When is a first five-eighths actually a number 10?
By Spiro Zavos, 4 Mar 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert

All Blacks five eighth Dan Carter lines up a kick at the goal during the Rugby Union Bledisloe Cup Australia v New Zealand rugby test match at Eden Park in Auckland, New Zealand, Saturday, August 2, 2008. AAP Image/Photosport, Andrew Cornaga
There has been an erudite and fascinating discussion taking place on The Roar about my use of the words ‘first five-eighths’ to describe the position on the rugby field of the player standing directly outside the halfback.
This discussion has encouraged me to write this article, setting out my thoughts on what should be the proper names for the positions on the rugby field.
First, though, the issue of the first five-eighths.
Several Roarers have suggested that if the term is to be used at all, it should be in the singular – five-eighth. Another point that has been made is that the term is a New Zealand usage and is not really applicable for the rest of the rugby world.
In matters like this, I invariably go to my bible: Keith Quinn’s ‘The Encyclopedia of World Rugby’ (ABC Books, 1993).
Quinn is a veteran and a most accomplished New Zealand rugby broadcaster and writer. He is a stickler for accuracy, as you can hear with his commentaries on the IRB Sevens, where he is precise in the pronunciations of the names of all the players.
The section in his Encyclopedia that is relevant is entitled: FIVE-EIGHTHS.
So my spelling is correct.
Quinn notes that this positional term is used almost exclusively in New Zealand. It originated with the 1903 All Black captain, Jimmy Duncan. In other countries, the terms are ‘stand-off’ ‘fly-half’ or ‘outside half.’
The point here is that most of the positional terms relate directly to some rugby theory.
With the five-eighths term, Quinn says that in the 1900s, the player furthest behind the forwards was the ‘fullback.’ Those halfway between were ‘halfbacks.’ The players between the halfbacks and the fullback were the ‘three-quarters.’
Duncan, according to Quinn, pulled a player from the forwards and stood him a little way from the halfback. This player could bring the ball back to the forwards, or pass it on to the three-quarters.
As the player and later players (under the two five-eighths system) stood between the halfway and the three-quarters, it was mathematically logical, Quinn suggests, to call the position the ‘five-eighths.’
In Australia, a different theory of linking the backs and forwards prevailed.
I call the theory, the 3 Fives: the tight five (props and second rowers), the linking five (the three loose forwards and two halves) and the attacking five (centres, wing and fullback).
These theories had an impact on how various positions were played.
In New Zealand, for instance, the running halfback of the Ken Catchpole, John Hipwell, Nick Farr-Jones and Will Genia style, is frowned on. Sid Going is about the only great New Zealand running halfback.
The typical great New Zealand halfback, like Chris Laidlaw or Dave Loveridge, is first and foremost a passer.
The New Zealand theory is that the two five-eighths set up the plays for the outside backs.
In Australia, Wales and South Africa, the two halves set up the plays for the outside backs.
Australia and South Africa tend to play an inside and outside centre system. There is little difference in the way the two positions are played. Both are running and tackling positions, rather than passing positions like the second five-eighths.
So Australia’s greatest inside centre Tim Horan (who was a poor passer, something the New Zealand system would not tolerate) played in much the same direct fashion as Australia’s greatest outside centre, Trevor Allan.
The Welsh/British centre system had further complication, which is now less frequently used, of pairing a particular centre with a particular wing, in a sort of left-centre and right-centre system.
When we get to the forwards, we find similar sorts of differences between the various countries.
Quinn, in his section on FLANKERS, talks about the New Zealand system of ‘blindside flanker’ who always packs on the narrow side and plays a ball-winning and tackling role, and the ‘openside flanker,’ generally a smaller, faster player who plays the role of the ‘fetcher,’ as the South Africans call the position, attacking the opposition halves and snaffling all the loose ball that is available.
The theoretical basis of this system was once described to me by Vince Paino, an old coach in Wellington, some decades ago: “The pace of the backs is the pace of the slowest back. The pace of the forwards is the pace of the fastest forward.”
There is a further complication in all of this, however.
Australia (before George Smith and Phil Waugh) and South Africa even today, play left and right flankers, rather like the left and right centres. It was extremely rare in South African rugby in the past for teams to have small, fast ‘fetchers.’
