Rugby Specialists

Rugby has been described as a game for all shapes and sizes. Despite seeing more and more utility players amongst the professional ranks - each position has its traditional duties.

What do you see as the main skills and duties needed for each position and who is your ultimate specialist team?

Loosehead Prop - a nuisance in disrupting the other scrum and good at carrying over short bursts.

Hooker - Throws a good lineout, strong in contact

Tighthead Prop - a defensive rock in the scrum and able to lift at the lineout

Second Row Enforcer - aggressive, committed to clearing ruck after ruck, not afraid of getting a card or two

Second Row Lineout Specialist - able to win and steal lineouts, good ball carrier, able to read a set piece

Blindside Flanker - willing to tackle and tackle and tackle and tackle unrelentlessly, very physical

Openside Flanker - makes a nuisance of himself at each breakdown, great positional sense

Number 8 - ball carrier, links between forward and backs

Scrumhalf - speedy and accurate pass

Flyhalf - kicks all his goals and accurate from the boot

Left Winger - a speedster with an eye for the tryline

Inside Centre - brings physicality to the backline with go forward ball

Outside Centre - strike runner with the hands to create space for his wingers

Right Winger - willing to come infield looking for the ball, runs excellent lines

Fullback - solid under high ball, long kick from boot


01 Soane Tonguiha
02 Jerry Flannery
03 Adam Jones
04 Bakkies Botha
05 Victor Matfield
06 Thierry Dusatoir
07 Richie McCaw
08 Sean O'Brien
09 Peter Stringer
10 Morne Steyn
11 Shane Williams
12 Ma'a Nonu
13 Jaque Fourie
14 Chris Ashton
15 Rob Kearney

I think they fit the bill nicely. Each of them has the core skills needed to be a quality specialist player.

I agree with most of these job definitions. Certainly your decription of the scrum half's role is spot on. Whatever else he offers, a quick and accurate pass is an absolute prerequisite for my money. Same with full back - he needs to be sound under the high ball and be able to clear his lines; if he can counterattack that's a great additional weapon to have, but a counterattacking fullback who quakes under a garryowen and isn't a great kicker out of hand is a liabilty to his team rather than an asset.

It's not essential that your outside half is a goalkicker - as long as you have a genuine goalkicker elsewhere in your side. But he has to be able to kick well out of hand.

I find Luckless that they tend to go hand in hand. A guy who needs to kick well out of hand, will usually be the one with best goal kicking. Usually its the #10

Oh nine times out of ten your goalkicker will be your outside half; but if you're lucky enough to have a goalkicking scrum half or full back, you've got the luxury of playing a ten who's a great playmaker but maybe not the best goalkicker.

Sadly I think that the days where rugby can be described as a game for all sizes have gone, certainly at the top of the game. While there is still some room for small men in the game they have to be really special to make it to the top eg Shane Williams, and players are a lot bigger now than when Shane started. Possibly the test will come if someone like Matthew Morgan can make it to international level. Comparatively tiny these days but with a lot of skill.

Sorry to take it off topic.

Sad to see that part of a scrum half's skill -set does not seem to be the ability to present the ball straight into the scrum and equally the ability of a hooker to hook.

True Portnoy well about the hooker certainly. Can't say that its much skill to put in straight. Probably more relevant to another thead but I think the "STRAIGHT INTO THE SECOND ROW" cries we hear at most games are exaggerated. In many cases the scrumhalf feeds fine but the forwards are pushing over it before its been fed.

hmm my view is:

11 is usually the blindside winger and bigger than the 14. Lomu or Joe Roff would fit the bill more. Great finishers but able to carry through midfield. 14 for me is the better footballer with blistering pace like Jeff Wilson, Ben Tune or James O'Connor.

No 8 needs to be a good lineout player and have a varied skill set. Parisse, Reid, Harinordique, Zin Zan Brooke, Buck Shelford for me are typical 8's more than O'Brien.

Jerome Kaino. Stephen Ferris, Alan Quinlan or Burger are all perfect 6's for me. Good in the lineout, second man in at ruck time, good ball carriers, ferocious in defence and great workrate.

Jerry Flannery is not a great scrummager, ball carrier or tackler. keith Wood at hooker for me.

The scrum half needs to be able to break and have speed of the mark. Rob Howley or Justin Marshall.

