The shape of things to come
The Marseille game between France and the All Blacks was a wonderful display of purposeful ball-in-hand rugby and a clear demonstration of the importance of physical dominance in the backs. There was limited but very judicious kicking and a notable absence of the cut-out pass. Players on both sides were prepared to engage tacklers before off-loading.
In the backs the French were outweighed by nearly 7kg per man, putting them at a serious disadvantage in what developed into an intense, fast-paced physical contest. After 20 minutes France led 9-7 courtesy of three penalty goals; however in the final 20 minutes France failed to score while the All Blacks ran in two tries against a very weary defence.
Former Wallaby coach Bob Dwyer enthused: “New Zealand is now playing the style of rugby that I love. It is ambitious, confident and accurate in its execution – shorter passes, straight running, finding opportunity on the outside or, when closed off, picking up a support player on the ‘natural loop’. Beautiful in its simplicity and effective in its outcome!”
Dwyer pointed out that the All Blacks had exposed the French through the channel between the half and five-eighth, noting that for opportunities to open up out wide, it was important to occasionally threaten, or appear to threaten, through this channel. Significantly, the All Black half, Jimmy Cowan, outweighed his counterpart, Julien Dupuy, by 14kg, while Dan Carter had a 9kg advantage over François Trinh-Duc.
Dwyer rates inside centre Ma’a Nonu as the most improved player in world rugby. While retaining his ‘crash and bash’ approach he “has added finesse and a real appreciation of the ways to ‘fix’ defenders and is now a far more difficult proposition altogether.” The heaviest back on the field at 104kg, Nonu outweighed Yannick Jauzion by 9kg.
New Zealand, the traditional home of the ‘two five-eighths game’, has now developed an outstanding backline which features a big, powerful direct-running 12. The players outside Nonu; Conrad Smith, Sitiveni Sivivatu, Cory Jane and Mils Muliaina are all committed to bending or breaking the defensive line when appropriate as well as exploiting defensive gaps. The players also consistently and enthusiastically back one another up.
I am convinced that this Kiwi backline is a forerunner of what will become increasingly common in the next few years. Modern training methods are producing a new generation of seriously big, powerful and quick players. The most effective way of exploiting their comparative advantage is to play a very direct ball-in-hand attack coupled with brick wall defence and to maintain this pattern over the full 80 minutes. Smaller and weaker opponents may be able to withstand this type of pressure for long periods but eventually physical and mental fatigue will cause them to yield.
There will always be a place in rugby for the very skillful smaller player like Giteau, but loading up backlines with physically inferior so-called playmakers, particularly if they are tackle-shy, is not the way forward.
No tags for this post.
Loading ...
I agree with all of what you have written Bruce, however we have seen it before. We only have to look a recent Wallaby backlines for a direct comparison, eg Latham, Sailor, Tuqiri, Mortlock all 100kg + players, and all in the Wallaby backline at the same time! It is what the Wallabies are sorely missing at them moment – a few big, yet fast and skillful backs.
Good point, Scotty. However, Robbie Deans is not going to find many new backs in the near-100kg category if, as reported, he is going to be looking for them at Sevens tournaments.
The idea that all Sevens players are great tacklers is a delusion. It’s one thing to be able to chase someone down or to catch them in cover, but rather different when some big unit suddenly comes at you with malicious intent.
I was going on holiday, but the weather here is stink and now there is Bruce’s answer to world rugby supremacy to respond to.
Jonah Lomu was a star sevens player before he was a star fifteens player. Most Fijians, many Samoans and Tongans and a few Maori and South Africans are big and fast, and play sevens.
Many of these guys live in Australia and are eligible to play international rugby for Oz.
Don’t write Deans off because of just one idea he has, because I don’t think he’s a single channel thinker.
Moreover, you can have the biggest, fastest backs in the universe, if they’re not getting a lot of ball to bash their way around with, they don’t present any greater problem than players who aren’t so big and fast.
Games will always be won first in the pack.
“However, Robbie Deans is not going to find many new backs in the near-100kg category if, as reported, he is going to be looking for them at Sevens tournaments.”
He might find them in France – Mark Gasnier 100kg & 1.93m.
On another note, I am sure Horan would be one of the first picked in the squad if he was still playing yet he is certainly not 100kg. And how many of the Grand Slam ‘84 wallabies were near 100kg, not many if any. And Matt Banahan, 114kg & 2.01m and useless. I just think you need a good balance.
An alternative theory is to stack the centres with 100Kg+ front rowers, a la Ben & Benn’s efforts on Saturday night!
I’d rather smaller centres than have Baxter and dunning in the scrum.
I could not agree more with the above statement. Please leave the props of the bygone era where they are now.
Assuming the average tackle coverage of a player as a radius of 2m, even with the entire team standing side by side across a field, there is still 10m of gaps. I don’t think you need to have a team that runs over players, or even that runs around them. They just need to run where the other team isn’t.
Size is only an issue when the opposing person’s technique is flawed. Greegs could tackle Lomu. I think the only thing our centres should increase in size, is their brains.
