How much 1st class rugby should young props/hookers play?

[Which Tyler]

I put this post in another thread (on another board) a few days ago (actually, 3-4 years ago now, but I wasn't here then, and I've just found it again to link elsewhere in reference to Corbs' latest knee op); which got largely ignored as the thread turned into the match thread for the All Blacks, and just moved on so quickly. I feel it's an important issue though - and one I seem to go on about every year, though never in much detail. It was initially a reply to someone else's post, so may read a little oddly out of context, though I've edited it a little to avoid this.
I thought it deserves a proper airing:

Why I don't think young front row players should play more than ~600 minutes (~10 starts / 30 benches) 1st class matches per season before their 23rd birthday.

The growth plates (AKA epiphyseal plates if you fancy heading to google) of the bones fuse around 22-23 years of age; no amount of gym work will change that; luck and normal distribution curves can, but nothing else*. This is nothing to do with size, or weigh, or muscle bulk; it's entirely due to the bones not being strong enough. This is not something you can train; it's a simple fact of life*. It's so much a fact of life, it's how forensic pathologists determine the age of death for skeletons.

*Well, ish; but not let's confuse the issue with drugs.

At the age of 22 you still have unfused bones in your knee (proximal tibia, distal femur) and shoulder (humerus head and acromion); which are the ones I'm most interested in (also iliac crest, wrist and plenty in the sacrum, but these are much less important). Spinal ossification ages are much more variable though; tending to fuse (sacrum aside) in the 20-25 age range IIRC; these are typically more stable however, once they start fusing.
Too much force through these areas before fusion causes distortion causing all sorts of problem, including debilitating arthritis before 30 years of age.

OK, some will be lucky, either fusing a year or so earlier than expected, or simply getting away with it; but for every Healey (who may yet need a wheelchair by the time he's 50) there's a Corbisiero; for every Vickery there's a Woodman, for every AJones there's a DFlatman.
Hell it's not just front rowers either, they're just the ones with the most extreme pressure coming through knees and shoulders - look at James Forrester (retired aged 27 through arthritis), or Martin Haag (needed 2 walking sticks by his mid-40s, 1 artificial knee, the other may have been done by now).
It's probably worth pointing out (again) that it's not just their playing career I'm worried about, though it's certainly an issue; I don't like dealing with patients who need knee replacements in their 30s because they or their coaches were idiots 15 years earlier. It's also not just the top class players; it's just that they're an exaggeration of this, with more training, and more force whilst playing.

To demonstrate and spot the difference: 1st X-ray is a ~20 year old; 2nd is a ~23 year old. Which do you think looks stronger / better developed?

Good summary of the ages of ossification for the long bones here:

The likes of Corbisiero*, Woodman**, Thomas***, Hill**** etc are the prime examples of what I'd like to avoid.

* 2000 minutes in 3 seasons before 23rd birthday
** 1100 minutes in 1 season aged 22
*** 1000 minutes aged 19, 700 aged 20, then notably less due to the inevitable injuries
**** 1300 minutes aged 20; 750 and counting aged 21


ETA: And now the conversation moves on to include Hill as well

 

[yaboyjj]

Interesting- I do worry about props having so much game time so young, the likes of Auterac, Thomas, Vunipola, Marler certainly played a lot of rugby before they hit 23. In the same way, how Jamie George has come through gradually is probably wise.

 

[Which Tyler]

Incidentally, since doing this, I've just had a look at the playing figures for Luke Cowan-Dickie; likely to be my biggest concern of the current players under 23

2013-14 (aged 20) 725 minutes first class rugby (+ 205 for Plymouth and 400 for EngU20)
2014-15 (aged 21) 900 minutes first class rugby
2015-16 (aged 22) 300 minutes and counting - has missed the last 3 matches injured (fracture, not degenerative)

You've got me interested in George now; instinct suggests he spent a good few years on the bench learning his trade and getting sets of 15-20 minutes rather than 60+ at a time.
BRB.

2010-11 (turned 21) 340 minutes first class rugby (+ 340 for Eng U20)
2011-12 (turned 22) 215 minutes first class rubgy

Oh, and apparently, he spent most of his bench time picking up splinters; 16 times unused from the bench in those 2 seasons

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Trouble is most young players now want game time over anything else and will move to get it.

 

[Which Tyler]

Agree entirely; that's exactly what the player themselves want, and the coaches want to get their best players on the pitch NOW, and 10 years time be damned!
Just like concussion.

For me, it's one of those areas where players need to be protected from themselves, and should be a directive from the top down, either as a PRL agreement; or an RFU/WR dictat. Either way, they'd need to look at it better than I have, and come up with a better figure than the 600 minutes I pulled out of my backside; ideally it would then filter down as well, say 600 minutes at Prem/EPCR/LV= level or 900 minutes at Champ/B&I level, or 1200 at ND1 to reflect the way that forces both outright reduce, and become more stable as the level played reduces.

Take Corb's as an example - he's basically knackered, and will be lucky to still be playing 1st class rugby by the time he's 30 - but... he's a British lion; whilst Nat Catt (similar potential in the same age group) has amassed all of 1 saxons cap.
Would Trevor Woodman trade in his RWC winner's medal for another 5 years on his career?

20 year olds have this tendency not to care very much about the damage they may be accruing for their 40s / 50s; especially if they're fighting to create a career at that stage.

