We mustn’t keep throwing the little ones back
One newspaper article made me think this week: It said that English rugby is too concerned with size rather than skills when it comes to the development of young players.
As a player who was always regarded as too small, even when a schoolboy, I had first hand experience of not getting picked because of size and not ability.
Despite not going to a recognised rugby school, I progressed through county rugby (Surrey) to get my first shot at international rugby with an England trial at Under 15s. Needless to say I wasn’t picked.
All through my rugby career I had to confront the argument that although I was a success at club level because of my technical ability I wouldn’t be able to achieve it at the level above.
Then when I succeeded at county level, the same was said for the level above and so on until I finally got my first international cap at the tender age of 31.
Even then it was only because Roger Utley, who had coached me at Wasps, was made England coach and when Geoff Cooke said he wanted a more destructive tight-head prop, Roger suggested me.
Geoff ’s first reaction was that at 5ft 10ins and between 99-103 kilos (15st 8lb-16st 3lb), I was too small, but Roger insisted I wasn’t and I got the chance to show what I could do against France in Paris.
Despite England losing a close game by one point, I took four balls against the head which insured my selection for a career that was a record-breaking number of caps for a prop (37), plus a reputation as one of the best props in the world.
Over the following years I have been lucky to go all over the country speaking at a number of clubs and have spoken to many coaches at different levels of the game who have all repeated the same view.
They find a good young player between 13-15 years of age, contact an elite academy through the school or county system only to be told the player is too small and should wait until they are older and have grown.
The problem is, unlike when I played, young players only get one chance to be ‘discovered’ and if they are not picked up by an academy at that early age, they are very unlikely to be offered a second chance in the future.
This is not just an English problem. Having spoken to various coaches in the rest of the United Kingdom, they say the same is true for them too.
With everybody looking for bigger and bigger players in an effort to bully opponents and break the rush defence, it has allowed the game to become more confrontational, particularly around the breakdown.
The perceived need for bigger players seems obvious but making that decision when the players are just in their early teens is ridiculous.
Everybody knows that young adults grow at different rates, picking a big lad at 15 can be a mistake, just like discarding smaller players who may possess greater skills and potential.
It can also encourage the use of artificial substances to help put on bulk if the players desperate to get a contract are not gaining enough naturally.
Another unfortunate consequence is parents not wanting their children getting involved in a sport where they are liable to suffer injuries playing against the ‘giants’ in age group rugby which in the long term could impact on participation.
One outcome of lockdown could be a reduction in the size of squads and a need for more skilful and adaptable smaller players who are capable of playing a full 80-minute match.
Player welfare must play a part in how the game continues to develop and picking a squad of monsters is certainly not the way to deliver it.
Speaking of player welfare brings me to something I know is going to raise a few comments not least because it is an area everybody seems afraid to talk about: women’s rugby.
Although it’s a growing section of the game it is still tiny in comparison to the men’s game with hardly any spectators, despite a growing investment in the sport.
I was not surprised to hear that the RFU were ‘ring fencing’ funding for women’s rugby as in relative terms it’s ‘peanuts’ when compared to funding the men’s game and is seen as essential to access government funds. One thing that does trouble me about women’s rugby is the RFU are one of the few unions to have professional female players and those players play with and against amateurs players on a regular basis.
By allowing this, the RFU have created a potential player welfare issue that could have serious consequences for the game.
One of the reasons given for the lack of an all-encompassing cup competition in the men’s game (as there used to be) is the fact that there is potentially a greater risk of injury to the amateur players when competing against professionals.
If that is true, then logic says it must also be the same in the women’s game. Recent research has shown all sportswomen are more susceptible to a number of injuries than their male counterparts, including concussion and joint injuries.
RFU chief medical officer, Simon Kemp, has been very vocal about the risks of concussion in the male game but has not publicly made any specific recommendations regarding the potential increased risk in the women’s game.
If a professional female player were to seriously injure an amateur player, it could open the RFU to a litigation claim for knowingly allowing a risk that is not allowed in the men’s game.
“One outcome of lockdown could be a reduction in the size of squads and a need for more skilful smaller players”