Fly half a pivitol position? It's just a myth.

I still think that the 10 position is no more important than the other 1-15. All positions have tactical specialties, not just ten. Doesn't matter if your 10 is Dan Carter. If 1-9 isn't functioning well then it's irrelevant.

9 and 12 are just as specialist as 10.10 does the tactical kicking, 9 does the passing and sometimes kicking. The 15 does tactical kicking. The sooner we stop thinking of 10 as a special position the better. Once all the players raise their game the fly half is just another number. Wales were so good across the park vs England that Biggar didn't stand out. That's how it should be.

You don't need a long serving world class 10 to have a great team.
Look at Wales. 4 championships and 3 slams in 8 years. 4 fly halves...

2005 - Jones
2008 - Hook
2012 - Priestland
2013 - Biggar

To me the 9 is the most important.

The 9 allows the hardwork of the forwards to get to the backs and let them cut loose. If the 9 isn't playing well then you're only attacking with 8 men.

He's also key for releasing pressure or putting the team under pressure in defence with his box kicks.

The thing with 9-10 is that whilst you can get away with average players in those positions and not suffer much, having a poor player there will disrupt the whole team, probably more so than having a poor player in any other position where they can be covered by the other forwards / three-quarters around them.

A 9-10-12 is your game controlling axis. Rather than 10 being the controller of old, it now seems all good teams need 3 good decision makers in those positions. A great 10 won't get you very far with poor players either side

But I think 9 is the key. The 10 is incredibly important off first phase, and as a tactical kicking option but for teams that go through multiple phases more and more often 12, 15 and various forwards will be popping into first receiver. A lot of teams will mix it up there.

The 9 gets his hands on the ball more than any other player on the pitch. If he's slow to the ruck or his pass is poor or he takes wrong options- attack is snookered. To clear pressure, the 9 is the key. He either takes it on himself or his pass has to give the 10, 12 or 15 time to clear.

In reality 10, 12 and 15 should all be confident kickers from hand and be able to play first receiver.

Fly half a pivitol position? It's just a myth.

Look at the great sides of the past:

1971 Lions. Who was the most famous and influential player from that series: Barry John.
1987- Grant Fox. By far the best 10 in by far the best side. Distributed and kicker well above all opposite 10's.
1991- Michael Lynagh- 1995- Stransky kicks the winning goal but perhaps Merts was the better 10 that year.
1999- Stephen Larkham lead the way.
2003- Johnny Wilkonson starred and kicked the winning points.
2005 Lions- DC wiped the floor and has influenced many AB wins since.

And you consider that Wales 6N efforts offset that theory...DREAM ON...

8 straight losses- all coincided when Priestland was at his most abysmal and worst. A side unable to win against the top 3 SH sides.

I really wonder if some people actually know their rugby. It is the 10 that directs play, finds the weaknesses in the opposition defences either through taking the ball to the line, or kicking for position or teritory. Look at the only try scored by Wales in the French match. Biggars chip to Nortb sealed the game. Wales march in the 2011 World cup was also on the back of some very good play from Priestland, one of the Welsh stars that tournament. Then the same player, and team went to the pack together.

Congrats on some outstandingly poor analysis

Taylorman wrote:Fly half a pivitol position? It's just a myth.

Look at the great sides of the past:

1971 Lions. Who was the most famous and influential player from that series: Barry John.
1987- Grant Fox. By far the best 10 in by far the best side. Distributed and kicker well above all opposite 10's.
1991- Michael Lynagh- 1995- Stransky kicks the winning goal but perhaps Merts was the better 10 that year.
1999- Stephen Larkham lead the way.
2003- Johnny Wilkonson starred and kicked the winning points.
2005 Lions- DC wiped the floor and has influenced many AB wins since.

And you consider that Wales 6N efforts offset that theory...DREAM ON...

8 straight losses- all coincided when Priestland was at his most abysmal and worst. A side unable to win against the top 3 SH sides.

