Pack size problems moving forward?

A forum for true blue Leinster supporters to talk about and support their team

Moderator: moderators

wixfjord
Leo Cullen
Posts: 11378
Joined: April 13th, 2009, 1:00 pm

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by wixfjord »

VDF's carrying isn't good enough to be one of the top 7s in the world. He hasn't as many strings to his bow as the top 5-6 opensides globally, which is no shame, but it is a reality.

He's physically not in the same league as some of the backrows we've had over the years.

He's oppressive defensively though and he's much better than an 'average' European player. Has had a fantastic season.

But he would be one of the people I'd be thinking of personally when I think about a potential lack of power in our pack. You're relying a lot on your 6 and 8 to carry (which is partly why POM, VDF, Stander really doesn't work!).
User avatar
ronk
Jamie Heaslip
Posts: 15892
Joined: April 9th, 2009, 12:42 am

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by ronk »

VDF is a different style openside. Many Irish fans expect Wallace or O'Brien. They did carries where fans would wonder how did they do that.

You won't get that with VDF and hence you need a different balance back row. Doesn't mean he's not a good player, but it does make it hard to balance a back row with him and POM.
TMC
Knowledgeable
Posts: 288
Joined: December 14th, 2008, 11:01 pm

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by TMC »

neiliog93 wrote:
ronk wrote:No one throws digs anymore, you live for late tackles and smashing someone getting up at the edge of a ruck. And we don’t bother with that either.

Great clip btw Hugo, some big hits going in and a really lovely one from Ryan to force the knock after a bad, bad missed touch that was quickly forgotten about.

We played against the biggest of the big teams (probably the most powerful club sides ever) and we usually did ok. Even the 19 final could have gone differently, they had 7 players who made 18 or more tackles. We were missing a fair few players and carrying guys with niggles. SOB, Toner and McGrath all missed the RWC.
We did cope well against some of the most powerful club sides ever, that's true. But in Saracens in 2019 were the most powerful club side ever and despite a valiant effort, we were eventually found wanting. No shame in it but we might have stood a better chance if we had had a giant beast of a second-row; even ignoring that one match, more generally I think our team could objectively be improved by having one such second-row in that mould.
For me the 2019 final was lost in the 5 minutes either side of halftime because of poor game management and the criminal butchering of a massive overlap. It wasn’t lost because of a lack of size up front.
User avatar
neiliog93
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4283
Joined: April 12th, 2008, 11:42 am

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by neiliog93 »

I never said it was only lost because of a lack of size, but it definitely contributed to it. They dominated the collisions, especially in the second half, and just shut us out of the game with their physical dominance.
"This is breathless stuff.....it's on again. Contepomi out to Hickie,D'Arcy,Hickie.......................HICKIE FOR THE CORNER! THAT IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
Peg Leg
Rob Kearney
Posts: 9823
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 5:08 pm
Location: Procrastinasia
Contact:

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by Peg Leg »

neiliog93 wrote:I broadly agree with you - the days of forwards getting away with throwing digs are long over.

I do think that Schmidt's teams were almost too disciplined at times, and not in the obvious sense that the game plan was too structured and prescribed. I mean more in the sense that we were too afraid of giving away penalties.
Nathan Hines, Leo Cullen and Shane Jennings were all in Schmidt's team.
"It was Mrs O'Leary's cow"
Daniel Sullivan
User avatar
neiliog93
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4283
Joined: April 12th, 2008, 11:42 am

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by neiliog93 »

Peg Leg wrote:
neiliog93 wrote:I broadly agree with you - the days of forwards getting away with throwing digs are long over.

I do think that Schmidt's teams were almost too disciplined at times, and not in the obvious sense that the game plan was too structured and prescribed. I mean more in the sense that we were too afraid of giving away penalties.
Nathan Hines, Leo Cullen and Shane Jennings were all in Schmidt's team.
I should have said Schmidt's Ireland team.
"This is breathless stuff.....it's on again. Contepomi out to Hickie,D'Arcy,Hickie.......................HICKIE FOR THE CORNER! THAT IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
Peg Leg
Rob Kearney
Posts: 9823
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 5:08 pm
Location: Procrastinasia
Contact:

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by Peg Leg »

neiliog93 wrote:
Peg Leg wrote:
neiliog93 wrote:I broadly agree with you - the days of forwards getting away with throwing digs are long over.

