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.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.


March 4th 2010 @ 7:59am
Tim O'Connor said | March 4th 2010 @ 7:59am | Report comment
Spiro, you’re wrong on the second row bit. They’re always referred to as second rows in Ireland. Locks, historically, were the number 8 (the change coming in in the mid-’80s) because they locked the scrum together. POC, to give one example, is always referred to as a second row, and refers to himself as a second row.
The correct term for anyone with a number on their jersey over nine is, of course, “useless ball-dropping show-pony”.
March 4th 2010 @ 8:05am
wannabprop said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Gold Tim… gold
March 4th 2010 @ 8:22am
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:22am | Report comment
As a former full back I resemble that remark!!! LOL
March 4th 2010 @ 10:55pm
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | March 4th 2010 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
“The correct term for anyone with a number on their jersey over nine is …”
I tell my mates, especially the expat New Zealanders – mostly high end backs who played with or against the likes of Bunce and Little – that:
“I do not trust anyone with more than one number on his back, lowest is best and number 9 only just scrapes in because most of the time he passes the bloody thing – do you understand the drudgery of completing an exquisitely successful scrum only to then have to jog to a bloody lineout for the unimaginative, useless bastards?”
March 4th 2010 @ 11:19pm
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | March 4th 2010 @ 11:19pm | Report comment
To finish my comment above:
Blokes with one number on their back also all carry real mens’ names, like Bismarck du Plessis (how good is that?), Jannie du Plessis, Os du Randt, Schalk Burger, Enrique Topo Rodriguez, Rocky Elsom, Olo Brown, Carl Hayman and … Slaughter!
None of those woosy, girly little names like Graaaaaant Fox, Tana, Rico, Cory, JP or Initials Only anything, Elton Flatley and Jonah! Jonah? Pfffft!
March 5th 2010 @ 3:10pm
DaMan3000 said | March 5th 2010 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Jonah? Pfffft????
ROFL
March 5th 2010 @ 1:18am
jeznez said | March 5th 2010 @ 1:18am | Report comment
I thought 9-15 were cardboard cutouts!
March 4th 2010 @ 8:15am
katzilla said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Good read Spiro.
I myself could never move away from 1st Five, 2nd Five. Its too ingrained. And like you say it is a part of the play style of All Blacks teams of the past (which is of course the basis for all teams in NZ). Right through my playing days the 1st Five was primarily a kicker and the 2nd five was the playmaker. Although the Halfback never set plays for the backs, he (like almost every international half back) sets plays and small passes for his forwards. Fowards Fly-Half – Backs Fly-Half?
Who was the 2nd Five for South Africa who used to stand on the side of the scrum and crash the ball up as a matter of course at every scrum? He wore headgear, it was early noughties. What would his position be if he did that everytime? And Judging that the names are given whilst a scrum is packed down. Half five eights? Half fly-half?
March 4th 2010 @ 8:43am
Wavell Wakefield said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:43am | Report comment
‘Who was the 2nd Five for South Africa who used to stand on the side of the scrum and crash the ball up as a matter of course at every scrum?’
I wouldn’t know where to start… or where to end, katzilla.
June 12th 2010 @ 1:11pm
abnutta said | June 12th 2010 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
De Wet Barry of Western Province and the Stormers.
March 5th 2010 @ 1:20am
jeznez said | March 5th 2010 @ 1:20am | Report comment
Butch James, perhaps?
March 4th 2010 @ 8:36am
Rangi said | March 4th 2010 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Katzilla,
I’m with you mate it could never be anything but but first and second fives. Bugger all these attempts at regimentation !
March 4th 2010 @ 9:11am
Ian said | March 4th 2010 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Much like the last two comments, flyhalf is too engrained in me to call it anything different!
March 4th 2010 @ 9:11am
Hammer said | March 4th 2010 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Then of course you’ve the Wilkinson’s / Gower’s of the current game who are really quarterbacks …
March 4th 2010 @ 9:22am
Mushi said | March 4th 2010 @ 9:22am | Report comment
How is it “mathematically correct” to call both players 5/8ths when they stand at different depth and width and the other labels (such as 3/4s) aren’t mathematically correct?
June 12th 2010 @ 1:03pm
abnutta said | June 12th 2010 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
I think it stems from Jimmy Duncan’s original backline alignment that had the first and second five eighths parallel to each other with the centre three quarter set deeper in line with the wing three quarters. It is also interesting to note that throughout All Black history a plethora of All Black first fives have played a comparable number of matches at second five Billy Stead, Mark Nicholls, Fred Allen, Ross Brown and to a lesser extent Daniel Carter and Aaron Mauger in recent times.
March 4th 2010 @ 9:27am
RickG said | March 4th 2010 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Great article Spiro. I love the history of the game and how certain names came about.
As an Australian I prefer scrum-half and fly-half, if only to differentiate them from the league half-back and five-eighth.
