Pros and cons of short backrow?

[SixteenSixtySix]

Quite a number of the new batch of fresh U14 and U16 forwards are short like hookers (5 ft 5 to 5 ft 7) but not big enough for it and I'm thinking of putting them at backrow. We have other players who are more suitable and have experince playing as no. 2 and they have a very slim chance of playing that position.

Physique-wise, what benefits and downside I have putting them as flankers? If other position is more suitable for them, then which are they?

Also, is this a good idea at all?

 

[Big Ewis]

what this brings to my mind is Steffon Armitage (1m73). He's the best fetcher in the world atm, has been for a little while now, not surprisingly he won ERC European player of the year, which isn't nothing. I don't play Rugby, but what I can tell you from observation is a backrower who's short, the pros are his center of gravity is low, and chances are he'll be quicker than a 1m95 120kg giant in all facets of his game.
Cons from what I've seen being short is awful for ball-carrying (being too tall too, with rare exceptions, 2nd rowers are tackled easily). Armitage himself has his moments with that but is more often than not stopped at the root, while generally other short forwards like Thomas Domingo, or others who aren't short per se but "look short" and play a "short man" type of game like Szarzewski (1m80) or David Pocock (hard to realize he's actually 1m84, well, listed as...) or props who are extremely compact and stocky you'd think can carry well with their physical density really don't (Nicolas Mas, or even Healy who reputed for his strength, I'm always surprised he isn't a dominant carrier). So props can't carry for shiit, hookers can't either.

The best ball carriers around are the Louis Picamoles, Antoine Burban, Gilian Galan, Damien Chouly, Ben Morgan, Billy Vunipola, Sean O'Brien, Jerome Kaino, David Denton, Duane Vermeulen...all third rowers who happen to be at least 1m90 tall and all around 110kg or more. That's the classic carrier type.

That's the main distinction I'd make. Short, you can develop into a nice fetcher, quicker off your feet. Tall= ball carrier, platform to operate with (offloads, go forward).

Both can tackle well but it's true those shorter props for e.g. with their short arms will miss tackles other bigger guys just won't because they cover more ground, are longer, bigger.

P.S.: it SHOULD be said also that that enumeration of big, tall loosies I made up there happens to be a list of today's most popular third rowers, not just good ball carriers. All those guys are starters on Tier 1 nations (one or two exceptions). That should say something about today's situation on backrowers and what works. Steffon Armitage is an absolute, absolute anomaly.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

There are pros and cons to being shorter

Pro:
- Lower centre of gravity makes them hard to push off a ruck and also makes them good at clearing them out
- Shorter legs allow for good leg driving and sudden explosiveness
- Smaller body mass coupled with the above generally allows smaller people to accelerate from a standing start very quickly
- Less mass = less weight to lug around = better endurance
- Potentially can make solid tackles as there is less risk of going high
- If in the front row, being shorter gives you a mechanical advantage

Cons:
- Less mass so easier to bump off or run over
- Less strength overall
- Lower top end speed
- Poor under a high ball
- Greater difficulty with hand offs and offloads due to shorter arms

Generally for 1-3 you want quite short people with a lot of strength for their size. As you go further back in the scrum, you want larger people until you get to 8 who ideally should be the largest player (weight wise) with the locks being the tallest. If you go for traditional flanker roles, the number 7 would be more ideal as a shorter person if they are you specialist ball snatcher whilst your 6 should probably be larger.

 

[SixteenSixtySix]

Generally for 1-3 you want quite short people with a lot of strength for their size. As you go further back in the scrum, you want larger people until you get to 8 who ideally should be the largest player (weight wise) with the locks being the tallest. If you go for traditional flanker roles, the number 7 would be more ideal as a shorter person if they are you specialist ball snatcher whilst your 6 should probably be larger.

I've posted a separate topic (***le: problem with placement of player within the pack) which is about two of my juniors who are giants. Here are some of the contents.

"I have two giant juniors; one is 16 y/o (A) and the other is 15 y/o (B).

The 16y/o is about 192cm or a bit higher and weighs 100+kg with a physique like a lock. The other is just 3-5 inches shorter but weighs 115-120kg and physique of a prop."

'A' is literally the biggest and tallest among the players by a significant margin with the exception of 'B'.

B is much bigger than our other props.

I'm afraid that putting A in the second row would cause an imbalance of power distribution within the pack since his pair would be much smaller.

I thought of putting these two as locks since they both are around the same height. What do you think?

 

[Geordie]

what this brings to my mind is Steffon Armitage (1m73). He's the best fetcher in the world atm, has been for a little while now, not surprisingly he won ERC European player of the year, which isn't nothing.

I could be the European Player of the year given a free role like Steffon is...and playing with Lobbe, Juan Smith, Botha....etc etc...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Are they shorter but still stocky or just short and still meso-/endomorphs? Tthat'd make a huge impact.

