The No. 7

This was discussed last year during the RWC but I think it is worth revisiting.

With players from 1-15 all generally capable of stealing ball is the role of the openside changing? Is a fetcher that important?

None of the top SR sides this year played a fetcher regularly with the Chiefs leaving Cane to warm the bench in the final rounds. At Super Rugby level though they can still have a big impact. The step up in speed and intesity at tests though makes them less effective. The Saffers and AB aren't playing a fetching 7 with McCaw playing more like another 8 these days. But you would not doubt there breakdown with the Cheat, Messam, Coetzee, Daniels, Battleship and most other players more than capable of stealing the ball.

I think a fetcher still has a place in the game but they need to offer more than that these days. The responsibility for poaching ball is spread around the team more these days. Ireland have played without a recognised fetcher at 7 for a number of years with mixed success. Generally it was 1st to accommodate Wallace at 7 who's link play was very important in attack and in recent years it's been to get SOB, Ferris & Heaslip all on the pitch at the same time.

The main reason the team coped was because both BOD and D'Arcy were so effective at the breakdown. It's been a long time since D'Arcy was competitive and BOD's injury meant we didn't have that anymore. I think it's important that the traditional role of the 7 be covered somewhere in the team but not necessarily by the guy with 7 on his back.

It also depends on the opposition if one team are playing a really good out and out fetcher and the opposition aren't then they can really steal a march at the breakdown. However you can have the best fetcher in the world, but if the rest of the pack aren't mobile enough to back him up he's going to be negated by the opposition and possibly become a liability due to penalties resulting from being isolated at rucks.

We saw a bit of it in the Aus v NZ game. NZ's pack were much more mobile and Pocock amazing fetcher that he is was pretty much anonymous. Against a pack as unfit as the Aus one today there's no real need to play an out and out fetcher. The more phases Aus had the ball the more likely NZ were to get a turnover because at each breakdown NZ could arrive that little bit earlier and the gap grew with each subsequent one.

However we've seen in the past against the ABs that a fetcher of Pocock's quality can make a huge difference if he's backed up by a mobile well motivated pack.

In the Aus game I think two main factors contributed to the NZ players being able to poach easy ball. 1st as mention above their superior fitness meant they could arrive faster and in greater numbers. The 2nd was the fact that on attack Aus were standing so deep and not passing in front of the player. This meant that a lot of the Aus forwards arriving at rucks had to retreat to enter the gate while the opposite was true for the ABs. It was easy for them to stop the Aus attack behind the gainline and then the forwards had the pleasure of every ruck being in front of them.

I think it's really a case of horses for courses. If the ABs are under more pressure at the breakdown than they were against Aus, Richie will revert to a fetcher role when needed.

that depth is a real issue for the wallabies. gives them go-backwards.

Bardon I love your posts. Your ability to analyse the game is very refreshing, and your objectiveness is a fine counterpoint to our sometimes rabid introspection.

Cheers

It would certainly help the Wallabies game if they had the same brutal intensity in driving 1 to 1.5m past the ball carrier in contact as the All Blacks.
The ball comes quicker, Genia's pass improves, more of the opposition are off their feet, attack can stand flatter and run onto the ball, defence are on their heels and good things like cheap penalties start coming your way.
Our body height and speed/power of leg drive are way off the All Blacks standards.

Sometime last year I postulated that given the interpretations around the ruck now the "Fetcher" is a dying role and the reason why only the very best actually get any game time at the top level. I postulated then that the Waratahs and Wallabies would be better off selecting a linking support player type that was also strong at the Ruck and if able to be found a "hard" type in the mould of Simon Poidevin. I was watching some old footage of the 90-92 Wallabies and what many fail to remember was how good at this role Poidevin was and just how fast he was. In a few shots there he was running in support of Campese, Horan, Corroza, Edgerton. Those four had some serious pace and Poido was able to keep up, not a bad effort from a backrower and one renowned for his strength and hardness.

