The evolution of the rugby forward pack
By The Crowd, 6 Jul 2012 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
265 Have your say
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Rugby World Cup 2011 news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
- Rugby 2011 news
- 2013 Wallabies squad news
Last week, many of us discussed the evolution of the rugby backline with the focus being on the major change in the physicality of the centre pairing, in particular, the inside centre.
This week I’d like to discuss the effect that professionalism and changes in laws have had on defining the roles of forward packs, in particular the open-side flanker.
It is an obvious fact that all forwards have become bigger and more powerful since the game went professional. Leaving that aside, the biggest transformation in the professional age for the forward pack has been the changes to the significance of the set piece and to the breakdown or phase play.
This has seen a change in focus and the rise in prominence of the open-side flanker.
Despite what some in the media would have you think, the significance of the set piece has diminished over the years to the point that it is comparatively of little significance to what it once was.
I can hear many pundits ready to denounce this as nonsense.
“Back in the good old days it was a utopian state of running rugby,” they might say.
Corris Thomas, the IRB Game Analysis Unit Head, recently found this notion to be false. Thomas’ study of archive footage from the 1970′s showed that games had on average 38 scrums and 63 lineouts. That’s 101 set pieces per 80min of rugby. When you compare that to today, which has on average 41 set pieces (17 scrums/24 line-outs) as recorded at last year’s World Cup, that is an amazing change.
When you consider there were on average 162 ruck/mauls per 80 min in 2011, compared to only 31 rucks/mauls per game on average in the 70′s we can safely say the game has changed. I think the 400% extra ruck/mauls and the 150% less set pieces shows that the game is completely different, as is the subsequent role of the forward pack.
If we make a more recent comparison we still see a monumental change. From data gathered at the most recent amateur and professional World Cups we see a ratio of 2.5 rucks/mauls for every scrum in 1995. At last year’s World Cup it was 10 rucks/mauls for every one scrum.
Yes folks, the breakdown is now ten times as prevalent as the scrum and this has made a huge change in the make up of the 80 minute rugby match.
In 1995 there were on average 69 ruck/mauls whereas mentioned earlier, in 2011 there were 162. If you compare the amount of passing and kicking from 1995 to 2011 we see that passing has doubled since the game went professional and that kicking out of hand has declined by 45%. All these statistics are for all to see in the IRB 2011 World Cup Statistical Review led by Mr Thomas.
The fuddy-duddy brigade are simply having a laugh when they tell us the game was once all about running rugby.
But have these changes reached a crescendo? Well, arguably not. If we compare the past two World Cups, 2007 to 2011, we saw on average; seven fewer lineouts, two fewer scrums, 18 more rucks/mauls and subsequently 38 more passes per match. The game is still evolving.
This is all intertwined with the fact that teams now have to have the ability to recycle ball with almost monotonous regularity. At the 2011 World Cup, breakdown-ball was recycled 94% of the time by the team in possession (interestingly Australia topped the averages with 96% of ball retention). Today phase play is everything, whereas in yesteryear the set piece and first phase play was king.
There are less scrums today because professionalism has brought about a much higher skill level. You only have to watch one of the games on ESPN classic to see this for yourself. In the days of Ella, Lynagh and co you could not rely on the ball being recycled too often. So backlines in particular were more likely to throw the thing around from first phase and they were indeed more likely to drop it.
Today it is irresponsible to play with such gay abandon. Why risk drop ball and or isolation when you know that if you go into contact you are almost certainly going to get another crack. And possibly at a defence that has committed too many to that particular ruck. After all, 73% of tries at last year’s World Cup came from phase play ball.
All this has seen a change in the role of the pack.
Through necessity, packs must be able to retain all this extra possession at ruck time and all forwards must now contribute with expertise at the breakdown. It is still advantageous to have the upper hand at set pieces but you can get away with an inferior scrum or lineout nowadays.
You just need to look at the 2011 quarter final between South Africa and Australia and consider that the Australian set piece was annihilated. Yet they still won because they were dominant at the breakdown.
With the focus moving away from the set piece since the end of the amateur game, arguably the biggest individual change in the modern forward pack has come from the open-side wing-forward, breakaway or flanker. Before the professional era these were a different breed and played the game completely differently to the modern open-side.
At the end of the amateur era Michael Jones, arguably the most influential of the amateur open sides, was a revolutionary in his supporting lines and work rates but he played at a time where the breakdown pilfering was far less a significant thing to be able to do.
The laws were different for starters and due to amateurism as mentioned, phase play was far less attainable. Therefore the open-side’s role was to try to make the first tackle in each first phase and to try to be the first to each breakdown. After all, it was unlikely there would be a second phase. Indeed, in the days of rucking, these brave souls were pounded at the bottom of most breakdowns.
But the openside was no more important than any other of the ‘piggies’ and arguably less important at a time where scrums and lineouts were everything.
Then came professionalism and changes in laws, which saw the emergence of the likes of George Smith and Richie McCaw to suit the evolution of the game. And now we have seen the emergence of their evolutionary superior. David Pocock is now the apex predator of world rugby and arguably the most influential player on the planet.
With the amazing amount of phase play today, the no 7′s have had to evolve into a completely different species. He no longer tries to hit almost every ruck like his ancestor Jones – it would be humanly impossible to make it to 160 odd rucks.
Instead he focuses on choosing his time to strike carefully in order to do the most important thing on the modern rugby field. He aims to pilfer or slow down ball at crucial tactical moments and disrupt the 94% of ball retention by the team in possession.
Pocock is the best pilferer on the planet and his ability to withstand the monsters that try to clear him out better than any other makes him the most influential of all that play the most influential position in the game.
Indeed an interesting leadership swing has occurred lately.
So many no 7′s in world rugby are now captain of their country, when in past decades captains were rarely a player out of the ‘spine’. At present New Zealand, Australia, England, France and Wales have a captain that plays open-side (Dusatoir may wear 6 but don’t let that fool you).
That is five of the top six nations in the current rankings with a captain with the main role to pilfer or slow down phase ball. This is a new phenomenon and an indication of just how much the game has changed and how influential a world-class no 7 is today.
The no 7 now outranks even the no 8 and the no 10 as the face of modern rugby. His partner in crime, the modern scrum half (who now sees two and three times more ball than he once did), can also now influence the game more now than ever before.
The game is indeed ever-evolving and that is what makes our game the most interesting spectacle on the planet.
I will leave you with another interesting fact. 50% of scrums between top tier nations collapsed at last year’s World Cup. When second tier nations played each other only 19% of scrums collapsed. It seems less power is needed at scrum time and much credit should go to the IRB for using these stats as a basis to change the scrum’s engagement sequence for next year.
This will only further negate the focus in set piece and, as long as it doesn’t go too far, I think the game will be better as a result.
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Wallabies squad announced: Folau in, no Quade Cooper – yet (267)
- Deans: Should he stay or should he go? (245)
- SPIRO’s Lions Diary: Deans goes for experience, plus Folau (242)
- Wallabies 25-man Lions squad: analysis (214)
- Quade Cooper misses Wallaby squad selection (209)
- Quade shouldn’t be fly half against the Lions (184)
- What gives with Israel Folau? (184)
- Super Rugby teams will skin the Lions (90)
- Super B to the rescue for rugby? (43)
- Picking your ‘First V’ for the Wallabies (62)
- Looking forward to the 2015 Wallabies (19)
- Philippines avoids relegation, stays in Asian Five Nations top division (6)
- Sanzar “shafts Japie” sides (1)
- Lions cheat-sheet: the Wallaby game plan (144)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- David Pocock, International Rugby, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup



July 6th 2012 @ 1:42am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 1:42am | Report comment
There may be less scrums but scrums are still massively relevant. We’ve seen that in various significant Tests over the past few months: England v Ireland (6N, 2012), Australia v Scotland (2012), Ireland v NZ (2nd Test, 2012), SA v England (2nd Test, 2012), and that’s why you see players like Mike Ross, Dan Cole and Euan Murray rise and rise in the public estimation. Every single scrum is a race for the initial hit and if you are perceived as being dominant then you have a good grip on a potential win. If you are playing on the front foot come set-piece time then the opposition back row is immediately on retreat too. The two are obviously linked.
Also, Dusautoir is a blindside. The French play left and right, and don’t tend to produce pilfering 7s, just like SA and Argentina don’t either.
July 6th 2012 @ 2:12am
the breakdown said | July 6th 2012 @ 2:12am | Report comment
Did you read the article? It makes perfect sense. If the scrum was as important as it once was the wallabies would not be ranked 2nd in the world.
Dusatoir is an openside. He makes 20 or 30 tackles a game.
Love your work WW!
July 6th 2012 @ 2:27am
Colin N said | July 6th 2012 @ 2:27am | Report comment
“Dusatoir is an openside. He makes 20 or 30 tackles a game.”
But he’s not a fetcher like Pocock, McCaw once was, Brussow, Cane, Warburton etc.
If the scrum wasn’t still important, Australia wouldn’t have lost in the 07 quarter-final and more recently, lost against Scotland.
It doesn’t necessarily win you a game because there’s so many other aspects to rugby union, but it’s still vital, just like the lineout, breakdown etc.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:38am
Markus said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:38am | Report comment
Don’t forget that on top of the scrum, Australia got annihilated at the breakdown in that game too.
Committing few numbers to enable long periods of phase play, the English just drove straight over the top of the ball en masse and took possession back.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:48am
Colin N said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:48am | Report comment
True, but I was thinking more of the points that England got from the set-piece that day and how much territory they got from the dominance at scrum.
Australia’s defence was good considering they were under pressure for most of it. When they actually got the ball in decent areas they actually looked pretty good.
No doubt England dominated at the breakdown that day, but I thought the scrum was what decided the game.
July 6th 2012 @ 2:28am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 2:28am | Report comment
Oh wow… Obviously I did read the article, hence my post, and hence the matches I list. Simply because there are fewer scrums does not mean they are less significant than they once were. Did you watch any of the recent Tests?
Dusautoir is a blindside. He does not pilfer ball, thus his tackle stats. Btw, do you actually have any statistics for Dusautoir, or did you just invent that number based on the 2007 WC QF against NZ or something actually tangible? He certainly didn’t make 20-30 tackles a game during the 2012 6N. Btw, I repeat: France play left and right.
July 6th 2012 @ 2:53am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 2:53am | Report comment
Double wow.
July 6th 2012 @ 3:01am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 3:01am | Report comment
Colin has been on the site for years, as have I, which I’m sure most other regulars would confirm. Just ask the mods to clear this issue up for you. Yes? Sounds like a plan to me.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:06am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:06am | Report comment
The sensible thing would be to ignore you, but you’re ruining the thread and embarrassing yourself. Probably time to rethink your online attitude. Overt aggression isn’t an intelligent rebuff when you disagree with somebody, you know.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:09am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Gents can we stick to the discussion points from the article please!
July 6th 2012 @ 8:11am
Justin2 said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Sorry Ben but you have confused a little – if France play left and rig then ther is no open or blind…
July 6th 2012 @ 8:24am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Left and right flankers, by definition, don’t have specific roles. Dusautoir’s natural game is that of a blindside: he makes hits, carries close to the ruck and hits rucks.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:43am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:43am | Report comment
I’ve just read above. Ben you did say twice that he was a blindside. So which is it or are you just being your normal argumentitive self so much that you are indeed actually arguing with your self?
