"England's underpowered pack".....

First topic message reminder :

It has become fashionable in the context of the upcoming Calcutta Cup Test Match to bandy around the expression. "England's underpowered pack".

Is this likely to actually be true? Are we really less powerfull at forward than the Scots?

Now before I get shot down in flames i'm only posing questions here and I know that weight does not equal power but nonetheless I have done a weight breakdown for the starting forwards (based on weight as per SRU and RFU websites) as follows :

Scotland
Front Row: 345kg

England
Front Row : 346kg

England +1kg

Scotland
Second Row: 251kg

England
Second Row: 231kg

Scotland +20kg

Scotland
Back Row: 321kg

England Back Row: 324kg

England +3kg

Scotland total pack weight: 917kg
England total pack weight: 901kg
Scotland + 16kg

Clearly the 20kg advantage in the second rows is the main point out of all this.

Are England REALLY going to be hopelessly outpowered ? How will this manifest itself in the game? At scrum and in driving mauls? Surely technique is every bit as important as size here? The scots will be tough at scrum time I know that but were not mugs.

Finally will the pack weight advantage actually translate into a material advantage or will the more mobile English forwards contribute more to our cause?

(I assume here that Botha and Palmer in particular are more mobile than their Scottish counterparts and that our front row are also more mobile than their scottish opponents)

Can someone shed some light on all this for me please.

size don't mean nothing speed is power, having someone at 18 st running slow at you or having someone at 16 St running at pace who do you think will make more yards.

adambarney wrote:size don't mean nothing speed is power, having someone at 18 st running slow at you or having someone at 16 St running at pace who do you think will make more yards.

Is one of them Steve Borthwick?

yeah he is 18st and slow lol

adambarney wrote:size don't mean nothing speed is power, having someone at 18 st running slow at you or having someone at 16 St running at pace who do you think will make more yards.

Speed isn't power actually. Power is a measurement of both speed and strength. If you have Stephen Ferris running full pelt at you and Shane Williams who do you think will make more yards? Ferris has the perfect balance of speed and strength (many back rowers do).

Tell you what next time Marler gets up to full running speed in a scrum we can all talk about what power he brings to that. The rest of the time we'll talk about how weak he is there.

What people talk about when they say "pwoer and strength" in rugby isnt always the same.
Yes to be a powerful runner you are talking momentum ( but also attuitude, how you go into contact), but then is a relativly slow player like Waldrom not a pwerful runner too? Its a mixyture of brute strgenth and weight he uses to crach through.

When you are talking about a pwerful pack though its not really running in generla anyway, its the ability to clear out rucks, drive a maul, and scrummage. Thats where strenth and weight really come in ( even more so now charging is banned). Croft is 16 stone and runs like the clappers, but he is by no conventional definition a powerful forward.

Englands pack does lack a bit of oomph. Compare the front row to certain Polynesians, whiulst tehse guys may have good technical ability they dont have the raw shove some props do. Englands Botha is no Bakkies, and neither of the Shaw.

Its not a power pack. Under 2003 rules the lieks of Johson would have them for breakfast. But they arent playing those rules.
If they can use their mobility and ball handleing and hold their own in other aspects they could run the scots ragged. Just not sure conditions will suit them. These games almost without fail get dragged into a slog in the middle, that will suit Scotlands pack.

Yes, but speed isn't only measured by how fast you run Peter. Look at someone like Muhammad Ali, his punches were lightning fast. It can apply in clearing out a ruck, making a tackle etc. In the olympic weightlifting competitions, speed and explosiveness is key to getting the biggest weights off the ground. People also tend to mix up explosiveness and power, two different things again. The most powerful player will have a perfect balance of speed and strength. Mostly that is found in back rowers, as their position demands it.

In Croft's case btw, power would mean flip all if you run in like a wimp. His attitude is wrong, I reckon he has a lot more power than he shows. Needs to show a bit of aggression.

OK the point is Rory ... the England pack is one that could get dominated in the tight by the Scottish one.

Lets pretend the word power wasnt there.

To be honest I think it's more about tactics and application than size. When Ireland humiliated England in the last 6 nations match it was because they hit the rucks HARD and with real intent, driving past the ball to get quick ball.

When England took it in EVERY ruck was still hit hard by the Irish, whereas the English were seemingly thinking about the next phase rather than concentrating on winning the ball first. England need to come out and do to the Scots what the Irish did to the English - play hard and fast, drive past the ball.

as someone made the point earlier.
Croft has pretty much the exact height and weight as Juan Smith... but in terms of playing style...

That was my point

Let´s take Olo Straightest Back Brown and Andrew Sheridan. Sheridan was an ox and could lift mountains in the gym. Olo Brown was not as powerfully built but had the best technique you could ever hope to see in a prop. He looked like an Allen Key his back was so straight.

Then take a backrow player for example like McCaw or Read and a backrow player like Croft or Haskell. The English backrowers have muscle and brawn over the AB players but that does not reflect necessarily in the tight or in the loose. You don't have to be necessarily a physical specimen to be able to dominate physically.

The second row pairing are the closest to power and size correlation for me in the pack. Lawes, for example, is not a big unit but is dynamic around the park. Big bad Botha however is a seriously big unit and his presence is felt in the scrum and in the tight due to his size.

England no longer are white orcs on steroids as they were labelled in 2003. They have been so effected by injury they are more like orcs on crutches at the moment. But gone are the imposing figures of MJ, Bayfield etc in the second row. I would not say so much underpowered but undersized. That´s not necessarily a reflection of being underpowered but against sides like SA and Ireland England were shown to be not so much underpowered but overpowered.