Hookers: big or small ?

[Big Ewis]

so it's come to this point for me where I'm really not all that sure about what the proper "dimensions" would be for a hooker. I know both big and small can coexist, so to speak; a big hooker isn't necessarily an advantage.
Of course it depends on a country's culture. South Africa are always going to have tighthead prop sized hookers, everybody in the pack needs to be gigantic, that's just how it works, and Bismarck du Plessis IS widely regarded as the best in the world, but not just because of his strength, he's also got finesse to his game and skill.

For other hookers, the popular bigger ones include: Ben Kayser (112kg), Hartley (110kg), Keven Mealamu (111kg), Adriaan Strauss (113kg), Stephen Moore (112kg), all 1m83 or more.

While the more mobile, "smaller" ones include: Brice Mach, Dimitri Szar, Guirado for the better French ones, or Tom Youngs, Rory Best.

What comments would you make generally about a hooker's size, and the benefits of being a bigger guy or a smaller, more mobile specimen ?
Obviously there are no hard rules, since both kinds strive in today's game all the same.
But would you have a preference for your hooker ? (please, no clever answers here, I know it's the most tempting setup you'll find amongst Rugby questions).

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I guess quite a bit of it also depends on the props.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I guess quite a bit of it also depends on the props.

Definitely - for scrummaging.

The hooker would ideally be an inch or two shorter than the props.
Having the hooker roughly the same height as the props helps with pushing power, because it means that the locks shoulders are in contact with the hooker and props roughly equally and they do not have to adjust or compromise their pushing angle or body shape.
Being slightly shorter than the props helps with striking - because it allows the hooker to maintain a more upright position in the scrum. In turn this increases the range of motion of the hooker's striking leg - he can strike further into the tunnel and further back towards his number 8.

In open field it can go either way.

A small guy like Dave Ward basically gives you an extra flanker, whereas a big guy like Bismark gives you another massive presence.

 

[Canuck]

Of course it depends on a country's culture. South Africa are always going to have tighthead prop sized hookers, everybody in the pack needs to be gigantic, that's just how it works.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily a hard and fast rule for the Boks. We've been blessed in recent years with huge hookers like du Plessis, Strauss and Smit but in the 90s we had James Dalton who was 1.77m and 95 kg and our most promising young hooker is Scarra Ntubeni who is all of 1.74m and 100kg.

 

[sigesige00]

I do not understand why Props' numbers are 1 and 3, and Hooker's number is 2. Hooker should be 1 and Props are 2, 3.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I do not understand why Props' numbers are 1 and 3, and Hooker's number is 2. Hooker should be 1 and Props are 2, 3.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

That was my instinctive response, but then surely the blindside flanker should be 4, the two locks 5 and 6, and the openside remains as 7. This would be more consistent with the numbering of the wings too.

 

[goodNumber10]

That was my instinctive response, but then surely the blindside flanker should be 4, the two locks 5 and 6, and the openside remains as 7. This would be more consistent with the numbering of the wings too.

that would make it inconsistent with the wingers, who are always out of synch with a sequential numbering sequence, remember Flankers also change side.

If anything the backrow is the confusing part as 8 is the middle man, so by siege sieges logic the back row should have 6 where the number 8 is.

The only thing i would say is the flankers are not part of the second row, hooker being 2 is consistent in the front 5 unit and how the scrum is formed:

1 2 3
4 5

It's the one unit that never or seldom changes, and reads naturally from left to right.

To be fair there is little point in trying to dissect the logic in a game that's been formed and changed over many years and is steeped in numerous traditions.

 

[dasNdanger]

Certainly it would depend on the size of the props. I have this silly image in my head of a little hooker held high off the ground, legs dangling, between two gigantic props.

Anyway, since there is so much pressure on the front row, I would assume it's best to have a hooker that's a good fit for the props. Also, in the modern game you might have to take into consideration the average front row you're hooker is going to be up against. If the average size of a team is relatively small compared to the big South Africans, for instance, I guess it would be best to put the biggest guys you can find in the front row, otherwise I can't see how they could ever line up properly.


das

 

[TRF_heineken]

If I were to comment only on the thread's topic, I would go always go for small hookers. But this is just my own preference as I like them skinny *****es...

As for the rugby part. I think it depends wholly on the player, the connection with the props, and the style of play your team plays. South Africa used to have short hookers in the past, and they were used as a sort of Jack Russel terrier to irritate the opposition. James Dalton is the perfect example of this.

Now we have a bit taller hookers, but that is mainly because we want the hooker to be a strong ball carrier, and a cleaner at the rucks. As Yoe91 always say: "MASS". and yes, their size is definitely a reason why they are picked.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

My gut feel is if both excell in their core duties I would prefer the bigger guy but it depends on the balance of the pack and the game we are trying to play. That in turn I think depends on the level we are playing at. If we are talking test rugby then considering defenses are tight and inches are inportant then give me the MASS rather.