By the way the french often do not distinguish between their flankers and Bonnaire and Dusatoir did play right and left but Dusatoir is an openside style of flanker. He makes a lot of tackles and hits a lot of rucks.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:49am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:49am | Report comment
Opensides don’t make tuckles and hit rucks. That is what blindside flankers do, hence my description of Dusautoir as a blindside. When have you ever seen Dusautoir turn a ball over? He’s a workhorse pure and simple. The French don’t play opensides. Anyway, this is all overtly simplistic. Test coaches pick backrows to fit a pattern of play. Very few backrows fit generic stereotypes. I can only think of the Welsh backrow who fits the traditional 6-8-7 mould.
July 6th 2012 @ 2:45pm
Kuruki said | July 6th 2012 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Ben every flanker today makes tackles and hits rucks if they don’t then they aren’t winning. Sam Cane and Richie McCaw often top the tackle counts playing at 7 the roles are very similar now days. In some circles the attitude has changed to the point where the All Blacks and the South Africans have not put much reliance on selecting a genuine pilferer. They believe there is more benefit in having a more physical unit and use them as a trio rather then an out an out fetcher at 7 paired with a wrecking ball tackling machine at 6. McCaw has said it many times before although there are a few differences playing 6 7 8 you don’t really need to change your game very much at all, which shows just how similar the players are now playing the game. Pocock stands out because he is an exceptional pilferer and also because his partners of late have not been near the level he has been playing at.
July 6th 2012 @ 4:57pm
Jutsie said | July 6th 2012 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
Another great point kuruki, this is a reason why I don’t get the amount flak deans cops for not taking a back up pilferer to the world cup. If a pilferer is not world class they are pretty useless to a test team and your better off having another big body disrupting the breakdown similar to the highlanders style.
After poccock there was daylight before the next aus 7 (robinson) in 2011 but this has changed dramitcally in 2012 with hooper and gill nipping at his heels.
July 6th 2012 @ 5:54pm
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 5:54pm | Report comment
these past 2 comments are two of the best i’ve read.
logical and thoughtful!
July 6th 2012 @ 7:59pm
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:59pm | Report comment
How many rucks does Pocock or Brussow hit? If your openside only has the ability to pilfer then you don’t want him caught up in rucks. Tackles, yes – but hitting rucks and tackling is what blindsides do: Kaino, Lydiate, Haskell, Ferris, Juan Smith etc…
‘there are a few differences playing 6 7 8 you don’t really need to change your game very much at all’
Yes there are – there are still huge differences. There is no way that Dan Lydiate could play 7 or 8, or Sam Cane could play 8, or Jamie Heaslip could play 7, or Pocock play 6 or 8, for example. Anyhow, as I mentioned, the majority of backrows aren’t selected under the traditional 6-8-7 pattern. When Nick Easter was a regular for England he played a very tight role so that Tom Croft could roam. Dusautoir did the same when played alongside Harinordoquy.
July 7th 2012 @ 9:38am
Kuruki said | July 7th 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Ben everyone in the team tackles and hits rucks, not just the blindside. How often will Pocock steal possession on a good day? around 4 -5 times in a match? and that’s having a blinder. I hardly think there is anybody currently in any international side who is selected purely to make 4 or 5 steals on a good night out and little else. That is miniscule compared to what can be achieved when the entire team is working as a unit with everybody hitting rucks and turning over ball when they are in a position to do so. Andrew Hore is a hooker yet he is one of the best turnover forwards in NZ. Gone are the days when a 10 will purely kick and pass, a prop will purely scrum and a winger will purely score tries, everybody now has a responsibility to be competent in every facet of open field play hitiing rucks, tackling, passing, mauling. There is no room for passengers in todays game and those guys who do, they get found out pretty quick and dropped. Maybe that’s why Brussow got dropped? maybe he is to one dimensional. This is also a term used to describe Pocock by many….me not being one of them. There is noway Deans is telling Pocock to go out and concentrate on stealing ball and leave the rest up to Higgers and Palu, no chance.
Thomson Messam Vito McCaw all these guys have played 6 7 8. Cane could play 6 and 7. They all have preferences but none of them need to reinvent the wheel when they switch positions, it’s minor tweaking.
July 7th 2012 @ 9:52am
Ben S said | July 7th 2012 @ 9:52am | Report comment
I agree with the majority of what you’re saying, but the fact that a handful of NZ backrowers can play multiple positions does not mean that the back row is easily interchangeable at Test level. That has been emphatically proven by the All Blacks and Australia over recent seasons with all of McCalman, Brown, Thomson and Messam proving generally very uninspired.
Of course opensides tackle, but a good over the ball openside will wait for a player to be tackled to get the ball, as making a tackle then getting to your feet and winning the ball immediately is not especially easy to do. A player like Robshaw or O’Brien, for example, play 7 but are basically a 6/6.5 – and they makes tackles all day long. Pocock will make nowhere near as many tackles as those two do in a Test.
July 6th 2012 @ 6:15pm
ohtani's jacket said | July 6th 2012 @ 6:15pm | Report comment
Dusautoir is indeed a specialst blindside. Chalk it up to people not really knowing the European players.
July 6th 2012 @ 6:48pm
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
He just isn’t. the french just call their no 6 and 7 ‘flankers’ and often don’t distinguish between them. If you watched the RWC you’d have noticed Bonnaire and Dusatoir simply played left and right flanker and both played on their half of their field like opensides.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:18pm
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:18pm | Report comment
Oh yes they do. The French never just play two ‘flankers’. Dusautoir plays tight – there can be no debate on that- and Bonnaire played more in the open spaces. That’s why Dusautoir has also been paired with looser players like Ouedraogo and Harinordoquy on the the other flank.
July 7th 2012 @ 12:26am
The Werewolf said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:26am | Report comment
trolling again i see
July 7th 2012 @ 12:33am
Ben S said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:33am | Report comment
This is typical. It’s been mentioned on other threads that if you don’t have a proper rugby response then don’t say anything like this. This is a constant theme with you and it spoils threads. If you want to try and debate Dusautoir then go ahead, but this is cringeworthy. You have already proven that you don’t watch French rugby with your comments on the French midfield, so why bother? I can’t see how any regular rugby fan can find fault with the above comment. It’s a sensible and accurate comment. Dusautoir is a tight flanker. He makes lots of tackles, carries in close quarters around the ruck, and also hits lots of rucks. He plays the role of a blindside, hence the continued selection of players like Bonnaire (retired), Harinordoquy and Ouedraogo.
July 7th 2012 @ 2:22am
The Werewolf said | July 7th 2012 @ 2:22am | Report comment
Look Ben if you had the ability of expressing yourself with an iota of respect for others I’d be more than happy to debate with you.
I find your whole approach to this site disrespectful to those that wish to contribute to discussion positively because you speak not to contribute but to belittle and to undermine others opinions even if that contradicts what you’ev alreday been saying.
For instance you’ve stated that Dusatoir is a blind side yet in the same thread above for all to see and at one time contradicting your own post, you said he played as either a left or a right flanker. And now you’re back to saying his a blindsidee flanker? so which is it. Before you speak, for Toulouse he only wore the no 7 jersey in every game he played this year. Okay.
Also you need to make sure you read articles of authors thoroughly because again lower down some where you’ve accused me of contradicting myself even though clearly if you’d read the article you’d know I was actually repeating what i’d already said.
If you were to change your style slightly i’d be happy to oblige you but at the moment your whole approach o blogging and discussion is not at all appropriate.
i’ll give you one more chance to try and express an opinion without coming across with arrogant petulance.
so back to the rugby.
Bonnaire played with a no 6 jersey all season for Clermont and Dusatoir with a no 7 jersey for Toulouse yet for france they wear the opposite. discuss….
July 7th 2012 @ 2:38am
Ben S said | July 7th 2012 @ 2:38am | Report comment
Did I imagine somebody rebuking you for the way you express yourself on another thread? Please don’t take it out on me just because you’re being challenged and your points dissembled by various posters. You’ve clearly got the hump because you’ve made various contradictory (and plain wrong) posts that I’ve pointed out to you, and others too. If you have to resort to insults then I suggest you stop posting. You contradict yourself, fail to respond to key points and are also quite tetchy with people. That’s not exactly the way to encourage debate.
Really not sure how it’s contradictory to suggest that Dusautoir plays like a blindside but France play left and right. It’s pretty simple really: Dusautoir is an excellent tackler, so he would likely play openside when defending against sides with big midfield runners. Look, I live in England – I watch a lot of French rugby due to my TV contract. I think it’s apparent you don’t, so let’s leave it at that. Dusautoir has the game of a blindside flanker, as various others have noted too, and btw, French sides allocate their blindside flanker the 7 jersey. But they also don’t develop proper over the ball 7s, just like South African rugby doesn’t and just like Argentine rugby doesn’t. If you wear the 6 then you are still not a David Pocock.
I’m really not sure what point you think you are making with Dusautoir and Bonnaire? Both players have worn the 6 and 7 jersey for France, with Bonnaire wearing 8 too. Do you think Dusautoir wearing a 6 jersey somehow means he plays a pilfering role for France? Maybe Lievremont/PSA fancied keeping up with the general international appearance? You either watch French rugby and understand how each player plays, or you don’t.
July 7th 2012 @ 2:44am
The Werewolf said | July 7th 2012 @ 2:44am | Report comment
[Keep it friendly, gents. Roar Mods.]
July 7th 2012 @ 2:51am
Ben S said | July 7th 2012 @ 2:51am | Report comment
I see. You’re being rude again. If you want to think that Dusautoir is an openside flanker then fine. fill your boots and go agains the grain, but could you stop being so rude. It’s all quite unbecoming.
July 7th 2012 @ 4:29am
break it down said | July 7th 2012 @ 4:29am | Report comment
you watch no rugby obviously! Dusatoir plays openside everybody knows that.
July 7th 2012 @ 12:55am
ohtani's jacket said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:55am | Report comment
He just is. He’s a blindside at club level and a blindside at test level. Do you really think both French flankers are opensides?
July 7th 2012 @ 1:49am
paul said | July 7th 2012 @ 1:49am | Report comment
you don’t know what you are talking about. if you knew what you’re talking about you’d know that Dusatoir wore the no 7 for his club this year including the semi final and final which toulouse won!!!!!!!!!!
July 7th 2012 @ 2:08am
The Werewolf said | July 7th 2012 @ 2:08am | Report comment
hmmmm curious that Dusatoir wears no 7 for Toulouse in every game he played this year?
July 7th 2012 @ 2:40am
Ben S said | July 7th 2012 @ 2:40am | Report comment
Not as curious as all these new posters that keep popping up regurgitating what you’re saying…
July 8th 2012 @ 12:53am
ohtani's jacket said | July 8th 2012 @ 12:53am | Report comment
It’s about as curious as a South African blindside wearing the 7 jersey.
July 8th 2012 @ 2:22am
mark said | July 8th 2012 @ 2:22am | Report comment
its curious how wrong someone can be yet will still keep embarrasing them self.
July 7th 2012 @ 10:37am
stillmatic1 said | July 7th 2012 @ 10:37am | Report comment
i cant understand how hard it is for people to get around their heads around the idea that the number on a guys back, is just that, a number. ben s, oj and others have clearly grapsed this fact, whereas too many argue just because he wears the number 7 jersey, that openside “must” be his station!! also, conveniently forgetting that teams play their roles different to other teams. not too difficult to grasp. i dont watch french rugby, but can grasp the simple concept of different teams having different roles for a number 6, 7 and 8.
would you pigeonhole lebron james as …………………. he can play where is required, but still takes the position as SF on the team sheet. see, not too hard to grasp. just like Ben S is explaining.
