than Williams although
- I wouldn't say materially so
- or that they were light for locks per se. Trying to think of a super heavy lock of that era and Shaw comes to mind but he can't have been more than a stone heavier? As an aside, wasn't there a rumour that Shaw was not being selected for Eng because he was too heavy to lift?

I can't see how 4 inches and about a stone isn't material. You can see the difference in size here

Taking the most generous readings of his height and weight, Thorn was 6'5" (lol, no chance) and 114kg / 17st 13.

Compared with contemporaries at the 2011 world cup:

Sam Whitelock 6'8" / 117kg (18st 6)
Ali Williams 6'8" / 118kg (18st 8)
Dan Vickerman 6'8.5" / 119kg (18st 10)
Rob Simmons 6'7" / 115kg (18st 2)
James Horwill 6'7" / 117kg (18st 6)
Nathan Sharpe 6'7" / 115kg (18st 2)
Louis Deacon 6'6" / 117kg (18st 6)
Courtney Lawes 6'8" / 115kg (18st 2)
Tom Palmer 6'7" / 118kg (18st 8)
Simon Shaw 6'8" / 123kg (19st 5)
Pascal Pape 6'5" / 122kg (19st 3)
Romain Millo-Chluski 6'5" / 121kg (19st 1)
Lionel Nallet 6'6" / 117kg (18st 6)
Bakkies Botha 6'7.5" / 124kg (19st 7)
Victor Matfield 6'7" / 117kg (18st 6)
Danie Rossouw 6'6" / 119kg (18st 10)
Alun Wyn Jones 6'6" / 122kg (19st 2)
Bradley Davies 6'6" / 122kg (19st 2)

let alone Brodie Retallick at 6'8" and 124kg (19st 7)

All stats from Wikipedia so obviously huge pinch of salt, but then it's really obvious just looking at photos that Thorn was a lot smaller than the locks he played with and against. The vast majority of international locks were well over 18 stone, he was usually comfortably under it. The majority of them also had a few inches of height on him. All of the ones I found under 18 stone were a lot taller.

So, like I said, when it comes to having "the two biggest locks on the field", Thorn was an exception. He was quite often the smallest lock on the field.

He just didn't play like it. Absolute freak.

Not looking for a sh*t fight. Honest! Totally agree on the height thing being material although I tend to think "huge" relates so mass (e.g. Atonio is huge and no taller than I) and at that end of the weight scale, I really wouldn't consider a stone material. I honestly wouldn't think it material between 2 wings at 13 and 14 stone where the relative difference is much more.

But you are right in that he is the lightest of that lot. I would suspect guys like Woki and Iturria would be around the same weight today.

Did Lawes play in RWC11?

And he was a freak as demonstrated by how long the bast*rd was able to go on for.

[Kawazaki]

Eddie Jones flip flops all the time which doesn't help. He came out with the idea that his team has to have x number of caps to win (regardless of quality or form) and then it was the team that kicks most wins, to the game is a series of short anaerobic power events to then being all about longer ball-in-play pressure on aerobic fitness. He's all over the place.

[Niegs]

Eddie Jones flip flops all the time which doesn't help. He came out with the idea that his team has to have x number of caps to win (regardless of quality or form) and then it was the team that kicks most wins, to the game is a series of short anaerobic power events to then being all about longer ball-in-play pressure on aerobic fitness. He's all over the place.

And also wanting them to be supreme decision makers who take initiative so that he's "redundant" to their needs. Are they really allowed to lead things when he seems to have a strict, yet changing, strategy?

[Uncle fester]

Thorn wasn't huge, he was on the small side for locks even back then. He was powerful, but what made him special was the combination of incredible workrate and athleticism on top of a fine rugby brain and amazing commitment to the cause. It wasn't his size.

Ali Williams was 4 inches taller and a lot heavier.

I had to check this and you are right that Thorn was shorter and lighter than Williams although
- I wouldn't say materially so
- or that they were light for locks per se. Trying to think of a super heavy lock of that era and Shaw comes to mind but he can't have been more than a stone heavier? As an aside, wasn't there a rumour that Shaw was not being selected for Eng because he was too heavy to lift?

I can't see how 4 inches and about a stone isn't material. You can see the difference in size here

Taking the most generous readings of his height and weight, Thorn was 6'5" (lol, no chance) and 114kg / 17st 13.

