Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Lions doctor warns that players are now too big to perform rugby skills

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 06 July 2009
BRITISH and Irish Lions doctor James Robson believes the shape of rugby players will have to start changing after the most physical Test series the Scot has ever experienced.
Robson has been the Lions doctor on five tours but he has never known anything like the levels of intensity and attrition witnessed during the Lions' 2-1 series defeat to South Africa.

Five Lions players ended up in hospital after the brutal second Test in Pretoria and Robson fears the balance is wrong between power and skill.

"I would have to say this has been the most physical tour, the most physical Test matches I have been involved in," said Robson. "I think we are reaching a level where the players have got too big for their skill levels.

"I think they have become a little too muscle-bound and too bulky.

"I think you may see changes in the physical nature of the player that brings them back a little – I hope so – in order to speed up the game and introduce a higher level of skill."

The majority of injuries suffered on tour occurred in contact, with the worst being a dislocated shoulder that will keep Wales and Ospreys prop Adam Jones out for up to six months.

Three of the original squad – Tomas O'Leary, Tom Shanklin and Jerry Flannery – failed to make the plane to South Africa because of injury while seven more were ruled out of action before Saturday's third and final Test.

Robson echoed head coach Ian McGeechan in urging the home nations to find a way of giving the Lions the best possible chance of success in four years' time when they are due to tour Australia.

From a medical perspective, that is to have additional time before the tour begins which can be invaluable for keeping players fit.

"We started with the proposition nobody would come on tour that was unfit. I hope that is the way forward," said Robson.

"I hope that in the future the Lions will get a little more lead-in time because the time we had for preparation with the players – and the data we collected – allowed us to develop programmes of rehabilitation, and hopefully that helps us to keep players on tour for longer."

Robson repeated his call for the northern hemisphere unions to take a uniform approach to the number of matches professional players are having to play.

The Rugby Football Union have struck a deal with Premier Rugby which limited the amount of action England internationals see during a season.

The RFU expressed their concerns to the Lions about England players being asked to play twice a week.

But the approach is not uniform across Europe and Robson warned that unless players are handled more carefully during the season, the structure of a Lions tour may have to change. And that could see the end of midweek matches.

"I do have concerns going forward about the number of matches we do subject our players to in the northern hemisphere," said Robson.

"I hope welfare will become a bigger part of player management. That is a personal view but it is a view I have expressed after every Lions tour.

"I don't necessarily think a compacted period is a detriment to the players if, over the year, they have less games.

"Personally I would like a slightly longer tour with less frequent games. Maybe it should be eight games over eight weeks."




Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 July 2009 11:57 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: British and Irish Lions
 
1

fingask,

Perth 06/07/2009 08:04:48
The doc is spot on, but the 'big is best' is out of the bag. I'll have to wash my mouth out with soap & water for saying it-again. There are too many players on the field. Seven is obviously too few for 80 mins is the optimum 13, or even 12?
2

MBK,

Edinburgh 06/07/2009 08:10:13
I agree with the doctor. But it starts as early as 16 years old. There are so many skilled young players that miss the cut of regional rugby having been told they need to bulk up during the summer months to stand a chance. It's ok going to the gym and conditioning yourself at that age but we see so many youngsters taking additives to bulk up.
Start young and focus on skill not bulk!!
3

mike3,

06/07/2009 09:50:37
I think if you look back in history you will find that the forwards were similar in size to or lighter than the backs these days.
4

Happy Hooker,

06/07/2009 11:40:48
"so many skilled young players that miss the cut of regional rugby" Good point MBK, the selectors go for the big athletes and try to skill them up rather than the play-makers and skillful boys and get them fit and strong. It is easier to get a skillful player fit than a fit player skillful.
5

mike3,

06/07/2009 11:59:50
#4 true, but a good big'ne.......
6

Bigwull,

edinburgh 06/07/2009 13:07:05
But in Rugby big is always best, 1 totally agree too many players on the pitch, get rid of a couple of the backs and reduce to 13
7

Happy Hooker,

06/07/2009 13:39:58
Martin Williams, Neil Back, Thomas Castaignede, Bryan Habana etc were all told they were too small for international rugby. These guys were/are effective primarily because of their skill. Yes they had to bulk up and yes you also need some big dynamic beasts in the team but ignoring young skillful players, who you often see match or outplay district players, is a dumb policy.
8

MT,

06/07/2009 13:43:57
#1 absolutely, the basic problem these days is that there are too many players on the feild. Ever since rugby turned professional less and less players have been commited to the breakdown and more in these "brick wall" defensive lines. Its only a matter of time before something has to change to make it not only more enjoyable but safter, with a focus on skills rather than size. So we need to take some players out of the game, so where is that going to be? not from the backs, they provide most of the excitement in the game. taking out the flankers would make it too much like league, so my radical proposal involves taking out the entire front row and aboloshing scrums. You have five forwards on the feild, which is plenty to secure possesion, who will be backed up on the bench by the same amount of players to interchange at half time. lineouts would remain however as a good excuse for a break in the game and for the players to rest.
Its only a matter of time before something has to be done. Rugby 12s is on its way!
9

daffy_b,

06/07/2009 14:06:39
#8 somewhat contradictory in your comments methinks...