July 8th 2012 @ 9:20pm
red man said | July 8th 2012 @ 9:20pm | Report comment
yeah Brussouw isn’t a pilfering no 7 for SA and you’ve mentioned a few games where the scrum has had a bearing on the result but they are few and far between. i think thats the point.
Before you say Coetzee has replaced Brussouw I think we all saw in the England matches that thats not going to last very long. SA missed him.
Dusatoir is an openside flanker dude. He’s not the greatest pilferer but he slows down a lot of ball.
July 10th 2012 @ 3:28am
Ben S said | July 10th 2012 @ 3:28am | Report comment
Confused? Brussow isn’t a pilfering 7?
Italy beat France during the 2011 6N due to a last minute scrum penalty. Scotland beat Australia this season due to a last minute scrum penalty. It was quite obvious from the recent NZ v ireland and SA v England Tests just how significant scrums are too. Other examples, England beat Ireland on the back of their scrum during the 2012 6N. SA beat the Lions in the 1st Test in 2009 due to their scrum. Ireland beat Australia during the WC on the back of a strong scrum. Had Australia been going forward in the scrum then the Irish defence would likely not have been as dominant.
Any player can slow down ball. Doesn’t make them an openside. Dusautoir isn’t an openside.
July 6th 2012 @ 2:06am
Mark mark said | July 6th 2012 @ 2:06am | Report comment
Well done WW.
Great article!
July 6th 2012 @ 3:35am
Kuruki said | July 6th 2012 @ 3:35am | Report comment
I would have to argue that the halfback and the number 10 are still more influential then the openside flanker. A recent example would be the performances of Genia for Australia and also Cruden for Nz. Cruden engineered 26 points in about as many minutes and nothing is more influential then the scoreboard. Genia also had a massive hand in keeping the Wallabies scoreboard ticking over along with the boot of the number 10.
I also don’t really think the openside is more prominent these days, as coaches now often speak about the loose trio more as a unit then individuals and that seems to be the direction allot of teams are heading. Pocock may be the most influential player for Australia but i rate Genia right up there alongside him.
July 6th 2012 @ 7:56am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:56am | Report comment
tots agree Ben S – the tight5 are the ninja’s of rugby. you cant see what they’re doing but its the most vital part of the game. rucks / mauls and clearing /securing them is the most basic aspect of open rugby. and what needs to be done before you can even comtemplate using it. a good 7 will occasionally turn over ruck ball but its up to the tight5 to secure and keep the rucks/mauls clean for the half back.
rugby has changed drammatically in the past decade but the role of the tight 5 now is more important than its ever been. more important than 7, 9 and 10 put together.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:08am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:08am | Report comment
The tight five is more important than the 7, 9 and 10 put together. That’s a brave call.
No doubt the game has changed looking at he amount of open play compared to set piece play nowadays. As i said all the forwrards must contribute at the breakdown but the no 7 has indeed become more important now than ever before.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:15am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:15am | Report comment
If the breakdown is so important then why do England, Ireland, France, Italy, Argentina, SA and Samoa play without proper pilferers?
The fact of the matter is that 7s always seem the most important players on the pitch. In 2009 Brussow was. During the 2001 Lions tour George Smith and Richard Hill were. During the 1999 France v NZ QF Kronfeld and Magne were. Again, during the 1997 Lions tour Richard Hill was. In all seminal games the 7s tend to appear to be the most prominent and important players on the pitch simply because they are always near the ball, but the reality is that by and large tight fives set the tone. I can’t look beyond that point.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:15am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:15am | Report comment
its more improtant because as u say there are more rucks. its the tight5′s job to hit all rucks (not some like a 7 who can pick and choose) and secure them. who does all the cleaning out? whose bodies are in the rucks securing the ball?
its a main role of the 7 to turn over the ball. how many turnsovers are there compared secured rucks? 7′s role is important but what the tight5 do is bread and butter stuff and shouldnt be under rated. just because the tight5 are invisible doesnt mean they’re not doing anything important. in fact if i see a tight 5 running the ball or waiting to recieve i’m wondering why his head wasnt buried in a ruck getting/securing the ball in the 1st place. what the 7 does is dynamic and everyone see’s it. what the tight5 do is engine room stuff and the entire platform that the team attacks from is based on what the tight 5 can accomplish, but the majority of people dont realise it.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:53am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Good comment.
Most sides use pod systems nowadays because with an average of 160 rucks as i said it is no longer feasible to have certain players hit every ruck. The pod systems ensure that all rucks have forwards to attend to recycling ball.
Therefore all forwards as i mentioned in the article have to be ruck/maul experts.
A modern no 7 in the mold of Pocock is the most important of them because his job above all else is to slow down and pilfer. If he doesn’t have a good game. The team will lose (semi final at RWC) if he does his side wins (QF at the RWC).
A team with a bad set piece can and often does still win matches. Australia has been doing it for years with a very poor scrum. it sometimes bites them and they lose the match because of their poor scrum but more often than not their superior breakdown tactics get them over the line as it did 3 times this month despite being smashed at scrum time.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:57am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:57am | Report comment
When was the last time a 7 performed like Pocock did against SA in that QF game? Pocock didn’t necessarily have a bad game against NZ in the SF either, he simply played behind a pack that got dished.
Australia weren’t smashed at scrum time, and they didn’t win because of Pocock or their breakdown tactics. They won because Harris and Barnes kicked two very late winning goals.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:01am
biltongbek said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Ben Pocock’s performance against SA in the QF was a one off, unlikely to ever be repeated, Bryce Lawrence got so much flack in the media after the Irish pool loss that he went into that match with the idea of not getting involved.
Hence Pocock had the run of the field after Brussow got hit in a ruck at the clock standing on 24 mintues in the first half.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:16pm
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
I know – and agree, but it’s also a very convenient ‘argument’ for this sort of article which relies on statistics and sweeping statements.
July 6th 2012 @ 3:26pm
Kuruki said | July 6th 2012 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
I don’t think there would be any coach at international level who would agree that the number 7′s job above all else is to pilfer. That is just one part of a bigger puzzle. Turnover ball in the modern game is the duty of every player who is present at the breakdown. Clear bodies keep your feet and drive over the ball that is a skill every player in the modern game is being taught. Pocock would not be getting any extra lessons in ball stealing from his coach. That is his own signature on the game, much like SBW has the offload. it is what the player is known for above his core roles on the paddock. If Pocock’s sole intention was to pilfer he would not be giving 100% in other areas. One man no matter how great cannot trump a team effort.
July 6th 2012 @ 3:50am
abnutta said | July 6th 2012 @ 3:50am | Report comment
Glaring examples in the recent June internationals would suggest that the scrum is as influential to the results of test matches as it ever was… I would hazard to say that it’s even more important now due to their relative scarcity.
Although, I remember a story about the great All Black/Waikato hooker Has Catley scoring a game based on scrums he’d won not by points on the scoreboard. Regarding the first test v Australia against the Wallaby hooker Dawson in 1946 won on the scoreboard by 31-8 to NZL. Won by Catley 23 scrums to 6. Catley said he was surprised when they told him Dawson had got 6… “He was no hooker at all.”
July 6th 2012 @ 7:18pm
jeznez said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:18pm | Report comment
love that abn – that is exactly how my mates and I score our games for the BOBs in the Bondi 10s each year. For some reason the tournament organisers score the games more traditionally and we are always surprised when we don’t go on to the later rounds!
July 7th 2012 @ 8:07am
Wally James said | July 7th 2012 @ 8:07am | Report comment
When my eldest was in U12 at hooker, his team won a cloase match 13-12. As he walked off I congratulated him for winning a close game. He said “That wasn’t close. We won 5 tightheads and they didn’t win any.” It was then I realised my boy was one of us.
July 7th 2012 @ 10:21pm
jeznez said | July 7th 2012 @ 10:21pm | Report comment
wally, that is gold – fantastic intention from the young lad
July 8th 2012 @ 4:21am
breakdown said | July 8th 2012 @ 4:21am | Report comment
this proves the breakdown is more important than scrums even at school boy level.
July 8th 2012 @ 10:31pm
jeznez said | July 8th 2012 @ 10:31pm | Report comment
breakdown – what about the recent Scotland game? The Wallabies won the breakdown 126 to 64. It was a two to one flogging in that area but they didn’t win the game. A scrum penalty decided the match. This argument that the set piece s not as important any more just doesn’t wash with me. Both the breakdown and the set piece are hugely important, don’t compete at either of them and your team will be in trouble.
July 9th 2012 @ 5:40pm
breakdown said | July 9th 2012 @ 5:40pm | Report comment
winning the breakdown is not about quantity its about quality. you can be going backwards or nowhere and still winning possession.
you’ve got to be going forwrad.
at the end of the day in those conditions we just needed scotland to miss 1 critical tackle for 5 possibly 7 points and a penalty kick from a collapsed scrum would not have matterred. they tackled like trojans and they were more commiteed fefensively at the breakdown and slowing our ball, thats why they won the match.
like last years ireland match. i don’t know the stats but they won’t show that we got smashed at the breakdown which gave us slow ball from breakdown wins.
but you can come out with 1 or 2 games every now and then where a scrum superiority won a game. they are too far and few between for it to be more important that what happens at the breakdown.
July 9th 2012 @ 8:33pm
jeznez said | July 9th 2012 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
Australia has had a decade of mediocrity due to not respecting the set piece and are only coming out of that space now. It is hardly one or two games.
July 10th 2012 @ 2:08am
breakdown said | July 10th 2012 @ 2:08am | Report comment
no we’ve been in the top 3 for a decade and we keep beating sides with better scrums. we are 2nd at the moment yet we have probably the tenth best scrum.
July 6th 2012 @ 4:38am
biltongbek said | July 6th 2012 @ 4:38am | Report comment
Nice work WW.
My take on the breakdwon is directly related to the controversy in the law interpretations you get these days.
The more breakdowns you have in a match the more likely it is that there will be controversy.
Thisnk about it this way, the referee has to consider the following at a breakdown.
1. did the player come through the gate
2. did the tackler show daylight
3. did the tackled player release, and was he allowed to release
4. when is the ruck formed and no hands called
5. is the pilferer carrying his own weight
7. is anyone in an offside position at the ruck acting as a blocker
8 the players coming into the ruck to clear are they staying on their feet
9. did they come from the side
10. Is anyone on the ground playing the ball
11. Is anyone impeding the half back to get the ball clear
12. Has tere been a knock on
13. Are the defensive side behind the last feet
14. Is the tackler rolling away
Etc Etc ETc
This all happens in 3 seconds.
Then you have the media that attacks a referee for interpretations in one game, only to intimidate him to such an extent that in the next game he decides not to make any decision.
Or you get the referee who is pedantic or inconsistent etc.etc.etc.
the breakdown is a nightmare, and the evolution of the forwards in my humble opinion has become one of playing the referee and taking every breakdown to the edge of the law.
Scrums I agree has become less important, however there will always be handling erros and therefor scrums. We have seen what happened to Ireland in the six nations when they were demolished in the scrums.
Territory will always be important and hence line out prowess as important.
Considering the various options of attacking from a lineout, long ball to get it out wide quickly, middle ball for the maul, front of the line out for the snipe down the line.
It is also a very important defensive mechanism as you can still compete in line outs, where as with scrums the feed is so skew almost onto the lock feet that you can’t contest that anymore.