Compared with contemporaries at the 2011 world cup:

Sam Whitelock 6'8" / 117kg (18st 6)
Ali Williams 6'8" / 118kg (18st 8)
Dan Vickerman 6'8.5" / 119kg (18st 10)
Rob Simmons 6'7" / 115kg (18st 2)
James Horwill 6'7" / 117kg (18st 6)
Nathan Sharpe 6'7" / 115kg (18st 2)
Louis Deacon 6'6" / 117kg (18st 6)
Courtney Lawes 6'8" / 115kg (18st 2)
Tom Palmer 6'7" / 118kg (18st 8)
Simon Shaw 6'8" / 123kg (19st 5)
Pascal Pape 6'5" / 122kg (19st 3)
Romain Millo-Chluski 6'5" / 121kg (19st 1)
Lionel Nallet 6'6" / 117kg (18st 6)
Bakkies Botha 6'7.5" / 124kg (19st 7)
Victor Matfield 6'7" / 117kg (18st 6)
Danie Rossouw 6'6" / 119kg (18st 10)
Alun Wyn Jones 6'6" / 122kg (19st 2)
Bradley Davies 6'6" / 122kg (19st 2)

let alone Brodie Retallick at 6'8" and 124kg (19st 7)

All stats from Wikipedia so obviously huge pinch of salt, but then it's really obvious just looking at photos that Thorn was a lot smaller than the locks he played with and against. The vast majority of international locks were well over 18 stone, he was usually comfortably under it. The majority of them also had a few inches of height on him. All of the ones I found under 18 stone were a lot taller.

So, like I said, when it comes to having "the two biggest locks on the field", Thorn was an exception. He was quite often the smallest lock on the field.

He just didn't play like it. Absolute freak.

Thorn might never been short but he certainly wasn't light.

POC was 110 kg btw. Notice you left him off your list. ;-)

[JM2K6]

I had to check this and you are right that Thorn was shorter and lighter than Williams although
- I wouldn't say materially so
- or that they were light for locks per se. Trying to think of a super heavy lock of that era and Shaw comes to mind but he can't have been more than a stone heavier? As an aside, wasn't there a rumour that Shaw was not being selected for Eng because he was too heavy to lift?

I can't see how 4 inches and about a stone isn't material. You can see the difference in size here

Taking the most generous readings of his height and weight, Thorn was 6'5" (lol, no chance) and 114kg / 17st 13.

Compared with contemporaries at the 2011 world cup:

Sam Whitelock 6'8" / 117kg (18st 6)
Ali Williams 6'8" / 118kg (18st 8)
Dan Vickerman 6'8.5" / 119kg (18st 10)
Rob Simmons 6'7" / 115kg (18st 2)
James Horwill 6'7" / 117kg (18st 6)
Nathan Sharpe 6'7" / 115kg (18st 2)
Louis Deacon 6'6" / 117kg (18st 6)
Courtney Lawes 6'8" / 115kg (18st 2)
Tom Palmer 6'7" / 118kg (18st 8)
Simon Shaw 6'8" / 123kg (19st 5)
Pascal Pape 6'5" / 122kg (19st 3)
Romain Millo-Chluski 6'5" / 121kg (19st 1)
Lionel Nallet 6'6" / 117kg (18st 6)
Bakkies Botha 6'7.5" / 124kg (19st 7)
Victor Matfield 6'7" / 117kg (18st 6)
Danie Rossouw 6'6" / 119kg (18st 10)
Alun Wyn Jones 6'6" / 122kg (19st 2)
Bradley Davies 6'6" / 122kg (19st 2)

let alone Brodie Retallick at 6'8" and 124kg (19st 7)

All stats from Wikipedia so obviously huge pinch of salt, but then it's really obvious just looking at photos that Thorn was a lot smaller than the locks he played with and against. The vast majority of international locks were well over 18 stone, he was usually comfortably under it. The majority of them also had a few inches of height on him. All of the ones I found under 18 stone were a lot taller.

So, like I said, when it comes to having "the two biggest locks on the field", Thorn was an exception. He was quite often the smallest lock on the field.

He just didn't play like it. Absolute freak.

Thorn might never been short but he certainly wasn't light.

POC was 110 kg btw. Notice you left him off your list. ;-)

I only looked at Tier 1 nations.





Yes, he was 110kg - and taller. My point wasn't that Thorn was the smallest lock in world rugby, just that he bucked the Kiwi trend for massive fuckers. He was one of the smallest. Not the absolute smallest. Hence "quite often". There were a few other guys around his size, but only a few!

