Wallabies slayed by science
By Andrew Logan, 30 Aug 2010 Andrew Logan is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- altitude, Rugby Union, South Africa, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- Tri Nations Tournament news
- South Africa Springboks news
- 2011 Wallabies squad news
According to the universally accepted principles upon which the universe operates, the Wallabies most recent loss to the Springboks in Pretoria was always going to happen. After all, the laws of physics are immutable.
You can’t change gravity, you can’t change Boyle’s Law, and it’s unlikely that Newton’s Laws of Motion are going to change any time soon.
Probably quite rightly, you ask “What the hell has this stuff got to do with modern rugby?”
Well, strap yourself in for a brief science lesson and we’ll see what formulas and fumbles have in common.
First up, Boyle’s Law. This one has to do with the behaviour of gas under pressure. It states that “at constant temperature, the volume of a gas varies inversely with the pressure, while the density of a gas varies directly with pressure.” WTF?
OK, so for the piano movers out there, let’s dumb it down a bit. This just means that a gas under pressure gets smaller and denser, which explains why the atmosphere at sea level is thicker and more pressurised. As you get higher, pressure reduces and the atmosphere gets thinner.
So far so good. Here’s the crucial fact though. There is still the same amount (about 20% of the total gases) of oxygen in the atmosphere. There is no less oxygen at altitude and the air is not “oxygen-poor” or “oxygen-starved”.
There is, however, less oxygen by volume, because the atmosphere is less dense. This means that a lungful of air at altitude has less oxygen than the same lungful at sea-level.
Sounds good, but it’s not responsible for the whole altitude effect, particularly given the comparatively modest 1200 odd metres altitude at which Pretoria sits. (By contrast, the 1968 Summer Olympics were held in Mexico City which sits at a dizzy 2,260 metres.)
So what else is in the kitbag? Let’s try Fick’s Law. I’m not even going to try to give you the full version of this one, because it starts out “The net diffusion rate of a gas across a fluid membrane is proportional to the difference in partial pressure…” and it gets worse from there.
The reason we care about it, is because it explains why the reduced air pressure at altitude is not enough to push the molecules of oxygen through the membranes in our lungs, and into our bloodstream.
So in Pretoria, and next week in Bloemfontein, Boyle and Fick get together and cheekily dilute our standard lungful of air, as well as giving us the lung/bloodstream equivalent of a flat tyre.
What happens then?
Well, you get mild cerebral hypoxia, which means your brain starts spluttering like your old high school Corolla with a dirty fuel filter. Symptoms include difficulties with complex learning tasks (“How does this lineout work again?”) and reductions in short-term memory (“What the hell is a 34-28-afterburner call?”).
So we know that the Wallabies are up against it on the high veldt because they’re not getting the requisite amount of air to the brain.
But as Tim Shaw put it all those years ago – that’s not all.
Newton’s Law of Motion also comes into play. Newton, for all those who were asleep between Year 7 and Year 10, is the guy who allegedly discovered gravity after being bopped on the scone by a rogue Granny Smith.
He also (in his spare time no doubt) came up with a set of laws which explain the forces acting on an object, and its motion due to those forces. You know the sort of thing – “every action has an equal and opposite reaction” is one of the popular bastardisations.
In simple terms though, here’s what Newton had to say.
First, if a body is moving, it will keep moving until it gets hit. Second, a body that gets hit will accelerate in the direction of the force that hit it, and a small body hit by a big force, accelerates faster. Third, the force will create an effect on the body it hits.
In rugby terms, we might read Newton’s boffinesque ramblings to say that a Wallaby running with a ball, will keep running with that ball until he gets hit. So will a Springbok.
If that Wallaby is small, and he collides with a big Springbok, he’ll accelerate in the direction of that collision, usually backwards.
Finally, the collision will create an effect on the small Wallaby equal to the force of the hit. That effect could be lots of things, but it might be musculoskeletal effect like a caved-in ribcage; perhaps a physiological effect like being completely buggered; or even a mental effect like a “Jeez, these blokes are smashing us!”.
However it manifests, it’s not pretty.
The last scientific point to make for the day is that research into cognitive maturity doesn’t support the Wallabies youth selection policy either. (“OK Logan” I hear you say drily. “Cognitive maturity…please explain?”).
Umm…how about if I said that new MRI studies of the developing brains of normal adolescents clearly show that the physical development of the pre-frontal cortex is not complete until the mid-twenties. (“Yeah, nice one brainiac. Try again.”)
OK – see, the prefrontal cortex is the bit in your head that deals with lots of neat stuff like mature judgment, seeing into the future, seeing how your behavior can affect the future, associating cause and effect, and planning and decision-making.