I do believe however that the scrum needs simpler laws.
I played rugby in the time when the feeding team decides the hit, it should go back to that, a prop when crouched and ready to pounce forward is intent on his opposition number and any twitch or movement will set him off to take a hit, waiting for a referee to shout engage has never been the answer in my book.
The other thing I beleive is hand on the ground for a prop to steady a scrum should be legalised, this opinion that hand on the ground helps you to scrum up is nonsense, we aren’t chimpanzees.
anyhow that in short is my view.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:14am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:14am | Report comment
A scrum can get destroyed from time to time and that can win matches. But those seem to be few and far between. Most games are won by accumulating points from many aspects of the game. Most tries come from phase play not directly from a set piece and most point still come from tries even in this day and age.
My point is set pieces haven’t evaporated but they are not as important as in the past.
The breakdown is everything and as you rightly point out its so very complicated that teams focus a lot of their practice on rucks and mauls.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:16am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:16am | Report comment
You haven’t explained why scrums were more important in the past? Were more games decided from scum penalties in the past?
July 6th 2012 @ 8:38am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:38am | Report comment
read the article Ben
July 6th 2012 @ 8:54am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Read it. You fail to state why the set-piece was more significant in former years. You’ve simply said there were more scrums. Were more games decided on scrum penalties?
July 8th 2012 @ 9:23pm
red man said | July 8th 2012 @ 9:23pm | Report comment
dude the article is about how the set pieces are less significant because there was once 101 on average . now there is 40.
does it really need to be spelled out?
July 9th 2012 @ 4:26am
Ben S said | July 9th 2012 @ 4:26am | Report comment
Oh… ‘red man’… thanks for the significant input. You’re really expanding upon the interesting infor put forth by Werewolf! Thank you for specifically responding to me on those different occasions.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:22am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:22am | Report comment
set pieces are important if you can get them right. set pieces should be guaranteed possession so you plan an entire attack from a set piece. just because they happen less often doesnt mean they’re value should be undermined.
i can understand where you think set peices arent as important as in aus only nathanSharpe can guarantee a set piece will result in possession as he’s the only one thats perfected it.
but think of this when all your flash moves arent working and the oppn is making all their 1st up tackles then you go back to basics and do those well. set pieces are the basics of rugby
July 6th 2012 @ 5:16am
Darwin Stubbie said | July 6th 2012 @ 5:16am | Report comment
‘David Pocock is now the apex predator of world rugby and arguably the most influential player on the planet.’ … He’s no doubt the most influential player for Aust but on the planet – seriously ? …. Aust need him because he is the only player that turns up to play in every test – devise a strategy to nullify him and you are on your way to a win …
This piece would more accurate if it highlighted the growing need for every player to put in at the breakdown …. Look at the kiwis the reliance isn’t placed on the player wearing 7 … they pick their moments and identify what tackle they want to attack and they expect whoever is there to be able to effect a turnover – the evolution is in the requirement of backs getting in and doing their bit and the same for the tight 5 … Further the link to captaincy is a bit tenuous – yeah there’s a few a present but history shows that flanker has been a popular choice for the captaincy
July 6th 2012 @ 7:55am
Jerry said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:55am | Report comment
He proved he was the no 1 player in the world last October by being a non factor in the most important match he played?
July 6th 2012 @ 8:04am
Jerry said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Is a 1/4 more important than a semi-final?
July 6th 2012 @ 8:27am
biltongbek said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Correction mate, he got away with it.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:08am
Wolfie said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:08am | Report comment
BB,
The fact Brussouw went off absolutely changed the dynamic of the QF. Pocock didn’t “get away with it”. He played brilliantly at the breakdown, to the referee’s interpretation, and SA forwards didn’t nullify the threat.
I appreciate Bryce isn’t the greatest referee on the planet but these sour grapes are getting boring.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:10am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:10am | Report comment
wolfie – “I appreciate Bryce isn’t the greatest referee on the planet” is an understatement
but agree; leave bryce alone, he won a game for me in the weekend vs the saders. GO THE CANES!!!
July 6th 2012 @ 9:29am
Wolfie said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Mania you might know (or someone else), are the rumours that Bryce isn’t able to referee in SA true?
If so, absolutely ridiculous.
I support that Bryce should really be re-assessed as an international ref, but to say he’s unable to go ref S15 games in the Republic is, on principle, disgusting.
For the record, this isn’t Saffa bashing. My wife/best man/fmr roommates etc are all South Africans. Sometimes it just helps to qualify that
July 6th 2012 @ 10:01am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:01am | Report comment
its the refs assoc that isnt letting him ref in SA. not bryce himself, tho bryce was upset with all the texts, emailsand threats he got after that WC QF
July 7th 2012 @ 4:50pm
Sircoolalot said | July 7th 2012 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Bryce shouldn’t reff another professional rugby game ever again.
July 7th 2012 @ 10:14am
Kuruki said | July 7th 2012 @ 10:14am | Report comment
He lost one for me against the Crusaders lastnight and he was not even on the paddock. Hang him from the gallows !!!!
July 6th 2012 @ 9:31am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:31am | Report comment
hear hear
July 6th 2012 @ 4:18pm
Hoy said | July 6th 2012 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
I agree. If Brussow was on the field, it might not have happened. The fact SA didn’t have a pilferer to counter Pocock means they couldn’t take advantage of the ref’s interpretations.
July 6th 2012 @ 4:38pm
biltongbek said | July 6th 2012 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
Wolfie, I am talking about facts here, nothing else. Before you retort bacl to me about sour grapes considers three facts.
1. Look at the preceding ruck before Australia scores their try.
2. Bryce Lawrence himself apologised for his performance.
3. Australia didn’t concede 1 penalty in their red zone.
When you have considered those facts sour grapes doesn’t enter into it..
July 6th 2012 @ 5:46pm
Wolfie said | July 6th 2012 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
BB,
It is sour grapes and a sign that you’re having trouble letting go. South Africa had numerous chances to score the winning try(s), but a forward pass here, knock on there, cost them. The fact they couldn’t convert opportunities, FAR more than a refereeing decision, cost them the World Cup.
So what if Bryce apologised, the fact is that referees, by sheer virtue of the number of factors they have to consider that you outlined before, make mistakes. Some teams (not Australia generally I’ll admit 0_0), can take the ref out of it. SA didn’t, and need to move on.
July 6th 2012 @ 6:13pm
biltongbek said | July 6th 2012 @ 6:13pm | Report comment
I moved on a long time ago mate, however crediting one player for a win when he had a free hand is fine, but recognise why he had a free hand.
1. Brussow was hit in the ribcage (Horwill I tihnk) in a ruck and left the field.
2. Pocock was given free reign by Lawrence.
You can’t acknowledge the one factor and ignore the other, that’s being biased.
July 6th 2012 @ 6:37pm
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 6:37pm | Report comment
Pocock just played amazingly well.
I think it is time for SA’s to give credit where it is due.
I watched the game in london and the commentators who were neutral had no problem with Pocock’s performance. neutral’s give us patriotic souls perspective.
July 6th 2012 @ 6:47pm
biltongbek said | July 6th 2012 @ 6:47pm | Report comment
WW, of course he played well, I never disputed that, but I have a serious problem with people refusing to see the whole picture.
Australia won the breakdown due to Pococks performance, and there were reasons for that.
Everyone readily accept the fact that Brussow’s injury was a reason, howver they refuse to accpet Pocock got away with murder.
They seem to forget how Australia scored their try.
Pocock came to an offside position in the ruck, then kicked the ball from an offside position out of the ruck towards the Australian backline.
The commentators have nothing to do with this.
Anyway this is my final word on this.
July 6th 2012 @ 6:55pm
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
I can sense you are peed off. He wasn’t offiside it was a ruck and he had rights to the ball on his feet. The SA’s had plenty of goes at clearing him out and failed. Instead of looking at excuses you should be critical of the SA fro not clearing him out which a week later the AB’s did with great effect which helped win them their game.
July 6th 2012 @ 11:42am
A said | July 6th 2012 @ 11:42am | Report comment
DS. Your negativity on this site is a shame because you know your footy. Honestly, it’d be great to read an article from you about how NZ keep producing such amazing young talent and what sets them apart from the rest of the world.
Informative article WW. Enjoyable reading that makes you think. Keep ‘em coming.
July 6th 2012 @ 6:21pm
jeznez said | July 6th 2012 @ 6:21pm | Report comment
Darwin – I think that is an excellent point and although KPM won’t rate it I have to say Conrad Smith is exceptional at the breakdown when it occurs near him – hugely influential in the modern game is that type of player.
July 6th 2012 @ 6:46pm
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 6:46pm | Report comment
I stated clearly in my article that all forwards needed to be experts at the breakdown becasue there are now 160 odd of them per match when historically there has not been as close to as many. I also made the point that in no period in history were 5 of the top 6 nations captains openside flankers. If you can think of another period where 5 captains of the leading 6 nations were opensides please do respond with those names and the period.
All i’m saying is that the game is not what it once was and the role of the pack is different and the no 7 is now king. I think the stats i’ve provided clearly show that.
July 6th 2012 @ 7:16pm
jeznez said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:16pm | Report comment
WW, I was concurring with DS’s point that it isn’t even just forwards – hence my mention of Conrad Smith.
I’m curious is it specifically the 7 you think is king or the pilferer? Bismarck du Plessis, Andrew Hore, Saia Faingaa are all examples of pilfering hookers.
July 6th 2012 @ 7:46pm
Darwin Stubbie said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:46pm | Report comment
Exactly my point … There has always been pilfering opensiders … It’s not new … The evolution is actually the requirement that it’s everyone’s job to be adept at the breakdown ….
I’ve often said on this site that one of the worst spinoffs about Rugby in Aust is the playskool commentary from the foxsports cheerleaders … The Kearns MO is to moan about his warped view on illegal play (only ever done by foreign teams) while Marto raves about any and all Qld players on the pitch plus (due to knowing zip about forward play) defaults to screaming ‘POCOCK’ whenever he get near the ball … The result is a large chunk of Aust fans tend to believe that Aust sides are the only teams on the planet that play the game properly (ie never infringing or partaking in illegal play) and that ‘POCOCK’ is a Demi god – the like of which we’ve never seen before … Now before someone screams I’m nothing but negative – I’m not putting WW in this group (or jeznez etc) – the lad knows his stuff and has provided ideal fodder for a decent debate on this site … But he does seem to want place the current holder of the wallaby #7 jumper in a realm that isn’t really either original or in fact maybe becoming outdated
July 6th 2012 @ 9:06pm
jeznez said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:06pm | Report comment
WW, I put this comment down the bottom but let me put it up here so that we don’t have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the list to get to it.
WW, I’ve had a bit more time to mull things over since my initial comments and I think I’m getting further away from you!
I can use the stats that you have produced to argue that the 7 is less influential these days than previously. In the old days where there were more set pieces and less breakdowns the key breakdown ball winner had to be the 7. He was the only forward player who could win a race to the breakdown to turn over ball. You say above that by second phase the ball was generally unplayable and became a set piece again.
Therefore the man on the open side of the scrum or the back of the lineout was crucial to controlling the breakdown.
These days with less set pieces and more breakdowns (and I think we have to add tighter defences here) there is less emphasis on getting a man from the set piece to the first breakdown to force a turn over. Most breakdowns occur not from a set piece but from a prior breakdown.
