The breakdown, the heart of rugby and the balance of a great back row

Now... I may be biased, as a 6, but my personal opinion is that if there is one thing that defines Rugby Union as a unique and frankly glorious sport it is the breakdown. Extended from this, one of the most colourful and definitive sets of positions in the game is the back row. Sure, Centres pull all of the pretty moves, Wingers and FBs thrill the crowd with tries and the Half-backs get a lot of focus and plaudits. Many people will cite the set piece as Union's heart, and that is true to a degree. However, whilst the lineout remains competitive, the scrum is becoming either as one-sided as its Rugby League equivalent with crooked feeds or a complete shambles where the referee will have to guess to whom to award a penalty with no direct experience. Props are still the most specialised players on the park but their opportunity to compete against each other is being stifled. The key difference between Union and League is the ability to fight for the ball after contact. Frankly it is also a key difference between League and Gridiron Football. All forwards and sometimes (if they can be bothered) backs work in the breakdown, it is true, but it the realm of the back row, who even in today's game where every player can do everything make the tight "hard yard" carries, the tackles in enclosed play and are meant to do the cheatin... I mean groundwork in the rucks. The nature of being loose in the scrum and the 8's role at the back of it add another fascinating facet to the game. We have seen how much competition there is for the role of best 6 in the World on a recent thread and the Greatest Ever 8 thread that I set up made me write this when I saw the quality of players on show there. This article's aim is to discuss 3 things. Firstly why the breakdown is unique and why it must be kept competitive for the sake of our game. Secondly, the flaws in its current form and the caveats that must be observed to stop it from going the way of the scrum. And finally, with rugby evolving, how the best teams use their back row, which is a unit so open to different combinations, maybe more so than any other.

1) Breaking down the Breakdown - I have already mentioned how the breakdown differentiates Union from League and American Football, in the first case through competition for the ball and in the second through continuity. These are two qualities I feel the sport prizes and should prize. Some of the biggest complaints that I personally have heard about the way rugby has been played during my brief knowledge of the game are that aerial tennis is diminishing its continuity and the confusion over the scrum is diminishing its competition. Not only does the breakdown reward players/teams who can take contact in a way that protects the ball, it also punishes those that do not support their team-mates because the opposition can fight for the ball in the tackle if unopposed and emphasises the importance of teamwork in what is a true team sport and the qualities of work rate and effort off the ball. It adds an entire dimension separate from attack and defence. There are some fair points about how cheating is rife at the breakdown and it's very open to individual interpretation by referees, but a good referee will be consistent with his refereeing at the breakdown and a good player will pick up on this and adapt his (or her) approach to it for that game. It rewards alertness, intelligence and attentiveness to the referee, as well as technique.

2) Despite this, there is so much for the referee to look for at any ruck, including offside defences etc, that it is very hard for them to be as consistent as we would like. The ability of skilled breakdown players to slow opposition ball also reduces the speed and excitement of the game on one level. As Biltongbek will tell you, Rugby Unions laws are rather complicated and this is leading to controversial decisions by referees at the top level. The breakdown laws are some of the most complex of all, and have been subject to a lot of change and experimentation, but some will say they are still not simple enough. Whilst I agree that changes should be made, we must be very careful altering the breakdown. We cannot just allow free use of hands as this will slow the game down even further. If we reduce the defending team's ability to fight for the ball though then we have killed one of our game's most beautiful aspects. The return of rucking might work but it would never be allowed. I still feel that if we punish personal transgressions more (with more frequent yellows) and let the referee pick his own interpretation and players learn how he will enforce that the hard way then players will stop trying to push the limits as far. And to stop players from dissenting to try and get other players yellows, dissent will be a penalty and an automatic march back 10. But this is a problem we need to fix with care.

3) Finally, the back row. There are several ways of dividing the back row- into positions or roles for example. Even positionally, different teams favour the left-right-8 or blind-open-eight systems. But more important are the roles we see: the balance between tackling, carrying and work at the breakdown. Now obviously off the scrum all the back row need to be able to defend very well, but aside from that what is unclear is whether an even split of duties or a specialised split of duties is better. At the moment teams like England and Ireland are not playing true "fetchers" and so are forced to take the former approach. Some, formerly including myself, feel that this leaves a team disadvantaged against opposition with specialist back rows, but I'm no longer so sure. Chris Robshaw is just not a 7. To be honest, Croft isn't a 6 either, and Dowson at least is not an out and out 8. But this back row managed reasonably well against Wales who have specialised 6, 7 and 8s playing for them. Warburton was man of the match but more for his work in broken field than the rucks IMO. I think our opinions have been skewed by the pure greatness of the likes of Ritchie McCaw...

