Former England hooker Brian Moore has been criticised after he complained about the size and power of the Bordeaux-Begles forwards.
The French outfit fielded a massive pack which completely overwhelmed English champions Saracens at the weekend.
They dominated the match to secure a 45-12 victory and move into the quarter-finals of the Champions Cup.
Bordeaux played some superb rugby but it was aided by the efforts of the likes of 23st prop Ben Tameifuna. After he had finished his shift, the 21st South African Carlu Sadie came on to replace him.
Springboks in the firing line
Moore also used the Springboks as an example of sides being able to switch one big forward with another gargantuan unit off the bench, leaving him concerned about the issue of player welfare.
“Take any of South Africa’s recent matches and you can see the ‘Bomb squad’ size and power dynamic at work,” he wrote in his Telegraph column.
“It is undeniably effective, and as a result, as sides try to compete by imitating these examples, a trend is likely to emerge.”
“Rugby needs to be clear about this issue,” Moore continued. It can play any kind of game it wants, and you have the right to think that way if you like enormous player collisions. You have to acknowledge, though, that embracing this strategy will inevitably have certain consequences.
“It is not safer for certain guys to play the entire 80 minutes against two players who are bulked up and trained to play only a portion of each game in terms of safety.
“It is also less safe, in terms of repeated subconcussive impacts, to have players who maximise their size and power, knowing they have to play only a limited role in a game.
“Having players play a full game would also allow teams to give players a full week off if they were played in alternate games instead of playing a limited time every match.
“When it comes to longer-term effects, what do you think parents think when they see this rush for size? I can attest to this from own experience that they believe there is this kind of inequality at every level, which discourages some parents from even letting their child try rugby.
Thus, the former England front-rower has joined Ireland great Keith Wood in calling on the appropriate authorities to change the regulations pertaining to the usage of replacements.
One strategy to have players train to play for longer stretches of time and to lose weight for aerobic capacity is to limit the amount of substitutes or ban them unless they are injured, according to Moore.
“Unless you mean the shape and size is massive and heavy, we are getting towards a point where certain levels of rugby are unsuitable for all shapes and sizes.”
Backlash
Moore has since come under fire for his comments, with one person writing on X, formerly Twitter: “Seriously bias s*** from Brian Moore. Bordeaux produces one of the best quality rugby in Europe and he is crying like a baby because Big Ben is huge?
“Tonga has a 1000kg pack, have they won the World Cup? Saracens are just s*** Brian, go cry somewhere else.”
Respected analyst Sam Larner also took umbrage with the England great, albeit in slightly less x-rated fashion.
“There’s a debate to be had about player sizes. My personal view is that we shouldn’t change away from the sub rules we currently have,” he wrote.
“But that aside. (Christian) Judge and (Mako) Vunipola – Sarries starters – were replaced on the 49th min. Tameifuna was replaced at min 53 and (Jefferson) Poirot at 55mins.”
Moore strengthened her stance and posted on social media, saying, “Although safety is addressed, most of my comments are not from people who haven’t read the entire piece.
“The primary criticism is that it increases the difficulty of emerging nations’ tasks—they may be able to field a competitive starting pack, but not seven comparable subs.”
Hugo Gordon, however, expressed his disapproval, writing: “I like Brian Moore, and I was hoping that the headline had done him some dirty work, but no.”
“There’s a claim that bigger benches make it more difficult for lesser teams to compete, and I don’t entirely disagree with that. However, the article favors size above competence excessively.
