Back Three: Licorice Allsorts or Maltesers?

With the back row, we often get descriptions of 6.5 and 7.5. Depending on the balance of your back row, players can change their roles according to the players around them. Can the same be applied to the back three? Is there as much of a difference between the left wing and the right wing as say there is between the 6 and 7 and is 15 much like 8 in terms of its different requirements? Why do some players play well with 11 on their shirt and not so when they have 14 or vice versa? Are the positions so fundamentally different?

On the thread about the virtues of Halfpenny and Brown, it's fair to say both players have found their calling at fullback. But when I think back to 2009 when SA was whitewashing us and the likes of Big Joe were struggling under the high ball, suddenly we found fullbacks in all three back positions. When you add in Beauden Barrett who can cover 15 and is definitely quick enough to cover wing, there seems to be a very flexible back three: Jane, Piutau, Dagg, Ben Smith are all interchangeable between the wing and fullback though Jane has stated a preference to playing on the wing. Savea seems to be what you call a specialist left wing but why should this be the case?

Why is it players like Folau, Brown, Halfpenny look better at fullback and then players like Ben Smith playing at fullback for the Highlanders and wing for the All Blacks don't seem to be affected where they play? Is that down to the types of players they are or the tactics used by the team? Is it a balance issue or is it down to the type of attacking / defending game you play? Is there such a thing as a 14.5? Are the back three interchangeable or are they specialist positions in their own individual right?

good qns

wingers need real pace, and real attacking threat. Brown doesnt have this. But he makes a truly excellent 15 for 2 reasons: super-glue hands, and great ability to beat first few kick-chasers (their chasing effectively gives brown the difference in speed that makes his step work well - he is never going to burn another winger for pure speed)

i think it's absolutely critical to have a catcher at 15 that both teams believe to be near infallible. totally caused Ireland to change their gameplan this weekend. anything else that a 15 can do is a bonus imho.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: Is there such a thing as a 14.5? Are the back three interchangeable or are they specialist positions in their own individual right?

Yes and no I think. A full back has to be very strong under the high ball and able to kick well off both feet. These are a bonus in a wing but to some degree they can get away with being less competent at catching and clearing the ball.

The 15 has to catch the ball infield meaning spilling it is much more costly, whereas the winger generally has the touchline to save his bacon if he screws up.

In theory though they should be interchangeable these days as Wings need to be a bit more rounded and involved around the field, and fullbacks need to offer a good attacking option and thus have a turn of pace.

I disagree a bit about the catching. I think they all have to be infallible under the highball though kicking is a little less important for wingers.

Tell that to George North ....

I think from an ab's perspective. We need 2 fullbacks and a wing. My reasoning is option taking when fielding kicks. It's the option of a long raking punt. It also means clearance on either side of the field to touch, or a Garry Owen. I think we need varied options or the opposition can close us down with a good kick chase. I'm assuming your average out and out winger has limited kicking ability.

The 2 15's thing seems to be a preference of the all-blacks?

The England 2003 side were quite successful with Lewesy and Robinson at the back too.

Joe Schmidt seems to like this dynamic too with the Kearney brothers.

Quins I like your post but I'm not sure a winger needs real pace. Take Cory Jane, for example. He never has blistering pace but he does possess one of the strongest fends in world rugby. Jonah Lomu had front line pace and was deceptively quick off the mark going forward but was like an aircraft carrier turning backwards. Jeff Wilson did his best to avoid contact on attack whereas Jonah often sought contact to take out opponents.

I think wingers who are safe under the high ball are just as necessary in some games rodders. That's what the Boks exploited in 2009 and why we reverted to fullback wingers, specifically for that reliability under the high ball.

It's funny you mention a fullback with the ability to kick off both feet. Jessie Mogg instantly came to mind and his right foot attempt was as laughable as some of his tackling attempts at test level last year. You can have all the speed in the world but basics are essential. It'll be interesting to see where Le Roux plays for the Boks this year as I think he should be given a go at fullback and Kirchner shown the door.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:
I think wingers who are safe under the high ball are just as necessary in some games rodders. That's what the Boks exploited in 2009 and why we reverted to fullback wingers, specifically for that reliability under the high ball.

No I agree but the point is you can get away without being great - Lomu you mentionsd, George North is the best winger in Europe and not great under the high ball. Ireland exposed this recently.

The other thing is players can look great attacking from 15, where generally they'll be unmarked and in broken play but on the wing may not have that ability in tight spaces - for example Cullen was nowhere near as effective in attack at 14, although he was on wane a bit at that stage.

Fair enough rodders and well done for not mentioning Cullen at 13. Maybe it begs the question why these weaknesses are not exposed enough. England get inside the 22 and put a high ball up so North has to turn back giving the advancing player the jump on him (literally!). Will we see that tactic in the next match?