I really wonder if some people actually know their rugby. It is the 10 that directs play, finds the weaknesses in the opposition defences either through taking the ball to the line, or kicking for position or teritory. Look at the only try scored by Wales in the French match. Biggars chip to Nortb sealed the game. Wales march in the 2011 World cup was also on the back of some very good play from Priestland, one of the Welsh stars that tournament. Then the same player, and team went to the pack together.

Congrats on some outstandingly poor analysis

Why are you only focusing on Dan Biggar?
Wales would have won the game on halfpenny's penalties alone.
The team defence was massive.

Again you confirm my point. You, like many others believe that one player in one position was the sole reason for a teams successful tournament.

Priestland was part of a GOOD TEAM in 2011.

Oh yes 2003...

Would Wilkinson have had a billion kicks at goal in the England pack hadn't been amazing?

Neil Jenkins would have won the world cup at 10 for England in 2003.

And why are you basing the whole point of this discussion on this Welsh side. It is one average side amongst many far better ones that prove the opposite. All great sides happened to have great 10's.

This is not a great side. It scraped through to win this tournament by winning the last game. Projecting the results of his side to the overall theory is a flawed argument. Are you saying if Dan Carter had played for Wales in this 6N they would not have been a better side? Hardly.

t1000advancedprototype wrote:Oh yes 2003...

Would Wilkinson have had a billion kicks at goal in the England pack hadn't been amazing?

Neil Jenkins would have won the world cup at 10 for England in 2003.

I agree...but in the end HIS presence made THE difference. That winning kick, from a 10 in the pocket, won the cup for England.

The majority of people when asked who the most influential person was in the 2003 world cup, would say Wilko. Simple as that.

In not meaning to be too condascending it is because its my view that the 10 is THE most influential position on the field...if there is one.

Not only do most of the great sides in history all happen to have 'legendary' 10's the modern attacking game requires a 10 with vision and a high range of skills. In DC and Cruden I believe the successes of both the AB's and the Chiefs prove this. Cruden's ability in running the ball to the line is second to none and highly influential on the Chiefs ability to score tries. Same with DC and Cuden with the AB's.

Italy also went remarkably well largely because their 10 thrived.

I also believe the primary reason Wales fail to beat the SH sides is because they lack a 10 with vision and attacking abilities but most of all, the ability to direct what is a very talented and strong backline. Theyre 'left to their own resources' so to speak. With better direction from the 10 they would thrive.

God you guys have clearly never came close to playing rugby!

Good one big mac. Wrong again, but thanks for your insightful, intelligent and well founded position on the matter.

Are there more where you come from?

Taylorman wrote:Good one big mac. Wrong again, but thanks for your insightful, intelligent and well founded position on the matter.

Are there more where you come from?

Sorry am I mistaken?Have you played rugby before?

...two intelligent posts in a row...now for the hat trick...come on now...dont be shy...just you throw it on out there...come on now... yes..here it comes folks...

Taylorman wrote:...two intelligent posts in a row...now for the hat trick...come on now...dont be shy...just you throw it on out there...come on now... yes..here it comes folks...

Firstly, the funny thing is, you still haven't answered my question, so I'll take your childish teasing as a no( you haven't played rugby before).
Secondly, my point was directed at the original post saying "outhalf isn't the pivotal position".When anyone who has played rugby, will know and tell you otherwise!

Nooo, your point was not directed at the original post because 'you guys' did not write the original post, so your use of grammar appeared to direct it at more than one within the thread.

Nor did you support it with reasons. But at least you cleared some of the matter up.

And yes I have played rugby.

So after all that, we are actually agreeing on the same point- that we disagree on the OP.

There, sorted. Anyway, welcome to 606v2...

The prop is the MOST important player on the pitch.

Without a a prop the game becomes uncontested.

Biltong wrote:The prop is the MOST important player on the pitch.

Without a a prop the game becomes uncontested.

Understood Biltong...I HAVE to agree with you there...

I propped once at school as a fillin and still have no idea why props love the game so much. Spent the whole match waiting for my neck to break.

every scrum is like a weighlifting session.you have 800 plus kilo's pushing at you.