I can't find it now but during last week I read somewhere on a SA site that Brussow has himself given an interview where he states that "fetchers" don't really have a place now. Indeed look at the effectiveness of the Bok backrow, which I think could be enhanced greatly with Johnson on the bench and possibly Kolisi (sp.)

I think the whole set up of the Oz backrow is out of balance by the fixation on having a fetcher and Pocock focussing so much on that aspect to the exclusion of so much else. Indeed his play this year IMO has been almost one dimensional. This doesn't do anything at all when the 8 (Higginbum) doesn't provide tight driving play or support Pocock in pilfering which is entirely focused on using his hands instead of rucking over the ball, and Denis is neither the support player or the Tight driving player. As with so much in the Wallaby team the backrow to me shows a group cobbled together to play a disjointed and vacuous game plan. The players are made to look worse than they are because they really have no idea of what they are supposed to be doing apart from the broad "play what is in front of you" idea from their "coach". The players fall back on what they do for their individual provinces which doesn't gel as the three come from different structures and the whole ends up less than the sum of its parts.

What is the solution, well of course the first part is to select the best players, which I think we have, but they have to be given a structure in which to play, and specific roles to fulfill. That needs to be supported by the second row and the front row and worked in with an overall mode of play and game plan for the whole team. I obviously don't think we have that.

It's even arguable that mccaw has moved away from pure fetching.
it seems to me that what youre looking for is someone who could play 12 at a pinch.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

at one point from 2nd phase or more Barnes was so deep that when he picked out sharpe and his pod they were in turn so deep that the tackle was made 5+m behind our gain line.
Needless to say we either lost the seed or gave away a penalty for holding on: I think the latter.
I can't see the point of this: even if it had worked it would have put the breakdown half the width of the field away from last one and, at best a few meters over te win line.
The resultant running line from the previous breakdown to the next is so shallow as o are it very tough get any sort of clean out going.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Re-watch the aus vs sa quarter final if you think fetchers don't have a role anymore!

It really is dependant on the tackling style being employed. Hold them up and push them back or cut their legs out and get them to ground quickly. The later suits a fetcher, the former suits what the ABs did, where invariably either messam or McCaw would end up on the wrong side of the ruck (messam was actually more of a culprit than McCaw). It stops the opposition from effectively clearing out and gives your own team the counter rucking ability.

There really isn't that many genuine fetchers left in International Rugby anymore, so I do believe it is changing, but there is still alot of value to having one. I can only think of Pocock, Gill and Warburton as out and out fetchers.

I think a single fetcher is not a great idea these days, the defence is too good at keeping a single fetcher out of 3 phases in a row after he has tried to compete. (Why cant the refs see this?)
I think 2 pure fetchers is the best idea, it allows the first one to be sidetracked by the defence, but then have the second one compete at the next breakdown. THis is the only way it will work.

I notice that Spiro on the Roar suggested Hooper move to 12 at some stage in the future a few weeks ago. Would this work? Imagine the posession battles if you had Hooper, Pocock and Gill all on the field at once!

This tactic is barely used anymore as it results in an unbalanced backrow. Perhaps not a bad tactic for the last 20-30 mins of a game, but certainly not to start off. It really diminishes your lineout options as most geniune fetchers are short and stocky and also means a team lacks ball runners to get them over the advantage line when in possession.

I definitely don't think that it could work well from the start of the game against good opposition.

Our backrow was so weak on Saturday night that going for an even smaller backrow would be terrible. Unless we had The Incredible Hulk playing Number 8, we couldn't get away with fetchers at 6 and 7.

or you can utilise the throw to the front on the lineout

Wow, one or two lineout options would be hard to defend against. See BH's post above. You can barely get away with two fetchers in Super Rugby these days where the game is much more open. Nevermind test rugby where there is a significant step up in physicality.