Even today, despite the advent of Heinrich Brussow (who plays a typical New Zealand openside flanker’s role), the Springboks will go into Tests with the massive, abrasive Shalk Burger or Juan Smith (great players, both of them) as their ‘fetcher’ flanker.
Because of this left and right flanker terminology and a traditional mindset about the need for a huge pack, the South African system does not encourage the development and selection of out-and-out fliers.
In Australia, the position which is called ‘lock’ in the rest of the rugby world is called the ‘second row.’ You will hear SANZAR referees (except the Australian referees) say to the packs as they get ready for a scrum: “Locks get down.”
Quinn says that the term ‘lock’ comes from the New Zealand 2-3-2 scrum, where the middle man in the scrum locked on to the two flankers.
The logical Australians seem to have applied the term – and this makes sense – to the last man in a 3-4-1 scrum, who ‘locks’ it together.
We are now in a position, I think, after this brief history, to have a go at answering the question that leads this article, and to set out the names that, in 2010, seem to be appropriate for the various positions in a rugby team.
The IRB in 1993, in fact, issued an edict setting out an international nomenclature: loose head prop, tight head prop, hooker: left lock, right lock: left flanker, right flanker: number 8: scrum half, fly half: left centre, right centre: right wing, left wing: fullback.
Some of these positional terms stand up. But some of them reflect an out-moded British nomenclature (as you’d expect from the IRB in 1993) that is not even used in British rugby circles these days.
Working from the props downwards, as it were, there is the question of ‘lock’ or ‘second row’.
As lock is used exclusively in South Africa, New Zealand and Britain, I think it should be the standard term.
The left and right flankers terminology is out-dated. The standard term should be openside flanker and blindside flanker, with an acknowledgment that in South Africa the openside flanker wears the number 6 jersey, unlike the rest of the world where he wears the number 7 jersey.
With the lock moving up in the scrum, as it were, the terminology of number 8 makes sense to me to replace the Australian ‘lock’ term.
The scrum half and fly half descriptions could be modernised to halfback and number 10.
I would point out that ‘Number 10′ is the title of a fascinating book about the history of great – number 10s – written by my favourite sports writer, The Guardian’s Frank Keating. Scrum half and fly half have a rah rah roar to them that is out of place in the era of professional rugby.
Number 10, like number 8, is a generic term that does not have baggage from the past.
It’s time, too, to drop the arcane New Zealand five-eighths nomenclature and replace it with the more modern inside and outside centre.
So, here is the Zavos rugby positions nomenclature: loose head prop, tight head prop: hooker: locks: blindside flanker, openside flanker: number 8: halfback: number 10: inside centre, outside centre: left winger, right winger: fullback.
But don’t hold me to this nomenclature.
I’m sure to lapse into old habits from time to time, a bit like a number 10 who is told not to kick but every now and again just boots the ball away out of habit.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

rugbyfuture said | March 4th 2010 @ 2:50am | Report comment
in my teams we always had Halfback, Five eighth, Inside centre, outside centre the two wings and fullback
along with props, hooker, second rowers, flankers (blindside and openside), number 8
sorry if you already mentioned terms like this, i got a bit confused with the history going everywhere and anywhere in terms of terms in different countries, but this will give you an idea of how CAS schools currently call it.
I think the term number 10 wouldnt go well, it doesnt roll like numberate (see one word)
Wavell Wakefield said | March 4th 2010 @ 3:58am | Report comment
Argentina also plays the openside in the 6 jersey.
Wavell Wakefield said | March 4th 2010 @ 7:07am | Report comment
(Ahem)… Argentina also plays the openside in the 6 jersey, like SA. That doesn’t reflect a different perception of the openside role, simply the use of a different number. There is a clear distinction between the role of Juan Smith, and the role of Heinrich Brussow.
Who Needs Melon said | March 4th 2010 @ 5:48am | Report comment
Bah! Vive la difference. I’m happy for us all to have our own flavour as far as naming positions goes. To some extent for me it reflects a slightly different interpretation of what each position should mean/do which I also want to continue.
Ora said | March 4th 2010 @ 6:09am | Report comment
Does it really matter, I think the different terms highlight the differences that make rugby unique in each country.
Dasher said | March 4th 2010 @ 6:09am | Report comment
I call my wings “seven-eighths”…
sheek said | March 4th 2010 @ 6:16am | Report comment
Great article Spiro,
I’m happy for the IRB to have come up with standard nomenclature. Every sport needs an initial reference point.
