By Bruce Ross -
December 3rd 2009 @ 3:20am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Giant All Blacks backs a pointer to rugby’s future
New Zealand's Isaia Toeava, right, tries to fend off Australia's Lachie Turner in their Tri Nations International rugby match at Westpac Stadium in Wellington, New Zealand, Saturday, Sept. 19, 2009. AP Photo/NZPA, Wayne Drought
The Marseille game between France and the All Blacks was a wonderful display of purposeful ball-in-hand rugby and a clear demonstration of the importance of physical dominance in the backs.
There was limited but very judicious kicking and a notable absence of the cut-out pass. Players on both sides were prepared to engage tacklers before off-loading.
In the backs, the French were outweighed by nearly seven kg per man, putting them at a serious disadvantage in what developed into an intense, fast-paced physical contest.
After 20 minutes, France led 9-7, courtesy of three penalty goals. However, in the final 20 minutes, France failed to score, while the All Blacks ran in two tries against a very weary defence.
Former Wallaby coach Bob Dwyer enthused: “New Zealand is now playing the style of rugby that I love. It is ambitious, confident and accurate in its execution – shorter passes, straight running, finding opportunity on the outside or, when closed off, picking up a support player on the ‘natural loop’. Beautiful in its simplicity and effective in its outcome!”
Dwyer pointed out that the All Blacks had exposed the French through the channel between the half and five-eighth, noting that for opportunities to open up out wide, it was important to occasionally threaten, or appear to threaten, through this channel.
Significantly, the All Black half, Jimmy Cowan, outweighed his counterpart, Julien Dupuy, by 14kg, while Dan Carter had a 9kg advantage over François Trinh-Duc.
Dwyer rates inside centre Ma’a Nonu as the most improved player in world rugby.
While retaining his ‘crash and bash’ approach he “has added finesse and a real appreciation of the ways to ‘fix’ defenders and is now a far more difficult proposition altogether.” The heaviest back on the field at 104kg, Nonu outweighed Yannick Jauzion by 9kg.
New Zealand, the traditional home of the ‘two five-eighths game’, has now developed an outstanding backline which features a big, powerful direct-running 12.
The players outside Nonu – Conrad Smith, Sitiveni Sivivatu, Cory Jane and Mils Muliaina – are all committed to bending or breaking the defensive line when appropriate as well as exploiting defensive gaps.
The players also consistently and enthusiastically back one another up.
I am convinced that this Kiwi backline is a forerunner of what will become increasingly common in the next few years. Modern training methods are producing a new generation of seriously big, powerful and quick players.
The most effective way of exploiting their comparative advantage is to play a very direct ball-in-hand attack coupled with brick wall defence and to maintain this pattern over the full 80 minutes.
Smaller and weaker opponents may be able to withstand this type of pressure for long periods but eventually physical and mental fatigue will cause them to yield.
There will always be a place in rugby for the very skillful smaller player like Giteau. But loading up backlines with physically inferior so-called playmakers, particularly if they are tackle-shy, is not the way forward.
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...
(26)
Billo said | December 3rd 2009 @ 4:01am | Report comment
I’m sure the article is correct in its analysis of the current trend in rugby.
But what happened to the idea that rugby is a game for all shapes and sizes?
katzilla said | December 3rd 2009 @ 4:41am | Report comment
Mortlock at 2nd five? Ioane at Centre?
Ouch.
jus de couchon said | December 3rd 2009 @ 5:29am | Report comment
Is rugby becomming too much like league? The hits are bigger. The players are huge now compared to 20 years ago. Skill and attack have given way to defence and physicality. Despite professionalism Rugby is becomming less of a spectacle. Soon Rugby will be under pressure to reduce the number of players on the field and reduce the “boring” scrums and other contests for posession. Then the game is lost.
Sam Taulelei said | December 3rd 2009 @ 6:48am | Report comment
The differences in sizes of rugby players particularly backs is not a recent trend. If you compare the size of players from the early 20th century to even the 1980’s you’ll find that big and tall has been redefined. Professionalism has definitely enabled players to have more time available for training and they have access to the best of everything to provide that competitive edge. There was a good article written by one of the Lions trainers following their tour to SA that analysed the impact super athletes were having upon the game and whether it could be sustained.