I do think that Schmidt's teams were almost too disciplined at times, and not in the obvious sense that the game plan was too structured and prescribed. I mean more in the sense that we were too afraid of giving away penalties.
Nathan Hines, Leo Cullen and Shane Jennings were all in Schmidt's team.
I should have said Schmidt's Ireland team.
Gotcha, totally different. Agree and I think Joe did too, right up until the RWC when he opted to bring "an enforcer" who... well, it didn't quite work out.
"It was Mrs O'Leary's cow"
Daniel Sullivan
User avatar
Twist
Rhys Ruddock
Posts: 2130
Joined: September 14th, 2011, 2:33 am

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by Twist »

neiliog93 wrote:I never said it was only lost because of a lack of size, but it definitely contributed to it. They dominated the collisions, especially in the second half, and just shut us out of the game with their physical dominance.
Yeah, I agree with the notion that we lost it either side of half time, but I think with a dominant pack we could have recovered from that.
User avatar
Morf
Rhys Ruddock
Posts: 2869
Joined: April 26th, 2011, 2:20 am

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by Morf »

Twist wrote:
neiliog93 wrote:I never said it was only lost because of a lack of size, but it definitely contributed to it. They dominated the collisions, especially in the second half, and just shut us out of the game with their physical dominance.
Yeah, I agree with the notion that we lost it either side of half time, but I think with a dominant pack we could have recovered from that.
How many teams are matching Billy V for size though?

Pick up Jason Taumalolo from NRL maybe.
wixfjord
Leo Cullen
Posts: 11378
Joined: April 13th, 2009, 1:00 pm

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by wixfjord »

Those potential pack size issues have been eased by the news we've signed up some beefy Saffer blindside during the lockdown.

He looks weirdly familiar...

Image
User avatar
Morf
Rhys Ruddock
Posts: 2869
Joined: April 26th, 2011, 2:20 am

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by Morf »

Be interesting to see Leavy after a long time to work on upper body.

For a 7 to have that much time to work on shoulder integrity can't be anything but good career wise.
mildlyinterested
Leo Cullen
Posts: 10976
Joined: April 19th, 2017, 9:56 am

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by mildlyinterested »

He can be spotted in the videos posted yesterday.
User avatar
neiliog93
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4283
Joined: April 12th, 2008, 11:42 am

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by neiliog93 »

wixfjord wrote:Those potential pack size issues have been eased by the news we've signed up some beefy Saffer blindside during the lockdown.

He looks weirdly familiar...

Image
Packed on a lot of muscle by the looks of things, will hopefully make him a bit more powerful and durable. Looks a bit weird actually because his shoulders are so narrow for that amount of muscle.
"This is breathless stuff.....it's on again. Contepomi out to Hickie,D'Arcy,Hickie.......................HICKIE FOR THE CORNER! THAT IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
blockhead
Rob Kearney
Posts: 7814
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 1:20 pm
Location: Up Your Stairs!

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by blockhead »

Bit of a tangent, but this is data from rugbypass on height and weight across the 3 leagues.
Total Forwards
Top 14: 1.89m (6ft 2ins)/ 112kgs (17st 9lbs)
Premiership: 1.89m (6ft 2ins)/ 113kgs (17st 11lbs)
PRO14: 1.89m (6ft 2ins)/ 111kgs (17st 7lbs)

Total Backs
Top 14 1.82m (6ft)/ 90kgs (14st 2lbs)
Premiership 1.825m (6ft)/ 93kgs (14st 9lbs)
PRO14 1.83m (6ft)/ 91.5kgs (14st 6lbs)

Total
Top 14: 185.5m (6ft 1in)/ 101kgs (15st 13lbs)
Premiership: 1.86m (6ft 1in)/ 103kgs (16st 3lbs)
PRO14: 1.86m (6ft 1in) / 101kgs (15st 13lbs)