So these recent studies show that because physical and intellectual maturity happen before cognitive maturity, you can be big, strong and intelligent by age 20, but not very good at making intelligent decisions in complex high-pressure situations. Situations like, say, driving fast on a wet night, or playing Test match football in front of 70,000 manic Afrikaaners.
Is that enough theory for one day? Probably. It is a Monday after all.
The point of it all is that for all the skill and flair of this Wallaby team, they consistently fall down in the areas we’ve talked about above – mental function, physicality, and decision making.
Their defence, which used to be a weapon, and a matter of some pride to Wallaby supporters, is now disorganised and paper thin.
There are occasional strong hits, but there’s no such thing as a consistent straight line, or the necessary intelligent communication to keep the line intact after several phases. It’s pretty rare that the Wallabies these days sustain eight or more defensive phases without conceding a line break and/or a try.
Why is that?
In the most recent Test, it’s partly about the fatigue of altitude. But generally it has to do with colliding with objects of greater mass.
Guys like Dean Mumm and Richard Brown are just not physically imposing enough to win the contact battle. Nor is Saia Faingaa, despite his willingness, and neither is James O’Connor.
We’re just not big enough in key positions to win the battle of physics.
The Wallaby decision making too is poor, particularly when we lose the old heads. Against South Africa, our lineout functioned well until Nathan Sharpe left the field, after which it became a liability. What was with the long throw to no-one over the back of the lineout ten metres from our own line?
In the tackle, decision making was also suspect. Several times players put their teammates under pressure with funny little pops and flicks, such as Mitchell off the ground to Pocock around the 44 minute mark.
A couple of other general points to note. Matt Giteau, for instance, refuses to play the ball at the line, preferring instead to pass well before he reaches the defence. Watch the leadup to the Mumm try at 25 minutes, where he has the chance to draw Schalk Burger and take him out of the play, but elects to pass and let Burger drift, which eventually closes down Mitchell and forces him to centre kick.
Contrast this with Quade Cooper’s play to James O’Connor in from the blind wing. Unfortunately, O’Connor couldn’t handle, but the no-look pass took place so close to the defensive line, that you couldn’t even see it happen.
While we’re on Cooper, those who like to generalise about the poor state of his defence should have a look at the front-on vision of his try-saving tackle on Pierre Spies. Cooper might be a tad lazy from time to time, but you could never doubt his courage in throwing himself under the Spies Express and saving a certain score under the posts.
The talent and flair is there, but unfortunately for this Wallaby side, things don’t ease off next week.
They actually go upwards a further 124 metres to Bloemfontein, so the altitude side of things is not getting any easier. The Boks aren’t getting any smaller. The Wallabies aren’t getting any older or smarter.
All of which leads Boyle, Fick, Newton and I to a scientific conclusion. This Tri-Nations could get uglier.
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.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales’ Davies banned for ‘tip tackle’ (3)
- Graham Henry’s rugby future confirmed (12)
- Barnes to lead Waratahs in first hitout
- Harris and Lucas in Reds No.10 audition (3)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (19)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- David Pocock: a skipper my Force teammates will fight for (21)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (19)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (16)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- altitude, Rugby Union, South Africa, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies

sheek said | August 30th 2010 @ 7:45am | Report comment
Loges,
What an awesome post. Very unique & clever. And just as soon as I understand it, in another week or so, I might be in a position to give a considered response…!!!
Wow, every science master in the land would be impressed with this article, I’m sure!
Is there a law of science that describes patience? Because right now it seems the only thing Wallaby supporters can find comfort in, is patience. Tons & tons & tons & tons of patience…..
Lee said | August 30th 2010 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Great article!
Wilso said | August 30th 2010 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Loges, congratulations on what I believe to be the first formal use (in a published article) of “WTF”. Indeed, WTF? That’s gold. But more importantly, as a Student of rugby and the sciences (even though I did once fail first year Arts), you make this appear so bleedingly obvious that I feel like Cedalion all over: we need bigger, stronger, faster, more intelligent players able to play at higher fields. Perhaps all our future Wallabies are waiting to be plucked from the obscurity of….wait for it…. the Sudoku Olympics…
Good artlcle, as always.
Andrew Logan said | August 31st 2010 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Wilso – excellent feedback. Can I assume that I am Orion to your Cedalion?
Milo said | August 30th 2010 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Good Article Logan. Boyle’s Law unfortunately does not explain the catastrophe that was the Adelaide test at sea level.
Mr Mac said | August 30th 2010 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Andrew
Loved it – even sent a copy to my wife – but …
What about the physics of kick height, length & hang time at altitude as well as its effect on the receiver & chasers – this may go beyond some of Newton’s ideas and drag in some relativity theory.