While there is still a place in the game for less powerfully built players, they are the exception and the first thing they do when they play at the highest level is spend the summer months bulking up. The width of attacks is more compressed with defensive lines stretched across the field and there is less space on the field compared to 10 years ago so more often than not players have to try and barge their way through defenders rather than go round them. I wouldn’t say that the current All Blacks backline is a pointer to the future as the future has already arrived. Look at teams rated in the top 10 and it’s possibly Australia who has the lightest and smallest backline compared to their peers. That’s a reflection of Deans selection policy and the players available and not an indication the Wallabies are bucking the trend.
As for the game becoming too much like league, there are certainly some league influences with defensive lines, second man plays and banana kicks but union is still very different from league and any NRL fan will happily tell you that until the’yre blue in the face.
jus de couchon said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:06am | Report comment
Thanks Sam , the Lions Med wrote, as you mentioned, that unsustainable impact injuries are prevelant at the top level. No matter how much a player bulks up, his joints and otherorgans, bones etc are even more subject to trauma.
Bruce Ross said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
“I wouldn’t say that the current All Blacks backline is a pointer to the future as the future has already arrived. ”
I would agree with you, Sam, if the article was intended to be just about player size. The title that I submitted for this article was “A glimpse of rugby’s future – physical imposition by big, fast backs”. For some reason Roar’s sub-editors don’t like the titles I choose and frequently change them, with the occasional result, as in this case, that the focus of what I have written is obscured.
The main point is not that the All Blacks backs were big but rather that they have taken the advantage available from superior size and power to its logical conclusion. For 80 minutes they physically imposed themselves on the French, looking for heavy engagements rather than aimlessly kicking possession away or throwing pointless cut-out passes. Eventually the French backs were worn out and ground down.
By contrast the Springboks have achieved short term success by using tactics which are not really suited to their big players. Putting up high kicks with long hang times could be exploited by great chasers like Habana and Pietersen but it tended to take their big powerful backs out of the game. Once opposing teams learnt how to cope with the bombing raids the ‘Boks no longer looked a super side.
stillmissit said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
Guys let’s get this into context before we become totally terrified of a bunch of guys wearing black shirts. They had the ‘granny’ knocked out of them by smaller backs from South Africa. Christ even we took them close on a couple of occasions.
As stated in the great NZ movie Once Were Warriors – “All weight work, not enough speed” and so it has been proven. Ma Nonu on his day is unstoppable but he doesnt have many of those days. Giteau seemed to me to have his number tackling him and didnt give him a highway to the line. OK they played very well against France but the All Blacks love it when we write this ‘how can we ever beat the AB’s’ stuff.
Reality guys let’s stick to reality. They are just a bunch of guys in shirts the same as our guys, the difference comes from all the small things that make teams strong ie good coaching, faith in the other members of the team, skills and of course that deep feeling that you will not let these bastards get the better of us.
Blinky Bill from Bellingen said | December 3rd 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment
I have to agree. Let’s not beat the NZRU team’s drum for them.
What I’m actually hoping to see is a Wallaby coaching team that actually delivers a game plan that plays to our strengths and exploits opposition weaknesses. Wouldn’t that be nice?
stillmissit said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
Agree generally Sam and I am not trying to sink Bruce’s fine article that needs consideration. What gets me is the idea that a small, tough fast guy has no place in the backline anymore. I would love to have an example to hand to prove my point but we have had big guys for a fair while. I think Horan was the last one we had and he stood out with his speed, step and aggression.
The other obvious player was Alfie Langer most probably the consummate small guy in a big guys game.
The other part about the size of the backs is that forwards can leave them to work for the turnover. There is not a lot of extra weight the forwards are going to bring unless it is Palu, Horwill or Elsom. Both props are not that big. This is obviously both good and bad.
stillmissit said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Blinky Wouldn’t that be bliss, rather than going through whatever is the current faddy trend in coaching. Kick chase is soooo! last year don’t you agree?