Loosehead prop
Top 14: 1.83m (6ft)/ 118kgs (18st 8lbs)
Premiership: 1.84m (6ft)/ 117kgs (18st 6lbs)
PRO14: 1.84m (6ft)/ 115kgs (18st 1lbs)
Hooker
Top 14: 1.81m (5ft 11ins)/ 107kgs (16st 12lbs)
Premiership: 1.82 (6ft 0ins)/ 106kgs (16st 10lbs)
PRO14: 1.83m (6ft 0ins)/ 106kgs (16st 10lbs)
Tighthead prop
Top 14: 1.85m (6ft 1ins)/ 118kgs(18st 8lbs)
Premiership: 1.87m (6ft 2ins)/ 121kgs (19st)
PRO14: 1.85m (6ft 1ins)/ 118kgs (18st 8lbs)
Lock
Top 14: 2m (6ft 7ins) / 117.5kgs (18st 7lbs)
Premiership: 1.98m (6ft 6ins) / 117.7kgs (18st 8lbs)
PRO14: 1.98m (6ft 6ins)/ 114kgs (17st 13lbs)
Flanker
Top 14:
No7: 1.92m (6ft 4ins)/ 107kgs
No6: 1.92m (6ft 4ins)/ 105kgs
Overall: 1.92m (6ft 4ins)/ 106kgs (16st 10lbs)
Premiership
No7: 1.87m (6ft 2ins)/ 105kgs (16st 7lbs)
No6: Avg. 1.95m (6ft 5ins)/ 113kgs (17st 11lbs)
Overall: 1.91m (6ft 3ins)/ 109kgs (17st 2lbs)
PRO14
No7: 1.88m (6ft 2ins)/ 104kgs(16st 5lbs)
No6: 1.91m (6ft 3ins)/ 109kgs (17st 2lbs)
Overall: 1.895m (6ft 3ins)/ 106.5kgs (16st 11lbs)
No8
Top 14: 1.91m (6ft 3ins)/ 113kgs (17st 11lbs)
Premiership: 1.9m (6ft 3ins)/ 113kgs (17st 11lbs)
PRO14 : 1.91m (6ft 3ins)/ 108kgs (17st)
Scrum-half
Top 14: 1.76m (5ft 9ins)/ 79kgs (12st 6lbs)
Premiership: 1.76m (5ft 9ins)/ 84kgs (13st 3lbs)
PRO14: 1.77m (5ft 10ins)/ 84kgs (13st 3lbs)
Fly-half
Top 14: 1.82m (6ft)/ 88kgs (13st 12lbs)
Premiership: 1.82m (6ft)/ 90kgs (14st 2lbs)
PRO14: 1.84m (6ft)/ 90kgs (14st 2lbs)
Inside centre
Top 14: 1.84m (6ft)/ 97kgs (15st 4lbs)
Premiership: 1.84m (6ft)/ 101kgs (16st)
PRO14: 1.86m (6ft 1in)/ 99.5kgs (15st 9lbs)
Outside centre
Top 14: 1.84m (6ft)/ 94kgs (14st 11lbs)
Premiership: 1.87m (6ft 2ins)/ 99kgs (15st 8lbs)
PRO14: 1.83m (6ft)/ 94kgs (14st 11lbs)
Wingers
Top 14:
Left wing: 1.83m (6ft)/ 90kgs (14st 2lbs)
Right wing: 1.84m (6ft)/ 91kgs (14st 5lbs)
Overall: 1.835m (6ft)/ 90.5kgs (14st 4lbs)
Premiership:
Left wing: 1.84m (6ft)/ 95kgs (14st 13lbs)
Right wing: 1.84m (6ft)/ 96kgs (15st 2lbs)
Overall: 1.84m (6ft)/ 95.5kgs (15st1lb)
PRO14:
Left wing: 1.83m (6ft)/ 90kgs (14st 2lbs)
Right wing: 1.84m (6ft)/ 93kgs (14st 9lbs)
Overall: 1.835m (6ft)/ 91.5kgs (14st 8lbs)
Fullback
Top 14: 1.83m (6ft)/ 91kgs (14st 5lbs)
Premiership: 1.82m (6ft)/ 90kgs (14st 2lbs)
PRO14: 1.84m (6ft)/ 90kgs (14st 2lbs)
Total Forwards
Top 14 1.89m (6ft 2ins)/ 112kgs (17st 9lbs)
Premiership 1.89m (6ft 2ins)/ 113kgs (17st 11lbs)
PRO14 1.89m (6ft 2ins)/ 111kgs (17st 7lbs)
Overall Backs
Top 14 1.82m (6ft)/ 90kgs (14st 2lbs)
Premiership 1.825m (6ft)/ 93kgs (14st 9lbs)
PRO14 1.83m (6ft)/ 91.5kgs (14st 6lbs)
Total
Top 14 185.5m (6ft 1in)/ 101kgs (15st 13lbs)
Premiership 1.86m (6ft 1in)/ 103kgs (16st 3lbs)
PRO14 1.86m (6ft 1in) / 101kgs (15st 13lbs)
You know I'm going to lose,
And gambling's for fools,
But that's the way I like it baby, I don't want to live FOREVER!
User avatar
Oldschoolsocks
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4943
Joined: January 4th, 2015, 10:36 am
Location: Stepping out of the Supernova

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by Oldschoolsocks »

Without Zebo the T14 average for fullback would probably be around 88kgs
User avatar
riocard911
Shane Jennings
Posts: 6034
Joined: July 27th, 2015, 10:42 pm

Re: Pack size problems moving forward?

Post by riocard911 »

Oldschoolsocks wrote:Without Zebo the T14 average for fullback would probably be around 88kgs
Brilliant!!!!
Post Reply