On style of play, it has taken the ABs all year to get there. There have been glimers but nothing like what happened against the French. The ABs when trying a lot of that stuff earlier in the year, but could either not hold onto balls taken at speed or receivers could not position themselves in an onside position through lack of timing . What those problems tells me is it takes a lot of effort to get it right, like a season. On the question of size I agree with Scotty that the game has been that way for a while. Maybe started by the Lomu innovation but quickly picked up by other nations. The problem is finding the size with the speed and coordination necessary to do the job. Players like Mortlock or Ashley Cooper etc do not grow on trees. I always felt that Tiqiri and Sailor were good, but over hyped. Still a place for the small fast man like Williams from Wales, Giteau or O”Connor.
The style being described here, in detail (i.e. shorter passes, straight running, finding opportunity on the outside or, when closed off, picking up a support player on the ‘natural loop’) is pretty much the Randwick style of the 80s and 90s. I don’t think the size of the player is necessarily relevant, since it is intended to get the ball to a man where a defender isn’t.
Groucho, while I think there is still a place for the small mobile player, size does matter, especially if you have been tackling it all day. Not the slow forward tackles, but the high speed back tackles. When I moved from flanker to centre, I could not get over the impact of the tackles head on. It changed my opinion about backs! The last 20mins usually tells the real story of any game and that comes about because one side is worn out. If that is because they have tackled big guys all day then thats a good way to do it.
Thank you, Nabley. A remarkably succinct statement of the main point I was trying to make.
I agree with Searsy – is this article for real?
In opposition, I offer the appropriately fin du siècle match between NZ and France at the 1999 World Cup. Up until kick-off at that match, I could have written this article myself.
Since then the likes of Habana, Carter, Larkham, Giteau, Wilkinson, Williams, Clerc (scorer of the try of the season against, erm, NZ!), Steyn M and Steyn F and numerous others would seem to me to have thoroughly debunked this whole argument.
Arguably, the point is valid around outside centre and fullback. But apart from that it seems that there will always be a place for skill and finding space.
There is always and always will be a place for skill, But there is always a place for power too. Nonu or Giteau? id pick giteau But how about Lomu or shane williams? Id pick lomu. So it really depends on the position and the team. Right now the wallabies are lacking power (no wing power, no more mortlock, no crashballing fullback). AAC might not be a great fullback (yet) but he’s the only one whos got power and guess what? hes our most consistant performing back. Wallabies need more power!
Most of the negative comments have focussed on player size, arguing the merits of smaller players. However the article was not simply about the All Blacks having a big backline. The title that I submitted was “A glimpse of rugby’s future – physical imposition by big, fast backs”. For some reason the sub-editors didn’t like that title and changed it, with the result that the focus of what I had written was obscured.
My main point was not that the All Blacks backs are big but rather that they have taken the advantage available from superior size and power to its logical conclusion. For 80 minutes they physically imposed themselves on the French, looking for heavy engagements rather than aimlessly kicking possession away or throwing pointless cut-out passes. Eventually the French backs were worn out and ground down.
By contrast the Springboks have achieved short term success by using tactics which are not really suited to their big players. Putting up high kicks with long hang times could be exploited by great chasers like Habana and Pietersen but it tended to take their big powerful backs out of the game. Once opposing teams learnt how to cope with the bombing raids the ‘Boks no longer looked a super side.
But the counter-argument is that whilst smaller players may struggle to tackle a team like this to a standstill, that is all they have to do. When they do get a crack, they can run around them. Larkham (almost) always managed this, for example, even when he had the forwards running onto him all day.
And I still don’t think this really applies to the wingers. They are just not going to make enough tackles to have enough of an effect, I would have thought.
But certainly you want your 13 to be big and strong, and typically this will be an advantage for 12 and 15 as well.
And your actual conclusion is hard to argue with – no-one wants tackle-shy players! Do you really mean: JOC and LT better beef up?
This is not super new stuff. I’ve always thought that most of the “new” rugby concepts were flawed and doomed to failure. The All Blacks have simply returned to the old ways. Take a look at Fred Allen’s teams of the 60’s with Ian McRae at in-centre. Close spacing, short passes, fantastic support, with big (relatively) strong men in the backs, who could recycle the ball in the tackle.
I think the all blacks still have more skill then us. I dont think they picked their back-line power-based but rather skill based and “in-form” based. Carter, Conrad smith are very skillful players. McAlister is also very skillful but was injured a lot and nonu was in form. It just so happens that most of their in-form players are skillful and arent little farts like giteau or JOC. (but i wouldnt say big either except for nonu)
This takes me back. I saw the fearsome Hawkes Bay side of the sixties with the all-black midfielders Macrae and Davis.
Macrae was big strong and would run straight. Davis was the elusive outside centre.
You have to go with what you have got. I like to see a big strong straight running inside centre and an elusive outside centre but the players may not be available.
I like the current Australian halves. They are not as good as Catchpole and Hawthorne but few are. I think that they will get better the more that they play together.
My main concern with Australia is that when they have a bad hair day they play bad South Island rugby. Still the side will get better. The scrum problems appear to have been well and truly fixed. More work is needed on the line outs.