We see people use terms like grafters, choppers, fetchers, carriers but in the end is there any reason that two players that are both pretty good at carrying and fetching cannot counter 2 where one is an excellent fetcher and one is an excellent carrier? Overall may it not be better even, as even the fastest 7 cannot be there to spoil/steal every ball at every ruck, but one of 2 players might well be able to, and the same applies for the best carrier? If we look at the last 3 RWC finals we can compare the balance of back rows in what should be (but probably aren't) the biggest contests of the last 10 years. We could go further back, but I can't really be bothered and the back row keeps changing so newer is probably more relevant. If people would like to discuss legendary back rows and what used to be a better combination under old laws, though, please do, I think it would be fascinating.

RWC 2011-

NZ beat France

Read vs. Harinordiquy
McCaw vs. Dusautoir
Kaino vs. Bonnaire

Here, France play mostly left and right flankers and the likes of Dusautoir are known for their all around game, whilst Kaino seems an out and out 6 and McCaw is the archetypal current 7. Read is a true 8 and whilst Harinordoquy is a fantastic 8, he also plays a lot of flanker. New Zealand won and only just. How much of that extra inch was due to the back row do you think?

RWC 2007-
SA beat England

Rossouw vs. Easter
Smith vs. Moody
Burger vs. Corry.

This is an interesting one. Firstly, many may argue that the SA back row and in fact team were just purely better regardless of balance. Also Burger can play either a blind or open side style game and Rossouw is a true utility forward (playing lock too), but whilst Easter is an out and out old-school carrying 8, Moody's best position has been a matter of some debate for years and Corry is equally at home at 6 or 8. It seems here that neither side was particular specialised, but Smith and Burger between them are certainly stronger in the breakdown on paper than Corry and Moody and this probably made more difference than any individual roles or actual issues of "balance"

RWC 2003
Eng beat Australia

Dallaglio vs. Lyons
Back vs. Waugh
Hill vs. Smith

Here, the English holy trinity were excellent specialists in their positions. However, Dayglo started as an openside, and Back and Hill could cover each other's positions to international standard. From what I recall Smith was excellent in rucks and Waugh was a specialist openside too. But the English unit were so used to playing together and clicked so well that they pipped the opposition.


Anyway, what are your views?

Checkeredjersey, very nice article mate.

However, currently the breakdown is more of a chess game than a battle for dominance, even a good referee struggles to be consistent at the breakdown.

You may argue that it is intelligence that makes a player read the referee and I would agree you are on the right path by saying that, but in all honesty it seems it is more by luck than ability.

The reason why I say that is how the same referee on two different days can officiate the breakdown vastly different, going from overbearingly strict in one match to totally blase and uninvolved.

That is why the laws need to be addressed. Rugby is first and foremost about physical dominance, not about are you lucky enough on the day that you are on the right side of the referees officiating one day and not the next.

As far as the balance of backrows are concenred it is difficult to put a finger on, the style of play and obviously the examples you show has fallen under different laws at the breakdown, hence to compare the three different finals isn't an easy task, plus the fact that memory wise a challenge.

I can remember SA using pure physical force to charge up with Burger and specifically Smith. We didn't have a specialist fetcher under Jake White, so there was no spcified tasks for each of the back rowers. Who ever got there first went for the ball and in my opinion roles are blurring if you look at the last 18 months of so.

We would say Brussow, Warburton, Pocock etc are specialist fetchers, but are they really?

You see a guy like Coenie Oosthuizen who as a loose head prop where amongst the first three arrivals at the breakdown during the curry cup in 2011, he was number 1. He also made the most turnovers during the campaign. You see wings and centres show statistics for turnovers at rucks these days.

So I think the back row duties aren't as clear cut as we would like to beleive.

I would want heyneke Meyer pick the three back rowers who has the highest work rate, who can break the gain line in close contact areas and has vision to read the game assess a situation and creat space, more over having a specialist in each area.

I'm not a big fan of specialists, for example if you put a specialist tackler at 6, a specialist fetcher at 7, a specialist carrier at 8 and then an all-rounder on the bench who covers all positions (something along the lines of Worsley, Back, Easter and Moody, using recent English players as examples), then you lose something no matter who you bring Moody on for in terms of that balance (either tackling power, breakdown prowess or carrying ability). If you put another specialist on the bench, then he can only cover 1 position effectively.

If you have 3 all-rounders and a fourth on the bench (England or Ireland with their back-rows this weekend being two example), you can bring the bench player on for any of the three starting players without losing too much in any area.

It's also the team I've been coached to play the game. It's more about total rugby for me, so what if my fetcher needs to make a tackle? What if my carrier is first to the breakdown et cetera? Also the breakdown isn't just the area of the back row (as a front row forward who prides myself on mobility and work rate), and I want all my players to be able to do anything really.

So if a player is just a fetcher then there will be too many areas of the game where he doesn't feature strongly enough for me, and he would be unlikely to get in the team.

Of course, certain players can be compensated for and built into the game plan if they are THAT good, but it wouldn't be something I'm looking to do too much.

And in my opinion McCaw isn't a typical fetcher, he's just very good at the breakdown. He's also got a very good all-round game though.

Further to you point Biltong: if you look at the Sharks currently, it looks as if Bismark is doing as much 'fetching' as Keagan Daniels, and he's not a flanker either! The two of them seem to effect the most turnovers.

Yeah, absolutely, I was watching the stormers game earlier and although I haven't really watched Kitshoff exclusvely before, I was looking at hime tonight.

Now when you think of Beast/Kitshoff/Coenie Oosthuizen and then Bismarck and our usual back row do you really need a specialist fetcher?

I really don't think so.

The back row as now almost universally practised was evolved by,Voyce,Blakiston and Wavell-Wakefield as a defence at Scrum time.
The area involving Scrums is the one most messed about,no setting by
rows,no full wheel [followed by a dribbling rush],players now have to bind
in a particular way.No Player may disengage till the ball is out ad nauseum.
The Scrum as an attacking weapon is more or less dead between two near equal packs.
The Breakdown is a pigs breakfast,it is debatable whether to commit players to
winning it ,or stand ing off and thickening the defence.
In many Countries the 3 positions have become blurred especially in Nz,Luaki,Masoe,Thomson,Kaino,Read,Vito,Messam,Rodney O,George Whitelock,the Pink Panthers[Waldron Brothers] all were capable at 6,7,
or 8.Rodney O,Kaino,and Read are all example of 6`s who also play 8.
In NZ the 7 ,has been mainly a link man as well BillClark,Kirkpatrick,Michael Jones,Jock Hobbs,Josh Kronfeld,Micheal Jones,Kel Tremain,and of course McCaw.
In Bok Rugby the link man was a destroyer in defence,tackling a player then making play with the ball a`la Hennie Muller.
Number 8`s were virtually a third Lock,line out option,controlling the base of the scrum,and the cover defender.
Number 6 ,is also now a lineout option,often a cleaner out of rucks,a dyynamic tackler.
Few teams deploy an out and out fetcher ,Broussow,Pocock ,Warburton being the most notable.McCaw has evolved his game so far beyond this he continues to be Worlds NumberOne..
The strength of the back row is not having the best 3 individuals,but the best 3
whose strengths compliment each other.
On this basis AllBlack,Irish ,and French are among the best,the breakdown has so many .Variations of refereeing world wide it is untrue,certainly at every one.Either side could be pinged for several offences as every one,it is important
to play the referee.
It should`nt be like that but it is a fact of life adapt early and save yourselves a load of grief.Certainly in SH they are clamping down on the breakdown area especially sealing off.
First phase play is becoming more important too,Scrums are now more prevalent.Harking back to the Australia vEngland AI game 2010 only 3 Scrums
were awarded and none completed.
Referee giving it up as a bad job.

England once had a tremedous and very powerful back row back in the days of the old Five Nations Championship in 1995 where Dean Richards played at number 8, with Ben Clarke at 6 and Tim Rodber at 7.