"taking out the flankers would make it too much like league"

"so my radical proposal involves taking out the entire front row and aboloshing scrums"

League's (uncontested) scrums are a joke, and should be scrapped anyway - so how in heck would abolishing scrums from Union NOT make it look more like League?

And if we drop scrums, why not drop lineouts also, and while we're at it rucks and mauls too - heck, lets just call it touch rugby and be done with it.

I applaud you for having an idea, but the scrum is an integral and good part of the Union game - it's the refereeing and "control" of the scrum that needs improved.

I do however agree with your point that the League style of defence that has come into union is stifling flair, and thus we are now seeing a huge rise in dependency on the "crash" centre....Jamie Roberts, Graeme Morrison, Rob Dewey etc...guys who 10-15 years ago would be 2nd row players
10

mangrove jack,

oz 06/07/2009 17:21:59
Non polynesian kids in Oz and NZ playing under 14's are often confronted 100kg opponents who just run over the top of them. Parents are starting to think twice about exposing their children to the possibility of serious injury. The overall impression in the junior and senior ranks is of a game dominated by players of Polynesian decent who are genetically tailored to carry massive weight at impressive speed.
11

George Haley,

exiled - Bad Homburg Germany 06/07/2009 18:08:06
Let’s reduce the players, change the selection of big lads, and change the laws [AGAIN]. Why couldn’t the IRB and Unions and the top players of few years ago leave my blooming game alone.

Rugby today bears no relation to the game I played and still enjoyed watching until a few years ago. Now not only don’t I understand virtually every new and experimental law, I get bored to tears with the tactics brought in from league.

The worst of the injuries, especially in the Lions tour stem from illegal or just plain dirty play. The first thing the IRB and the Unions should do is get rid of players like Berger that think it is part of the game to gouge an eye, ‘just to put the oppo off you know, I didn’t mean to blind the guy for life’. Whilst they are at it tell De Villiers he needs to see a shrink. When they have done that get back to the basics with clear laws with strict appliance.

Whenever money is introduced to Sport and by that I don’t mean the boot money of old, or the jobs for the boys, I mean big money for promoters and the like Sport goes out of the Window.

I played for 25 years and enjoyed the game and when the time came I enjoyed watching my Club and my Country play. And today? I can watch rent a player from Southern Hemisphere Rugby turning out for Clubs; and Internationals who are selected on the most spurious ‘tie’ or residency qualification that Jack Charlton would be proud of.

I am sorry, I liked it in the days when you could go into a shop in the Borders and be standing next to an International who played for the local club. Somehow you felt closer to the game, the top players were the local lads you could identify with them.

I know that having put my colours to the mast there will be critics by the score.

I don’t care I just want my game back.
12

jerrymanders,

06/07/2009 23:29:11
Easy. Just get rid of flankers. Let's start with Burger.
13

Wee Mac,

Western Oz 07/07/2009 05:35:25
George #11.

Simple reply to your post....BEST ONE EVER...Could not agree more...I am still involved in the sport which means I have to constantly adapt BUT I keep the principles of the 'old' game to the fore.
14

George Haley,

exiled - Bad Homburg Germany 07/07/2009 07:32:13
Wee Mac in Oz. Thanks for your support it is appreciated. Things have changed a lot since I was in Australia. I applied to join the 'Rugby Club' in Crane Place, Sydney but they wouldn't even give me social membership until they had confirmation from my former UK clubs that I had never played League.
15

Jaimeson,

07/07/2009 11:40:28
People are naturally getting bigger as generations pass and bodybuilding in Rugby enhances that. To prevent injury some players are wearing light protective shoulder pads which perhaps gives them a false sense of security when they launch themselves into contact. Maybe they should be banned, or alternately, we should go further and allow (make mandatory) an increased level of body and head protection. But there is no doubt that when big fast players crash into each other there is a high risk of injury.
Having said that I think scrums, lineouts and contact are an essential part of Rugby. (Although something needs to be done about uncontested scrums). I don't believe that reducing numbers would make the game 'better'. I like the attritional and territorial nature of the game as it is, just like the Tests in SA. The problem nowadays in Rugby and most running team games is that coaches have found that 'results' are much more easily obtained from defensive play than attacking play.(Football has been ruined by this). Thus we have low committal to the breakdown, and massed defences waiting for the attacking team to try and crash through and make a mistake. Very Rugby League. And of course big beasts are better for that type of game.
16

Happy Hooker,

07/07/2009 15:06:35
The law states that the tackler/s must release the tackled man immediately they go to ground. The tackler is supposed to release the ball immediately too. In practice nobody lets go of anything until the referee warns them. Bridging is supposed to be illegal too.
Hence we typically see 4 attackers clearing out 2 defenders intent on slowing things down and thus the numbers are with the defenders.
If the law was actually enforced or better still changed so the tackler/s must release first, that would balance things out. There would be nothing stopping the tackler/s or other defenders from going for the turnover if properly on their feet but they'd need to commit more people to the breakdown and attackers less. With equal numbers on their feet, attacking becomes as important as defence again.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.