Comparative Bodyweight of Australian Professional Rugby Union and Rugby League Players

Over the past few decades Australian Rugby Union and Rugby League players have been getting progressively heavier. Contributing factors have included an increased emphasis on heavy weight training, the use of dietary supplements and the high proportion of Pacific Islanders in teams of both codes. Nevertheless there remains a clear tendency for professional Union players to be heavier than League players as the following table illustrates:

Comparative Bodyweight of Australian Professional Rugby Union and Rugby League Forwards and Backs
Squad/Team (2008)	Av Weight (kg) - Forwards	Av Weight (kg) - Backs	Difference(kg)
Rugby Union Australian Wallabies - Squad	110.5	93.4	17.1
NSW Waratahs - Squad	110.9	93.2	17.7
ACT Brumbies - Squad	110.0	93.8	17.2
Rugby League
Manly Sea Eagles – Grand Final Team	101.1	89.4	11.7
Melbourne Storm – Grand Final Team	103.7	92.6	11.1

Like Soccer and Australian Football, Rugby League is a continuous-flow type game, whereas Rugby Union is characterised by frequent stoppages with a significant time lapse before play restarts. Thus Union players require a lower level of aerobic fitness. Not surprisingly then, Union players whether backs or forwards tend to be heavier than their League counterparts.

The table indicates that the difference between the body weights of professional Union and League backs is not particularly great, whereas it is much more substantial in the case of forwards. One reason for this is the need for tall, heavy lineout forwards in Union, who are often around 200cm in height with corresponding body mass. With their high centre of gravity, such players are generally unsuited for Rugby League.

But the main reason for the weight disparity relates to the fundamentally different dynamics of the modern forms of each code. As I pointed out in a 2006 article, "Rugby - the most strength-oriented code of football":

"Rugby players spend considerably more playing time in physical contact and contest with opponents than players in other forms of football.

"Much of this contact involves extended grappling and wrestling, but what is also characteristic of rugby is the amount of time spent attempting to drive forward under loads considerably heavier than bodyweight. Obviously this is so in the scrum and maul, but also at the tackle. Both ball-carrier and tackler may strive to drive one another backward for an extended time after engagement. American football and rugby league are also primarily collision sports, but their tackles tend to terminate much more quickly."

There is an obvious advantage in having greater body mass where the sport requires extended physical engagement, although this may have a cost in terms of reduced mobility. Thus it can be confidently anticipated that Union forwards will always tend to be heavier than League forwards.

Those who advocate or foresee a merging of the two codes of Rugby fail to comprehend the fundamentally different physical demands placed on forwards in Union and League.

Read more...

Rugby - the most strength-oriented code of football

[Summary: Rugby players are more involved in physical contact and for longer periods than players in other forms of football. With the exception of American football, they tend to be significantly heavier than other footballers.

Strength training in rugby has tended to focus on hypertrophy or maintaining strength levels rather than achieving full potential strength, but in the future there is likely to be a concentration on heavy, very mobile players who possess very high-range explosive strength.]

Rugby players spend considerably more playing time in physical contact and contest with opponents than players in other forms of football.

Much of this contact involves extended grappling and wrestling, but what is also characteristic of rugby is the amount of time spent attempting to drive forward under loads considerably heavier than bodyweight. Obviously this is so in the scrum and maul, but also at the tackle. Both ball-carrier and tackler may strive to drive one another backward for an extended time after engagement. American football and rugby league are also primarily collision sports, but their tackles tend to terminate much more quickly.

Recognition of the importance of physical strength has led to a tendency for rugby selectors to favour increasingly heavier players even for backline positions. A modern professional rugby team is likely to average over 100kg bodyweight, compared with less than 95kg and less than 90kg for rugby league and Australian football respectively. Increased bodyweight appears to confer no advantage in soccer.

No valid size comparison can be made with players in American football. Its use of specialist teams means that individual players are only on the field for limited periods and therefore really massive players can be employed for the more static areas of engagement.

For professional rugby, players are often chosen on the basis of their size and apparent strength but are then not really expected to work to become significantly stronger. Much strength training in rugby appears to have the aim of generating hypertrophy - increasing muscle size and thus body mass - or of maintaining strength levels rather than seriously exploring the potential for markedly increased power.

Soccer, Australian football and rugby league are continuous-flow type games, whereas rugby and, to a much greater extent, American football are characterised by frequent stoppages and thus require lower levels of aerobic fitness. But I see little evidence that rugby coaches have fully realised the potential this provides to gain a competitive edge by requiring their players, backs and forwards, to seriously train for strength.

I would suggest that, given the development of very well-drilled coordinated defensive lines, the next stage in the evolution of rugby is likely to involve a concentration on the identification of and development of heavy, very mobile players who possess very high-range explosive strength.
rugby
rugby strength
explosive strength

Read more...