But like football, which might advocate a “standard” GK-4-4-2 formation, footy fans know there are numerous variations to this (4-2-3-1 or 3-5-1 or 4-3-3, etc) depending on the manager/coach’s strategy & tactics, & even personal preference.
In rugby union, I prefer scrumhalf & flyhalf & in rugby league I’m happy to use halfback & five-eighth. I also prefer eightman to number 8.
When I think of the ‘flyhalf’ in rugby union I think of Mark Ella, the greatest “fire-starter” of backlines in history, IMHO. Ella was usually already on the move when he received the ball from his scrumhalf.
He was “on the fly”, ready to wreak havoc.
But when I think of say Naas Botha or Hugo Porta, ‘standoff’ probably is more applicable. In Wales Phil Bennett was clearly an ‘outside-half’ to Gareth Edwards. While across in NZ, Dan Carter & Andrew Mauger worked well for a time as first & second five-eighths.
So for me, flyhalf is absolutely apt for the position (whenever I think of Mark Ella).
However, I’m happy for other countries to have their variations depending on philosophy & structure.
Nashi said | March 4th 2010 @ 6:53am | Report comment
I tend to agree Sheek. The name of the position can also reflect the style of play employed by the coach. In Australia at the moment we are playing a dual five eights game in the Waratahs, Brumbies and Wallabies, while the Reds and Force seem to be employing the five eighth/inside centre combination. Morne Steyne in the past could be decribed as a stand off but lately seems to be a five eighth.
As Spiro has said the same differences exist in the role played by a 6 and 7 depending on the style of play and the physical type such a strategy demands.
JohnB said | March 4th 2010 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Does the name come first or the style? Or (perhaps more likely) are the two unrelated? More a matter of local dialect if you ask me in deciding how to name those between the half and full back – five-eighth in Australia, first five or first five-eighths in NZ, stand-off, outside-half or flyhalf elsewhere. Possibly more interesting to investigate how the names half-back, scrumhalf and fullback came into being. “Back” and “forward” you can understand intuitively but why “half” and “full” (let alone three-quarters or five-eighths in between)?
scottmit said | March 4th 2010 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
I have a wonderful book by Mark Ella where he goes into some detail about how each position in the backline should play. If I can paraphrase him (inadequately of course, but using his terminology):
5/8 – decision maker, back up
I/C – Ball carrier, ball player (his example was Lloyd Walker as someone who could create space for his runners)
O/C – straight runner, set up winger (Michael O’Connor was given as example from memory)
His argument (in the 90s) was that moves needed to worked around inside centre because he had a little more time to straighten up the run and play at the advantage line.
As a 70s/80s tragic, I still think of second row, breakaway (Ray Price was not a flanker), lock (ditto Mark Loane was not a No 8), halfback, 5/8, and inside and ouside centres.
btw the leaguies have moved over the last 20 years from inside and outside centre to left and right centres with their wingers.
Seiran said | March 4th 2010 @ 6:28am | Report comment
mitzter said | March 4th 2010 @ 7:04am | Report comment
Yes i’m all for calling positions different names. Long live 5/8 never fly-half (too european!) but I don’t know if anyone outside of NZ know what ‘first five’ is.
Which brings me to your discussion of FLANKERS whatever happened to the term BREAKAWAYS. This is what we always used to call these positions but they’ve disappeared
sheek said | March 4th 2010 @ 7:26am | Report comment
I think the key is to agree on the numbering system:
props/pillars/bookends – 1 & 3
hooker/strikers/rakes – 2
locks/second rows – 4 & 5
flankers/breakaways – 6 & 7
eightman/lock – 8
scrumhalf/halfback – 9
flyhalf/five-eighth – 10
centres/three-quarters – 12 & 13
wingers/three-quarters – 11 & 14
fullback – 15
reserve hooker – 16
reserve prop – 17
reserve middle row – 18
reserve backrow – 19
reserve – scrumhalf – 20
reserve inside back – 21
reserve outside back – 22
katzilla said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:17am | Report comment
‘eightman’
Never ever heard it reffered to as that Sheek. Sounds like a go to guy for gangsters.
Come to think of it…………..that sounds wholey appropriate for a Number 8.
From now on I will refer to Number 8s as The Eightman.
JohnB said | March 4th 2010 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Always called that in the US.
