You’ve not been on this forum long. Some posters on here have branded much bigger players ‘midgets’ so there is some history. His lack of inches won’t go down well with some.

All the same I stand by the point that smaller forwards need to be a cut above to handle the bigger players. He may be spot on for all I know but when you go down the tick list for a prop he’s on the small side. It’s not prejudice it’s physics. You know the saying, the bigger the are the harder the fall, well I tend to believe the other version, the bigger they are the harder they hit.

So maybe he is up to the job but I suspect it’s academic tbh.

Vastman thanks for putting me right he always looked smaller than other props on the park so thought he was under 6ft thanks

I'm not sure why you are both pushing the point so hard.
I don't think anyone doubts that a good big one will always beat a good little one, but there are so many examples of big ones that coaches have trusted only to find that size is all they had.
I'd rather judge props on delivery first rather than size.

Smaller props just play a different role. If you are 5'10 you don't run at the line like Fifita and your work rate needs to be higher but there are plenty of examples of players who do that.
You can't go with all small props. You won't get out of your 10 metre area. But you can't go with all big either.

So I'd prefer to judge them on what they do and how it compliments the team rather than just judging on size.

Well, I'm not if it's me you mean, it's called a debate, this is a forum isn't it? What confuses you about that?

We don't use our props to get out of our 10 m area, it always seems to be the job of the 3/4's