Is bigger always better (Part 1: Rugby)?

As humans we are getting progressively bigger, faster and stronger. This reflects in the sportsmen and women competing at the elite level. Being physically superior nowadays seems to be the way forward. Could the days of brain over brawn be over and the survival of the fittest has been won by brawn? Does this preferance to size worsen the standard of play? I look at three sports (focussing on the male teams) to see whether or not this is the case.

Rugby

I am starting off with possibly the best example of brawn over brain. Yes there are players who can be considered as both but I am looking at the general desire to choose a bigger consistent player rather than a smaller more creative player. I feel that Shane Williams was the last of his breed, never again will see a 5 feet 7 man light up the International stage like Williams.

A perfect example of this increasing phenomenom comes from Tom Fordyce's blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tomfordyce/2012/03/land_of_the_rugby_giants.html. Where he looks at the astonishing growth in the size of players.

He demonstrates with the increase in the average weight and height of the English rugby team:

1962: 85.7kg, 1.80 m
1972: 90.7kg, 1.85 m
1982: 89.9kg, 1.82 m
1992: 96.8kg, 1.85m
2002: 101.9kg, 1.86m
2012: 104kg, 1.88m

If you went into more detail you will find that this is a growing trend all over rugby. This shows that brawn is a necessity for a player to make selection nowadays. Does this mean that the preference of size limits the emphasis on intelligent moves to win games? Does it just create a battle of attrition with the best kicker deciding who comes out on top?

Sadly in the Northern Hemisphere this is true. There has been a gradual slump in the Aviva Premiership of the total tries scored by the season's top scorer. The most telling statistic comes from the RBS 6 Nations (according to IRB Game Analysis):


Year               Average try per game           Total tries                      

2000                       5.0                                      75

2006                       4.1                                      61

2012                       3.1                                      46


These telling figures demonstrate that there is concern in the lack of invention from teams. There seems to be a preference to break down teams through power rather than guile.

The fear of failure has lead to a fear of expression and has lead to point accumulation being far more important than try scoring.

I have a proposition to increase the amount of tries at professional level, because at Amateur level this tends not to be an issue. This proposition is to increase the amount points given for a try. Obvious I know but it would have a positive reaction.

There is also a case for ridding scrums in order have more time with the ball in open play and thus more chance to score tries. More time with the ball in open play can only be a positive surely?

The downside is that this would get rid of the conventional front and second row player. They would be replaced by a number of flankers and centres.

This would turn Rugby Union into a very similar game to Rugby League. It would also not necessarily increase the technical standard, but merely the game speed and thus it is not likely to drastically improve the amout of tries scored.



Mavericks such as Frederic Michalak and Stuart Barnes are being slowly but surely ousted out of the games in preference of more consistent players. Brawn does not mean better in Rugby Union but it is certainly the pattern that teams are going to take in the forseeable future.