Harry Thacker

[mightymouse]

I saw McGuigan for the first time the other day and the little I saw he looks quite useful. Bit more of a lump than Harry but handy looking in the loose. Not quite Jamie George but a useful looking 2nd string guy at least.

Interesting to note Jamie g is 14 kgs heavier than Thacker but only 2 heavier than McGuigan. McGuigan is taller as well which means he could put more weight on easier than Harry if he needed to. In fact at only 22 I'm sure he will add more weight over the next few years and could end up as big as Ross Ford who is even heavier (7 kgs )than Jamie George weighing in at a massive 113 kg.

I think you really notice these differentials as these players go on and off the field. Harry is fine when he is on the field with top props like Marcos or massive men like logo, as soon as one departs... problems!
The Scottish front row never looks as good once Ford goes off, meanwhile Englands scrum immediately improves the minute George comes on.

Weight and power has always been important in scrummaging, but the difference now is that you get penalties from destroying the opposition whereas years ago you just got the pleasure of humiliating them!

[johnthegriff]

Thacker's height and weight are comparable to Brian Moore's, not much different to Peter Wheelers or Richard Cockerill or even his dad Troy all pretty good hookers. In the days of the ball going in straight a hooker needed the agility to strike quickly, not often found in the bigger bellied. The position is hooker not a third prop.

[FrontRowUnionMember]

That's why I wondered whether Thacker may be viewed as a 7 going forward. He clearly doesn't get found wanting in the loose, he's been highly prominent, but it really does appear that his weight is viewed as an issue just at the scrum.
Thacker 82kg
Bateman 110kg
Ghiraldini 99kg
Van Vuuren 107kg
Youngs 102kg
McGuigan 104kg

[Iain]

Thacker's height and weight are comparable to Brian Moore's, not much different to Peter Wheelers or Richard Cockerill or even his dad Troy all pretty good hookers. In the days of the ball going in straight a hooker needed the agility to strike quickly, not often found in the bigger bellied. The position is hooker not a third prop.

I wrote a piece about this a little while ago. That Thacker is not big enough to succeed at the top level as a hooker due to his size is a sad indictment on the modern game and the insistence of bulking up. Traditionally the hooker isn't there to push. Traditionally, the hooker has a good old battle hooking the ball from under the nose of his opposite number while the props provide a steady platform for him to do so. Those days seem to be gone and Thacker now, unfortunately, struggles in the scrum. If we can't find a place on the field for as good a footballer as Thacker then its a shame.

[jgriffin]

Thacker's height and weight are comparable to Brian Moore's, not much different to Peter Wheelers or Richard Cockerill or even his dad Troy all pretty good hookers. In the days of the ball going in straight a hooker needed the agility to strike quickly, not often found in the bigger bellied. The position is hooker not a third prop.

I wrote a piece about this a little while ago. That Thacker is not big enough to succeed at the top level as a hooker due to his size is a sad indictment on the modern game and the insistence of bulking up. Traditionally the hooker isn't there to push. Traditionally, the hooker has a good old battle hooking the ball from under the nose of his opposite number while the props provide a steady platform for him to do so. Those days seem to be gone and Thacker now, unfortunately, struggles in the scrum. If we can't find a place on the field for as good a footballer as Thacker then its a shame.

Absolutely. An indictment of the modern game and those who made it an injury fest!

[The Boy Dave]

I wrote a piece about this a little while ago. That Thacker is not big enough to succeed at the top level as a hooker due to his size is a sad indictment on the modern game and the insistence of bulking up. Traditionally the hooker isn't there to push. Traditionally, the hooker has a good old battle hooking the ball from under the nose of his opposite number while the props provide a steady platform for him to do so. Those days seem to be gone and Thacker now, unfortunately, struggles in the scrum. If we can't find a place on the field for as good a footballer as Thacker then its a shame.

Iain I remember reading it and you are right it is a shame.
I don't know what the answer is in a professional sport if a squad/team is to maximise it's potential.
I don't think opponents will follow just to be polite!
Regarding the scrum Thacker has a good level of explosive strength but lacks the level of static strength quite badly and his props are having to take this strain, he is very fit but the props aren't, and they can't be expected to be if you want them to possess static strength.
They are only able to use utilise their static strength at the scrum and being limited and are falling off quite badly in other areas in matches as a result of how far they are being pushed, and we are regarded as posesssing some of the best all round ability props in the English game.
Marcos also possesses huge dynamic strength as he has proved on many occasions in scrummaging repeatedly through matches in the past for 80 minutes and Mulipola has big explosive strength as he has proved, both are reduced to just being pillars with Harry in there.
The others just aren't of that level to be able to do what Marcos and Mulipola can do, Dan Cole has a bit of Marcos and a bit of Mulipola in him but I would bet that he doesn't possess the same level of static strength!
Basically we aren't maximising our potential, we are hurting our own players and in the modern game we are missing the scrum as a tool.
Another postion such as 6 or 7 will have a similar impact, opponents will really go for that side at scrum time and that prop will be put through the mill and against good teams it'll affect the entire 8.
It drains everyone's legs being pushed around or needing to dig in to survive at scrums, Tigers did it to opponents for many years, we can't complain because it's gone to another level!