First off this post is going to be long and probably an incoherent mess as this stuff has been whirling around in my head for a few hours. It definitely won’t be one for the faint of heart or for those who like to see more than 1 post at a time on their screen. Some of it might sit better in other threads and some could be their own thread but it all links together, in my head at least.

I’ll talk about the role of the 7 but also my views on fetching and some general stuff on tactics. It won’t be slick like Scott Allen provides in his videos. I’d love to be able to present my thoughts as well as Scott does, I doff my hat to a master. I’m not an expert on tactics I’m just an amateur that notices things now and then and connects dots together, sometimes I invent my own dots.

If you want to learn about tactics then people like Scott and Lee Grant are your men but if you read my crazy mess and it makes you think a little I’ll have achieved something. Even if what you this is this guys is completely wrong.

In rugby there are a huge variety of tactics. They can be broken down into basic elements but the numbers of combinations are endless. Putting it in its simplest form it’s like a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors with some tactics being more effective if the opposition use a certain tactic. Australian teams of the past would have played a Spoon and while everyone else was figuring out if Spoon even beat anything they would be dotting the ball down under your sticks. There’s obviously more options than just 3 but hopefully simplifying it gets across how I look at it.

There are also a number of different ways to turn ball over some legal and some illegal and a whole Dulux catalogue of shades of grey in between. Although I don’t like cheating I won’t deny that every team does it and I think in my signature Terry Pratchett put it much better than I ever could. Just in case someone stumbles upon this post some point in the future when I’ve change my signature at time of writing it reads:

“we will abide by them in the best traditions of sportsmanship until we have worked out where they may be most usefully broken to our advantage" - Terry Pratchett

Those aside two main general options are available to achieve turnover ball. One is to play a fetcher generally with the No. 7 on his back and the other is to dominate the breakdown with numbers. Let me say now that dominating with numbers doesn’t necessarily mean that you have more players at each ruck. I’m referring more to the fact that it’s more than 1 person committing to the ruck with the aim of driving past the ball. Then those who arrive after them can compete for the ball pretty much uncontested. So in its simplest form it’s a case of either going after the ball or going after the real-estate around the ball.

Either tactic can be effective in any given game and a number of factors will determine which one wins out including but not limited to refereeing, fitness, belief of the players in the tactics, level of execution, ability of players and intensity.

During the Olympics I heard an interview where the person said something along the lines of “At this level there’s little difference in the physical attributes and it’s the mental side that gives the edge. The person who can convince themselves the pain doesn’t hurt so much will win.” I may have tagged on the bit about pain in my own mind while I was listening to it. But it’s something to think about in Rugby where tactics and mental preparation are extremely important.

Dominating with numbers requires a high level of fitness across the team and especially in the pack. It’s not just about being fit enough to run from ruck to ruck, I’m sure everyone has seen guys who run one ruck to another and immediately take up the pillar position to catch their breath with no thought of contesting. Players need to be fit enough to get to the breakdown and then drive the opposition beyond the ball.

The fetcher on the other hand has to be supremely fit as he also needs to get from breakdown to breakdown. Then when he arrives he has to have good enough technique to do one of three things, win a penalty for the ball carrier holding on, turn over the ball or slow the ball down enough to allow reinforcements to arrive and defence to realign.

For the fetcher their role at the breakdown changes a number of times in a matter of seconds. The first few seconds are focused trying to either win the ball or a penalty. As the opposition begin to arrive at the ruck his role is to ensure they don’t budge him from his position over the ball. This is essential as that second or so if often where penalties are awarded. Next he needs to keep his position until his own players arrive at the ruck.

If the ruck is still continuing when his own team arrives he then needs to decide if it’s worth continuing to go after the ball. If he thinks he can’t win the ball/penalty or he’s done his job and slowed the ball down he now needs to think about extricating himself from the ruck and getting to the next one. Obviously the fetcher doesn’t go through all of these stages at every breakdown they arrive at as turnovers, penalties or the opposition move the ball can all happen at any stage. They do need to be able to go through each stage if necessary.

