Does size matter?

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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

2025 Ladder

Team P W D L PD Pts
1 Raiders 22 18 0 4 172 42
2 Storm 22 17 0 5 258 40
3 Bulldogs 22 15 0 7 114 36
4 Warriors 22 14 0 8 26 34
5 Broncos 22 13 0 9 148 32
6 Sharks 22 13 0 9 67 32
7 Panthers 22 12 1 9 111 31
8 Roosters 22 11 0 11 72 28
9 Dolphins 22 10 0 12 81 26
10 Sea Eagles 22 10 0 12 4 26
11 Tigers 22 9 0 13 -113 24
12 Cowboys 23 9 1 13 -138 23
13 Dragons 22 8 0 14 -94 22
14 Eels 22 8 0 14 -136 22
15 Rabbitohs 23 9 0 14 -151 22
16 Knights 22 6 0 16 -220 18
17 Titans 22 5 0 17 -201 16
Back
Top Bottom