By 2020 -
May 31st 2009 @ 7:31am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Thinking outside the box can mean outside positional norms
This article picks up the point made by Ozxile with regard to looking beyond the traditional limitations of a player’s usual role and expands on the idea.
Picking natural No 6’s at lock at Super Rugby level is one thing, but expecting them to compete there against the world’s best in Test rugby is underestimating the demands of the position.
Ben Alexander is too good a footballer, especially with the ball in hand, to have chilling on the sideline. Playing Alexander at lock would amplify his attacking ability by virtue of the extra yard of width the position offers that of a prop.
At the scrum, he’d give perfect low, powerful drive behind the front row, and defensively he’ll be harder to beat than most lanky locks. At the lineout, it’s business as usual for him.
But what about the forfeit of lineout height? Read on.
With a view to the longer term, I believe Rocky Elsom provides a Kefu-like presence plus the considerable bonus of being a lineout jumper. Therefore, Deans would retain three jumpers in Sharpe, Horwell and Alexander at lock, Mumm, McMeniman at No 6 and Elsom at No 8.
With regard to Robbie’s intimation that having on-ballers will be vital, I’d have both Smith and Pocock on the pitch together as, what I call, flanker-backs. Unlike Greg Martin’s suggestion of having one of them play halfback, I’d like to see them play in tandem, with the first man committing to the tackle/breakdown and his mate deciding whether to take up a typical halfback roll or also commit to gaining possession.
If both players are committed, the next player to the ruck, whether a forward or a back, either picks and drives, or lets hope, fires a pass to Giteau. This sounds a lot like what one would assume happens with a typical halfback. It does not.
So often halfbacks are impediments to the flow of the game with hesitation and delayed passing, or lateral instead of straight movement, causing congestion of the outside runners. We cannot afford to stifle the power and pace we possess out wide, as the Waratahs discovered too late in the season.
Lightweight halfbacks standing waiting for forwards to arrive to the breakdown so they can simply pass a ball to an outside man, who now faces a set defense due to the slow deliver, is amateurish. I believe pressure will be applied much more forcefully to the scrambling defense if we have two tyros ripping in.
Are the passing skills of our other players, as suggested by Mark Ella, so poor, that only a little halfback can keep the ball moving? Surely not. We have the foundation of a very good backline.
Unless we have an absolutely brilliant halfback, we don’t need or want him to hesitate or run cross field.
Let Smith or Pocock pick and drive or ping the pass. No rugby league lolly-pop pass here. Test level execution.
These men ARE capable of it.
So, my team (of available players which sees Brown as the current third lineout jumber): Robinson, Moore, Baxter, Sharpe, Alexander, Mumm, Smith/Pocock, Brown, Smith/Pocock, Giteau; Turner, Barnes, Mortlock, Hynes, O’Connor. Res: Cowan, Polota-Nau, Horwill, Mowen, Toomua, Nasiginyavi, Cooper.
Obviously there are players both abroad and out with injury who would present realistic claims for inclusion if available. However, the point of this exercise is to continue Ozxile’s established debate about the relative merits of considering players out of position.
With quality players, the possibilities are worth exploring.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(8)
Dan the Main Man said | May 31st 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Ben Alexander next to Sharpe in the second row? Are you kidding me? The No.8 will be pushing at a 45 degree angle with one shoulder half a foot further forward than the other! And you think Alexander will be better defensively than Horwill….. absolutely dreaming.
As for halfbacks only running across field and delivering hesitant and slow ball, what makes you think Smith/Pocock will be any better (noting that I don’t think our better halfbacks actually do this – burgess and genia are incisive runners able to pick up runners on both the inside and outside and have, of late, been good crisp deliverers of the ball to 5/8 when needed)? Sure they will be able to run with the ball and gain the advantage line more often than not but executing the special passes that are needed maybe two to three times in a game that shift the play unexpectedly and allow the 5/8 and his backs to run at an exposed backline – this pocock and smith will not do.
Sambobly said | May 31st 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
Dan is correct. Halfback is one of (if not the) most important position in the whole team. If you do not have a good halfback the team will not function properly. It often appears to the casual observer to be a simple position to play (just pass the ball most of the time, run if there is a gap) but is very difficult to master. An experienced and talented halfback is necessary for any team to be great.
Working Class Rugger said | May 31st 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
2020
I agree with you on Alexander being too good to be left on the bench but play him at lock. Have you ever played in the Tight 5. By putting the vastly shorter Alexander in the Locks would throw off any balance in the combinations. It just wouldn’t work. As for halfback. We already have 2 that are very capable in close and out wide. Burgess and Genia.
Thommo said | May 31st 2009 @ 10:00pm | Report comment
Maybe this isn’t actually such a bad idea you know. Having played with Benny A at the time when he was 17, at district rep level, he often alternated between Loose Head and the Second Row, and in fact got picked to play in Sydney and NSW 17’s as a second rower. Of course the main reason he had to do that was because we had a front row including Benn Robinson (need i explain!!!) and Alex Walker (currently a hooker at saracens).
Alexander isn’t exactly short either, only just 10cm shorter that Sharpe, so you really wouldn’t be that unbalanced by playing him there. Getting him up in lineouts might be a push though…..
MikeM said | May 31st 2009 @ 10:25pm | Report comment
Well, you could pick an extra tall prop on Ben’s side of the scrum. That would push him back a few centimetres so that his bum would line up with Nathan’s.
Nick P-G said | June 1st 2009 @ 12:07am | Report comment
mikem,
you dont play tight 5 do you? it doesnt work like that at all.
sheek said | June 1st 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
You need to ask yourself when considering a move outside the square, whether it is cutting edge stuff, or the last refuge of desperation???
Usually a move outside the square is born of desperation, & might achieve short-term gain (which mostly is the intention), but not any long lasting satisfaction.
Back in 1968, new Wallaby coach Des Connor (both an ex-Wallaby & ex-AB) infuriated the All Blacks by introducing short lineouts. This threw the rhythm of the ABs out, but didn’t change the overall result o the series, with the ABs winning both tests.
Although it should be pointed out, the ABs won the 2nd test in the last minute due to a very controversial decision by an Aussie referee. Anyway, the moral to the story is that teams/nations should concentrate on their core structures & skills.
Left field decisions generally should be tactical, not structural. Those left field decisions that come under structural is the crazy idea of mass-changing playing positions for players.
Sometimes, we can try to be too cute!
sheek said | June 1st 2009 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Another perspective.
New Zealand & South Africa have dominated world rugby between for over 100 years. it’s interesting that neither has drastically changed their structural style over time. Opponents know exactly what they’re going up against, but generally aren’t good enough to overcome either.
New Zealand – Traditional high pace, high activity game. Lots of movement. In the old days, ruthless rucking & forward mauling sucking in defenders, then freeing backline against few defenders remaining.
South Africa – Total opposite. Massive, brutal forward pack sucking life out of opponents like an anaconda. Dominating possession, kicking for field position, taking the points. Scoring lots of tries when opposition is totally buggered.
Looking at the record of the ABs & Boks, it seems the secret is to be very good at what you do, irrespective of whether your opponents know what’s coming or not. Basic skills.
The good doctor of South African rugby, used to hammer the ‘7 pillars of rugby’ into his proteges.
1. Scrum (it begins & ends here).
2. Lineout.
3. Ruck.
4. Maul (note, ruck & maul are separate).
5. Handling (running & passing).
6. Tackling.
7. Kicking (all forms – kickoff, restarts, tactical, line, goal, drop).
Perhaps we Aussies should start concentrating on getting the 7 pillars absolutely right. Instead of looking for short-cuts!