The opposition have a number of tactics to lessen the impact of the fetcher. They can purposely target the fetcher with runs in order to make them either the tackler or part of the tackle. They can pull the fetcher into the ruck or hold him at the bottom of a ruck while they move the ball knowing he won’t be at the next breakdown. They can arrive at the breakdown in pods and drive past the ball meaning the fetcher isn’t actually contesting for the ball, rather he’s contesting to get within reach of the ball. They can allow the fetcher to momentarily turn the ball over then isolate him and win a penalty for him holding on. There are many more tactics to deal with a dedicated fetcher, so you can see he’s got a tough role.

There are two crucial windows in all this for a fetcher. The first is the time between him arriving and the opposition. If they beat him to the breakdown he’ll be less effective. If he wins the race the longer between him arriving and the opposition the better chance of him winning a turnover or a penalty. The next window is the time between the opposition arriving and his own back up. The shorter that window is the more effective the fetcher will be. Thus the fitness of his team mates plays a crucial role.

Whatever tactics a team employs the players need to be fit enough to execute them properly but they also have to believe in those tactics. The fitness will get the players to the breakdown the belief will add the extra intensity needed to secure turnovers consistently.

Alternatives to the dedicated fetcher include the AB tactic of blowing past the ball and securing it that way. It requires pods to be well orgainsed so that they are arriving together and acting in unison. Pods can work extremely well when utilised in the way that NZ did but they can also create problems if they are not as slick in their execution. For an example of this see the Ireland forward pack in the mid 2000’s where the pods created fractures in the defensive line.

The specialist 7 is still effective in the modern game but we’re seeing the evolution of a multifaceted 7 too. The specialist is like a claw hammer, very good for taking out or banging in nails, the new role may be more like a swiss army knife on steroids. Individually not as good as a specialist tool at a specific task but has a lot more tools to offer.

I’ll come back to the role of the 7 again later as I feel a need to talk about general tactics for a bit. With some tactics it’s easy to spot, even for Joe Soaps like me, what a team is doing and how the created a try or a turnover. They’re like a jigsaw; you don’t need to have all the pieces to see it’s a cat sitting on a bag of spanners. Others are more subtle and can look like a complete jumble until someone like Scott Allen breaks them down for us and we can see the beauty of them. By the way while you’ve been trying to figure out who in their right mind would want a jigsaw of a cat on a bag of spanners Australia of old are in under the posts again.

Currently the masters of tactics are the All Blacks, not only do they come up with a lot of innovative tactics, they are also very quick to adopt and adapt to the best tactics used by other teams. In the past few years they’ve also benefited from a shift in the thinking of the rest of the Tier 1 nations. Somehow we’ve gone from trying to outthink the All Blacks through “we need to think more like the All Blacks” and out the other side to a place where we seem to just copy what the All Blacks are doing.

That’s not a dig at the All Blacks they’re a magnificent side and are a worthy example of how to play good successful Rugby. The problem is if a team consistently produces better players than you, you need better tactics than them to beat them. If you’re taking your tactical cue in terms of the evolution of tactics from them then they’ve got you just where they want you. It’s not a conscious thing that NZ have done to ensure their world domination continues, it’s on our side the problem exists. We need to remember that our aim, no matter how achievable it may or may not be, is to be better than the All Blacks and not a tribute band.

This is one of the reasons why I think Robbie Deans may not be the best guy for the Australian head coach. Unlike some I don’t think he’s a terrible coach just that he isn’t what Australia needs right now. Putting aside selection, use of the bench etc. it’s tactics I want to talk about. At another time with either a better Australian side or a weaker New Zealand team Deans may have presided over a team that climbed to be world no. 1. But with this Australian side and how good New Zealand are he’s had mixed results.