Wavell Wakefield said | March 4th 2010 @ 9:55pm | Report comment
I’ve heard SA commentators refer to the no. 8 as ‘eightman’, katzilla.
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | March 4th 2010 @ 10:15pm | Report comment
I’ve heard “eightman” many times over the years, from the Scots, New Zealanders (from Mrrrry Mxtd quite recently) and South Africans.
It is more commonly used by the older crew – aged 45ish and up.
Albert said | March 4th 2010 @ 7:07am | Report comment
Spiro & futurerugby.
I am not sure that you have really covered it from an Australian perspective. Unless you are just out of nappies or fresh off the banana boat. The term that was used for the loose forwards (other than the lock (no. 8)) was breakaways. The adoption of the term flanker has only surfaced in the last twenty years. Through increased broadcasts and migration.
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | March 4th 2010 @ 7:50am | Report comment
Not too sure about that…I grew up playing Rugby at school in Zimbabwe in the early 70′s, and they were called flankers then.
JohnB said | March 4th 2010 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Always breakaway in Australia until quite recently. And No 8 always lock, numbers 4 and 5 the second rowers.
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | March 4th 2010 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Apologies, now I have read the post again I realise that Albert was talking only about Australia.
Brett McKay said | March 4th 2010 @ 7:49am | Report comment
Spiro, like plenty of Australian rugby fans listening to commentators from over the Ditch, I wondered for a while what all this talk of first-five and second-five was, and why on this side we still had fly-halves and inside centres, and who all seemed to be wearing the same numbers on their backs. I came to appreciate the NZ way, and I agree that this labelling reflects the style of rugby being played.
For what it’s worth, I think first- and second-five became more prevalent in Australia once Aussie Bob Deans touched down in Bondi, and that’s certainly how he’s wanting his Barnes-Giteau/Giteau-Cooper combinations to play. I happen to like this style, it suits the ball-in-hand rugby that is the S14 this season.
But reading about all these variations (I only discovered in recent weeks that 6 in South Africa is 7 in most other countries), I’m also happy to conclude that variations on positional names is just another reason to love the game. We don’t need an IRB charter on positional names; we already have a standard with the numbering (6s and 7s notwithstanding). We know that bloke in 15 is standing at the back; we know the bloke in 10 is standing at first receiver; we know the blokes in 4 and 5 are massively tall, and we know that the bloke in 2 will one day be a hot-and cold Fox Sports commentator.
I say enjoy the differences – they’re just like a local rugby dialect…
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | March 4th 2010 @ 7:52am | Report comment
“and we know that the bloke in 2 will one day be a hot-and cold Fox Sports commentator.”
LOL…..Nice one Brett!!!
katzilla said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:21am | Report comment
That is gold Brett, but whom are you referring too?
Cannon? Kearns? or Paul?
I bet Stephen Moore is having Elocution lessons as we speak ready for his pre-made retirement job for hookers.
Brett McKay said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Rusty said | March 4th 2010 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
Gold, pure gold
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | March 4th 2010 @ 10:44pm | Report comment
“variations on positional names is just another reason to love the game. We don’t need an IRB charter on positional names” and “I say enjoy the differences – they’re just like a local rugby dialect”
Couldn’t have said it better myself, Brett. Vive la différence.
sheek says further up he is “happy for the IRB to have come up with standard nomenclature”
To that I say never, ever let the dour head office bureaucrats loose on anything beyond arranging the bus and paying the laundry bill. Standardisation is manna from heaven for their feeble, inconsequential lives and it will only be a matter of time before they introduce fluoro safety vests and long sleeve shirts, because they read somewhere that playing under lights exposes the skin to global burningness. We’ll end up with that awful dominance of process over purpose that is invading every other facet of life.
To see the many variations between 14 unions world wide see “Country by Country list of the names of the player positions” found at http://www.uidaho.edu/clubs/womens_rugby/RugbyRoot/rugby/FAQ/positions.html. There are different names between north and south of France!
Look at the rich history evident there and say “Never cast it aside”.
My NZ expat mates here (all past high end players and coaches at home and in RSA, late 40 year olds and up) naturally revert to “first five” and “second five”. I watch Mehrtens / Carter and Aaron Mauger at work and understand clearly – Mauger was not exclusively in centre or first five, he was a second ball distributor to the out centre, back three and loosey or first five looping around. Umaga was the same in his mature years.