Help me understand - Size vs Stamina

The debate about size seems ever present.

There's a discussion going on right now about Mostert being too small and thus by default not being a real test lock.

It's not his height that's that issue. His weight is. 

For the sake of casting the net a little wider, let's take the discussion beyond Mostert, to the pack in general.

The pack's specialists have their roles to play in the two set pieces. Those two set pieces, put together occur relatively infrequently as compared to rucking.

A team can dominate both set pieces but if their ruck is poor they'll get hammered. Agreed?

So here's the part I need help in understanding. I'll polarize the argument for the sake of simplicity.

Lets assume a pack is on average 10% lighter than its opposition and as a result has more gas and is a bit quicker while maintaining scrum and lineout parity.

Would this pack have an advantage over its opposition in a) general play and b) ruck time?

Here's where I sit. I think the lighter pack has huge advantage. As the game goes on they'll generally find themselves first to rucks more often and perform better at scrum time on the basis of having more energy.

That appears to be what the Lions have very successfully banked on for a few seasons now. It's not their backs because Dyanti and Combrink are the only two standouts out of the seven. Dyanti himself only coming to the fore recently.

What I can't understand and would like some clarity on is why this hasn't translated into test rugby, aside from with the ABs. Eg we complain about Whitely's size but never mention that Reid is his body double and is considered the best in the world.

It's impossible to have a mould on weight ,agility, strength ,stamina and it all depends on skill and technique.

Mostert is 112kg, 6' 6"...Reid (do you mean Kieran Read no 8 NZ and not Gordon Reid Scotland lock)

Warren Whiteley is 100 kg and 6'4".but the NZ loose forward weighs 111 kg.

One of best Springbok locks if not our best ever was Frik Du Preez, he was only 6' 2" and weight 106kg but he was everything...best line out jumper ever in the days of no lifting, extremely agile and powerful and skilled.

It is a combination of factors...Tommy Bedford (Springbok Captain)was a number 8 and light but was one of the best no 8's ever...85 kg and only 6'

Let me dumb it down for you a bit...

Size vs Stamina

Your wife left you because you lacked both.

LOL Chips you obviously need sex education, size and stamina are factors but the most important is technique and experience...in the meantime stick to that pump you mentioned a little while back...Bahahahahahahahaha

Size makes for lazy performance .Apparently.

@ Seb

Last i checked Whitely was 106KG but i see wiki now has him at 100KG.

You can certainly mould stamina and weight. There's a definite correlation between muscle mass and gas. Any sport with different weight classes is clear evidence of that. Boxing probably being the most obvious. Marathon running is another example. One where anyone can compete but it's never the heavies that win . Of course, to simplify the argument you'd had to exclude variables like skill etc.

LOL Chippo. She never left unfortunately. Some guys have both

Care to elaborate WD?

Lighter, weaker packs typically want to move the big packs around. Not because it is the most effective way to play the game, but because they avoid a direct confrontation. If they can move the bigger pack around, they'll theoretically be exposed for a lack of mobility and endurance. This isn't necessarily the case. The Bulls in their pomp were very fit and mobile, despite their size and worked their slow poison on the opposition. The smaller pack gives up punching power. Wide plays are lower percentage plays. If you cannot punch inside, you can very easily become too lateral, as we saw with the Lions against the Saders. You can't attack seams and fringes as effectively. Nothing substitutes going forward. 

The other side of this is does size equate to strength. Some of the biggest players I have seen have not been the strongest. Bekker was quite big, got dumped all too often. Many of our biggest props were not only bettered technically, but manhandled physically. Go Aplon is another example of a player defying common thought. Very light, somewhere in the 70kgs, he could tackle big Islanders with authority head-on. Damian is an example of a player who has less punch than his physique would have you believe. For these reasons I prefer to evaluate on a case by case basis. Will Mostert be able to deliver? The answer won't be found on a stats sheet, it'll be found in the field of play. We'll have our answer on Saturday. 

At Plum : You can certainly mould stamina and weight.

In a general context you can but not in some exceptional cases... players like Frik Du Preez, Tommy Bedford, Zin Zan Brooke,Sergio Parisse, don't exactly quite fit the mould but make up all this by their outstanding brilliance...they are exceptional.

In boxing too they are governed by weights but especially in heavy weights they can vary between big men and colossal men. Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Sonny Liston (he was a giant) but Cassius Clay (a 19 year old Muhammed Ali) took him to the cleaners by shear skill and technique. LOL...in SA, Gerrie Coetzee against Mike Schutte.

Yes, in the general sense and for the sake of simplicity you can but there are quite a few exceptions to the rule and yes size and stamina are factors (within parameters) but when lacks weight but makes up for it in other departments.

In Whiteley case I think his skill compensates...I think he is very talented and soon we will see it.