For all of Folau's aerial brilliance, how much did Australia exploit that strength? Not enough in my opinion. Sure you don't want to overplay your hand but that is surely preferable to underplaying it? Much like Halfpenny and his caged running limitations for Wales.

Well the thing is the England wings aren't strong under the high ball either so I don't think we'll see that.

Funnily enough Ireland tend to produce players who are very comfortable under the high ball - particularly offensively - in part due to the GAA background many have - but the best full back in the country is Jarod Payne - a NZer, who isn't great under the high ball ...go figure!

That's why he's playing in Ireland. He's our inside man on tapping your knowledge.  

Many teams recently are racing up in the midfield to close down attacks. If you can't get the ball out wide through passing channels, the kicking tactic should be employed early on to keep the defensive line guessing. The trick is to make the kick with front foot ball and for the flyhalf to be up in the line to mask the tactic. France did that in the first half against England and though they were fortuitous with the bounce of the ball it shows that it is a calculated risk worth taking. Inexplicably the tactic was not employed in the second half.

NZ tapping up Irelands rugby knowledge eh? ... tap away guys! ....

Schmidt, Penney, Thorn, Howlett et al tried. The tap seems broken. Expect the Blues physiotherapist to be Ireland's next Kiwi signing. His name: Mike Plummer.   

The tap isn't broken kia...its the well that's dry....   

rodders wrote:Well the thing is the England wings aren't strong under the high ball either so I don't think we'll see that.

Funnily enough Ireland tend to produce players who are very comfortable under the high ball - particularly offensively - in part due to the GAA background many have - but the best full back in the country is Jarod Payne - a NZer, who isn't great under the high ball ...go figure!

No Kearney is the best FB in the country. Payne will probably get game time at centre for Ireland though.

Who is the more tapped, the Irishman or New Zealander?

Don't start this again guns, rob is nowhere near as good as Payne, its like comparing Irish spuds to jersey spuds.

So you think that when Payne is Irish qualified Kearney wont get any game time for Ireland? Would seem strange if he is such a good fullback that he wont start there.

Maybe Kearney will become a 14.5.

The English wingers are good under the high ball. Both used to be full backs and are capable of running it back. Lancaster has a bit of a thing for full backs on the wing!

GunsGerms wrote:So you think that when Payne is Irish qualified Kearney wont get any game time for Ireland? Would seem strange if he is such a good fullback that he wont start there.

No I think Kearney will get picked by Ireland but Payne is still better by a country mile. That's why Leinster keep trying to pinch him from us via the IRFU because he's the best back in the country in any position .

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Maybe Kearney will become a 14.5.

R Kearney + D Kearney = 14.5

Jarod Payne = 13

rodders wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:So you think that when Payne is Irish qualified Kearney wont get any game time for Ireland? Would seem strange if he is such a good fullback that he wont start there.

No I think Kearney will get picked by Ireland but Payne is still better by a country mile. That's why Leinster keep trying to pinch him from us via the IRFU because he's the best back in the country in any position .

Slight exageration.

How do you know Leinster have tried to sign him?

I'd actually prefer to see 1/2p on the wing and Liam Williams at fullback for Wales if North is going to be playing at 13.

GunsGerms wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Maybe Kearney will become a 14.5.

R Kearney + D Kearney = 14.5

Jarod Payne = 13

Payne 15 + 13 / 2 = 14

14 + 11 / 2 = 12.5

14 + 12.5 / 2 = 13.25

Irrefutable proof you are right GG.   

The difference between 6 and 7 is mostly artificial so yes, there is as much difference between the 2 wingers

So those players CJ who changed wings and didn't look as good, was that in their mind or do the positions have subtle differences?

There are subtle differences, but rather, IMO (though I never played wing so I could be talking crap) it's how they fit into the attacking system, plus a left wing (because even pro players are more comfortable passing right to left) should get more ball on the wing itself

David Campese is often cited as the man who pioneered the idea of interchangeable wing and full back. Roger Gould was a rock at 15 in that 1984 Grand Slam wallaby side but no-one would have played him on the wing except in some dire emergency.

When I think back to some of England's long tenure full backs, I can't imagine Dusty Hare, John Webb, Simon Hodgkinson or Matt Perry being too comfortable on the wing. Similarly, the Underwoods, Ben Cohen and Dan Luger were never full back material.

The first English player I can really recall switching between the two positions regularly was Jason Robinson. To do that, you need someone else who can switch and that's when Matt Perry fell out of favour, with Lewsey and Balshaw stepping up. We started to talk more about the back three combination around the same time.

Since then, we've had a number of players who can cope in both spots with varying degrees of accomplishment. Cueto, Tait, Armitage and Foden come to mind, while Ugo Monye doesn't.