Big Mac Michael wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...two intelligent posts in a row...now for the hat trick...come on now...dont be shy...just you throw it on out there...come on now... yes..here it comes folks...

Firstly, the funny thing is, you still haven't answered my question, so I'll take your childish teasing as a no( you haven't played rugby before).
Secondly, my point was directed at the original post saying "outhalf isn't the pivotal position".When anyone who has played rugby, will know and tell you otherwise!

Wearing a red and black jersey with number 10 on your back at Sturges Park may not mean much to you Big Mac, but might I suggest that you could learn a thing or two from Taylorman.

More of a communication breakdown I think Laurie but wasn't playing at Sturgess park great. Reminds of the Coleseum in Rome- what was all that layered terracing for anyway- never did know that? It looked like ruins of something even in our day. Any idea?

It was Otahuhus Athletics stadium originally in summer and the rugby ground in winter, what was amazing about that ground was how well it drained in the middle of winter, no problem training on it all week then several games on saturday.

the worst thing about sturges park was when we had to train on the Otahuhu college grounds that backed onto it, if I had twenty cents for every time I ran up that hill (the carpark end) I'd be driving a Ferrari.

Taylorman wrote:Fly half a pivitol position? It's just a myth.

Look at the great sides of the past:

1971 Lions. Who was the most famous and influential player from that series: Barry John.
1987- Grant Fox. By far the best 10 in by far the best side. Distributed and kicker well above all opposite 10's.
1991- Michael Lynagh- 1995- Stransky kicks the winning goal but perhaps Merts was the better 10 that year.
1999- Stephen Larkham lead the way.
2003- Johnny Wilkonson starred and kicked the winning points.
2005 Lions- DC wiped the floor and has influenced many AB wins since.

And you consider that Wales 6N efforts offset that theory...DREAM ON...

8 straight losses- all coincided when Priestland was at his most abysmal and worst. A side unable to win against the top 3 SH sides.

I really wonder if some people actually know their rugby. It is the 10 that directs play, finds the weaknesses in the opposition defences either through taking the ball to the line, or kicking for position or teritory. Look at the only try scored by Wales in the French match. Biggars chip to Nortb sealed the game. Wales march in the 2011 World cup was also on the back of some very good play from Priestland, one of the Welsh stars that tournament. Then the same player, and team went to the pack together.

Congrats on some outstandingly poor analysis

Totally agree. Fly half is the key position and dictates everything else. Yes a fly half can't function without the players around him and relies on his pack and scrum half to give him quality ball but likewise the best team in the world can't funtion without a decent fly half.

The fly halfs skill set is also much more varied than any of the other positions - he needs to be able to pass off either hand, long and short, kick off both feet and as first reciever needs to read the game and make decisions quicker than any other player on the pitch.

Look at France and how they have struggled despite have fantastic forwards and backs and excellent 9's. It all comes to nothing if you have a poor 10.

I'm not sure how anyone can say the 10's not pivotal with a straight face.

10 is the decision maker - good decisions you win, bad decisions you lose - simples.

I suppose it is worth re-stating the blidingly obvious point that if all the other players are rubbish even a good 10 won't save you, but having a good/poor 10 will influence games more than any other single player.

I think the post throws up an interesting point in that Gatland has a real problem at 10. None stand out as attacking option, i.e- as ball carriers, switcing play etc. This will be needed against Oz to ensure they consistently get over the advantage line and more importantly give what I think are a very good set of backs in any of Tuilagi, Barrit, JD, Twelvetrees, North, Cuthbert, Halfpenney, Kearney, BOD and a few more I've missed.

Make no mistake there is ample talent from 12 to 15 and with Tipuric, Robshaw, Phillips, or any of care, Youngs or Laidlaw inside the 10 as well.

Picking the right 10 will be crucial if the Lions want to make use of somevery good attacking talent. If they go with a Farrell type, who does the basics and no more, they'll kill the potential of the backline. The 10 must be constantly looking for weaknesses, attacking options, exposing the opposition in behind as well as right up on the advantage line, using runners- NOT sitting in some pocket watching the beautifully angled kicks to the corners all the time.