 

[Which Tyler]

Just looking at this post again, and I see the adult knee X-ray original has been taken down, an do can't edit a 3 year old post...
Here's an adult knee for comparison

And here's the 20ish year old

 

[Which Tyler]

FFS

https://archive.ph/3odXt

Time to fast-track young generation of England powerhouse front-rowers

After delivering a ferocious display of forward play to win world ***le, the future of U20s now rests on whether their clubs are prepared to back youth in the Gallagher Premiership

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

FFS

https://archive.ph/3odXt

God he's out of touch every prem club in the league has a transition coach pretty much and have done for years
It's kinda scary how much hope people are pinning on players who haven't even played a minute of senior rugby not in the premier cup outside of AOF.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I really think they'd get more change out of focussing on props who are 25 plus years old and trying to improve them with a clear path of progression towards the England team.

It does seem like young players constantly get picked on potential where as those mid 20s players almost get ignored because they are seen as past it.

The key for me is ensuring that those 25 plus year old players have clear work ons and improvements in the scrum. Although I'm not really sure there are a load of 25 year old plus props kicking round at the moment but there has been previously.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Attributing their success to Nathan Catt, as well - when AOF said Catt didn't even say hello to him when he came to Sale lol

Edit: agree with the above - focusing too much on 19/20yr olds is good for the future but not this RWC cycle, better to let them mature at their clubs and start filtering them through in a few years than rush them through now (like we did with Henry Thomas, Paul Hill etc.). Makes for a better introduction and a longer career.
It's rough because our options atm are pretty much drawing a pension or just out of nappies, but thems the breaks. There's a few players knocking about in the prem that are worth a look at at least

 

[Which Tyler]

Attributing their success to Nathan Catt, as well - when AOF said Catt didn't even say hello to him when he came to Sale lol

Presumably because Natt Catt runs the scrum school initiative (I believe it was his / Lilley's suggestion as well, but could be wrong).
On him not even saying hello to AOF, when going to Sale specifically and explicitly to speak to AOF - I suspect that a quote has been taken out of context somewhere (and yes, I know you're primed to believe anything that suggests the England age-grade coaches (inc Catt here) are at loggerheads with Sale's coaches on the subject of AOF )

 

[TRF_Olyy]

On him not even saying hello to AOF, when going to Sale specifically and explicitly to speak to AOF

He came to Sale to talk to all of our front row prospects but didn't include AOF in it - just thought it was a bit weird at the time seeing as he was playing in our senior 23 at the time
Maybe he didn't want to step on the toes of the u20s coaches

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I really think they'd get more change out of focussing on props who are 25 plus years old and trying to improve them with a clear path of progression towards the England team.

It does seem like young players constantly get picked on potential where as those mid 20s players almost get ignored because they are seen as past it.

The key for me is ensuring that those 25 plus year old players have clear work ons and improvements in the scrum. Although I'm not really sure there are a load of 25 year old plus props kicking round at the moment but there has been previously.

Yep.

Although I'd like to see it the other way round in the sense that the scrummaging is nailed down first and then all the handling added on as the cherry on the cake.

But there exceptions to every rule - Leonard J, for one. Once their bodies have developed, if they're good enough they're old enough. But that has to be proven over a period consistently doing a job domestically and in Europe. Marler's comments on AOF based on 10 minutes were ultimately fairly unhelpful.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Yep.

Although I'd like to see it the other way round in the sense that the scrummaging is nailed down first and then all the handling added on as the cherry on the cake.

But there exceptions to every rule - Leonard J, for one. Once their bodies have developed, if they're good enough they're old enough. But that has to be proven over a period consistently doing a job domestically and in Europe. Marler's comments on AOF based on 10 minutes were ultimately fairly unhelpful.

What I meant was, players like Paul hill for example, if England had worked on his scrummaging and improved it he'd have been a top class international. We don't have loads of top class scrummagers but if we take decent loose props and improve their scrum skills that's a good step for those 25 year old plus players.

Younger ones, yes let's ensure the scrum is at the forefront of they'd skills but we do need to fill that age gap of props.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

What I meant was, players like Paul hill for example, if England had worked on his scrummaging and improved it he'd have been a top class international. We don't have loads of top class scrummagers but if we take decent loose props and improve their scrum skills that's a good step for those 25 year old plus players.

Younger ones, yes let's ensure the scrum is at the forefront of they'd skills but we do need to fill that age gap of props.

Yep, although there was no guarantee Hill would have been good enough regardless. Even Dowson said recently that he was excellent "on his day" i.e inconsistent. Whether others might have drawn more from him, who knows but undoubtedly capped too early for his own good. The little grey cells can't recall if there were better options around at that time.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Yep, although there was no guarantee Hill would have been good enough regardless. Even Dowson said recently that he was excellent "on his day" i.e inconsistent. Whether others might have drawn more from him, who knows but undoubtedly capped too early for his own good. The little grey cells can't recall if there were better options around at that time.

I guess I just used Hill as an example of a player that was good in the loose but really needed to work on his scrummaging. I couldn't think of anyone else after 6 pints of cloudy cider last night.

Not saying he would have 100% been a perfect choice but there were others around in that age bracket which needed scrum school after class.

 

[BPM]

At that time, it was largely to do with an over-emphasis on 'mobile props'. Hill was probably given the wrong advice at a crucial point in his development. You could say the same about Sinckler. All the while, we marginalised players like Collier or Schonert (when they weren't injured) who might have given us a better platform.