01 Gethin Jenkins
02 Keith Wood
03 Phil Vickery
04 Paul O'Connell
05 Brad Thorn
06 Stephen Ferris
07 Richie McCaw
08 Sergio Parisse
09 Rob Howley
10 Andrew Mehrtens
11 Joe Roff
12 Tim Horan
13 Brian O'Driscoll
14 Jeff Wilson
15 Matt Burke

Alternative specialists team:
15-9 Beale, Carr, Smith, Roberts, Clerc, Jackson, Williams (Lloyd)
1-8 D Jones, Ledesma, Castrogiovanni, Thorn, Charteris, Lydiate, Brussow, Parisse

Out of position/utility team
15-9 Halfpenny, Fitzgerald, Jonathan Davies, Barnes, Evans, Para, Bergamasco (couldn't resist it, Phillips actually)
1-8 James, Thompson, Court, Ryan Jones, Brussow, JT, Wallace, SOB

Glas a du wrote:Alternative specialists team:
15-9 Beale, Carr, Smith, Roberts, Clerc, Jackson, Williams (Lloyd)
1-8 D Jones, Ledesma, Castrogiovanni, Thorn, Charteris, Lydiate, Brussow, Parisse

Out of position/utility team
15-9 Halfpenny, Fitzgerald, Jonathan Davies, Barnes, Evans, Para, Bergamasco (couldn't resist it, Phillips actually)
1-8 James, Thompson, Court, Ryan Jones, Brussow, JT, Wallace, SOB

Carr? Just wondering what your obsession with Carr is Glas.. you big him up an awful lot and have him in a team of world class players..

I'm old fashioned. I like fast wingers who beat men instinctively and bust a gut to get to the try line. I don't want centres or full backs playing wing. I want good old fashioned wingers. He is Shane Williams' natural successor as the most exciting winger in the pro12.

He doesn't seem that good really.. what makes him so exciting to you? I haven't been that impressed, and the most exciting wing in the Pro 12 atm must be Visser I would think.

Another big bosher. Fine until you face somebody who can tackle. Carr has class, the X Factor, whatever you want to call it.

Agree pretty much all of what you've said but think a little more could be added to some.

An openside to me has to be a fetcher now, but that's preety much what you've said anyway.
Fullbacks should have exceptional one on one defense.
Fly halves must be good distributors, a fly half that can't get the backline firing is useless (Dan Parks).
Inside centre is a tricky one as it depends on what game you're playing. Big crash ball centres can be used, but sometimes a more elusive playmaker 12 can be just as effective, as Australia have shown on occasion.

Hooker: I also look at the Hooker as an extra flanker type aswell. Keith Wood, Bismark du Plessis..etc very mobile hard hitting players....

Scrum Half: If your French the SH role takes on more of a playmaker role.

IC & OC: Sometimes the roles can be reversed from what you have...slight playmaking 12 and big boshing 13....

Curly,

I agree I could have said more but I was looking for most basic info

Inside centre is by far most diverse position IMO.

Yeah can't fault what you've put at all.

Personally I much preffer watching out-and-out specialists play the game rather than the versatile "Jack of all trades" types, though they can be valuable bench options.

In addition to the original listed duties, I'd say the 8 should be a lineout option and have deft hands (for a forward); SH should have an eye for a gap, acceleration for sniping runs, good technical tackler to bring down rampaging backrows and an incessant badgerer of the opposition's scrum; I'd emphasise the out of hand kicking and distribution of the FH; IC should be good at creating space for players around him, with vision of how the phase will unfold (he quite often has the least amount of time on the ball but the most decisive in terms of breaking the line); OC should be a balanced and creative runner, with an astute defensive brain (he usually has the most space and more variables to cover); and FB should be adept at picking a sharp line to break between the other outside backs and an assured last man up and cover tackler.

Of players still plying their trade, but not necessarily at their best anymore.

Tonga'uiha
Servat
Castrogiovanni
Botha
Matfield
Smith
Pocock
Harinordoquy

Parra
Carter
Ashton
Jauzion
Smith
Clerc
Kearney

looking at the descriptions of the back row i find it interesting to see which things i do- i count myself as a blindside as i am pretty big- at 17, 6ft 1 and 13.5 stone, i tackle like mad and alot the time you will see me on the floor being an irritating pr*ck or you wont see me at all. yet i am not that big a ball carrier and i fetch alot and i am always trying to nail the 9 or 10 (even if it is a tad late) basically i am a complete D*CK on the field, trying to P*ss off the oposition as much as possible, legal or maybe boredering illegal (although its not if the ref doesnt see it)

so i wonder what position am i suited to?


oh while we are talking about specialists- a good blindside should not be seen much during a match- that is what my coaches have always said.

i would have to say though i dont think there are many specialists any more as if you look at most players like for example Toby Faletau tackles like a 6 but i noticed in the Aus match jackals a hell of a lot. most players now could swap to another similar position and still cope reasonably well

Welshy its common for people to play with different strenghts.

