Scrum Talk

[MrMouse]

I agree with both Langers and cyclo. The fence is firmly wedged up my behind on this one. However, it is always good to get feedback from those within the machine, regardless of anything else.

 

[JJJ]

I don't understand the Brumbies at all. If you had the choice between having a potentially world-class tighthead prop in your lineup or an excellent loosehead prop surely you'd choose the tighthead every time? Surely it's the more important position? Surely it's easier to find a spare loosehead prop who's better at 1 than Ma'afu is at 3?? And surely the team that represents Australia should come before the team that represents Canberra?

Seriously, is it fucking rocket science??? PLAY BA AT 3, BRUMBIES!!

 

[fatprop]

Young lays blame on Deans for Wallabies' scrum woes
Josh Rakic
November 28, 2010

Pondering the future ... a younger Bill Young back in his playing days with the Wallabies during preparations for the 2003 Rugby World Cup.

Pondering the future ... a younger Bill Young back in his playing days with the Wallabies during preparations for the 2003 Rugby World Cup. Photo: Dallas Kilponen

FORMER Wallabies prop and Brumbies scrum coach Bill Young has broken ranks to question the strategies of the Australian coaching staff as the Australian side's scrum deficiencies continue to hamper World Cup preparations.

With 46 Test caps to his name and a successful coaching stint with the Brumbies, Young rejected claims by Wallabies coach Robbie Deans that referees were to blame for Australia's scrum woes. Instead, he laid the blame directly on the coaching staff.

"It's a lack of understanding at the top level," declared the outspoken Young. "I don't think the blokes in charge really have much scrum prowess or have much understanding of the scrum. I think that is blatantly obvious."

The 36-year-old, who is now a publican, didn't spare the selectors either. "They've got five teams to choose from, and if they can't come up with a decent front-row combination without having to play blokes out of position after looking at 15 games, then who owns the problem? Not the Super 14 clubs," he said.

"The Australian selectors do. Is it Dave Nucifora, or is Robbie Deans just running the show? Everyone wants to see Australia achieve, and the best way for that is to see the Brumbies, Waratahs, Reds, Force and Rebels achieve. And if those five provinces can achieve and the Wallabies can't get themselves together, then they've got the wrong blokes in the job and they need to make the change there.

"Parto [Wallabies scrum coach Patricio Noriega] is doing the best job he can do but is he getting what he wants or is he being told what to do? I think there seems to be a little bit of things being ruled with an iron fist up there as far as selections go from my point of view.

"Are the independent specialist coaches having a say or is it just coming from one bloke? Look, I don't know because I'm not involved in the system but I'm asking the question.

"I have no idea if that does or does not happen but from a Brumbies perspective, I thought us and the Waratahs both had exceptional scrums. The Force, too."

Playing players out of position is one of Young's biggest peeves, pointing to Brumbies prop Ben Alexander as the perfect example. He cited Alexander's try-scoring ability at loose-head for the Brumbies compared with his effectiveness at tight-head for the Wallabies.

"We had Ben Alexander playing at loose-head where he's been one of our highest try-scorers but the international selectors want to play him at tight-head," Young said.

"No doubt he's probably the best footballer as far as tight-heads go, but it's the age-old story – they seem to want to put the footballer ahead of the scrum.

"Until we recognise the importance of the scrum at international level, then we'll continue to get more of the same.

"You can't expect a bloke who plays Super 14 at loose-head to then be a world-class tight-head at scrum time. That's the fact of the situation.

"This was discussed three years ago with the selectors and they knew that's what would be happening at the Brumbies and they've chosen to continue down that road. I guess what you end up with is the results we have now, continual penalties because you haven't got a guy who is getting the time he needs in a position to dominate."

Australia's most-capped prop, Al Baxter, wasn't as gung-ho as the retired scrum specialist but acknowledged the Wallabies' scrum could be improved after having experienced the same difficulties on tour in 2008 before turning it around.