You specifically mention that these days teams are building up to 20 phases of possession. Only the first of those breakdowns comes from a set piece, the other 19 have occurred where the prior contest was another breakdown. The set piece positioning of the 7 on the open side of the scrum or at the back of the lineout is less important.
This is why we are seeing non-7′s having exceptional breakdown turn over ability the hookers I mentioned in another post in Bismarck du Plessis, Andrew Hore and Saia Faingaa are great examples of this as are outside backs like Conrad Smith who have strong ability to turn over the ball as well.
Take a look at the set up in lineouts these days – frequently the last man these days is no longer the number 7 but instead is a prop in order to have a strong rear lifter.
No longer is it critical that the 7 is the key man to turn over ball for your team. The shear number of breakdowns that occur not from set piece means that the number on the back is less important in turning the ball over.
I think you mistake the fact that there are some exceptional talents wearing 7 out there who are massively influential rather than your conclusion that it is the position itself that is having the impact.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:37pm
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
JN the no 7′s of yester year hardly ever pilfered ball in the amateur days and when they did it was of little significance really. A no 7 made tackles and hit every breakdown just about. In the amateur days you didn’t need to even try to pilfer nor have that skill set when you were going to get the ball from a knock on, scrum or a kick anyway much more frequently than today. Just think about that for a minute. it wasn’t important to pilfer ball in the amateur era and it rarely happened.
What you are doing is the same as so many fans. You are taking concepts of what skill sets and tactics players used to need and superimposing them into todays game which is different .eg you are not getting the fact that pilfering from first phase is no longer an important part of the modern no 7. It isn’t so the no 7 not being at the end of a lineout (i think mostyly they still are) is a moot point beacuse you need to choose the time you pilfer within the laws of the game and not risk penalty. No 7′s juts throwing themsleves into rucks is no longer the way to do that. Pocock and the elite no 7′s are like leopards choosing and biding their time and often deliberately don’t get involved in first phase rucks.
It is now more important that you have a pilferer during phase play if you want possession of the ball. I take your point that anyone can pilfer but they don’t! Ask yourself simply who is the best pilferer in the world in terms of quality not quantity. Its not any of the hookers you’ve mentioned. They pilfer maybe a little bit but they influence the game generally through other means at the breakdown none of which are as important as when pocock pilfers ball from a break out or in front of the posts. You may have noticed these are the time when he strikes and this is setting the standard for a new breed of no 7′s. warburton, hooper, gill are all trying to do what the new prototype of a no 7 does in david Poocok. it is not a case of just super imposing the old style into todays game because yes if you put micheal Jones on a modern rugby field he would be ineffective in 80 min of rugby. In the same way that if Pocock went back in time to 1987 he would not be as effective. the difference is what pocock does today has more influence on the modern phase ball game.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:29pm
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
I’ve just re read your comment here. and i’ve got to get this of my chest because I missed your paragraph abouth the 20 odd phases. You are essentially saying exactly what i’ve been saying all this time.
Yes all the phases 10 or 20 phases what have you are more important than the set piece 1st phase. Thats my point!!!!! thats why the no 7 is now so important becasue he doesn’t just get involved at 1st phase any more.
perhaps if i explain it like this. A david pocok whether he wears no 7 or no 6 or no 8 is the most important player on the pitch IMHO. So to avoid confusion lets just refer to him as the ‘main pilferer’ rather than the no 7 to ease the confusion and forget every thing you’ve ever thought a no 7 openside from yester year should do, just for a moment. I come back to my point that Poccok redefines the importance of the ‘main pilferer’ and is a different breed to the first phase flankers of the past. But JN let me be clear, this type of player will never have a no 1to 5 on his back because you are looking at the wrong somatotype.
Does that help us to agree?
July 6th 2012 @ 11:02pm
jeznez said | July 6th 2012 @ 11:02pm | Report comment
We are a bit closer. I think in the case of Bismarck that we have an example where the main pilfer player at both the Sharks and Springboks wears 2.
However that is a bit beside the point. What DS, many other Roarers and myself are saying is that having a main pilferer is not the best thing a rugby team should aspire to. In Australia it is pretty much just Pocock doing it for the Wallabies. A much better option is to have the pilfer skills across your team so that you have many players capable of making that pinch when it is available. Rather than a solitary leopard have a pack of players capable of taking advantage when the situation arises.
I’m not going to get into the debate as to which player is the best 7 in the world. But where you declare that Pocock is the best, and you claim that 7 is the most influential position on the pitch. Then I counter that if those two things were true then Australia should be number 1 and not dropping matches to teams ranked significantly lower than them.
The simple fact is that a team like the All Blacks who have significant ball poaching skills in multiple positions are much more dangerous than a team like the Wallabies where a single player does the lions share.
Take the RWC semi-final last year, the AB’s formed a plan to ensure that Pocock made a lot of tackles – you could argue that he is an influential player as the AB’s had to form a gameplan to negate him. You can also argue that he was not influential in that match at all. See why it isn’t just the 7 nor a main pilferer? These are definitely important but to declare them the most important is the piece that doesn’t sit well with me.
I still think that a quality 10 to guide the team and a quality set piece are more important than having a single main pilfering player in your side.
I haven’t really touched much on the set piece being less important these days comment that you make but I say your stats point towards their continuing importance.
If a team has a weak set piece (like Australia has had for much of the decade) then your ball retention at those set pieces will be much lower than 94% allowing opposition long periods with ball in hand to attack and pressure you. Further a lack of competence at scrum time often leads to a significantly high penalty count against you – ensuring you can win your own ball is key.
Once you win your own ball you can hold it for long periods of time and build pressure. Interestingly I think the Highlanders with their high octane breakdown work are getting to a level where the ability to hold the ball for long periods may be winding down. (note they used Haskell at 7 tonight – hardly a pilferer).
Finally I disagree with your point that 7′s of yesteryear hardly ever pilfered the ball – I know that when I played 7 as a lower grade player in the amatuer era both rucking and post-rucking that it was the main focus of my game. You can trace backwards from the current crop of Gill, Hooper, Faingaa, Pocock through Smith and Waugh to Wilson and back on to Jeff Miller as a number of posters mention. That is about the extent of my awareness of rugby players but some of the older posters have shared other players names with us. When you talk of these non-pilfering 7s of yesteryear what period and which players are you referring to? Poidevin who shared time in the Wallaby shirt with Miller is about the only 7 I can really point to in Aussie rugby for the last 23 years who wasn’t an out and out pilferer.
July 6th 2012 @ 11:35pm
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 11:35pm | Report comment
mate its still a team game. i never said that pocock will mean 100% success. Sergio Parise is arguably the best no 8 of the past decade and you can’t say he’s not because Italy hardly ever win test matches.
Bismarck is a blindside flanker that wears 2. he is a ball carrier and a defensively dominant player. He doesn’t pilfer that much ball.
You make a good point about a collective approach to pilfering but again there is no evidence of any side including the AB’s having 6 or 7 brilliant pilferers. The skill is so difficult to master there are only 6 or 7 in the entire world capable of doing it to a level that consistently influences test match rugby (they’re all opensides) . The AB’s recycle ball very well and they counter ruck but their pilfering is nothing special at all. McCaw used to be but not so much nowadays.
scrums; about 25% of penalties come from scrum time. Lets presume that there is a 50-50 split of penalties in range of kicks. Thats not a lot of significant point scoring. More than 75% of points still come from tries and conversions and these tries are coming from phase ball. There are now so few scrums in some games it is irresponsible to rely on scrums for points and field position. That is why Australia is still no 2 even though we have a poor scrum. occasionally it costs us a test but usually ur breakdown dominance led by DP gets us over the line. Too much emphasis goes on the scrum penalty. The scotland match for instance the 200 odd tackles the Scots made won them that match to get them into a position on the scoreboard to kick a penalty to win the match in the dieing minutes which just happened to be from a scrum. Our inability to get over the line cost us that match not just a scrum penalty. in the next 3 matches our scrum was poor yet we won all 3 matches becasue we were the dominant team at the breakdown led by DP with crucial stealas and slow downs at the crucial times and we got over the line when we needed to.
no 7′s didn’t pinch that much ball in the amateur days because there were at times 50 to70% less rucks to do that and their was no need to do it with so many other ways to get the ball back. why is it so hard for you to see that. i watch the old games on ESPN and they just didn’t have the impact that the modern no 7 does. thats why all of a sudden they’re all captains nowadays. Think about why that is the case all of a sudden.
again forget the opensides from yester year. they don’t exist anymore. its a completely different position now. its a completely different game. i can not see how with the amount of phase ball how ant one can argue that set pieces still have as much importance considering how few set pieces there are now in comparison to the past?
I feel like Al gore must have felt with the inconvenient truth.
July 6th 2012 @ 11:55pm
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 11:55pm | Report comment
‘Bismarck is a blindside flanker that wears 2. he is a ball carrier and a defensively dominant player. He doesn’t pilfer that much ball.’
How is Du Plessis a blindside flanker? If Du Plessis doesn’t pilfer that much ball then why is he associated with stealing ball? Keven Mealamu carries a lot of ball, as does Adrian Strauss and Matthew Rees, for example, and nobody ever parallels them with a back rower.
‘You make a good point about a collective approach to pilfering but again there is no evidence of any side including the AB’s having 6 or 7 brilliant pilferers. The skill is so difficult to master there are only 6 or 7 in the entire world capable of doing it to a level that consistently influences test match rugby (they’re all opensides) . The AB’s recycle ball very well and they counter ruck but their pilfering is nothing special at all. McCaw used to be but not so much nowadays.’
Which 6 or 7 players influence games?
July 7th 2012 @ 12:00am
jeznez said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:00am | Report comment
WW – why only focus on scrum penalties that lead to points? A scrum penalty that doesn’t lead to a kick at goal is still a possession to the team earning the penalty. I think from memory the Welsh earned seven turn overs from scrums in the third test, a number from free kicks on the Wallaby feed and anumber of straight penalties.
Pocock made some crucial pilfers in that game but it was probably three or four – roughly half the number of possessions earned by the dominant scrum.
This actually leads further to the argument that the 7 is not the most influential position on the field. The key point you make to its influence is the turn over ball but a dominant scrum won more turnover ball than the pilfering 7 did and the side still lost. I’ll stick with believing that 10 remains the most influential position in rugby.
It hurts me to say it is 10 since they are backs and hence not real rugby players but that is just what it is.
Not sure why you are telling me to ignore the 7s of yesteryear – you brought them up by saying they didn’t pilfer, I’ve listed an unbroken chain of pilfering 7s going back 23 years. Anyway I accept this is a side issue to your main one.
July 7th 2012 @ 12:05am
jeznez said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:05am | Report comment
ps to your question on set piece importance compared to breakdown. It comes from the very stat you provide. If 94% of breakdown ball is retained by the team in possession there just aren’t that many turnovers.
Teams that don’t respect the set piece lose a significantly higher percentage of set piece ball. Go back and watch the Ireland game in the RWC last year and tell me the scrum wasn’t the major factor in costing us the game.
July 7th 2012 @ 12:06am
The Werewolf said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:06am | Report comment
25% of penalties come from scrums in a study done on the recent 6 nations tournament. Plus 50% of scrums collapse so if you are relying on picking up the crumbs available from scrum penalties or scrum possession you’re not going to win matches when 75% of penalties come from the rest of the game and when rucks/mauls account have a ratio of 10 to 1 when compared to the amount of scrums.
phase play is everything.. its a ratio of 10 to 1.