There have been times when Australia have really put it up to New Zealand and delivering the Tri Nations shouldn’t be scoffed at. But the successes sat alongside a number of shock results. The inability to adapt to situation that aren’t going his way like against Fiji and Ireland in the RWC. Personally I didn’t consider the Ireland result as much of a shock, especially compared to the reaction of Aus posters, I felt that we had the game plan to cope with Australia and if we turned up on the day we’d win. I won’t include the Scotland game as I felt he had his hands tied behind his back a little and second Australia’s forwards actually played OK and largely in the right part of the pitch. A failure in on field leadership in terms of not taking points on offer from penalties and one silly kick giving Scotland field position they were never likely to gain on their own were the real culprits there.

There is a lot that Kiwi coaches can offer clubs and nations around the world that should be admired and embraced. The one thing they can’t offer is the ability to tap into the psyche of another Rugby playing culture and come up with tactics to consistently out think the All Blacks. They bring New Zealand thinking which is great if you want to instil a winning culture and making sure all the boxes are ticked in your preparation. You only have to look at the transformation in Wales to see the obvious benefits.

However we’ve seen more and more teams talking about tactics to cope with what they think New Zealand will do based on previous games. It’s absolutely right to respect your opposition and to have one eye on how they generally play when you prepare for a game. It happens no matter who the opposition are. The difference is against other opposition we also respect ourselves and believe on how we play the game.
While we’re basing our tactics on how we’ve seen New Zealand play they’re developing tactics based on what we’re likely to do to combat how we think they’ll play. Then they throw in something different, sometimes something completely new or often a variation on an old theme they haven’t used for a while. The talk is about living or coping with the All Blacks but there’s very little talk or planning in terms of beat the All Blacks.

We’re losing the ability to come up with our own tactics that are based on us creating linebreaks, turnovers, tries no matter who the opposition are. This change is why I mourn the demise of the Australia of old. It’s not gone forever just dormant and I’m sure it will emerge and delight us again in the future. To outthink the All Blacks you need someone who doesn’t think like an All Black. I don’t think any team and especially not you guys in Australia being the No. 2 in the world should be happy with being All Black lite.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea I’m not saying that having New Zealand coaches and other backroom staff involved with your club or nation is a bad idea I’m saying that adopting the thinking of New Zealand to the exclusion of your own Rugby culture is bad. Club and nations should be picking the best from other Rugby nations around the world and seeing how those can add to and enrich their own culture and tactics. Just don’t forget the bit about your own culture and tactics.

Another area that I find a worrying trend is that of judging performances against KPIs. KPIs are excellent indicators and tools for upper management. One of their big selling points but also one of their biggest problems is that they are easy for upper management to understand. This leads to a big focus on KPIs. They’re a good indicator to show in certain areas what you’re doing right and what you’re doing wrong. But they shouldn’t be the be all and end all in Rugby. This leads to focusing everything on improving the KPIs and ignoring anything else that can’t be measured in that way. There is no KPI for bamboozling the @&$# out of the opposition.

Next I’d like to come back to the role of the No. 7 but I’ll also touch on the role of the Hooker, Centres and the No. 10 specifically in Australia.

The No. 7 has traditionally been picked to play 1 of two roles, the fetcher or the link man. Both offer a lot to a team and there have been some excellent examples of both in recent years. In Ireland we had David Wallace while Wales had Marthyn Williams. Sometimes people who wax lyrical about their link play and other times they would bemoan the lack of a scavenger in the 7 jersey. On the fetcher side we have David Pocock and Sam Warburton, both excellent examples of top class scavengers.

The lack of test teams playing fetchers in the No. 7 role is in part due to the lack of quality fetchers who can do it at test level. I’m sure there are many test nations who would play a fetcher at 7 if they had someone good enough. They’re just simply a rare bread. Here in Ireland we produce an unbelievable number of test quality 6s and 8s and even some 6.5s but not a fetcher to play 7. So we play either two 6s and an 8 or 2 8s and a 6. It’s the same for a number of nations. This has contributed to the rise of the ball carrying 7.