What about Beaver? He's solid at best but won a world cup. The exception to the rule?

Is Sexton going to be available? I'd probably go for Twelvetrees at 10 to be honest. He's played there a little hasnt he?

Just hope they don't go for an Ogara/ Farrell type. Can't see Gatland doing that. He knows his likely backs have real penetration if theyve got the chance to go forward more often.

Biggar is currently the best 10.

What happened to Bo Derek?

Biltong wrote:The prop is the MOST important player on the pitch.

Without a a prop the game becomes uncontested.

A prop is like a good car. Only as good as the engine pushing him along. So for an entirely unbiased view, I'll say Lock is the most important player on the pitch.

Then the 10 must be the fuel, the quality and quantity of which actually makes the car go anywhere!...and fast. and straigt ahead!.

Risca Rev wrote:

Biltong wrote:The prop is the MOST important player on the pitch.

Without a a prop the game becomes uncontested.

A prop is like a good car. Only as good as the engine pushing him along. So for an entirely unbiased view, I'll say Lock is the most important player on the pitch.

Front Row: Without a doubt the manliest men on the pitch. Large, often hairy, beer swilling carnivores that can and will smash anything in their path. Reveling in the violence inherent in the scrum, they are rarely considered "nice" people, and in fact to some they aren't even considered humans at all. Front rowers tolerate this attitude far and wide because they recognize their role at the top of the food chain and are used to suffering the fools that surround them. Accused by some of simply being dumb, I prefer to think of this group as "open to unconventional ways of thinking."

Locks: Slightly below the front row on the food chain. As with front row players it is inadvisable to put an appendage you wish to keep near this group's maw when they are in the feeding mode. This group of large, often foul-smelling brutes is also more than willing to relish the finer points of stomping on a fallen opponent's body and will gleefully recount the tale ad infinitum. While they tend to take the tag "Powerhouse of the Scrum" a little too seriously, they can be useful if inured with the proper hatred of their fellow man. While members of this proud fraternity like to think of themselves as "open to unconventional ways of thinking"- they are usually just dumb.

Back Row: These are fine, fit fellows who, like a bunch of hermaphrodites, are confused as to what their role in life should be. While they know they are undeniably linked to the forwards, there are those among them who long for the perfect hair and long flowing gowns that come with being a back. Some relish the forward role and will do anything to win the ball and there are others within this group that will break the prime directive of the forward and do anything to prance foolishly with the ball. Generally, these guys are not all bad, but I, personally, have to wonder about any forward who brings a hairbrush and a change of clothes to a game.

Scrum Half: Some like to think of this back as an honorary forward. I myself tend to think of the No. 9 as half a fairy. While the toughest back almost always fills this position, this idea is almost laughable - kind of like the hottest fat chick. The scrum half's presence is tolerated by the forwards because they know that he will spin the ball to the rest of the girls in the backline who will inevitably knock the ball on and allow them the pleasure of another scrum. The No. 9 can take pride in the fact that he is the lowest numbered back and that as such he can be considered almost worthwhile.

Fly Half: His primary role is the leader of the backs - a dubious honor at best. Main responsibilities as far as I can tell are ability to throw the ball over people's heads and to provide something soft for opposing back rowers to land on. Expected to direct the prancing of the rest of the backline - the fly half, like any good Broadway choreographer, is usually light on his feet. While some may argue that these girls must be protected, I find it hard to support anyone whose foot touches a rugby ball on purpose.

Centers: Usually come in two varieties: hard chargers or flitting fairies. The hard charger is the one to acquire, as he will announce his presence in a game with the authority rarely found above No. 8. The flitting fairy is regrettably more common and will usually attempt to avoid contact at all costs. The flitting fairy is also only one good smack away from bursting into tears and leaving the pitch to cry on the shoulder of his inevitable girlfriend. Both types will have extensive collections of hair care products in their kit bags and will be among the best dressed at the post-game festivities.