"We turned it around at Twickenham with a lot of hard work, I guess," Baxter said. "What was good is that we were able to get some specialist coaching in there with Michael Foley and that started paying dividends in 2008 and 2009.

"It's pretty much the same front row, so I think it's maybe a confidence thing. They dominated in the front row at the end of season tour last year.

"Perhaps they do need to look back and go back to some of that, because it seemed to work. They were strong particularly against England. I think they can do it again."

While he stopped short of blaming the referees, Baxter said adapting to certain referees would benefit the side. "A couple of decisions could have gone either way last weekend and I guess it's a matter of adapting to your opposition and the referee," he said. "I think referees in general, it would be good if they had some more front-row education, but it's pretty tough. Not too many front-rowers could adapt to refereeing.

"A front-rower's body probably isn't conducive to being a referee, especially after playing 10 years of rugby," he laughed.

 

[Gnostic]

The rest of the world would be hard pressed to take Bill seriously, I mean the king of the turn in and bore manoeuvre?

I agree Cyclo, but it hard to argue with what he says. As per the Rank the Props thread even fit Alexander isn't ranked the top scrummaging THP. So if you want to fix the scrum it must be a priority and players have to selected accordingly even though it will be a limiting factor elsewhere. Deans obviously will not accept that limitation elsewhere and accepts the scrum will be shit hence his selection policies. The same arguements can be made regarding the continued selection of players such as Brown and Chisholm. They offer the mobility than people like Houston and Van lack yet those aforementioned players are not the best in their respective positions in the Oz teams. I have posted before that I can see what Deans is aiming at with his selection policies (even with the attempts to develop Ma'afu, Daley, S. Finger and Edmonds) but such selections leave the team unbalanced and critically weak in areas such as the scrum. We should not be surprised when they get caned in those areas when you consider the strengths of the players selected.

 

[cyclopath]

Yes, Gnostic, clearly the weighting is more in favour of mobile, ball playing types, and advocates might argue that today's match proves the point. BUT, we got off today in that France fell to bits, did not capitalise when we had 14 on, and we (?cleverly) avoided a lot of scrums in the second half. A team like NZ with another gear could, and probably would have continued to ream us up front and it would have been ugly.
I still wonder if we need to get a pure scrummager, esp at THP to the fore. Who that might be, I don't know. Maybe Palmer if he steps up next year, maybe Weekes?

 

[Blue]

What is the chances of Al getting the recall if he has a big season with the Tahs?

I'd say it's pretty good now?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I reckon he'd have to have a pretty big year Blue. He's damaged goods as far as a lot of international refs go.

 

[Groucho]

I'm mesmerised, again, by talk that Deans "accepts" a shit scrum.

Has he said this? On the contrary, I would say that having been severely disadvantaged by it he is extremely concerned, but the scrum just hasn't stepped up. I'm sure the players themselves want to compete, but have been stopped from competing by better scrums.

How do I know this? Because it's bleeding obvious.

You could (if you were a paranoiac) say that Deans "accepts" any given unacceptable facet of our play. You could say that he 'accepts' intermittently bad defence, and bad goal kicking. You could say he 'accepts' hot and cold performances, one week after another. You could say he 'accepts' losing ten in a row to the New Zealand Rugby Team.

And you could say that he accepts all these things because he is fixated on mobile forwards, works undercover for the NZRU, or is an emissary from the planet Zarg, bent on world domination through the dissemination of jet boat franchises in the lower Hutt rehion of New Zealand.

You could say all these things. And they'd all be complete tosh.

 

[Jets]

It is a huge issue with the Wallabies game. Imagine how well the Wallabies would have gone today if they had a competent scrum? I think Young is stuck back in the days when the Brumbies dictated a lot about what the Wallabies did. That isn't the case anymore and they should play Alexander at THP for the benefit of Australian rugby.
I thought Slipper was great today and every time he has been at THP this year the scrum has improved. I would love Link to play him there for the Reds but don't like the chances with Shepherdson and Holmes covering THP.