I'd say generally speaking ITO pro's & con's:

Possible con's:
- poor line-out option
- probably less heavy so less effective at clearing rucks BUT could go in lower so it shouldn't hold one back with the right technique
- overall less mass will mean they are at a disadvantage in contact situations with bigger players

Possible pro's
- should be harder to tackle with that low center of gravity if stocky and/or more elusive due to better speed off the mark
- it'd be easier to compete for the ball in a ruck with a lower center of gravity
- shorter guys I find generally have a higher tackle completion rate because generally they are more able to react quicker and/or get in lower more easily even though the bigger guys should hit harder if on target.

 

[Howzy]

I've played back row/flanker for atleast 5 years now and im 5"4 and 13 stone. Like someone was saying people struggle to clean me out of rucks due to my low centre of gravity (earning my team a lot of turn overs at sometimes crucial moments) and also struggle to tackle me due to my height and strength. I've been told on many occasions that I'm too small but I've played in games where the opposition flankers are at least a foot taller than me and I butcher them all over. As for tackling I very rarely miss a tackle due to my strength but it depends how much that player wants to be there cos over the years I've played with people who simply arnt interested. I was picked to play back row due to the fact I did a flankers job but lacked the flankers height but it never stopped me.

I would say encourage them to do very light weights and the minor strength they have will pay off against others who don't put the gym work in. This had been shown with me on the pitch as during the season and off season I go to the gym and get stronger to make up for my loss in height. A small, strong, disruptive and commited flanker Is ten times better than a taller flanker.

 

[Geordie]

Quite a number of the new batch of fresh U14 and U16 forwards are short like hookers (5 ft 5 to 5 ft 7) but not big enough for it and I'm thinking of putting them at backrow. We have other players who are more suitable and have experince playing as no. 2 and they have a very slim chance of playing that position.

Physique-wise, what benefits and downside I have putting them as flankers? If other position is more suitable for them, then which are they?

Also, is this a good idea at all?

Well...a few options.

Try them as opensides. Work on their breakdown skills..and linkman play
Try them as backs - Are they quick off the mark...good hands etc
Try them as front rowers - They may be good technical scrummagers...despite being small in stature.

Dont forget players at that age all change shape and size very quickly. Technique is the most important thing.

 

[Geordie]

I've posted a separate topic (***le: problem with placement of player within the pack) which is about two of my juniors who are giants. Here are some of the contents.

"I have two giant juniors; one is 16 y/o (A) and the other is 15 y/o (B).

The 16y/o is about 192cm or a bit higher and weighs 100+kg with a physique like a lock. The other is just 3-5 inches shorter but weighs 115-120kg and physique of a prop."

'A' is literally the biggest and tallest among the players by a significant margin with the exception of 'B'.

B is much bigger than our other props.

I'm afraid that putting A in the second row would cause an imbalance of power distribution within the pack since his pair would be much smaller.

I thought of putting these two as locks since they both are around the same height. What do you think?

First off...whats their skills? Are they fast, strong, do they have great hands...are they big tacklers? Just because of their size these days doesnt mean they are second rows? Look at George North, Jonah Lomu, Cuthbert etc...

 

[SixteenSixtySix]

Their main assets are yet to be seen. I'll tell you when pre-season training starts. Let's just assume that they both are the bulldozer kind since they both are reeeaaaallly big.

 

[Howzy]

Their main assets are yet to be seen. I'll tell you when pre-season training starts. Let's just assume that they both are the bulldozer kind since they both are reeeaaaallly big.

In what way are they big ? Stocky big with muscle or overweight big ? Either way at that age there still growing I played with lads who where really fat as kids then over the years they have developed and lost the excess weight as they stretch out.

i was once explained too by a coach saying the flankers are generally the fittest on the field due to there duties etc.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

So they are really big but not big enough for hooker? Generally speaking a hooker needn't be any bigger than a flanker or whatever. Like Geordiefalcon said, it is more a case of particular skillsets in modern rugby and then junior rugby is also a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[Peat]

To echo everyone else, short stocky flankers can make a real go of it - particularly as opensides - however, you will probably want some other taller guys in there for balance. That's doubly so if you reach a position where your locks are giants that no one can lift and you're relying on your back row for jumpers.

 

[SixteenSixtySix]

So they are really big but not big enough for hooker? Generally speaking a hooker needn't be any bigger than a flanker or whatever. Like Geordiefalcon said, it is more a case of particular skillsets in modern rugby and then junior rugby is also a whole other kettle of fish.

I'm saying that other players are more experienced and suitable for it than they are.

 

[The_Wol]

You guys play a team of midgets with a team of tall guys and see who comes off second best, It's alot harder to tackle a midget than you think.