Some nations like South Africa have a test quality No. 7 but choose not to play him as they currently prefer to rely on their intensity and physicality at the breakdown. This is similar to New Zealand against Australia with the difference that they still had a world class fetcher on the pitch who was contributing just not as a fetcher.

This brings me to Richie. I’ll admit that last year when he looked last lustre and Pocock got the upper hand against him a few times I thought that Richie was coming to the end of his test career. Certainly not finished at test level but a diminished force. Since he’s come back from injury he’s reinvented himself and provides so much more than just that of a scavenger. He’s looking to carry the ball more and fit in seamlessly with the tactic discussed earlier. He’s playing more as a 7.5 but in the knowledge that if they need a pure fetcher 7 he can switch that on.

The role of the 7 is evolving and more is expected of him than ever before. But at the same time some of his old duties are diminishing. Not as dramatic as Hookers currently not actually need to hook the ball in the scrum. More akin to how we see more players taking quick throw-ins while the Hooker is still recognised as the master of the throw-in to the lineout. Similarly we see more players in the team performing some of the traditional roles of the No. 7 with centres especially suited to contesting breakdowns and trying to poach ball.

In Ireland we’ve seen this for many years with O’Driscoll & D’Arcy and more recently players like JP PIetersen have added this string to their bow. I think more and more in the future we’ll see a gradual move towards a Johnny on the spot approach where the player who arrives at the breakdown first will fill the fetcher role. The obvious advantage is that it’s easier to have a number of fetchers allowing you to contest at every ruck. The disadvantage is that not many will be as skilled as a specialist poacher.

This is something I thought that Australia would employ given that currently the centres seem to be picked primarily on defensive capabilities. But it seems to be more of a containing role rather than an aggressive turnover oriented defence. I’m not knocking Horne and Fainga’a that’s the role they’ve been assigned and they perform it pretty well. However the way they are employed offers very little in attack.

I would describe them as being generally defensive and while they are involved in attacks they aren’t often the initiators of attacks. The All Blacks exploited this really well by using SBW and Nonu as dummy runners against them in the first half. They feinted at the solid midriff and then kicked Australia in the family jewels out wide.

This brings me back to the KPI thing, players these days are very focused on winning their 1 on 1 battle with the opposition. The saying goes there’s no I in Team but this isn’t true personal battles have existed pretty much as long as team sport has, it was just that the I was silent in the past. The difference is that winning your 1 to 1 was seen as a bonus on top of how the team went. Now it’s become so important that it’s in danger of overshadowing your contribution to the overall effort. SBW & Nonu were basically sacrificed in the first half for the overall benefit of the all Blacks. While some KPIs might show that the centre pairing were pretty even in the first half the actual contribution of how they were tactically employed was vastly different.

The way that Australia currently employ their centres also puts huge pressure on the 10 to spark the backline. Everything is expected to go through the 10 in attack. Although Quade as an individual performer can be unpredictable the tactic itself is pretty predictable, especially with Barnes at 10 as everyone knows Australia are not a kicking team.

This is a gross over simplification but basically the Australia backs fan out across the field and wait for the 10 to do something and then respond. They run hard to support line breaks and generally their movement does not create space when they are not in possession of the ball.

The only exception I would say is Diggers who pop up all over the pitch looking for work. But this is a player taking things into his own hands rather than a tactic of using him to create space. There are very few dummy runs and those that exist are easy to read due to how deep Australia stand on attack. The ball isn’t pass out in front to force the guy to take it at pace it sometimes looks like a passing drill watching them move the ball. I’m not purposely picking on Australia here, a lot of other Tier 1 nations are guilty of this also, it’s just that readers will be more familiar with the way their own team plays.

There’s a huge difference between the eccentricities and individual brilliance of a 10 sparking a backline to great one off performances and equipping your 10 with a playbook that affords him to pick and choose him options and not have to force things. I look forward to the day when Australia get back to having so many good plays they can pull one out to score just one try in a game, then toss it aside and say there’s plenty more where that came from.