Back 3: While some people refer to this group as two wingers and a fullback, I swear I can't make out any difference between them. They are all bleeping bleeps if you ask me. How these three guys can play 90 minutes of RUGBY and stay clean and sweat free is beyond me. I know for a fact that their jerseys sometimes go back in the bag cleaner than when they came out. These ladies are fond of sayings like "Speed Kills" and "Wheels Win" - how cute. Well, I have a saying too: it's "You're a bleeping bleep!!" These guys will be easy to spot after the game because they are the finely coifed, sweater wearin', wine sippin', sweet-talkers in the corner avoiding the beer swilling curs at the bar. On the whole, I really don't mind this group because in the end, they sure are purty to look at.

Hermaphrodites.... thats a bit tough!!

props have to have Loosies to do all the running for them.

Good God Biltong, I could take umbrage at you referring to the magnificent men of the second row as being "just dumb". I spent many a game ruminating on the finer points of the tactics needed to deal with my opposition, should it be the sneaky punch through the legs of my front row or the more direct shoeing at every opportunity. On one occasion my train of thought was completely shot to pieces when one of the backs actually passed me the bloody ball. Now that really WAS dumb.

Taylorman wrote:In not meaning to be too condascending it is because its my view that the 10 is THE most influential position on the field...if there is one.

Not only do most of the great sides in history all happen to have 'legendary' 10's the modern attacking game requires a 10 with vision and a high range of skills. In DC and Cruden I believe the successes of both the AB's and the Chiefs prove this. Cruden's ability in running the ball to the line is second to none and highly influential on the Chiefs ability to score tries. Same with DC and Cuden with the AB's.

Italy also went remarkably well largely because their 10 thrived.

I also believe the primary reason Wales fail to beat the SH sides is because they lack a 10 with vision and attacking abilities but most of all, the ability to direct what is a very talented and strong backline. Theyre 'left to their own resources' so to speak. With better direction from the 10 they would thrive.

I don't disagree with much of this Taylorman, but I also think that if the OP's point is that the 9 is just as important as the 10 I tend to agree. One of Wales' big problems is that they have a 9 whose pass is slower than erosion, everyone outside of Phillips is then placed under undue pressure despite the pack being actually pretty good. When he passes well, Wales are about 20% better (to pluck a completely arbitrary number out of the air!) I know Phillips has other qualities. One of the reasons I think Carter was/is so good is that he had Cowan passing to him a decent amount. A scrummie I think is grossly overrated, in fact, I think he's pretty awful. But, because he was behind a great pack (one he did an OK job of directing, but no more than that) and because Carter was that good, it didn't matter. Weepu was probably marginally better in terms of his pass but the same generally applies.

Given how much time the 9 has with the ball and the number of decisions he makes I think it's fair to say he has as much influence on the game as a 10. If his pack's on top he needs to work out whether to keep going through them or when to get it out to the backs. When they're on the back foot, he needs to know the best way to relieve pressure - box kick, sharp pass out to 10 etc. Either way, a huge amount of the game's direction and tempo comes through the 9. Almost every decision taken by a 10 will already have been influenced by the play of the 9 - was it a bullet pass or a horribly laboured one? Did the SH crab sideways first and crush the space? Has he passed too earlier instead of going through the forwards meaning the defence is well set. etc. etc.

A mercurial 10 like Carter can pretty much work with anyone I think. But a lot of the criticism directed towards the performances of 10s I think should be directed at their 9s.

perhaps, but I think its more unique to Wales, most of their poorest performances coinciding with Priestlands terible form and their best with Phillps best matches, and Priestlands absence.

The Home unions dont presently have strong attacking 10's and I think it shows in the low number of tries being scored across the board. Backlines are not running straight and that isnt down to the 9's, who are generally more capable across the 4 sides.

And its not so much the 10 I'm limiting this to, its because the 10 has the most opportunity to influence a straighter and more varied attack- you just dont have a current crop of 10's that do the things that Cruden, DC or Cooper when hes on song are able to do.