At Munster for years our openside was our ball carrier (Wallace), our blindside was our poacher (Quinlan) and our number 8 was our aggressive tackler (Leamy)

Glas a du wrote:Another big bosher. Fine until you face somebody who can tackle. Carr has class, the X Factor, whatever you want to call it.

I think you need to watch Visser more then, top try scorer past two seasons in the pro 12. I think I need to see more of Carr, as it seems I am missing something.

About specialists I think the real specialist positions are where there is only one in the team (the meaning of specialist). Those being:

2
8
9
10
15

These players I think need to have the core skills of those positions nailed. Flankers, centres and wings are more all-rounders, same can be said for second rows really except they should also be tall. Props are obviously heavier and bulkier. The specialist positions all have specific roles however such as hooking, lineout throwing, controlling the ball at the base of a scrum, controlling the passing game from rucks/scrums etc, controlling the kicking game, and finally being a rock defensively, good under the high ball and a solid kicker.

Yes. 8 may be the exception there. With lifting the back five of the scrum are becoming slowly homogenised.

No I think 8 is a very specialist position still. Think about the best 8s, they are all pretty specialist players who would rarely play flanker, and are very solid at the back of the scrum. Parisse, Harinordiquy, Read etc. Compare that to Haskell, who couldn't control the base of the scrum. It does matter.

I cringe when I see these 'best XVs'.

I think in a side you need a spine first and foremost. But what is the spine of the side? Generally speaking its:

A strong hooker who's mobile, can accurately hit his man every time and enjoys his work in the tight.

A Number 8 who enjoys linking between the forwards and backline, who relishes getting his hands on the ball and making yardage.

A strong half-back combination, with a dominant 9 who isn't afraid to boss people around to give him the ball he wants. And, obviously, your 10 is the pivot of the side - everything tactically, especially in terms of field position from the set piece and broken field play often revolves around him - so you'd hope he's got the skillset.

And, finally, a full-back. Ideally, brave under the high ball, who enjoys coming into the line from deep with ball in hand, and when need be is an astute tactical kicker in open play (often epitomised by the use of the Garryowen).

Although, you'd have to say that every position in Rugby Union is a fairly specialised one, common consensus is that if you don't have the 'framework' of a good spine then you have little chance of winning.

Down this way "spine" is the catch word for the centre of the field.left.spine,and right.

I've gotta admit, i've always had a different opinion on the tasks of the props.

The Looseheads primary position for me, (especially on their own ball) is to hold the scrum high and solid, so that the Hooker can get a good view of the ball coming in.
Admittedly, the 'feeding' issue kinda makes that skill pointless as the hooker doesn't really need a good view any more.

Anyway, the tighthead (especially on opposition ball) is to disrupt the Loosehead as much as possible making it as difficult as possible for the hooker to view and hook the ball.
Again, this is somewhat negated by the feeding too.



Nowadays, I don't think there is a lot of difference between loosehead and tighthead props.
The main difference now, and the reason that most props can't play both sides, is simply down to feeling comfortable, using the right muscles, and getting experience at getting a drive coming through you from a slightly different angle.


If I was to sway to a slightly different topic, I'd say that this is why scrummaging has almost become a farce these days.

Nice thread - there is still a role for traditional skillsets but the most exciting players remain the all round footballers - the Michael Jones, Frik du Preez and John Eales of this world who could have played in two or three positions at international level easily.

Without wanting to sound too much like a wet turd, thanks for the thread. I've learnt something.

When I first started playing, I was told that the difference between the centres was that you had the hardest tackling player at IC, and the quick footed, 'eye for a gap' type at OC.

As rugby has moved on, that is no longer the case, with the IC often being a 2nd Fly Half in disguise, used for his distributing skills, rather than his defensive ones.

I think part of the change in this mindset has come due to fly halves like Wilkinson. (there are others, but I'm just using Wilko as an example)
He was one of the first top quality FH's that was actually able to defend his own channel, without the assistance of the IC.
This has allowed an IC to have a more rounded skillset, rather than being a tackle monster. As such, the OC may generally be more defensive oriented than they previously were.

