• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Least physical and most physical position?

RF9

Academy Player
Joined
Apr 7, 2015
Messages
8
What would you say are the yop 3 most physical positions and the 3 least physical position?
 
Really depends on the players you have in that position as to how physical they are.

Least physical would be: halfback, 1st five and maybe wing, I am basing this on the 1st two being distribute roles so less time in the fray and wing being a finisher chaser role.

Most Physical: loosies and lock
 
Definitely not 1st five. They're occupying a key defensive roll and will have the biggest men on the pitch running at them routinely.

For me, full-back belongs in the least physical.

There's an argument that 12 belongs in the most physical... depends a bit how you define physical.
 
Depends do you mean the least physical players on the pitch normally ? Or the guys who do the most physical job ?
Normally the least physical guys are the 9,10,14/15 but then you have the likes of Phillips, Farrell and Savea. Most physical job would be tighthead, Blindside and 12.
 
I think it can be a bit misleading to label positions as more physical than others. Wingers/Fullbacks make far less tackles per game, but I'll note that they are often called upon to make the most violent tackles. By that I mean to tackle the most athletic players on the field running at full pace directly at them. May of the tackles made by a prop are in relatively close quarters, are more controlled and at slower speeds. If you don't believe me watch some wingers tackling guys like Rene Ranger or Savea at full speed. These are far more dangerous tackles in terms of potential injury imo.

On the whole this doesn't put them at the level of many forwards, but it should be noted.
 
Depends do you mean the least physical players on the pitch normally ? Or the guys who do the most physical job ?
Normally the least physical guys are the 9,10,14/15 but then you have the likes of Phillips, Farrell and Savea. Most physical job would be tighthead, Blindside and 12.

Why do you say that blindside have more work than openside flankers? Blindside have to clean out but openside flankers must to run more
 
Most Physical the real men playing 1-8
Least Physical the girls wearing hair gel playing 9-15
 
Last edited:
Just looking at traditional roles. Normally you have a 6 like Kaino who will do the big carrying and hits, whereas you have McCaw who makes tackles but doesn't carry as much and whose breakdown work is more stealing than smashing. Not saying that it isn't physical but I personally believe that a 6s job is more physical. That and Willem Alberts is a scary monster
 
Just looking at traditional roles. Normally you have a 6 like Kaino who will do the big carrying and hits, whereas you have McCaw who makes tackles but doesn't carry as much and whose breakdown work is more stealing than smashing. Not saying that it isn't physical but I personally believe that a 6s job is more physical. That and Willem Alberts is a scary monster

Players pilfering probably are on the receiving end of the battering, so they are getting smashed into more, so I think it's a physically demanding position.

It's been a while since my playing days, and the game has changed, but I played in every position in the forwards at one time or another, and I found Prop was the most physically demanding. Having the force of two packs pushing on you from opposite directions, was the most demanding on my body.

Not too sure about the backs, as I only had a couple of games on the Wing.
 
Seriously from a personal point of view in my limitied playing career, I found I was more knackered playing Second row than any back row or centre position (played centre for a whole season) and the thing that really takes it out of you in the second row it is scrummaging, it saps the strength from your legs and I always found I was a yard slower getting round the park than I would be playing 6 or 7. It always amazes me watching players like Joe Launchbury tearing round the pitch like a back row after scrummaging for 60 minutes. Tom Croft too could put on bursts of speed that left backs for dead having only been in the engine room 2 minutes before. People should never underestimate how fit these players need to be how much a player like Joe Launchbury brings to a team.
 
It's been a while since my playing days, and the game has changed, but I played in every position in the forwards at one time or another, and I found Prop was the most physically demanding. Having the force of two packs pushing on you from opposite directions, was the most demanding on my body.

Good post, many above are hung up on impacts, but the demands on the body of having the weight of a scrum coming through you isn't to be underestimated. The only time I've played prop is in three man scrums, but know I certainly ached more after playing second row than on the odd occasion that I played flanker, but maybe that's because I was a rubbish flanker who didn't get through anywhere near enough work!
 
Players pilfering probably are on the receiving end of the battering, so they are getting smashed into more, so I think it's a physically demanding position.

It's been a while since my playing days, and the game has changed, but I played in every position in the forwards at one time or another, and I found Prop was the most physically demanding. Having the force of two packs pushing on you from opposite directions, was the most demanding on my body.

Not too sure about the backs, as I only had a couple of games on the Wing.

Yeah I completely agree. In my first post I put tighthead as the most physical. I loved scrummaging though, being a tighthead I just wanted that 1v 1 duel. That and it was the only thing I was good at :)
 
Yeah I completely agree. In my first post I put tighthead as the most physical. I loved scrummaging though, being a tighthead I just wanted that 1v 1 duel. That and it was the only thing I was good at :)

LOL, The front row is not my first choice of vacation spots TBH, but certainly have a lot of admiration for those that can do it well :)

Good post, many above are hung up on impacts, but the demands on the body of having the weight of a scrum coming through you isn't to be underestimated. The only time I've played prop is in three man scrums, but know I certainly ached more after playing second row than on the odd occasion that I played flanker, but maybe that's because I was a rubbish flanker who didn't get through anywhere near enough work!

Thanks, and I get what you (and Tallshort) are saying about playing in the second row. I played a lot of my rugby there, and remember coming back to rugby when I was probably at my fittest (aerobically at least), and not being able to keep up after about four scrums... it turns out running/sprint training etc, doesn't help you push much ... who knew? :)

My preference was definitely in the loose forwards, probably for the same reasons you mentioned :)

It's quite an interesting topic this one. The physical demands are undoubtedly greater on today's players, than they were when I played, and the required change in the skill sets of the players in the various positions, has had a flow on effect to their physiques and the physical demands on their bodies.

For example, when I played in the second row, I wasn't really expected to run with the ball much, or make many tackles, but I was expected to jump (yes jump, not be lifted) in the lineouts. My counterparts in the back division, did not like rucks, and the only time you would see one in there, was if they were the tackled player ... you certainly wouldn't see them trying to effect a turn over like they do these days.

I think what I liked about rugby is that it was a game for all shapes and sizes - it probably still is, but not too the same extent as it use to be.
 

Latest posts

Top