 

[Groucho]

It is a huge issue with the Wallabies game. Imagine how well the Wallabies would have gone today if they had a competent scrum? I think Young is stuck back in the days when the Brumbies dictated a lot about what the Wallabies did. That isn't the case anymore and they should play Alexander at THP for the benefit of Australian rugby.
I thought Slipper was great today and every time he has been at THP this year the scrum has improved. I would love Link to play him there for the Reds but don't like the chances with Shepherdson and Holmes covering THP.

Jets, I think the Brumbies playing BA at LHP will consign him to the bench, at best, for the Wallabies. Slipper looks the goods at THP and I hope that Link plays him there. If both coaches play both props at LHP then I intend to blame Robbie Deans.

 

[Gnostic]

I'm mesmerised, again, by talk that Deans "accepts" a shit scrum.

Has he said this? On the contrary, I would say that having been severely disadvantaged by it he is extremely concerned, but the scrum just hasn't stepped up. I'm sure the players themselves want to compete, but have been stopped from competing by better scrums.

How do I know this? Because it's bleeding obvious.

You could (if you were a paranoiac) say that Deans "accepts" any given unacceptable facet of our play. You could say that he 'accepts' intermittently bad defence, and bad goal kicking. You could say he 'accepts' hot and cold performances, one week after another. You could say he 'accepts' losing ten in a row to the New Zealand Rugby Team.

And you could say that he accepts all these things because he is fixated on mobile forwards, works undercover for the NZRU, or is an emissary from the planet Zarg, bent on world domination through the dissemination of jet boat franchises in the lower Hutt rehion of New Zealand.

You could say all these things. And they'd all be complete tosh.

As usual you misrepresent or purposely misconstrue what I said.

Every player has strengths and weaknesses and coaches will select the best match for their game plan. Alexander and the others I posted best suit what Deans is trying to achieve and he trains for (and hopes for IMO) a stable scrum on our ball and no penalties on theirs whilst attempting enhance the running and linking play of the props. Given the limited number of scrums many would say that this is a reasonable plan, some such as me do not want to see any part of the game neglected in such a way as it gives opponents an easy path of attack as we have seen all year.

If the scrum was a priority players like Weeks, Palmer, Fairbrother or even Kepu would have selected over Alexander returning from injury, Ma'afu and Daley but in doing so the aspects in which Alexander and Daley are clearly superior in would be lost. It is patently obvious that Deans is selecting for everything except the scrum as the priority and then trying to turn the players that fit his model into adequate props. This may well work against all but the best scrumagers and in games which will have a limited number of scrums.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

He had a pretty good year this year, and deans still picked ma'afu. It would take a serious bout of gastro to much of the forward pack to see the fuse in gold again. Phil Waugh too.

 

[Gnostic]

He had a pretty good year this year, and deans still picked ma'afu. It would take a serious bout of gastro to much of the forward pack to see the fuse in gold again. Phil Waugh too.

It would have been interesting to see if Baxter got a recall or not (I suspect not) if he didn't get injured for Norths.

 

[Groucho]

As usual you misrepresent or purposely misconstrue what I said.

Every player has strengths and weaknesses and coaches will select the best match for their game plan. Alexander and the others I posted best suit what Deans is trying to achieve and he trains for (and hopes for IMO) a stable scrum on our ball and no penalties on theirs whilst attempting enhance the running and linking play of the props. Given the limited number of scrums many would say that this is a reasonable plan, some such as me do not want to see any part of the game neglected in such a way as it gives opponents an easy path of attack as we have seen all year.

If the scrum was a priority players like Weeks, Palmer, Fairbrother or even Kepu would have selected over Alexander returning from injury, Ma'afu and Daley but in doing so the aspects in which Alexander and Daley are clearly superior in would be lost. It is patently obvious that Deans is selecting for everything except the scrum as the priority and then trying to turn the players that fit his model into adequate props. This may well work against all but the best scrumagers and in games which will have a limited number of scrums.