July 7th 2012 @ 10:49am
jeznez said | July 7th 2012 @ 10:49am | Report comment
25% of penalties come from scrums in the 6N’s? That is a tournament where all six teams respect the set piece and rate it as important – not one of the 6N’s sides would have capped Al Baxter, Matt Dunning or Ben Alexander.
Rather than the 6N’s I’d be curious for example about the 2010 England tour of Oz. That English team were rated poorly but beat the Wallabies at home off set piece dominance.
July 7th 2012 @ 12:10am
The Werewolf said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:10am | Report comment
YES SO PILFERS ARE CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT JEZNEZ! otherwise you’d never regain possession when you need to. If pocock doesn’t steal those 4 balls we lose the game because he does it at the crucial times! thats why hes so influential.
how can the onset of mammoth amounts of phase ball make pilfering LESS important???????
its like saying taking wickets isn’t important when the opposition are scoring heaps of runs.
NOOOOOOO the ireland game was lost at the breakdown!!!!!! because w e didn’t have Pocock. NOOOOO!
July 7th 2012 @ 12:20am
Ben S said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:20am | Report comment
If you are going to insist that pilferers are crucially important then you should answer the question that you keep avoiding: why do England, Ireland, France, South Africa, Argentina, Italy and Samoa not play pilferers? Further, why did Graham Henry try to blood Adam Thomson as McCaw’s replacement at 7 instead of picking an over the ball 7? Why have no major coaches come out and confirmed what you are saying? That does tend to happen when new patterns of play develop in rugby. I’d imagine that top Test coaches have a better grasp of the game than you, and yet their selections refute what you’re saying.
July 7th 2012 @ 9:50am
jeznez said | July 7th 2012 @ 9:50am | Report comment
because it isn’t just 7s doing it. Schatz pulled off a beauty in the final play of the Highlanders game, Robinson managed a screamer in the 3rd Wales test.
The number 1 premise of your article is the 7 is the most influential position in the modern game because they pilfer and there are so many rucks now. My response is that many other positions pilfer these days it isn’t just 7′s, therefore 7s are not the most important due to their pilfering.
Your second key premise is that there are less set pieces so they are less important. Put simply if you do not front up with a competent set piece you go a long way to losing the match. Set piece is still incredibly important.
I don’t think we are going to reach any form of consensus.
July 8th 2012 @ 9:26pm
red man said | July 8th 2012 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
JN you’ve mentioned Schatz one pilfer. Pocock does it several times a match against the best players in the world in test match rugby.
I’ve got to say your logic is not very good.
set pieces are not as important as breakdwons anymore. That is what the article says. I’ve got to agree with that.
July 8th 2012 @ 9:44pm
jeznez said | July 8th 2012 @ 9:44pm | Report comment
red man, but Pocock makes those pilfers not because of the number on his back but because he is so good. I’m getting sick of repeating myself but in the old days the 7 was the key pilferer because that was the only forward who could get from a set piece to a breakdown and try to influence it in that way before anyone else arrived.
Now there are so many breakdowns that all players are improving in this area, front rowers, blindsides, centres are all developing pilfering skills. I think we are in an evolutionary period where all players have a responsibility to work on their ability to pilfer.
July 8th 2012 @ 6:51am
Ash said | July 8th 2012 @ 6:51am | Report comment
How is this any different to Kiwi or Saffa commentators? I maybe a one eyed Aussie supporter but if you think it’s different anywhere else you’re wrong. I’ve lived in NZ for many years and have noticed exactly the same thing there. Just watch an episode of Re:Union and you wouldn’t think anyone outside of NZ knows anything about rugby.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:34pm
mark said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:34pm | Report comment
Conrad smith is over rated!
July 7th 2012 @ 9:55am
Kuruki said | July 7th 2012 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Yes Conrad Smith is overrated, he only has the highest winning percentage of any member of the team with the highest winning percentage ever in International rugby. But he is way overrated when we say he is a very good center.
July 8th 2012 @ 9:43am
Ash said | July 8th 2012 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Come on. You are using two different variables to try and prove a point.
If what you say makes sense then every team he plays for would have the same win loss ratio etc.
Yes he is a really good player but, your reasoning is flawed.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:36pm
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
My comment was for DS
JN I like you’re thinking. Those guys do a little bit of pilfering and that adds to their influence and will help them at the selection table. Benn Robinson is another one that comes to mind that can pilfer quite well. But Bismarck for mine plays like a no 6 with powerful tackling and powerful carrying. I believe he’s played a lot at blindside flanker.
I guess the no 7 has become the pilferer but there’s no reason why it couldn’t be somebody else. i think somatotype obviously is important. a low centre of gravity, massive biceps and quads, together with speed is the key. I suppose Hookers and Props may have the right somatotype but do not have the speed to call on whne they need it to always be a pilfering insurance policy because they have to carry bulk for scrum time.
I think your comment about C Smith is bang on. The modern centre has to be capable of having breakdown influence nowadays that is for sure. A player like A faingaa is picked at 13 for australia because he offers so much at the breakdown (he offers nothing in attack) and plays his most influential games when he has played like an extra flanker. Horne who now also hits rucks is ahead of him only because he has a superior running game. smith is just a great all round player that has it all!
July 6th 2012 @ 11:16pm
jeznez said | July 6th 2012 @ 11:16pm | Report comment
ps you miss core strength in your body type keys. Speed is less essential because you no longer need to make these pilfers at the first breakdown, the sheer number of breakdowns occurring mean it is more important to have all those other skills because you’ll find your self in the right position at some stage even if you don’t have great speed.
This is why we are seeing more and more front rowers and centres being really proficient in this area.
July 7th 2012 @ 12:18am
The Werewolf said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:18am | Report comment
you need to make quick decision to strike to pilfer. Pocock does it often once the opposition have made a break. he needs speed to arrive in time.
There are not many that can do it and we are seeing teh prototype for the future pilferer.
again the influencing of the game is about the quality of the pilfer not the quantity. frankly when B robinson pilfers a ball it is because the ball was there to be pilfrered. When pocock does it often it is done outrageously well and at a time when we need it.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:45pm
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
DS i never said pilfering is a new thing. It is the first time that it has had a huge influence on the game because we are now at a point that you must pilfer to get possession because you are less likely to get it from set pieces or kicks. This is because there are so much more phases, 40% less set pieces an 45% less kicks, compared to the end of the amateur era let alone the 70′s when there were only 30 rucks on average per game and therefore no real amazing need to pilfer nor was there great benefit from having a genuine pilferer.
The reason people get so excited today when Pocock gets the ball or gains the penalty or slows it down is because it is now a thousand times more important we have a player that does that.
the no 7 now doesn’t make a high proportion of tackles, he doesn’t need to arrive first to every ruck, he can’t, and the best of them, Pocock, can pilfer or slow down ball better than anyone and so yes he is today’s king.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:06pm
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
‘the no 7 now doesn’t make a high proportion of tackles, he doesn’t need to arrive first to every ruck, he can’t’
I see Mr Contradiction rears his head again.
July 7th 2012 @ 12:23am
The Werewolf said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:23am | Report comment
read the article DH
July 7th 2012 @ 12:26am
Ben S said | July 7th 2012 @ 12:26am | Report comment
I’ve read it: it’s totally flawed and reads like somebody who doesn’t actually watch/understand the game, and your above comment is typically contradictory. DH… (sigh)… Really?
July 7th 2012 @ 2:02am
Ben S said | July 7th 2012 @ 2:02am | Report comment
‘I also made the point that in no period in history were 5 of the top 6 nations captains openside flankers. If you can think of another period where 5 captains of the leading 6 nations were opensides please do respond with those names and the period.’
This is a bit off…
1. McCaw
2. Horwill/Pocock
3. Jean de Villiers
4. Robshaw
5. Dusautoir
6. Warburton
7. O’Connell/O’Driscoll
8. Albacete
9. Ford
10. Lemi
So in reality only McCaw and Warburton are the two genuine 7s on that list. You’re talking about pilferers setting the standard NOW, but McCaw and Dusautoir have been captains for years now.
July 7th 2012 @ 2:29am
The Werewolf said | July 7th 2012 @ 2:29am | Report comment
clutching at straws Ben! 5 of the top 6 are open sides. Are you trying to make youself look silly?
July 7th 2012 @ 2:46am
Ben S said | July 7th 2012 @ 2:46am | Report comment
Right… But they’re not though, are they? Horwill is actually the Australian captain and Robshaw and Dusautoirs aren’t opensides in the manner of Pocock. I’m confused what you don’t understand? McCaw is a different type of player to Pocock now, so it’s only Pocock and Warburton. Also, why stick to the top 6 – because it includes Warburton? Why not the top 10 or top 15?
July 7th 2012 @ 4:42pm
Sircoolalot said | July 7th 2012 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
So what if they aren’t openside in the manner of Pocock. They still play openside roles, position themselves on the openside on scrums.
An openside doesn’t have to be a scavenger you know.
Ben, you’re trying to generalise positions too much.
July 7th 2012 @ 7:00pm
Ben S said | July 7th 2012 @ 7:00pm | Report comment
The entire point of the article is that basically the role of the 7 is to pilfer/scavenge, and that the significance of the 7 is highlighted by the fact that so many 7s are captains. Clearly this is wrong as the 7s who are captains aren’t all there to pilfer as that isn’t there game. Also, Robshaw didn’t position himself at openside all the time against SA. Further, Dusautoir isn’t even an openside.
How can I be trying to generalise when I’m actually being specific?
July 7th 2012 @ 10:24pm
jeznez said | July 7th 2012 @ 10:24pm | Report comment
I’m with Ben S or is that the Original Ben S – I never know which of them is which.
July 7th 2012 @ 10:35pm
Ben S said | July 7th 2012 @ 10:35pm | Report comment
I’m the Original Ben S, jeznez. I only switched to that moniker for a day or two because another Ben S magically appeared on an SA v England thread. That Roarer only made one post, so I’ve reverted back.
July 8th 2012 @ 12:26am
jeznez said | July 8th 2012 @ 12:26am | Report comment
Generally appreciate your comments Ben S – WW I disagree that this bloke is a troll, just a passionate Englishman and we are lucky to have his perspective.
I’m not sure you have met PotHale yet, another northerner worth engaging with.
July 8th 2012 @ 12:28am
jeznez said | July 8th 2012 @ 12:28am | Report comment
Col is ok too.
July 6th 2012 @ 6:24am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 6:24am | Report comment
nah gotta disagree. most important is the THP, then the rest of the tight 5
ps – the pilfering role of the 7 was defined by joshKronfeld, one of the many great opensides of AB’s rugby
July 6th 2012 @ 7:39am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:39am | Report comment
Yes he was.
July 6th 2012 @ 7:49am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:49am | Report comment
he was the turn over king. if he wasnt a pilferer then neither is pocock.
July 6th 2012 @ 7:58am
Jerry said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Pocock has set a new standard in pilfering, but that doesn’t have anything to do with whether Kronfeld was or wasn’t a pliferer. Which he blatantly was.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:13pm
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:13pm | Report comment
Kronfeld is the arguable missing link between the amateur and todays modern no 7.