Can we get someone with an original thought in S14?
Yokel said | December 4th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
I guess that would be the Ma’a Nonu who scored a try in two tests against the Wallabies this year. Did any back on either side do better?
Sam Taulelei said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Stillmissit I don’t think anyone here has an inferiority complex about the All Blacks nor was that the intent of Bruce’s article.
Bruce your point about NZ possessing “big, powerful direct-running 12″ is a throwback to All Black backlines of the past where you had a confrontational player in close and a playmaker out wide like the Bill Osborne/Bruce Robertson midfield. That changed in the mid 1980’s when Joe Stanley played centre and was partnered with players like Warwick Taylor and John Schuster. Then we had the Little/Bunce combination and recently Mauger/Umaga.
As Stillmissit correctly mentioned Nonu can still be shutdown by a smaller player tackling him round the legs but his general play has improved, particularly his decision making, passing and defence. Although I disagree with Stillmissit that the Springbok backs are smaller than NZ’s backs.
Mortlock, Ashley-Cooper, Cross, Ioane are powerful runners. Brian O’Driscoll is no midget and neither is Jamie Roberts, Gavin Henson and Tom Shanklin from Wales. Mike Tindall, Stuart Abbott, Damian Hipkiss, Cueto and Banahan don’t lose in any size comparison and neither do Jauzion, Traille, Heymans and Rougerie. Don’t even get me started on the PI teams who feature some giants masquerading as backs.
The difference between the top teams and the rest as Stillmissit states are player and coaching skills, belief, mental toughness and confidence. The relative size of your backline is just the icing on the cake really.
stillmissit said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Sorry Sam see above posted to wrong thread.
mattamkII said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
This article is wrong… the trend for game breakers right now is smaller guys than it was 4 years ago.
Hoy said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
I understand Bruce you didn’t mean this to be a future directions piece, however looking back to last century, I believe the Wallabies had the heaviest backline, with the average being around 101kg I think. That backline was Gregan, Larkham (lightweights) Horan (easily mid 90s), Herbert, Tune, Roff, Bourke (around the tonne I believe).
They were all big, fast and skillful, and at that time played a fantastic gameplan under McQueen.
I think the French when they beat New Zealand in 1999 were giving away massive Kilos, but they still won. There will always be a place for small players, provided they are good enough. A big man can be tackled by a strong defender, just like a big man can break weak tackles.
mattamkII said | December 3rd 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Hoy exactly my point…
It was only a few years ago that we had Mortlock (101), Tuqiri (104), Sailor (108) and Latham (101)… And into the mix Rathbone (101), Burke (100), Gerrard (100).
Sorry Bruce…a couple of big kiwis running around on Saturday (that have actually been running around for a few years now) doesnt demonstrate a shift. In fact, as mentioned above , most countries back are no bigger and are often smaller than they were at the 2003 RWC.
Pete said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Shane Williams – 5′7″ and 80kg with ~ 50 test tries. IRB Player of the Year 2008.
If you can get to someone, no matter how big they are you can bring them down. Good tackling skills will fell the biggest player. Berrick Barnes is a shinning example of great tackling by a small bloke. I believe speed will usually beat brawn in attack.
Blinky Bill from Bellingen said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
“Good tackling skills will fell the biggest player.” I remember thinking that when Lomu was in his prime & at full steam. Sadly most tacklers were mere speed bumps.
On smaller guys & guts and technique – I have to agree that some guys are wonderful tacklers and it’s a joy to see a smaller player bring a big bloke crashing down BUT ….. with their smaller frame versus a bigger frame , they need to get it exactly right everytime.
Woody Warambel said | December 3rd 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
The All Blacks average tries per game this year prior to the weekend test was 1.2. That is a little of one try per game for – what was it – 12 tests?
The try fest may just as well be explained as ‘end of the season’ or “nothing to lose’ hit out against a very ordinary French outfit.
Ora said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
Ordinary!!
You are taking the P@#s aren’t you?
Woody Warambel said | December 3rd 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
Ordinary on the day!