I'm sorry if you think I misrepresented you, Gnostic. I was deliberately using hyperbole.

 

[TOCC]

I reckon he'd have to have a pretty big year Blue. He's damaged goods as far as a lot of international refs go.

Yeah exactly, you can just see the opposition props game plan now, wait till Baxter gets on, collapse the scrum and try and make it looks as though it was baxters fault.... Watch the penalties come flowing in

 

[MrMouse]

I reckon he'd have to have a pretty big year Blue. He's damaged goods as far as a lot of international refs go.

Yeah exactly, you can just see the opposition props game plan now, wait till Baxter gets on, collapse the scrum and try and make it looks as though it was baxters fault.... Watch the penalties come flowing in

I think at this point it's worth noting that anything in Gold appears to be damaged goods as far as a lot of international refs go...

 

[MrMouse]

As usual you misrepresent or purposely misconstrue what I said.

Every player has strengths and weaknesses and coaches will select the best match for their game plan. Alexander and the others I posted best suit what Deans is trying to achieve and he trains for (and hopes for IMO) a stable scrum on our ball and no penalties on theirs whilst attempting enhance the running and linking play of the props. Given the limited number of scrums many would say that this is a reasonable plan, some such as me do not want to see any part of the game neglected in such a way as it gives opponents an easy path of attack as we have seen all year.

If the scrum was a priority players like Weeks, Palmer, Fairbrother or even Kepu would have selected over Alexander returning from injury, Ma'afu and Daley but in doing so the aspects in which Alexander and Daley are clearly superior in would be lost. It is patently obvious that Deans is selecting for everything except the scrum as the priority and then trying to turn the players that fit his model into adequate props. This may well work against all but the best scrumagers and in games which will have a limited number of scrums.

Perhaps rather than one extreme or the other Deans (and his co-selectors) wanted to try and get a balance? I disagree with a number of their selections in the front row and elsewhere, but I really don't think they deliberately select anyone for "everything except the scrum"... I also think that if Deans is aiming for "a stable scrum on our ball and no penalties on theirs whilst attempting enhance the running and linking play of the props" he wouldn't happily accept any less (just a thought)

 

[IronAwe]

The Scrum Solution

As a new member to this board, I am sorry if this topic has come up before, but I was recently talking to my brother who coaches a Jnr rugby team, and he mentioned that at a coaches meeting they were all told by "an ARU guy" that as of next year the 'hit' would be removed from the scrum. This will be announced after the world cup. It wasn't what the meeting was about, it was just mentioned.

Having been a back in my rugby days I can't really talk from experience but as a viewer I do enjoy seeing the 'hit', and will be sad to see it go, but if it means fewer collapses then this is a good thing.

My brother, a former hooker and THP suggested that removing the hit might make strength a premium asset and could be the end of the smaller Aussie prop. (He is South African).

Ewen McKenzie wrote an article about this not so long ago, here is a quote:

"I cast my mind back 20-odd years and even looked at some video. We actually used to morph the scrums together. The front rows joined even before the second rows had arrived.

The scrum was effectively built or constructed and the only job the referee had was to wait for it to be steady and instruct the ball to be fed. I don’t reckon we are far off a revolution on this topic and we could do worse than just turn the clock back a bit and see if a better solution might be in the past."

So, what are your thoughts on this? Are you pro or anti the removal of the hit? How do you think this will impact Australia and the future of our props?

 

[matty_k]

People who put together highlights videos will be screaming for blood.

 

[ChargerWA]

Mixed feelings. This was a pretty livid topic of debate 6 months ago, but has gone quite of recent. Is it a sign that the new cadence and refereeing of the scrum has improved, or has the lotto style penalty fest reduced our annoyance with the constant resets. I tend to think a little of both.

I could live without the hit, but I do feel it is a very valuable marketing tool. You can't deny that in the world of sport it is very uniqe and quite spectacular.