I’m a bit confused about locks though – am I correct to say the number 8 used to be called the lock (for me the logical name and the one used in league) and the second-rowers were called just that, but the lock became known as number 8 meaning the second-rowers had to become known as locks? (I think I confused myself again there!)
I’d grown up hearing the terms five-eighth and three-quarter and wondered what they meant. One day while driving the reason randomly popped into my head (I imagined the filed drawn up in halves, then quarters, then quarters again). Second-nature to most of you but it was a revelation to me at the time
March 5th 2010 @ 1:22am
jeznez said | March 5th 2010 @ 1:22am | Report comment
Went the other way Rick, they started calling the second rowers Locks so had to come up with a new name for the bloke wearing jersey/guernsey number eight. Amazing job they did with as well……incredibly creative.
March 4th 2010 @ 9:46am
JohnB said | March 4th 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
A spot of trivia – the NZ 2-3-2 scrum also gave rise to the position “wing-forward” which you sometimes used to hear as a synonym for flanker/breakaway. The wing-forward was the 8th forward, who didn’t pack into the scrum, but instead (as I understand it) played opposite the other team’s flyhalf in defence (but staying just behind the ball the way the halfback does now) and obstructed the other team’s halfback on his own team’s ball. The props in the 2-3-2 scrum would still try to take the loosehead in the scrum, effectively leaving one of the opposing props pushing against no-one.
March 4th 2010 @ 9:51am
formeropenside said | March 4th 2010 @ 9:51am | Report comment
I thought there was only one prop in a 2-3-2 scrum.
March 4th 2010 @ 10:07am
Sam said | March 4th 2010 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Yeah the 2-3-2 formation thing is really interesting. The didn’t have props though, instead two hookers. Apparently it was great for getting quick ball, and was one of the reason the pre-1930s (when it was outlawed) All Blacks had such a great running game. Think it was invented by Thomas Ellison, who like Jimmy Duncan was a bit of a rugby nerd. The wing-forward fed the ball rather than the half-back as well, and because the offside line was where the ball is (unlike now), then i suppose as long as he was never in front of it he wasn’t breaking the laws of the game.
June 12th 2010 @ 1:10pm
abnutta said | June 12th 2010 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
And as the All Blacks lost only 1 of the 68 matches played during the NH tours of 1905/6 & 1924/25, considering they gave away the tighthead in every scrum, is even more remarkable.
March 4th 2010 @ 9:47am
MyGeneration said | March 4th 2010 @ 9:47am | Report comment
I’m also curious as to how and when “breakaway” disappeared from the Australian lingo. Was there a deliberate decision at some stage to bring Australia in line with international usage? The guide to positions on the ARU website now uses “lock”, “flanker”, “No. 8″, “Scrumhalf” and “Flyhalf”, so is that now the “official” Australian terminology?
http://aru.rugby.com.au/aru/flash.rugby/id/9090
March 4th 2010 @ 11:21am
Brett McKay said | March 4th 2010 @ 11:21am | Report comment
MyGen, as I recall it, it was all at the same time. Overnight, Five-eighths became fly-halves, second-rowers became locks, and breakaways became flankers.
I’m just not sure what night it was. I’ve got it happening around the arrival of Super 12, give or take, but it could well have been before that…
March 4th 2010 @ 11:29am
MyGeneration said | March 4th 2010 @ 11:29am | Report comment
Thanks, Brett. Seems to have slipped in the back door a bit. Some of the other terms seem to have hung around a bit, but this discussion made me realise I haven’t heard the term “breakaway” for ever, at least not in the media.
March 4th 2010 @ 12:00pm
Brett McKay said | March 4th 2010 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
I just had another thought MyGen, could it have been in for the ’95 RWC??
March 4th 2010 @ 4:05pm
ilikedahoodoogurusingha said | March 4th 2010 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
I think it might have been later than that Brett….I seem to remember them “standardising” the names within the past decade. Then again, I do have CRAFT disease!
April 26th 2010 @ 9:11pm
BennO said | April 26th 2010 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
I’m way late to this, can’t believe I missed the article back in March. But I though recalled it happening while I was playing which was up to 95. I suddenly became a lock which I didn’t like because i’d always regarded the lock, or number 8 as he was to be called, as soft compared to us in the tight five. So I wonder if it was the same night over which tries became worth 5 points? Which was what, around 93?
March 4th 2010 @ 10:36am
LeftArmSpinner said | March 4th 2010 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Ah, Spiro, what a wonderful article. I would never expect to find such an informative or interesting article anywhere else in the rugby press.
It also comes on top of a great article by Brett McKay earlier this week where he did some genuine analysis, rather than just use the word to replace the process of a brief, passing thought!!!!
So interesting and so much does it advance my rugby history and knowledge that I dont have anything to add.
This is how you monetise the internet media. quality journalism.