I hope none of his family read that i’ve referred to him as a missing link,
July 6th 2012 @ 8:36am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:36am | Report comment
jerry – i agree that pocock has taken pilfering to another level but doesnt the fact that kronfeld was the 1st (in the modern era) to show it could be done and how to do it have everything to do with it?
imho kronfeld was just as effective in his era as pocock is in his. the reason kronfeld wasnt as lauded as pocock is because pococks a lone ranger in the wallaby’s where as kronfeld was amongst some greats like jonah, cullen and zinzan
July 6th 2012 @ 10:18am
Jerry said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:18am | Report comment
The comment was in response to Breakdown’s assertion that because Pocock has taken pilfering to a new level, Kronfeld couldn’t have been a pilferer. It’s a nonsense – it’s like saying that Carl Lewis wasn’t a sprinter because Usain Bolt broke the world record for the 100m.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:19am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:19am | Report comment
o
July 6th 2012 @ 7:56am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Excuse me, how old are you? Do you mind keeping the pre-teen comments to yourself please, if only for your sake.
I think it’s pretty accurate to say that Kronfield was a pilferer and a link man. Btw, he played the vast majority of his career in the professional era.
July 6th 2012 @ 7:50am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:50am | Report comment
very intelligent comeback. duh
July 6th 2012 @ 8:03am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:03am | Report comment
props do more than scrumming. u dont know jack bout how to play rugby. rugby isnt played using stats
July 6th 2012 @ 7:57am
Red Kev said | July 6th 2012 @ 7:57am | Report comment
Two articles by Werewolf trying to educate tthe rest of us as to the evolution of rugby. Both based very flimsy premises designed to support his oft repeated and tightly held opinion that the days of ball playing second five eighths are over and the no.7 is the most important player in the team.
I agree with neither assertion and find the articles quite narrow minded. Thanks for the read though, they were certainly interesting.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:27am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
I have a read a few of your comments RK and they are usually constructive. I find this one a little petty.
I have theories and I’ve backed them up with statistical evidence. If that is flimsy than show me concrete evidence to disprove my theory that there are a whole lot more breakdowns nowadays and less set pieces which has changed the landscape of modern rugby. The IRB stats head Collis Thomas seems to agree with me.
Perhaps you might like to write an article and share your thoughts on the game with some evidence of your own because it sounds to me that you’d rather things weren’t proven and that misconceptions be perpetuated without logic or evidence.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:42am
Red Kev said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Your problem is that you haven’t taken evidence and drawn a conclusion; you’ve started with a pre-conceived notion and tried to find reasoning and stats to support it.
What you have done is taken it as a given that all those points that support your argument are true based on a few qualitative anecdotal game references.
I do no need to “show me (meaning you) concrete evidence to disprove my theory” – you are presenting this story therefore the onus is on you to present evidence to make your case. You have failed to fulfill your burden of proof and so I dismiss your theory – not beause it is necessarily wrong, but because you have not convinced me it is right.
You have presented no definitive evidence comparing numbers of turnovers in the 2011 RWC compared to 2007 2003 1999 … etc
You have presented no definitive analysis of the number of scrums per match, nor of the effect on the outcome of the match of scrum and lineout infringements.
Where is the comparison of rucks and mauls per match in the amateur Super 6 and Super 10 compared to the professional Super 12 and then 14 and 15 – that might show genuine evolution as it is set against a time back drop.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:26am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:26am | Report comment
I am disappointed in you. what you have said here is completely presumptious, unfair and unrealistic.
I have read statistical data from each world cup that has formed my opinion over time.
Please read the article and see that I drew comparisons from the 1970′s, 1995 and 2007 to 2011. I have not presented any definitive analysis of the number of scrums per match???????? Yes i have. Did you read the article?
You want analysis on how scrum infringements and line outs infringements affect games. No problem, Abra cadabra. RK outcomes of matches hinge on a matrix of infringements, poor play, missed tackles etc etc etc etc etc. A scrum infringement may give a penalty but that doesn’t tell the story that a knock on or a forward pass led to that scrum in the first place. Or that before that knock on there was a poor kick. etc etc etc its a ridiculous notion to ask me to provide you with magical analysis. Would you be able to give me a definitive analysis on the effect kicks in general play have on outcomes of matches?
And you want me to give data from all the super rugby years as well. No problem, another reasonable demand. I’ll get on that and get back to you in the next few years or so. I also didn’t mention any data from english club rugby. A thousand apologies RK. I’d love to read one of your articles.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:37am
Red Kev said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:37am | Report comment
I don’t make sweeping assertions like the openside flanker is the most important player on the field.
If you’re going to make massive calls you have to have massive back up.
You don’t.
I posted that.
You cherry-picked qualitative facts to suit your premise from random matches. When you did use quantitative data you didn’t show that a trend existed to support your claim – a difference between two data sets is not a trend.
Hyperbolic language like “new phenomenon” and “apex predator” relegates your story to sensationalism not fact presenting.
If the number seven were as important and influential as you insist, and if indeed your claim that David Pocock is the best player on the planet, then why can’t he carry the Force out of the cellar?
To me, the answer seems simple, it is because no.7 is not the most important part of a rugby team.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:45am
the breakdown said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:45am | Report comment
I never said he was superman!
July 6th 2012 @ 9:58am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:58am | Report comment
You don’t make any assumptions red kev. You just throw mud and stand for nothing.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:08am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:08am | Report comment
correction ‘assertions’.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:09am
Jutsie said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:09am | Report comment
This is an opinion based website, I dont understand why you get so worked up over people like werewolf expressing their opinion just because it defers to yours.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:47am
Red Kev said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:47am | Report comment
Werewolf – how very childish.
Jutsie – I’m not worked up, I save that for Reds games and arguments of the merits of Scott Higginbotham. And I don’t care about opinions, I do care when people try to validate their opinion as being more than just an opinion by posting a whole heap of poorly collated facts.
Let me tell you why this article is bunkum.
Werewolf mentions and in fact heavily relies on for the earlier part of the story on the Thomas stats from the 1970s and last years RWC.
Problem 1 – you’re comparing a decade with a tournament, not really much help in the apples with apples department that forms the basis of any credible comparison (the rucks per scrum stat lifted from the 1995 and 2011 RWCs is a far more compelling piece of data).
Problem 2 – did you consider the number of rule changes between the 1970s and 2011 that have changed the number of times a scrum will be called?
Problem 3 – did you consider the number of times penalties would be taken as scrums as they were more reliable than lineouts in retaining possession in the pre-lifting era?
Problem 4 – did you consider how many lineouts led to scrums due to knock ons because of increased contesting for the ball in the pre-lifting era?
Problem 5 – did you consider and collect data on the weather during the data periods? How much of the sample was played in wet weather leading to more handling errors?
Problem 6 – did you consider trying to evaluate the technological advances in rugby balls since the 1970s and 2011 specifically looking at the grip and purchase offered on modern balls aimed at reducing handling errors?
Problem 7 – did you collect any information on the amount of time between the whistle for an infringement and the clearing of a ball from the base of a scrum or lineout; i.e. the percentage of game time spent at set piece? Modern set pieces take a lot longer to complete and while four times fewer set pieces would seem to support your assertion, it is far less impressive if that corresponds to 15% less game time spent at set piece.
Statistics are a dangerous thing in the hands of the public.
I could go on, but there’s another point I’d like to address.
Has the game evolved? Yes.
But your logic linking that evolution to the importance of a David Pocock style flanker is completely flawed, in fact your argument relies in its entirety on unsubstantiated causal links. Numerous times you post statements that are a variation on ‘this’ happened, then ‘that’ happened, therefore ‘this’ was the cause of ‘that’. Any humanities major that passed their first year courses will tell you that “post hoc ergo propter hoc” is wrong more often than it’s right.
July 6th 2012 @ 11:27am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 11:27am | Report comment
As stated you stand for nothing. You don’t offer anything to this debate other than an angered response to when you don’t like statistics proving a theory.
RK what you are saying should have ben included in my article is outrageously preposterous.
July 6th 2012 @ 11:34am
paul said | July 6th 2012 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Red Kev pull your head in!
July 6th 2012 @ 12:37pm
Red Kev said | July 6th 2012 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Alright Red Kev. Take a few breathers, relax, and think about what it means to sledge guys who do their best. Play the ball, not the man. Thanks, Roar Mods.
July 6th 2012 @ 5:36pm
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
many thanks to the mods for getting on top of Red Kev.
For anyone else who wishes to express themselves please do so without fear that a troll will spout out nonsense.
People keep writing your articles so we can discuss them.
July 6th 2012 @ 2:37pm
Kuruki said | July 6th 2012 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
This and the last article about the number 12 has clearly been written by a passionate Australian supporter. The articles imo have both been brought together with the intention of trying to shine a bright light over the current Wallaby setup.
Both articles have made claims that these current situations at the Wallabies are actually the new trend in world rugby which gives the perception that Australian rugby is heading in the right direction. In reality these are not new trends and they are not being adopted around the globe, this is just the way the cards have fallen for the current Wallaby side. There are examples all over the globe that put myth to some of these claims. In saying that i really enjoy these articles as they produce plenty of reactions good and bad.
July 6th 2012 @ 4:49pm
Jutsie said | July 6th 2012 @ 4:49pm | Report comment
Good call both articles have provided alot material for debate and thats what the aim of this site is all about.
I agreed more with the backline article although not 100% I think in the end there is no hard and fast rule and the best teams in history have bucked trends not copied them.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:08am
Bobo said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:08am | Report comment
My memory must be going, because I thought Jeff Miller was a pilferer. And Chris Roche.
And Aussies have had openside flankers as captain, who were the key to their side, since at least 1966 – Greg Davis.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:18am
Bobo said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Oh yeah- and Davis was a fetcher.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:18am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Obviously no 7′s have pilfered but this is the first time that pilfering is their no 1 focus. As i said in the article due to the modern laws being different the game is completely different to the amateur days where there just wasn’t the amount of phase play or recycled ball. It was set piece oriented where as today with the huge amount sof phase play its a different landscape and this brings different skill sets and priorities.
My point on the captains my friend was that at no stage has so many of the top nations had no 7′s as captains. The reason is that they are now king of the rugby field.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:27am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
WW – #7 is the hardest position to play and played well can be the most dynamic. it isnt the most important though. but if you had a choice and wanted to be the best rugby player in the world, you’d play at 7. however if you were a coach and picking a team and you had limited selection you’d pick your THP first then you the rest of the tight5.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:34am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:34am | Report comment
I don’t think so. If i could have any player from 2003 to 2009/10 i’d have Richie mcCaw and i doubt too many would disagree but i’m happy to be proven wrong. he is arguably the greatest player of them all. how many props are regarded in such high esteem?
At the moment I’d have Pocock because I feel he is now the superior player and i predict he will only go on to becoming an even better player.
I don’t see the need to place all the emphasis on a TH when there are sometimes not even half a dozen scrums per side in a match anymore and when 50% of them will collapse anyway.
There are 160 odd rucks a match and 94% ball retention. Without a quality no 7 with the ability to dominate at breakdowns you won’t be winning too many test matches.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:41am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:41am | Report comment
ww – that 94% ball retention is the main role of the tight 5
i think mccaw is the greatest player ever.
props are worth gold in NZ. have u not heard of carlHayman, tonyWoodcock, owenFranks, oloBrown, richardLoe. i agree props arent lauded in aus and thats why there probably arent any decent props in aus.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:01am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:01am | Report comment
No prop is ever discussed as the best player of all time as mcCaw is. Nor will they probably ever because their primary role ie scrums, are not as important as what a player like McCaw or Pocock offer.
Scrums are important of course but so are lineouts. In fact line outs are statistically more important. there are more of them and more tries stem from line out wins than from scrum wins. So one might argue that the best line out thrower is the best player in the world.
Of course they’d be wrong but the point is some players deeds no matter that they are important do not make them the most important.