England for instance did it through Tuilagi vs NZ as Farrell is a hopeless ball in hand playmaker, so the responsibility shifted one out. With Wales it tooke the likes of Tipuric to straighten the attack vs England and on the couple of occasions they hit the line at pace and with support they scored.

I think its a NH thing that 9 is seen as the stronger playmaker when ideally they're a link between backs and forwards but sill capable of making the odd run. I think the lack of good playmakers at 10 encourages this thinking.

Taylor man Farrell is not a hopeless playmaker. He's a work in progress sure but he does create stuff.

A 10 in some cases is only as good as his forwards allow him to be.

Farrell orchestrated the emphatic win vs Scotland - his pass to parling was excellent.

Carter the best 10 in the world looked like a rabbit in the headlights because his pack were getting beaten up vs England.

Forwards set the platform. It's up to the backs to do the rest. Ultimately it's the forwards who control the set piece, breakdown and its them who decide the game.

10 gets a lot of publicity because they are generally the kicker and score the most points. Their role is more visible than for example the hard work being done by forwards.

A fly half is important in turning opportunities into points but all the responsibility does not fall on his shoulders.

beshocked wrote:Taylor man Farrell is not a hopeless playmaker. He's a work in progress sure but he does create stuff.

A 10 in some cases is only as good as his forwards allow him to be.

Farrell orchestrated the emphatic win vs Scotland - his pass to parling was excellent.

Carter the best 10 in the world looked like a rabbit in the headlights because his pack were getting beaten up vs England.

Forwards set the platform. It's up to the backs to do the rest. Ultimately it's the forwards who control the set piece, breakdown and its them who decide the game.

10 gets a lot of publicity because they are generally the kicker and score the most points. Their role is more visible than for example the hard work being done by forwards.

A fly half is important in turning opportunities into points but all the responsibility does not fall on his shoulders.

Not disagreeing with most of that, most of which is rugby 101 stuff. In the 6N the forwards did set the platform many times. It was the side to side movement of the ball they got that plagued every side in the middle 3 rounds of this tournament. All 6 sides were doing it. Farrell against Scotland and Farrell against Oz in a Lions series is a completely different ball game. I think the sheer concept of straight running is lost on NH folk, despite its obvious advantages, and is the primary reason NH sides lose to SH sides more often than not.

Oz have consistently been nimber two NOT because of their ability to muscle up front- by and large they have had terrible packs over the last few years- certainly not the number 2 pack you'd have to agree. They get there because of their abilities to attack on a regular and consistent basis, beaten only by NZ because of the fact that they ABs do have the far better pack.

Your logic suggests the Boks should monster them. Well they dont, and five wins from the last 6 between the two isnt explained simply by 'the game is won upfront'. Its more complex than that. Its about making the most of the ball you have and the NH sides in particular are incredibly poor at that.

And please refer to trends rather than one offs when making a point. DC had one bad game as did all the AB's that day. The other 20 or so tests no one could touch them, even those who easily beat the NH sides over the year.

Extending it further SA have a philosophy of forward domination and by doing that it removes the ability to focus sufficiently on an attack strategy. By doing that they don't develop experienced attacking backplay but instead have 'caretaker' defensive and positional roles of the Steyn, De Villiers variety.

In other words they play a similar style as the NH, and although better at it than their NH counterparts still sit behind Oz and NZ consistently.

The difference for SA is they do have the attacking players in their midst but choose not to develop them at international level, though that is changing slowly. Their direction will be intresting to watch this year.

This is why I say the Lions MUST have an effective attacking 10 to match the oz attack, to bring the Lions backs and attack quickly to the advantage line. Oz will win mostly through its loosies and backs now they have effective 7's to call on. The Lions backs must give the Oz backline defensive nightmares so they lose their confidence on attack and have second thoughts. Watching the Lions 10 kick or feed back to the forwards all day will only give them confidence to strike.

If the Lions try to out position and territory Oz they'll find themselves tripping over themselves in defence, cos THATS how Oz win matches- all out attack. As soon as you think youve mastered the Oz pack is when you find yourselves standing under the posts for the conversion.