I sort of disagree with the position descriptions slightly, in that there's no hard and fast rule. For me, one of the great things about rugby is that you have people in the same positions who are not the same type of players. I think the ideal attributes for each position depends on the make-up of the rest of the team and perhaps the opposition (horses for courses) and only at international level in the very top nations do we see anything approaching a full team of 'rugby specialists'.

For example, you could have a really good tactical kicking 10 who does not do much running. This affects the whole make up of the team, perhaps requires a crash ball 12, etc. A running 10 will keep the opposition defence busier and can maybe get away with more of a runner than a bosher at 12, someone who will find the space to receive the ball once the 10 has made a break.

I love it when you have a scrummaging team against perhaps a team that relies more heavily on a mobile pack as at different points in the game you have scenarios that suit either team. I love it when I see a scrum get munched by a dominant pack, only then to see the forwards get one over on their opposite forwards in the loose as if to say 'you nailed us in the scrum, but we'll run you off your feet everyday'! It's also great when the little winger, who has just gotten steamrollered by a prop to concede a try, then spots a prop in midfield and uses that mismatch to his advantage, just as the prop did in the act of scoring the try.

I guess what I'm saying is that, although there are things we'd like to see players do in each position, part of the joy is when teams have players who only have some of those attributes and they face a team with opposing attributes: a big slow winger against a little fast winger; the monster pack vs the mobile pack; the kicking/territorial 10 vs the mercurial running wizard; the fetcher at 7 vs the 6.5; the bulldozer 8 vs the 8 who is more like a back. It gets a bit boring if all teams have a rock solid scrum, massive wingers who nullify each other, 10s who only kick goals and don't try to run, etc.

I think these mismatches are a lot more common in club rugby, and that's why competitions such as the HC/AC are still so enjoyable to watch. There are mismatches everywhere. Perhpas you could argue that the international game has become a bit stagnant with the top with teams ALL having players with similar attibutes (as described by Stag at the start) so there aren't so many mismatches and the games becomes a war of attrition with less chance of a team dominating in certain areas?

Like all your points up there Stag, particularily 9, none of this running and tackling 9 nonesense!

Think a 10 needs to also be able to control a game and be the primary decision maker on the pitch. Guys like Cooper, Contempomi and Hook have great skill and are very creative but they aren't a specialist game bullying 10 like ROG or Carter.

7 needs to be a link man as well as a fetcher IMO.

8 needs to be something of a lineout option if your 6 or 7 are not. I'm thinking Harinodoquoy, Parisse etc.

Agree with what people are saying about being able to switch your style of 12 and 13 around between elusive distributor and abrasive ball carrier.

10 needs to be Hugo Porta

7 needs to be Michael Jones

The backrow trio needs to have all the skills as a combination. It doesn't neccessarily matter who exactly does what. That's what Richard Hill says anyway.

I'd also say you have to go for a player who might lack a core skill, if he more than makes up for it with his overall contribution. For example Keith Wood was never great at throwing into the lineout. But his overall contribution to a team was overwhelmingly positive.

On the specialists point of view, the players being quoted for each position have that position nailed. Kind of suggests that utility players while being nice to have in a squad don't ultimately become specialists in any position as they don't have the years experience to draw on.

If that's the case then England team should look like this...

1) J.Marler
2) D.Hartley
3) D.Wilson
4) D.Attwood
5) G.Robson
6) C.Robshaw
7) D.Seymour
8) P.Dowson
9) B.Youngs
10) O.Farrell
11) M.Tuilagi
12) B.Barritt
12) J.Joseph
14) C.Ashton
15) M.Brown

If it was down to your criteria Lawes, Croft, Flood and Foden wouldn't be in the starting XV.

Apart from Foden, who is surely a specialist full back by now, there's no problem there is there?

tuilagi wing?

The other one.

Or is it the other other one?

Of course what sets the great players apart from the merely very good ones is that the greats have more capabilities over and above the core attributes for their position.

Just taking half backs as examples, would you choose Peter Stringer (excellent passer of the ball but little else) or Gareth Edwards (great pass, quick break, good tactical kicker and a fierce competitor)?

Similarly, O'Gara is one of the greatest kickers from hand and at goal, while Larkham was always rated as a great playmaker, but wouldn't you rather have Dan Carter than either, who is able to play both roles and to run the ball himself (and tackle, unlike either of the others)?