Also those stats are suspect for Ireland. They have Leo Cullen as the exact same height and weight as POC & DOC Hmmm:



I reckon you fuckers were too lazy to bother doing it properly so just literally had a one-size-fits-all approach to the stats

[FalseBayFC]

A nice twitter thread about who could field the biggest pack in the July internationals. If they fielded their heaviest player in each position. Tongans are effing huge!

[Niegs]

Concussion rates in elite English rugby have hit their highest levels since records began, according to the latest injury audit with the Rugby Football Union rolling out its “smart” mouth‑guard programme in an effort to combat the rise.

The audit of the 2020-21 season, published on Tuesday by the RFU in conjunction with Premiership Rugby and the Rugby Players’ Association, showed that for the 10th season running concussion was the most reported injury, accounting for 28% of injuries.
A concussion check is performed on London Irish's Ben White
Campaigners say rugby’s concussion stand-down extension ‘long overdue’
Read more

The 2020-21 season had the highest incidence of concussion since records started in 2002 with 22.2 concussions per 1,000 hours of playing time. In total there were 131 concussions sustained in matches – resulting in an average of 17 days on the sidelines – and 17 sustained in training.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ords-began

[MungoMan]

Thorn wasn't huge, he was on the small side for locks even back then. He was powerful, but what made him special was the combination of incredible workrate and athleticism on top of a fine rugby brain and amazing commitment to the cause. It wasn't his size.

Ali Williams was 4 inches taller and a lot heavier.

I had to check this and you are right that Thorn was shorter and lighter than Williams although
- I wouldn't say materially so
- or that they were light for locks per se. Trying to think of a super heavy lock of that era and Shaw comes to mind but he can't have been more than a stone heavier? As an aside, wasn't there a rumour that Shaw was not being selected for Eng because he was too heavy to lift?

I can't see how 4 inches and about a stone isn't material. You can see the difference in size here

Taking the most generous readings of his height and weight, Thorn was 6'5" (lol, no chance) and 114kg / 17st 13.

Compared with contemporaries at the 2011 world cup:

Sam Whitelock 6'8" / 117kg (18st 6)
Ali Williams 6'8" / 118kg (18st 8)
Dan Vickerman 6'8.5" / 119kg (18st 10)
Rob Simmons 6'7" / 115kg (18st 2)
James Horwill 6'7" / 117kg (18st 6)
Nathan Sharpe 6'7" / 115kg (18st 2)
Louis Deacon 6'6" / 117kg (18st 6)
Courtney Lawes 6'8" / 115kg (18st 2)
Tom Palmer 6'7" / 118kg (18st 8)
Simon Shaw 6'8" / 123kg (19st 5)
Pascal Pape 6'5" / 122kg (19st 3)
Romain Millo-Chluski 6'5" / 121kg (19st 1)
Lionel Nallet 6'6" / 117kg (18st 6)
Bakkies Botha 6'7.5" / 124kg (19st 7)
Victor Matfield 6'7" / 117kg (18st 6)
Danie Rossouw 6'6" / 119kg (18st 10)
Alun Wyn Jones 6'6" / 122kg (19st 2)
Bradley Davies 6'6" / 122kg (19st 2)

let alone Brodie Retallick at 6'8" and 124kg (19st 7)

All stats from Wikipedia so obviously huge pinch of salt, but then it's really obvious just looking at photos that Thorn was a lot smaller than the locks he played with and against. The vast majority of international locks were well over 18 stone, he was usually comfortably under it. The majority of them also had a few inches of height on him. All of the ones I found under 18 stone were a lot taller.

So, like I said, when it comes to having "the two biggest locks on the field", Thorn was an exception. He was quite often the smallest lock on the field.

He just didn't play like it. Absolute freak.

I saw Thorn up close a few times in his league days and have seen him plenty of times since he took up coaching. I wouldn't doubt for a minute the posted height of 195cm (also given as his height when he played for the Broncos). And his weight varied a bit over the years.

He was bigggish when he first left RL (relevantly, his final season was also the last season of unlimited interchange) and bulked up firther at the Crusaders. He was playing at 118kg or a tad above when he left RU to return to RL but was eventually run down to about 112kg by the new Broncos' fitness coach - the plan was to use Thorn more as high-workrate player rather than impact player.

After he came back to the Crusaders, Thorn asked Robbie Deans if he should start bulking up and the coach responded along the lines of 'Hold off for a bit'. Ultimately Thorn did put on a kg or two but without regaining his former size and, as per the Broncos, was used as a workrate player.