You make a strong case Taylorman. As a former fly half I like to think I was pivotal in my team losing so much! I'm sure they'd agree!

The problem with the OP's claim is that Wales are not a great side. At least not in terms of its record against all nations and in particular the SH big three who invariably hold the top three positions.

The halfback and fly half are the link between the forwards and the backs. The fly half has more of an influence because he can sum up the best attacking options. Kicking across the field, grubber kicks or chips, passes inside or outside and missing out passes. The options are not as much for the halfback. The best thing the halfback can provide is quick service to give the fly half the extra time to sum up the best way of attacking. I was quite impressed with Biggar who had an early charge down against Ireland but he contributed a lot to wales string of victories. He's far from the finished product but he performed a lot better than Priestland who I felt sorry for last year as the guy needed a mental break from the game.

To be a great team you need great players. Not everywhere but in key positions. Fly half is one of those positions. As backs get all the glory fly half gets the attention. But it's more than that. It's where the game is controlled. It's where the game can be sped up or slowed down. The halfback has a say in this but not to the extent of the fly half.

Just accept it. Fly halves make or break a team!

Biltong wrote:
Front Row: Without a doubt the manliest men on the pitch. Large, often hairy, beer swilling carnivores that can and will smash anything in their path. Reveling in the violence inherent in the scrum, they are rarely considered "nice" people, and in fact to some they aren't even considered humans at all. Front rowers tolerate this attitude far and wide because they recognize their role at the top of the food chain and are used to suffering the fools that surround them. Accused by some of simply being dumb, I prefer to think of this group as "open to unconventional ways of thinking."

Locks: Slightly below the front row on the food chain. As with front row players it is inadvisable to put an appendage you wish to keep near this group's maw when they are in the feeding mode. This group of large, often foul-smelling brutes is also more than willing to relish the finer points of stomping on a fallen opponent's body and will gleefully recount the tale ad infinitum. While they tend to take the tag "Powerhouse of the Scrum" a little too seriously, they can be useful if inured with the proper hatred of their fellow man. While members of this proud fraternity like to think of themselves as "open to unconventional ways of thinking"- they are usually just dumb.

Back Row: These are fine, fit fellows who, like a bunch of hermaphrodites, are confused as to what their role in life should be. While they know they are undeniably linked to the forwards, there are those among them who long for the perfect hair and long flowing gowns that come with being a back. Some relish the forward role and will do anything to win the ball and there are others within this group that will break the prime directive of the forward and do anything to prance foolishly with the ball. Generally, these guys are not all bad, but I, personally, have to wonder about any forward who brings a hairbrush and a change of clothes to a game.

Scrum Half: Some like to think of this back as an honorary forward. I myself tend to think of the No. 9 as half a fairy. While the toughest back almost always fills this position, this idea is almost laughable - kind of like the hottest fat chick. The scrum half's presence is tolerated by the forwards because they know that he will spin the ball to the rest of the girls in the backline who will inevitably knock the ball on and allow them the pleasure of another scrum. The No. 9 can take pride in the fact that he is the lowest numbered back and that as such he can be considered almost worthwhile.

Fly Half: His primary role is the leader of the backs - a dubious honor at best. Main responsibilities as far as I can tell are ability to throw the ball over people's heads and to provide something soft for opposing back rowers to land on. Expected to direct the prancing of the rest of the backline - the fly half, like any good Broadway choreographer, is usually light on his feet. While some may argue that these girls must be protected, I find it hard to support anyone whose foot touches a rugby ball on purpose.

Centers: Usually come in two varieties: hard chargers or flitting fairies. The hard charger is the one to acquire, as he will announce his presence in a game with the authority rarely found above No. 8. The flitting fairy is regrettably more common and will usually attempt to avoid contact at all costs. The flitting fairy is also only one good smack away from bursting into tears and leaving the pitch to cry on the shoulder of his inevitable girlfriend. Both types will have extensive collections of hair care products in their kit bags and will be among the best dressed at the post-game festivities.