July 6th 2012 @ 9:07am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 9:07am | Report comment
WW – “Scrums are important of course but so are lineouts” didnt i say tight5?
pocock and mccaw are great players, dont confuse it with the fact that they’re 7′s. its not the position its the man.
anyway i’ll agree to disagree with u ww. imo the THP then tight5 are the most important. if i’m picking a team these are the positions i’d want settled first because they’re the engine room. if richie or pocock were available i’d pick tem first but thats because of who they are not where they play.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:18am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:18am | Report comment
The tight five implies the scrum not the line-out though mania.
If its not the position why the trend to have 5 of the top 6 nations all with their opensides as captain?
The set piece is important. but because there are so few of them in comparison to rucks……. the game is completely different to what it once was.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:23am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:23am | Report comment
ww – thats your assumption that tight5 only pertains to scrums. tight5 is frontrow and locks and their predominant collective core roles are scrums, lineouts, getting to every ruck and maul and set pieces.
your line doesnt make sense now “The set piece is important. but because there are so few of them in comparison to rucks……. the game is completely different to what it once was.” are set pieces important or not? cos i’m arguing they are and here your agreeing. i’m arguing they’re just as important now than they’ve ever been.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:26am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:26am | Report comment
ww – does the title of this article and contents of the article sway u in any way?
Tight-five battle key to success in Hamilton
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/7230631/Tight-five-battle-key-to-success-in-Hamilton
July 6th 2012 @ 10:40am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:40am | Report comment
The tight five is a term that describes the tight five at scrum time becasue thats when they are tight together in a group of five. The line out is the lineout. You’ve been focusing on the tight head and tight five and I presumed you meant predominately the scrum. apologies
i’ve got to say that I get you feel that the tight five all get to each ruck and deliver the 94% of ball retention. This is not how the modern game works my friend. Most sides try to commit less than 5 players to any ruck for starters and of course with 160 odd rucks on average per game it is not humanly possible for any one or group of players to hit every ruck.
The tight five scrum, so do the backrow! the tight five are central to the lineout but so are the backrow! The tight five have to ruck and maul but the backrow do much more of this in comparison to the players in the tight five in almost every match. So who are the more important players that can have more influence on a game. Its a judgement call but i say it is clearly now the no 7 if indeed he is a pilferer.
How can set pieces be as important today when on average their are only 40 of them per match when in yester year there were over a hundred of them per match?
Read that article. the heading didn’t really suit the content of the article. It gave some stats on linebreaks and the factthat one prop carries on average 3m per carry. whoopidoo . It eluded to the fact that the teams needed to dominate at set pice and at the breakdown. Not a compelling argument for how the tight five actually have more influence over the rest of the team at all.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:56am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:56am | Report comment
ww- now your making assumptions about my assumptions. i didnt say the tight5 as a whole make every ruck but at least 2-3 them should be at every ruck. this is a bit overly demanding tho but this is how the AB’s do it. evry ruck there is a minimum of 2 tight5 at the rucks, usually 3-4. this is their respondsibility.
“tight5 scrum but so do the loosies.” this shows you’ve never packed down in a scrum. loosies only make a bit of difference, the real drive and power come from tight5, well really from the front row.
“Most sides try to commit less than 5 players to any ruck” this is generalising from u. it depends on the team and the gameplan at the time. AB’s sometimes do and sometimes dont depending on how good the oppn is at securing their own ball.
“the tight five are central to the lineout but so are the backrow!”, so locks vs loosies who takes the majority of line outs? locks, and they’re usually lifted by the props and occassionally lately the other lock.
“The tight five have to ruck and maul but the backrow do much more of this in comparison to the players in the tight five in almost every match.” this is bizarre. saying the loosies ruck n maul more than the tight5? watch more games. loosies can choose to hit the rucks, tight5 have no choice.
“How can set pieces be as important today when on average their are only 40″ because done properly its guaranteed possession. from here you can run set moves as opposed to the unpredictablity of open play. securing your own set pieces is gold.
July 6th 2012 @ 11:29am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 11:29am | Report comment
i know they use a pod system like everyone else to ensure rucks have men there. tight five backrow, outside centre whatever.
July 6th 2012 @ 3:48pm
Hoy said | July 6th 2012 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
One thing I will say Werewolf in respect to your stats and opinions on scrums not being as important etc.
The story goes Eddie Jones worked out there was only 7 minutes of scrumming in a game, so allotted 7 minutes of training to scrummaging. Look where it got us. I see below you are saying tries etc are scored more from lineouts, but penalties are kicked from scrums. Penalties win games these days more often than tries unfortunately, and against Australia, most of them in our half seem to be scrum penalties.
I can’t overstate how good it would be for us to have a greatly improved scrum, that actaully dominates opponents. The oppurtunities it would present our good backs would be amazing.
July 6th 2012 @ 5:23pm
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
Interesting story.
‘most of them seem to be scrum penalties’. Some of them are and they are usually highly dramatic so we tend to view them as disproportionate to results. 25% of penalties in this year’s 6 nations came from scrums for example. But most penalties come from ruck infringements ie 51% for example in this years 6 nations. We must also assume that not all these penalties were in kicking range. Having an amazing scrum won’t guarantee points on the board and that is a trend being noticed now in the NH. I’m surprised by how many in the SH still seem to think the scrum is as important as in yester year.
Tries still account for more points than conversions and penalties. At the last two RWC’s 74-77% of points were scored from tries and conversions. And it is confirmed that the preceding possession of lineouts account for most tries with the stereotypical try coming from subsequent phase play.
Penalties accounted for only 21-23% of points at the last two rugby world cups. and so if scrums only account for a quarter of penalties we could make an assumption that what…7 or 8% of points come from scrum infringement and that is only if all the scrum infringements are all within kicking range. it is more likely 3 or 4% of points coming from scrum infringements but i can’t find any stats. either way it is not possible that scrum infringement penalties are winning or losing most games.
If anyone has proven you can still win games without a dominant scrum it is Australia. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to improve but the scrum is the second most important set piece and nowhere near as important in the grand scheme of things as they once were. There just aren’t enough of them anymore.
July 6th 2012 @ 2:55pm
Kuruki said | July 6th 2012 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Mania i have to say i would probably have picked Dan Carter then gone to work on my front row. I think the gap between him and the next best in his prime was bigger then any gap any other player put on any opposite. McCaw had a few good tussles Carter was always too good.
July 7th 2012 @ 9:55am
jeznez said | July 7th 2012 @ 9:55am | Report comment
I’m with you. WW can pick his 7 and 9 first. I’ll pick my 10 and 3 – Carter and Hayman please.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:29am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:29am | Report comment
So many top nations have 7s as captains, and yet so many of the top sides don’t feature 7s whose only role it is to pilfer. To suggest that pilfering is the number one focus of a 7 is pretty weak. You seem to be basing this article solely on Pocock. Sam Warburton played age group rugby at 8, McCaw has rounded as a player since 2007, Sam Cane recently produced a better attacking/linking performance than Pocock ever has, Dusautoir has never been able to turn over ball, Robshaw, despite a very good series against SA, is yet another English 6.5, John Barclay is a link man, Marcell Coetzee is yet another SA 6.5 and Sean O’Brien is a 6.5. If pilfering is the sole aim then why haven’t we heard any top coaches say so?
July 6th 2012 @ 8:36am
The Werewolf said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:36am | Report comment
many thanks for your comment Ben.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:44am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:44am | Report comment
That’s evasive, which defeats the purpose of writing an article.
Why have we heard nothing from coaches about selecting opensides whose sole aim is to jackal ball, and why are so few of the current openside captains sole pilferers?
July 6th 2012 @ 8:04pm
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
Imagine my surprise…
July 7th 2012 @ 5:28am
Ben S said | July 7th 2012 @ 5:28am | Report comment
‘Obviously no 7′s have pilfered but this is the first time that pilfering is their no 1 focus’
Brussow – 2009
Smith – 2001
McCaw – 2001
Really?
July 6th 2012 @ 8:38am
biltongbek said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:38am | Report comment
I have a totally different stance on the pilfer role.
I don’t think there is a necessity for a specialist pilferer. When you look at the sharks, their best pilferer is in fact Bismarck du Plessis, if you look at the cheetahs Coenie Oosthuizen is their best pilferer, if you look at the top twenty pilferers in the Super XV, there are 4 Highlanders in there, all their loose forwards pilfer, almost half of the top twenty pilferers are not openside flankers.
The cheetahs in last year’s currie cup had a philosophy where the second guy arriving at the ruck, or the tackle assist, whomever he may be is the pilferer.
When you look at Richie McCaw, I think people sell him short for being a pilferer, he is a ball carrier, cleaner at the breakdown, pilferer, defender etc.
Pocock in my view is the last of a breed that will soon no longer only be doing a specialist job.
The game is getting faster, too fast for one man alone to be at every breakdown to do just one specific task.
You need everyone to be able to turnover ball.
July 6th 2012 @ 8:45am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:45am | Report comment
agree biltongbek. pocock is an out standing pilferer but ireckon the reason he stands out even more is because he’s the only one doing it. AB’s dont rely on a single specialist to pilfer, its everyones job. hore usually turns over jus as much ball as richie does. richie is no longer the turn over king he’s just a great all round rugby player now, a complete package
July 6th 2012 @ 8:46am
Ben S said | July 6th 2012 @ 8:46am | Report comment
I agree. Hore and Du Plessis do it for NZ and SA. Dan Cole does it for England. Rory Best does it for Ireland. Sides without natural over the ball 7s have worked Pocock out in the past, and they will do so in the future.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:56am
alblackfan said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:56am | Report comment
that’s why I’d like to see Pocock play for the Highlanders!! (I’m serious)
His game would lift to another level if he could work the breakdown supported by teammates instead of trying to do everything himself.
July 6th 2012 @ 10:59am
mania said | July 6th 2012 @ 10:59am | Report comment
ABF – pocock in any NZ team would be awesome, but i’d prefer to see him at my canes thanx. jackLam, levave, pocock, karlLowe…the bouncers 2.0
July 6th 2012 @ 2:45pm
Justin2 said | July 6th 2012 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
If he was playing for the Landers he’d be in black wearing 7 too
July 6th 2012 @ 3:03pm
Kuruki said | July 6th 2012 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
I would absolutely love to have a split screen of everything Pocock and McCaw do during a game and compare each and every role tackling, running, linking, everything we can think of. I don’t really care what the outcome is and who is better or not i just want to know for the sake of knowing.
July 6th 2012 @ 4:52pm
Jutsie said | July 6th 2012 @ 4:52pm | Report comment
Kafe did it a few years back on the rugby club during his “kafes chalkboard segment”
He compared the speed of burger, pocock and mccaw to the breakdown using the split screen. At the time pocock was miles ahead of burger in the speed with which he got to each breakdown but mccaw still shaded him. I suspect if kafe was to do the comparison again pocock would slightly shade mccaw purely due to mccaw’s ageing body and pocock fine tuning his skills through experience.
July 6th 2012 @ 4:59pm
biltongbek said | July 6th 2012 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
But then Burger has never been in the same mould as Pocock or McCaw, Burger doesn’t fullfill the role of Breakdown Specialist.
So Kafe didn’t compare apples with apples.
July 6th 2012 @ 5:02pm
Jutsie said | July 6th 2012 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
It was prior to brussow coming onto the scene, I think at the time PDV was trying to convert burger to an openside style flanker but as kafe outlined he was not as effective.