Does size matter?

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.

The Who

Journey Man
Don't get too excited, this thread has been prompted by watching the size of the Cowboys and Dogs. There are some huge men on both sides. Then I think of our big men: King and George are big, Kite is rangey but overall I think we are a smaller yet more mobile pack.
I had thought that mobility was a trend, especially when Gallen played prop in the SOO, but now I'm not sure.
I marvel at how the smaller players can generally handle the behemoths. but the success of the Cowboys this year must have something to do with the size of their pack.
Thoughts?
 
Canberra have a monster pack as well, hasn't helped them. You know what they say, it's not the size of the dog in the bush, but the fight in your chicken when it hatches that matters.
 
Jatz Crackers said:
CLIT COMMANDER said:
It's like stuffing a marsh mellow into a money box sometimes.

Or in your case, like stuffing a chipolata into a gumboot full of yoghurt.

Your missus was telling me your tackle is reminiscent of a button on a fur coat.
 
Getting back to the crutch er, crux of the original post.... I think T Rex showed the importance of size, always breaking the first tackle and scrambling the defence.
We had missed his size over the past six matches; our backrowers are relatively small - terrific, but they get knocked around playing such a physical game.
 
Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
4 3 1 28 6
3 2 1 10 6
4 2 2 39 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom