Lets have a discussion about Rugby. Novel ideas by Wales606...

After all the complains about wumming and why HERSH and Biltong have disappeared together in mysterious circumstances (winkwinknudgenudgeknowwhatImean ), lets answer some unanswerable questions.

1. What positions are key?

It has been traditionally said that 2,8,9,10 and 15 are the key positions for a team. However, in the modern game, which is centered around the breakdown and the front row dominance of the scrums, is that still true.

Would a better modern combination be 3,7,9,10,13?

The no8's control at the back of the scrum has been superseded by the tight head props ability to stabilize the scrum while his opponent tries every trick in the book to, legally or illegally, drive his head into the ground or the clouds.

The roll of the Hooker to hook has gone, meanwhile the contest from turnover possession from a lineout has transferred into the breakdowns in the midfield where the most cunning no7 reigns supreme.

The scrumhalf and flyhalf remain as crucial as they always have been as a link between the forwards and backs as well as the primary kickers and tacticians in the team

As the game has become more defense orientated, the role of the fullback as the last line of defence has been replaced by the ability of the outside centre as the first line. The timing of a blitz to cut off the opposition behind the gainline or the speed of drift to bundle the opposition winger into touch all has to be timed perfectly by the man in the 13 jersey. Meanwhile the Fullbacks role is being more and more melded with that of the wingers to create 'back 3' players.

So, what 5 positions do you think are key to the success of any team?




2. Do you need an experienced Fullback?

The key to a successful team tends to rely on having experienced players all around the pitch.

Generally the best team have experience in the front row where it is perhaps most telling as experience is crucial to scrummaging. They will also have at least 1 experienced lock (Thorn, Sharpe, O'Connell, Pape), experience and leadership in the backrow (McCaw & Read, Pocock, Dusatoir, Croft, Heaslip, Jones).

At halfback, having at least one experienced player at FH or SH is crucial - but inexperience can be easily handled in one of the positions (Phillips & Preistland WC, Carter & Smith 3N, Weepu & Donald WC, Murray & Sexton and Pienaar & Lambie)

Having at least one experienced player at centre is also vital (Conrad Smith, AAC, DeVilliers, BOD, Roberts, Tindall) - the desperation to keep a experience in the centre is perhaps the most obvious to display and has lead a lot of players to let by on average performances long after they should have been dropped in favour of youth.

On the wing is where inexperience is easily given a chance, hence why there has always been a flood of young wingers pressing for places in international sides - with recent examples of youth shining quickly on the big stage (Craig Gilroy, Nick Cummins and Julien Savea)

At Fullback, you would expect experience to reign again. After all, Fullback is often regarded a fairly key position and required excellent positional awareness and plenty of decision making. However, experience does not seem to be the most important factor in selecting a fullback and young FBs can quickly make a name for themselves (Dagg, Halfpenny, Hogg, Beale). Coaches are not afraid to drop the old fullback in favour of the young and you don''t often see a fullback out stay his welcome.

So, do teams need experience at FB, or are you as happy to see a untested FB as an untested winger lineup for your team.



3. "Forwards decide the winner, backs by how much" - Really?

Are forwards really the deciders of who wins games.

Although having a platform is important, it is not always the team with 51%+ possession that wins. Forwards may battle over the gainline and secure ball, but so can Jamie Roberts and Brian O'Driscoll. O'Driscoll has always acted as an extra forward at the breakdown as has Mike Phillips, but it appears that having more forwards doesn't make your team world beaters.

You could extend the saying to forwards and halfbacks, which is perhaps more accurate, as the team with dominate forwards and a dominant halfback pairing will almost certainly win. The flyhalfs (usual) role as the main goal kicker is crucial to his teams success, as is the ability of the scrum half to distribute correctly and make the right decisions.

If a forward pack is dominant, but their halfbacks outplayed, then I would say that the game was capable of swinging either way - especially with the importance of goal kicking and territory kicking in the modern game. A team with 40% possession can win if it puts that possession in the opposition half and puts the ball between the posts.

Are the forwards the bee knees? Or are the halfbacks, centre and fullbacks the ones busy winning games while the forwards wrestle in some mud?



Answers on a postcard

You will find Biltong merrily posting away on another site. If you really need to find him, just Roar.

Well clearly nobody has an opinion.

Re your assertion:
Would a better modern combination be 3,7,9,10,13

I would say no, and have this instead:
2, 4, 5, 9, 10

Props winning scrums yes good, but without a decent hooker to throw in lineouts you'll lose too many pocessions. Locks to win the the lineouts and provide grunt in scrum. half backs to make the breaks and dictates the run, and the 10 to kick the goals.

All players are important but for me those are vital ones.