Greg Russell said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Bruce, I do not like to disagree with one so studious, but I have to tell you that one of the things that has held Conrad Smith and Corey Jane back from permanent positions in the NZ side is a lack of size (basically Jane has replaced the larger Rokocoko, while Smith has now moved ahead of bigger players like Richard Kahui). That Smith and Jane now are indisputably part of the top XV is because G Henry has concluded that pace and skill and vision are more important right now than sheer size in outside backs.
As for Nonu, a “banger” (the label used by a friend of mine) par excellence, I think his current success has to be seen in the context of who is playing inside of him. Basically Dan Carter is such a complete player that there is no need to have a “second five eighth” on deck, and instead New Zealand can go for a 12 with Nonu’s strengths. But as we saw in the first half of the international season, if Dan Carter is not playing at 10 for NZ, then everything changes and 12 ceases to be Nonu’s optimum position for NZ. (Or to put it another way: Carter is so amazingly good that he makes anyone look better at 12.)
Australia’s outside backs last weekend weren’t exactly giants either. Nor are players like Rob Kearney, Shane Williams (mentioned by someone above) and Lee Byrne. I actually feel that, as far as outside backs are concerned, the pendulum has swung away from size a little bit. What NZ have learned this year is that it’s far more important to have wingers who can catch high balls and kick judiciously than it is to have big wingers.
However, for those backs closer to the “collision zones”, size and strength may be more important.
“Dwyer rates inside centre Ma’a Nonu as the most improved player in world rugby.”
I agree that he’s really rounded out his game. Surprisingly though, one still hears many callers to RadioSport NZ fretting that Nonu is not up to it. (I stress that this is not my opinion.)
On the basis of the last few months, especially his performances last weekend and against Australia in Wellington, I’d have to nominate Tom Donnelly as “the most improved player in world rugby.” I had him pigeon-holed as a journeyman, but it seems I was very, very wrong.
Greg Russell said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Actually, I just checked wikipedia: L Byrne is 1.91 m and 96 kg. Not a giant but certainly big (he doesn’t look this big on TV!). However for others what I’ve written about not being giants is OK.
Aio Rui Sheng said | December 4th 2009 @ 3:12am | Report comment
I agree with you to some extent but early in the year the All Blacks were not getting the quality of ball. To paraphrase SJ, a champion team beats a team of champions. Many underestimate the skills of Nonu and Smith but they make up a crucial part of a team that lives and dies for each other.
I might also point out, as some one wiser than me has already, that the early 3N season had been jumped started for the Bokke, with three training runs against the Lions adapting to the new rules. The Wallabies and All Blacks also took a couple of games to adapt to the new rules. The Bokke also had a better run with injuries than the ANZACS.
I would not be surprised if we revert to the natural order of things next year and the Bokke come third, particularly with two games in NZ.
Campbell Watts said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Bruce, good article!
Your comment below your article makes clear your intent with this – and I agree.
The physicality the AB’s brought to their back play in that game had a huge bearing on the result. The extra impact that their bulk brought to the contact area must have physically taken it out of the French defenders, and the idea of running straight forcing each player to tackle is more draining than letting them get away with drifting across without having to commit to the tackle.
Yes a smaller player can tackle a bigger one effectivly – but if you force them to do it time and again throughout a test they will be more physically fatigued from that than an equally sized player would be.
The AB’s forced the French to make a lot of tackles and I believe this really took it out of their players – perhaps contributing to their lack of penetration on attack?
Saimone said | December 12th 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
Please note guys: The article never said, there will never be a place for smaller guys in top level rugby. Look at the most improved back in the AB backling in the pas 12 months, Cory Jane, he is by no means a big man compared to the rest of the ABs. But the article is trying to stress that there is a overall trend towards bigger men in the backline. Clear example, Inga Tuingamal. He was a huge winger in his days. He really stood out. Fast forward 15 years, he would be one of the smaller players in the AB backline at a playing weight of 94kg. He would be smaller than the slighest All Blacks of today ie. Conrad Smith and Doug Howlett. Now that is what this article is pointing to, there is a trend, there are variances and exceptions, but there is a constant upward curve trend.