Terry Kidd said | August 30th 2010 @ 9:29am | Report comment
I loved it …. just waiting for Brett or Pots to come up with a decent reply cos I sure as hell can’t
M.O.C. said | August 30th 2010 @ 10:07am | Report comment
As a scientist who has a background in physics, biomechanics, physiology and anatomy I am impressed by the inclusion of some of my favourite topics into the roar – well done! – I am a little surprised at your assumption that piano movers as an occupation are the ones for whom this needs to be dumbed down for – one of my favourite players (Peter Fatialofa) was a piano mover!
On a side note, if the effects of altitude are causing the wallabies such trouble, why do these guys not acclimate to the condidtions they will be forced to play in?. 1200m is not that high so why do the wallabies have training camps at places like Port Macquarie (sea level) – I have a sneaky suspicion that Boyle’s law also affects milk and therefore you can’t get a good latte at altitude making a hihg-altitude wallaby training camp impossible to host (ouch, too nasty?)
Cotter said | August 30th 2010 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Don’t try to explain things to the piano movers. Put them in the scrum.
M.O.C. said | August 30th 2010 @ 10:35am | Report comment
That is Aussie rugbys biggest problems right there – no “piano movers” to choose from, only “accountants”
Klinger said | August 30th 2010 @ 10:37am | Report comment
A little off the pace M.O.C. The Wallabies have never had a training camp at Port Macquarie. Try Coffs Harbour, and they gave that up a few years ago and their results have nosedived ever since . Besides, most test venues are at or around sea level so it is entirely logical to train at that level normally.
M.O.C. said | August 30th 2010 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Yes, most test venues are at sea level, but some are not as you may have just witnessed – to my knowledge none are below sea-level!. That said, training at altitude is one of the most well researched and common training methods for aerobic athletes of all type and is proven to improve performance, particularly when playing at sea level – it makes no sense not to train at altitude.
EP - Rugbywits said | August 30th 2010 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Even apart from training at a different venue. It becomes quickly clear that the Wallabies dont do much ‘situation’ training in their normal work.
They dont seem to know what to do when a lineout is 5m from either try line. They dont seemt to know how to regather composure and set the line when a team has a bit of momentum or a momentary overlap. These things should be build ito their normal training methods!
Thanks for the article too Andrew, I definitely had to put my piano down to read that. Too much oxygen being taken up in the lifting, not enough in the brain to understand.
Is there some sort of scientific theory that relates to the amount of cells a rugby player must lose when it becomes apparent they would rather train in a location that offers ‘more for the boys to to’ rather than prepare for the game they are going to play in a weeks time?
Maybe the lack of oxygen getting to the brain isnt the problem? It could be just simply they dont have enough of a brain to store some.
Jetta said | August 31st 2010 @ 1:34am | Report comment
Hey guys just thought I’d offer my two cents worth, and I have studied a bit of altitude training, in the past athletes hav trained at altitude to then Return to sea level with a competitive edge and this makes sense as the article so articulately shows, but recently trainers and studies have found that the body acclimatises to altitude relatively quick (to an extent, 1200m not being a problem) over about a week or sometimes less and the body very quickly loses what it gained wen returning to sea level, the only reason I can give (and i personally I think they should just train wer ther gonna play) is that at sea level with more oxygen the body heals faster because it doesn’t have to work harder to get the same amount of oxygen, so after training and especially this week after the game for recovery, maybe better to breath easy and get rid of the lactic acid and heal the muscles up for the w/e (especially after being beaten by massive boks). Again this is just a thought and if it is this case it must be an experiment cos iv never heard of it before.
ThelmaWrites said | August 31st 2010 @ 1:49am | Report comment
MOC, Cotter, Klinger, EP-RW, Jetta
Please see my posts almost at the end of this thread re an article in Sports Medicine which actually refers to rugby players from Australia and New Zealand playing at moderate altitude in South Africa.
Cheers.
True Tah said | August 30th 2010 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Loges
the All Blacks dont seem to have the same problems as the Wallabies in terms of playing on the highveldt
Wilso said | August 30th 2010 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Temperature-wise and, critically, attitude-wise (no, not altitude), I doubt there is much difference between playing at Invercargill and Everest Base Camp – so you can assume the high veldt is a bit like a summer holiday for the Blacks…
True Tah said | August 30th 2010 @ 10:44am | Report comment
if thats the case maybe they should move the Wallaby camp to Mt Kosciusko?
jiggles said | August 30th 2010 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Fantastic article Andrew,
About halfway through I had a flash back to chemistry or physics after lunch on a typical 32C thursday in Brisbane….. I know i have heard these names before, but its all so fuzzy!
Nick_Brisbane said | August 30th 2010 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Re the altitude one assumes then that those Springboks from the Sharks and the Stormers will have the same problem. Secondly I believe the Wallabies were based in Sydney for a week before going, why not be based in Pretoria instead and acclimatise – with hotel food and beer prices in SA it would have also been cheaper!