[wigworth]

Do you think it would be possible to utilise him as an 8 in a pocock type manner as long as we have big ball carrying 4, 5 and 6 such as Slater, Barrow, Fitzgerald and Williams with him?

[The Boy Dave]

Do you think it would be possible to utilise him as an 8 in a pocock type manner as long as we have big ball carrying 4, 5 and 6 such as Slater, Barrow, Fitzgerald and Williams with him?

I think he could play anywhere, 8 is as good as anywhere but it's just a question of what level of opposition and that is a road I don't believe a pro team should be going down.
If all other base's are covered then he is a fine utility player but as has happened this year not all base's are covered, and even if they are covered injuries and other events will change all that.

[drc_007]

I wrote a piece about this a little while ago. That Thacker is not big enough to succeed at the top level as a hooker due to his size is a sad indictment on the modern game and the insistence of bulking up. Traditionally the hooker isn't there to push. Traditionally, the hooker has a good old battle hooking the ball from under the nose of his opposite number while the props provide a steady platform for him to do so. Those days seem to be gone and Thacker now, unfortunately, struggles in the scrum. If we can't find a place on the field for as good a footballer as Thacker then its a shame.

Iain I remember reading it and you are right it is a shame.
I don't know what the answer is in a professional sport if a squad/team is to maximise it's potential.
I don't think opponents will follow just to be polite!
Regarding the scrum Thacker has a good level of explosive strength but lacks the level of static strength quite badly and his props are having to take this strain, he is very fit but the props aren't, and they can't be expected to be if you want them to possess static strength.
They are only able to use utilise their static strength at the scrum and being limited and are falling off quite badly in other areas in matches as a result of how far they are being pushed, and we are regarded as posesssing some of the best all round ability props in the English game.
Marcos also possesses huge dynamic strength as he has proved on many occasions in scrummaging repeatedly through matches in the past for 80 minutes and Mulipola has big explosive strength as he has proved, both are reduced to just being pillars with Harry in there.
The others just aren't of that level to be able to do what Marcos and Mulipola can do, Dan Cole has a bit of Marcos and a bit of Mulipola in him but I would bet that he doesn't possess the same level of static strength!
Basically we aren't maximising our potential, we are hurting our own players and in the modern game we are missing the scrum as a tool.
Another postion such as 6 or 7 will have a similar impact, opponents will really go for that side at scrum time and that prop will be put through the mill and against good teams it'll affect the entire 8.
It drains everyone's legs being pushed around or needing to dig in to survive at scrums, Tigers did it to opponents for many years, we can't complain because it's gone to another level!

Rugby used to be a game for all sizes and builds, perhaps there should be something like a maximum total weight for the team?

[darganj]

Harry Thacker isn't big enough to play Premiership rugby in the forwards. The end.

If Leicester want to keep him, keep him as a 3rd choice player on a 3rd choice salary. You won't win big competitions with Harry Thacker starting, he has a huge weakness that other Leicester players have to try and cover.

[The Boy Dave]

Rugby used to be a game for all sizes and builds, perhaps there should be something like a maximum total weight for the team?

I don't see it as any different to asking Jack Roberts to convert to hooker or backrow, common sense would tell me that you aren't going to get the best out of him and certainly you aren't going to get the best out of your pack.
Rugby is still a game for all shapes and sizes, it's just a question of what position and what level!

[strawclearer]

Rugby used to be a game for all sizes and builds, perhaps there should be something like a maximum total weight for the team?

I'm in danger of going down the 'it was better in my day' route but if you made props and locks play 80 minutes and stop lifting at the lineout, they would have to lose weight. Not only would people of Thacker's build return to the reckoning but impact injuries would inevitably lessen.

[sam16111986]

Harry Thacker isn't big enough to play Premiership rugby in the forwards. The end.

The same Harry Thacker that contributed heavily to three of our four tries at the weekend? He was a level apart from any other forward on the field and there were some seriously good forwards on display.

All forward packs need balance, but given the straight choice between a Thacker or a Fonua I know what I'd choose. I think at 7 Thacker can go all the way to international rugby, Back did and Thacker has more pace and skill, just needs to work on his scavenging.

[Will S]

I still think 7 should be his position. He might not be the strongest over the ball but if he gets there a second quicker then he can use his height as an advantage (he can get so low over the ball that he would be a nightmare for a big unit to drive off). He also has the skills to act as the perfect link player.

He could still play at hooker but would rather see him coming in off the bench when the scrum has powered down a bit due to fatigue and his speed counts more against tired opposition.

It would be interesting to know how he stacks up against Brits in terms of size and weight. I think he is about 9 cm shorter than Brits and about 8kg's lighter but I don't know how accurate those weight measurements are.

[watsonjm]

Thacker is listed as 173cm tall and 94 kg
Brits is 182cm and 99kg