[MungoMan]

You want to remove the contest for the ball and turn it into rugby league with no tackle limit?

Rugby league had no tackle limit when I began playing it, and rugby union had the standing tackle until the late 70s.

Try again, this time based on historical fact.

Current fact is that the tackle limit was introduced to league in 1966, i.e., almost 60 years ago. And it's hard to see what the pre-1977 standing tackle rule has to do with the point being made, since all the change did is specify the definition of a tackle, i.e., brought to ground.

Rugby is basically a contest for possession and attempts to weaken that do indeed "turn it into league with no tackle limit".

Missed this post.

Yes, its years since RL changed to a limited-tackle game and since RU dumped the standing tackle. Nevertheless both codes shared those features for longer than the time elapsed since the changes were made. The same can be said of contested scrums and, notionally at least, a post-tackle contest.

What we see in RL and RU is divergence in the codes, not convergence.

And here's the thing. RL is much the smaller code internationally, yet for some reason it is more common for supporters of the XV-a-side code to fret about the game 'becoming rugby league' than vice-versa. As just one example, when RL followed RU in deeming the corner post at the tryline - touchline junction to be irrelevant as regard whether a player is in touch, few indded were the leaguies bewailing the game 'becoming ruby union'.

[JM2K6]

I had to check this and you are right that Thorn was shorter and lighter than Williams although
- I wouldn't say materially so
- or that they were light for locks per se. Trying to think of a super heavy lock of that era and Shaw comes to mind but he can't have been more than a stone heavier? As an aside, wasn't there a rumour that Shaw was not being selected for Eng because he was too heavy to lift?

I can't see how 4 inches and about a stone isn't material. You can see the difference in size here

Taking the most generous readings of his height and weight, Thorn was 6'5" (lol, no chance) and 114kg / 17st 13.

Compared with contemporaries at the 2011 world cup:

Sam Whitelock 6'8" / 117kg (18st 6)
Ali Williams 6'8" / 118kg (18st 8)
Dan Vickerman 6'8.5" / 119kg (18st 10)
Rob Simmons 6'7" / 115kg (18st 2)
James Horwill 6'7" / 117kg (18st 6)
Nathan Sharpe 6'7" / 115kg (18st 2)
Louis Deacon 6'6" / 117kg (18st 6)
Courtney Lawes 6'8" / 115kg (18st 2)
Tom Palmer 6'7" / 118kg (18st 8)
Simon Shaw 6'8" / 123kg (19st 5)
Pascal Pape 6'5" / 122kg (19st 3)
Romain Millo-Chluski 6'5" / 121kg (19st 1)
Lionel Nallet 6'6" / 117kg (18st 6)
Bakkies Botha 6'7.5" / 124kg (19st 7)
Victor Matfield 6'7" / 117kg (18st 6)
Danie Rossouw 6'6" / 119kg (18st 10)
Alun Wyn Jones 6'6" / 122kg (19st 2)
Bradley Davies 6'6" / 122kg (19st 2)

let alone Brodie Retallick at 6'8" and 124kg (19st 7)

All stats from Wikipedia so obviously huge pinch of salt, but then it's really obvious just looking at photos that Thorn was a lot smaller than the locks he played with and against. The vast majority of international locks were well over 18 stone, he was usually comfortably under it. The majority of them also had a few inches of height on him. All of the ones I found under 18 stone were a lot taller.

So, like I said, when it comes to having "the two biggest locks on the field", Thorn was an exception. He was quite often the smallest lock on the field.

He just didn't play like it. Absolute freak.

I saw Thorn up close a few times in his league days and have seen him plenty of times since he took up coaching. I wouldn't doubt for a minute the posted height of 195cm (also given as his height when he played for the Broncos). And his weight varied a bit over the years.

He was bigggish when he first left RL (relevantly, his final season was also the last season of unlimited interchange) and bulked up firther at the Crusaders. He was playing at 118kg or a tad above when he left RU to return to RL but was eventually run down to about 112kg by the new Broncos' fitness coach - the plan was to use Thorn more as high-workrate player rather than impact player.

After he came back to the Crusaders, Thorn asked Robbie Deans if he should start bulking up and the coach responded along the lines of 'Hold off for a bit'. Ultimately Thorn did put on a kg or two but without regaining his former size and, as per the Broncos, was used as a workrate player.

195cm is just under 6'4", so that's about right. It's those putting him at 6'5 that made me laugh!