To conclude I think tactics are ever evolving but because of that something that was considered old and outdated can pop up in the future as something new and effective. If the dedicated fetcher does someday leave the game then tactics will evolve without that role in mind and eventually they’ll reach a position where having a dedicated fetcher will once more be advantageous. Who knows maybe someday the scrum will be sorted out and we'll actually see Hookers having to hook again.

To anyone who actually reached this far I’d just like to say thank you for reading and I hope you got a least a little something from it that added to your enjoyment of the game.

Bardon, that post took genuine commitment.. I hope you dictated it, and are not suffering from hand cramp.

A couple of points:

The ABs, Boks and Aus have a clear philosophy at the breakdown and what they expect of their 7s. Brussow is gone from the Boks; he will not be selected again as Meyer does not want a fetcher in the open-side role. McCaw's game has evolved as law interpretations evolved and he remains the most influential player in the game. Cane is his understudy; he can place pressure on the ball, but it's not what he does best. Still the ABs generated several turnovers on Sat through Mealamu, and I have seen Messam, Hore, Read, and Whitelock all be quite effective when they are the No.2 guy in with no opposition to blast off the ball. The Irish through BOD and D'Arcy had two short squat guys who could get over the ball in midfield but they were blown away in their Tests against the ABs. Competing to slow down ball when there is an obvious opportunity but there is the huge risk of a penalty if timing is not perfect. Now, it's more of a squad approach where everyone just drives through at breakdown if there is an opportunity at turnover.

Australia and Wales are now the only top sides playing a pure fetcher at openside. Pocock excels not just as a fetcher but also as the main guy to clear out at ruck time and he is increasingly being asked to truck it up in close. Pocock remains the Wallabies most influential player but he is typically stymied by the superior technique and breakdown skills of an AB pack who drive over the ball in numbers and get to the collision quickly. Against all other sides, Pocock can be a dominant force at the breakdown, but not the ABs. They are on another level.

Whether it is the 9 or the 10, the big decisions with the ball are being made by theses two guys. It has always been thus. The ABs have generally wanted to put the ball in the hands of a guy who has a clearer vision of the field and the defense (i.e 10), but quick ball opens up opportunities for Genia that no other 9 in the game can exploit so well. Now, more than ever, a 9 needs to be able to take pressure of his 10 with a good kicking game.

The game will evolve..bigger, strong, faster athletes playing with more skill and intensity and tactics will change to reflect changes in law but there will be a few innovations as well that are designed to exploit weakness. and then those weaknesses will be plugged and the game will change again. Fetchers might come back in vogue if the pendulum swings more to defense at the breakdown, but the ABs have revealed a template for how the game will be played over the next year or so.

Bardon,

That was a good read. When can you get over here as the tactical advisor? Vacancies exist at most Shute Shield Clubs, the Tahs, and the Wobs.

Why does it take an Irishman to tell an Aussie, that the Aussies need to re-discover their Aussieness and play like Aussies?

The pervasiveness of TV while a good thing in many respects, has lead to a reduction in homegrown solutions and an increase of copying the "rockstars" tactics techniques and game styles. In doing so we will never be better just equal.

This is reinforced by the internationalisation of European Rugby with many SH players topping up their superannuation in French top 14 leagues, or fringe Test Players realising that they are more marketable playing overseas in Eurpoe and Japan, rather than wasting their best rugby years sitting on the bench waiting for the current incumbent to retire, get injured or enter a form slump. The Darkness brand of rugby has become the rugbys "soup de jour".

I initially looked at your post, Bardon, and gave it the big TLDR. I don't generally like posts that don't fit on the one screen. So I scrolled down for the next 3 minutes and got to the end of your post and though, bugger it. What else am I supposed to do at work on a Tuesday morning? So I went back and read it - an excellent read and gave me a rare insight into Aus Rugby. HJ summed it up perfectly.