OzT wrote:Re your assertion:
Would a better modern combination be 3,7,9,10,13

I would say no, and have this instead:
2, 4, 5, 9, 10

Props winning scrums yes good, but without a decent hooker to throw in lineouts you'll lose too many pocessions. Locks to win the the lineouts and provide grunt in scrum. half backs to make the breaks and dictates the run, and the 10 to kick the goals.

All players are important but for me those are vital ones.

Would you say that both Locks are more important than an openside's work at the breakdown or the backs defence at 13 or 15?

Oops forgot the number 7!! Cheers.

2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10

We are assuming all the other players can do their basics correctly, that is catch the ball and tackle to an extent.

Both locks for line outs and scrum grunts. If they're like the boks locks of old when it comes to lineouts then just kick the ball out all the time for field pocession and eventually there'll be a break.

Simplified tactics I know but be successful, if a bit dull.

a great tighthead is worth their weight in gold. so I think you have to add 3 to both of your lists.

Whats the least important position then?

Is that a trick question?

6 would be my guess.

VictorU3 wrote:Is that a trick question?

6 would be my guess.

You are joking aren't you? I think one of Wales's biggest losses during this autumn series has been Dan Lydiate, and wasn't he the 6N man of the series this year, playing exclusively at no.6 I believe!

Well the easiest position to cope without (a yellow card for example) is probably a winger

lostinwales wrote:Whats the least important position then?

A tricky question. Rugby is fundamentally a defensive driven sport. You can't throw the ball forward and the classic garryowen has a low percentage chance of being retained. So really, you have to get a person carrying the ball through a defensive line. At the truly top level (so international test matches) all 15 players are required to defend various set pieces, breakdowns and phases of play. As a result a weakness in any of the those 15 players provides the opposition the chance to try and take advantage of it. And that is why mismatches in broken play or multiphase play are key to scoring tries in rugby matches.

Someone might say the no.4 lock is not important, as the no.5 usually supports the tighthead in the scrum and locks/flankers/no8 all jump in lineouts these days. But you can't get away with having a weak lock as it could become an area of focus by teams to beat you, and before you know it, it will become the key position that you would have to cover.

What I always loved about rugby was that it was a game for every type of player. So stockier lumps would add muscle to tight exchanges, tall lads secure high balls and drive scrums/malls, battlers compete at the breakdown, short whippets nip in and out of breakdowns snatching the ball and spinning it away, visionaries lead the backline and decide the tactics during the game, solid all rounders with some pace take up the centre positions to identify mismatches-spot when to unleash the pace out wide-when to pick off the slower players inside, quick lads take lines for strike moves to get the final scores if the space opens up, and your safety net is the fullback.

The beauty of this is that depending on where the focus is in any era there will always be opportunities and weaknesses. In france they went down the route of big bruisers to wear down teams up front and crush their opponents (ala Racing Metro, Stade Franais a while back, Perpignon) that adds bulk which makes your tighthead, hooker, lock and no.8 key men. The automatic response most times in rugby is to copy and react, so opponents will try to outmuscle focusing on bulk, adding to the importance of those positions.

But by doing this they make themselves succeptible to teams putting pace and tempo into a game to run those big bodies around, getting them tired shifting all that bulk and create space which means the key players for the opposition could be flankers (secure possession), scrum half (quick to get the ball away from breakdown), outhalf (to keep the tactics of running the opposition ragged going for 80 minutes) and wingers (to strike against the mismatches in multiphase play).

I think every position has its place in this wonderful game of ours.

While agreeing with most of what 'thebandwagonsociety' has just said I think Spike Milligan, a pretty good player by all accounts, put it more succinctly when the said:

"Rugby is a game for big buggers. if you're not a big bugger, you get hurt. I wasn't a big bugger but i was a fast bugger and therefore I avoided the big buggers."

RuggerBoy wrote:I think every position has its place in this wonderful game of ours.

While agreeing with most of what 'thebandwagonsociety' has just said I think Spike Milligan, a pretty good player by all accounts, put it more succinctly when the said:

"Rugby is a game for big buggers. if you're not a big bugger, you get hurt. I wasn't a big bugger but i was a fast bugger and therefore I avoided the big buggers."

I love it!

On the question I would say 3, 5, 9, 10 and 15. My reasoning is pretty much the same as what others have already said.

One of the things I like about rugby is that it's a sport where one player doesn't dominate the game. An example by contrast: I've played basketball in a team that had one exceptionally good player. the fact that the rest of us where fairly average didn't matter. He won the games scoring 40 points a match. You seldom see the same sort of thing in rugby: if you've got one great player in one position, that doesn't guarentee success if the other players aren't up to scratch. So I suppose in a nutshell, all posistions are pretty important in their own way...