Back 3: While some people refer to this group as two wingers and a fullback, I swear I can't make out any difference between them. They are all bleeping bleeps if you ask me. How these three guys can play 90 minutes of RUGBY and stay clean and sweat free is beyond me. I know for a fact that their jerseys sometimes go back in the bag cleaner than when they came out. These ladies are fond of sayings like "Speed Kills" and "Wheels Win" - how cute. Well, I have a saying too: it's "You're a bleeping bleep!!" These guys will be easy to spot after the game because they are the finely coifed, sweater wearin', wine sippin', sweet-talkers in the corner avoiding the beer swilling curs at the bar. On the whole, I really don't mind this group because in the end, they sure are purty to look at.

A few thoughts

How can props be the most manly men when they come with their own Holly Willaboobies?

Surely the main responsiblity of the 10 is to provide the ready supply of haircare products and moisturiser for after the game?

You missed the one subtle difference between wingers and fullback, which is that the fullback stands in the middle of the pitch, far away from any action and gets hypothermia, while the wingers spend most of the game chatting up any female (or in some cases good looking male) supporter on the touchline.

Oh, and no mention of pre-planned backs moves featuring a triple run-around, behind the back pass and knock on 20 yards behind the previous scrum

Depends on the team. Some countries like running it back from fullback or the wingers.

yappysnap wrote:To me the 9 is the most important.

The 9 allows the hardwork of the forwards to get to the backs and let them cut loose. If the 9 isn't playing well then you're only attacking with 8 men.

He's also key for releasing pressure or putting the team under pressure in defence with his box kicks.

I agree with this. The service of the 9 is every bit as important as the control from the 10 if not more so. The 9 dictates the speed at which the backline is able to come onto the ball at and dictates the pace of the game through deciding to either box kick, pass or have a dart.

At Ulster we have Pienaar at 9 and one of the best things about him is his unique box kicking ability, its like a hybrid of a box kick and a 10's territorial kick, I've never seen any other 9 do it quite like Pienaar. The man is a magician and our most important player outside of the forwards for me.

Thanks for highlighting Yappy's comments Dodger as I probably would have missed them.
And Yappysnap.. totally agree.

A very astute nine can often negate the weakesses of a ten. But a terrible nine has nobody to cover his flaws. And whole systems can collapse around him as that link between forward muscle and backs exploitation of the space created by it is basically all in his hands.

A good one creates tempo, shifts tempo. He can stir emotions... he can keep opposition guessing by changing the focus from forwards to backs and tell when to use which. Yeah a very good instinctive nine creates synergy. Six inches taller (for robustness in collisions!!) and Stringer would have been my perfect 9

been away, not that you would notice, and what a surprise from t10000 !!!!!!!! actually praising my little hero dan biggar, like many others who have underrated this guy, from now on just watch him !!!!!!!

he could have kicked the points 1/2p kicked in the 6ns , does it all the time for the ospreys. if he had done the kicking, more posters would be aware of what a talent he is and will be in the future.

i even stood by him in his earlier days when he was a real pain (as in 'young and talented' questioning officials every minute, toys out of pram behaviour,) BUT now as he has , and continues to ,develop, and is still only 23 with only 15 or 16 caps, he could become a great player.

as for 10 as the pivitol position, well lets just say , if you get good ball and f....up at 10 you lose. rhys priestland case in point.

I think, as already said, number 10 is very important but the best is only shown when they have a sympathic number 9.

For the Wallabies for example Gregan and Larkham was much more successful than Gregan with other number 10.

The referee is by far the most important person on the pitch and all of the fans are actually there to see them.

Fundementally the sport is a refereeing competition with some rugby tacked incidentally onto the side.

Yours,
Craig Joubert

George Carlin wrote:The referee is by far the most important person on the pitch and all of the fans are actually there to see them.

Fundementally the sport is a refereeing competition with some rugby tacked incidentally onto the side.

Yours,
Craig Joubert

+1

Yours
Steve Walsh