I would say though that there is a place in SA for smaller guys but then they need to add something extra in the lose; I'm talking about guys like Schalk Brits, Craig Burden and Scarra Ntubeni (Wiki says they're all 3 on the dot 100kg which is giving away 13/14kg to the likes of Du Plessis and Strauss. Not that Du Plessis and Strauss don't have presence in general play mind you.

 

[TRF_heineken]

My gut feel is if both excell in their core duties I would prefer the bigger guy but it depends on the balance of the pack and the game we are trying to play. That in turn I think depends on the level we are playing at. If we are talking test rugby then considering defenses are tight and inches are inportant then give me the MASS rather.

I would say though that there is a place in SA for smaller guys but then they need to add something extra in the lose; I'm talking about guys like Schalk Brits, Craig Burden and Scarra Ntubeni (Wiki says they're all 3 on the dot 100kg which is giving away 13/14kg to the likes of Du Plessis and Strauss. Not that Du Plessis and Strauss don't have presence in general play mind you.

I agree here, but to be honest, I think that we can't compare Bismarck with these smaller guys. He's an anomaly all on his own. He's maybe just as fast as them, he steals maybe more balls than them at rucks, he's a monster in defence, and as strong as an ox. But what he adds, which these 3 guys you mentioned doesn't, is the basics of hooker play, and that is to throw the ball into the lineout and hooking the ball at the scrum. Bismarck is probably the most accurate lineout thrower I have seen in a long while, and he gets so many tightheads nowadays which I haven't seen from the other hookers as much in SA.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I think the general concensus is that BdP is the current best hooker and probably was back when he was behind Smit with the only competition being William Servat.

The only department where Bismarck isn't world quality is his handling. The rest, yes, he is a superstar.

 

[Geordie]

Brian Moore & Shalk Brits are examples of pretty good "small" hookers.

I do prefer a bigger hooker though. Dylan Hartley at the peak of his game is just a tremendous player...

My problem is in the close encounters...Bismark v Tom Youngs becomes a problem for England.

Tom Youngs is only 5'7 but is remarkedly robust and strong. A real cannonball type. However Bismark is much bigger and remarkedly strong and physical....so there is a big difference in power and strength there. The front row loses out straight away.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I do not understand rugby.

ftfy

 

[welshglory]

Regardless, i like them tight

 

[Big Ewis]

If I were to comment only on the thread's topic, I would go always go for small hookers. But this is just my own preference as I like them skinny *****es...

Regardless, i like them tight

(hmm...couldn't change the attachment's size....)

Danke schoen for your replies. Good to see yet another majestic apparition from sigesige, always as graceful and...cryptic.
So far it seems ppl are opting for the "big hooker" option. After all, again, the generally accepted "best hooker" in the world is Bismarck du Plessis. Before him, as stormer's mentioned, John Smit and Servat, who weren't little.

Then you've got your anomalies of course: Craig Burden isn't huge, 'only' about 100kg, but it's his tricks, his craftiness, and his foot-pace along with sheer energy in the rucks that's got him the "best hooker in the Top 14" vote by the fans, although he only played an end of season.

In France, the Guilhem Guirado, Brice Mach are still highly rated because of their commitment to the game and that they insure basic hooker's tasks very consistently. They're not going to clear rucks on their own, win TO balls on the ground, or carry like Picamoles but it's their knowledge of the craft and experience that makes them world class forwards.
Note: watch out for Guirado this year as he plays in Toulon and will get more exposure.

 

[sigesige00]

Is this England v Wales? Could you tell me why England's 2nd row is 7-5-4-6 while Wales is 6-4-5-7? (I think Wales is normal, right?)

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Is this England v Wales? Could you tell me why England's 2nd row is 7-5-4-6 while Wales is 6-4-5-7? (I think Wales is normal, right?)

The openside flankers are both packed down on the openside side of the scrum (i.e. the side that has the most space - so if the scrum is closer to the left hand touchline, from an England perspective, the 7s would be on the same side).

Also, just to add to the before discussion about flanker numbers: Flankers are technically the third row in the scrum, number 8 the fourth, that's why they're numbered like that

 

[sigesige00]

The openside flankers are both packed down on the openside side of the scrum (i.e. the side that has the most space - so if the scrum is closer to the left hand touchline, from an England perspective, the 7s would be on the same side).

Also, just to add to the before discussion about flanker numbers: Flankers are technically the third row in the scrum, number 8 the fourth, that's why they're numbered like that

Could you tell me when Rugby League abolished Flankers?