In some ways, Mike Brown is a bit of a throwback for England because he really is a full back and not a winger, despite Lancaster's selection eccentricities. He's similar to Matt Perry, who used to run the ball back and didn't double as a goal kicker. That's not such a novelty in the modern game because Lee Byrne and Rob Kearney excelled for the Lions in 2009 in a similar role.

Another combination is the fly half/fullback. You'd see that a lot in the amateur era, perhaps because both positions commonly had goalkicking duties. Phil Bennett is a stand-out example in the north while the Lions played Neil Jenkins at 15 just to have his kicking talent on the pitch.

It's unclear whether Hogg will make that switch for Scotland but you'd have to say that the 10/15 player seems a little out of favour outside Australia and South Africa. James Hook can't get any time for Wales, and Alex Goode might yet lose his spot on the England bench. Both have played on the wing but you really don't want them there. Generally, the 10/15 kind of player seems to be short of the kind of pace necessary for that position.

Nice post but Beauden Barrett,RF, has come on at 15 and 10 and pace is definitely not a problem for him.

Gotta give a shout out to Savea on this one too-his handling and, well general skills and awareness are, while not quite those of a 15, a definite step up from some of the big fellas who have graced the flanks.

Isn't being a left handed right wing an advantage?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Isn't being a left handed right wing an advantage?

Why? Hand offs?

Most people pass best in the direction of their weaker hand. Like most left footed kickers are actually right handed. The specific skill learnt by the non native hand is less prone to bad habits.

From the right flank you naturally have a better distributing ability.

Many western (predominantly right dominant) teams score most tries on the left wing. (True stat - check it). Whereas the more naturally ambidextrous Polynesians tend to favour the less defendable right side since the attack the weaker shoulder and pass in the same direction (into the space created) more capably.

You also tend to step better away from the dominant side (in field) rather than with the native inclination to go right (into touch)

GE you are a genius sir.

I just made it up, but cripes it sounded convincing!

You may have made it up but it is 100% true. Well you may have got your left and right the wrong way round in places but the point stands.

Is Mike Phillips an 8.5?

rodders wrote:You may have made it up but it is 100% true. Well you may have got your left and right the wrong way round in places but the point stands.

I was hoping you'd get confused and not notice that.

IronMike wrote:Is Mike Phillips an 8.5?

Bergamasco is an 6.01 I think we established a few seasons back.

Bergamasco and Phillips are both Windows 8.0.

Kia

Harsh on Bergomasco, who was clearly a very good flanker but for some reason of eccentric selections agreed to play an entirely alien position in one game.

Regarding the back 3 question, I was thinking about this a couple of days ago. I think you can divide full backs into 3 groups:
1 - Too slow to ever play wing (Alex Goode)
2 - Can cover wing in an emergency (Mike Brown, Rob Kearney)
3 - Could reasonably start on the wing (Foden, Hogg, 1/2p).

Similarly, there are wingers who you wouldn't want ever near the FB spot (Ashton, Monye, North, Cuthbert, Lamont), others who could step in there occasionally (May, Nowell) and a few who could reasonably start there (Cueto, Maitland, presuimably Dave Kearney).

As for the left v right wingers, certainly in the amateur era there was a preference for the real speedster to play on the left and a more powerful player on the right, because as noted above, most players being right handed pass better to their left, so the ball would reach the winger slightly faster and with a little more space to exploit their pace. Off-setting this is that defenders mainly tackle better on their right shoulder, so should defend better drifting right. Another consideration is that it is easier to punt the ball with your infield foot, so (at least traditionally, when clearing for touch) a left footed player would probably prefer to play on the right.

Harsh on both if we're being fair.

Nice post.

dummy_half wrote:As for the left v right wingers, certainly in the amateur era there was a preference for the real speedster to play on the left and a more powerful player on the right, because as noted above, most players being right handed pass better to their left, so the ball would reach the winger slightly faster and with a little more space to exploit their pace. Off-setting this is that defenders mainly tackle better on their right shoulder, so should defend better drifting right. Another consideration is that it is easier to punt the ball with your infield foot, so (at least traditionally, when clearing for touch) a left footed player would probably prefer to play on the right.

Hmm surely the left footer prefers the left because the spiral comes off the outside of the boot?  As a right-handed, left-footed wing with a dominant left shoulder I preferred to defend on the left and attack on the right...or was it the other way around.....

Rodders

Assuming a spiral punt (I know, very much a throw-back as only Stuart Hogg seems to still use them), you're better using your infield foot. For a well executed right footed spiral, the ball will intially go to the right of the ultimate line and swing back left as it drops - I'd certainly prefer to be kicking to the left touchline with this shape, as the ball can be started parallel to the touchline and draw into touch. The only downside is if you do slice, the ball will end up in play (but deep) rather than in a short touch.

Well thank flio I never kicked the ball then!