A couple of weeks ago comments on one of my articles moved to the topic of how to balance selections in a team based on the core roles of players in particular positions.

Of course this isn’t a new topic – there are plenty of articles and even more comments in a wide range of articles in the archives of The Roar touching on this topic but it was good discussion that sprung up well down the comments page that I thought deserved further attention.

With all such discussions this one started with a point of view that one player should replace another in the starting team for the Wallabies. In this case the proposition was that Matt Hodgson should replace Michael Hooper because Hooper isn’t performing the core roles of an openside flanker and this is hindering the Wallabies performance.

One of our regular readers, Chivas, made a good argument on the topic and I’d summarise the discussion that ensued as three questions:

• What are the core roles of an openside flanker?
• If a player isn’t performing the core roles but is playing well, should it matter?
• If the core roles are so important can a balance be achieved with selections to cover those core roles in a different way?

The topic is actually a lot wider than just the role of the openside flanker – it applies to all positions on the field.

The core roles of individuals also impact on the effectiveness of a group of players. Some of those key groups are the back three, the centres, the halves, the backrow, the tight five and the front row.

This is what we often refer to as getting the balance in a team right. As an example, if none of the back three are good general play kickers, you don’t have balance within that group and that could hinder the team’s performance.

Similarly if you have a scrumhalf that likes to run and draw defenders in before passing the ball but the flyhalf is a player that likes to receive the ball early, the lack of balance in the key halves group will definitely hinder the team’s performance.

That sort of discussion leads to another question – should players be selected who perform the core roles to suit a game plan or should game plans be selected to fit the capabilities of the players selected?

Ewen McKenzie was well known during his time at the Reds for changing game plans each week dependent on the team they were playing. He changed the game plan based on the opposition, not on the players he had available from week to week.

I think you’ll find he still uses the same philosophy – work out how you want to play and then pick players who if they don’t already perform the core roles required to play that way, can adapt. I certainly think that’s the way it should be done.

If you accept that the game plan is set first and players must adapt to that game plan, what do you do when a good player just doesn’t suit the game plan? Do you start changing the game plan to suit one or two players? I don’t think you should.

Teams often try to stick to game plans early in matches before opening up to a less structured approach later in matches. That makes some players who can stick to a game plan better options as ‘starters’ and other players better options as ‘finishers’.

I think Kurtley Beale is a case in point here – he offers a lot but he doesn’t suit the Wallabies current game plan and McKenzie appears to have decided that he isn’t a ‘starter’ who can carry out the game plan earlier in matches.

Before we can consider the core roles of the openside flanker we should consider the roles of all pack members because getting the balance right in the whole pack is important, not just in the backrow.

Traditionally props had two core roles – scrummage well and lift in lineouts. The hooker’s core role was throwing in the lineout and scrummaging well but ideally they could play like a fourth backrower. If you could get anything more from the front row, it was a bonus.

The traditional core role for locks was jumping in the lineout and scrummaging well. They were also expected to play tight and shift bodies at the ruck. Anything else was a bonus.

The backrow traditionally had to get around the field more than the others to cover for the tight five who stayed not surprisingly, tight.

Ideally you’d have a big bustling number eight who also played tight and crashed into people with ball in hand and sat them down on their backsides if they carried the ball anywhere near him.

The blindside flanker was the one forward who really had a crossover role – they played a little like a lock, a little like a number eight and a little like an openside flanker.

The traditional role of the openside flanker was quite narrow – play on the ball whether in attack or defence and that meant getting to as many rucks as possible, preferably as the first forward to arrive. That meant staying close to the ball at all times.

In defensive rucks the aim of the openside flanker was to disrupt the opposition’s ball, if not steal it. In attacking rucks the aim was to arrive first at the ruck as often as possible to either clean out the opposition or to get over the ball and protect it from the arriving hordes.

So what’s changed with the core roles of the forwards?

In defence I think we now expect most players, backs and forwards, to play like backrowers – make a tackle and then compete for the ball. Ideally we’d like twelve openside flankers in defence with the back three playing a slightly different role.

In attack I think the changes have been more position specific.

Obviously the role of the front row is significantly different today with an expectation from many coaches that they perform the traditional core roles but also all play like backrowers around the field, including being a ball carrying option.

Most coaches now want their locks to be primary ball carriers and also have the work rate of a backrower.

I don’t think the role of the number eight in attack has changed much.

In most teams neither has the role of the openside flanker, except that some players in this position now have an increased involvement as a link player in attack.

I believe that the openside flanker’s role in attacking rucks is now even more important than their role in defensive rucks and is a key to ensuring continuity in attack.

In order to play this role the openside flanker needs to closely follow the ball so they can get into attacking rucks early. They obviously can’t do this if they are carrying the ball a lot of the time.

The role of the blindside flanker has changed significantly. As defences have improved over the last two decades, it’s become harder and harder for clean line breaks to be made out wide.

Regardless of which phase of play the ball is moved wide, with better defenders in the back line there are more wide rucks when a wide attacking play is halted. This opens up more risks of losing possession which doesn’t allow you to build continuity in attack.

Many coaches have countered that by instructing their blindside flanker to play a wide role where they can be a threat as a ball carrier against backs but can also use their size and pace to protect the ball at a wide attacking ruck by cleaning out threats or protecting the ball until other players arrive.

If they also play in the wide channel in defence they can help to counter the opposition blindside flanker who will probably be playing the same role.

Players who fill this role do so at the coaches instruction. You don’t honestly think Scott Higginbotham played wide in attack for the Reds in 2011 because that’s where he liked playing, do you?

Think about Kieran Read playing for the Crusaders or the All Blacks. If the coaches didn’t want him playing wide, do you really think he’d keep playing that way? And why would a coach ever change the role he plays when he’s so effective in the wide channels.

Hold on, I hear you say – Read plays number eight, he rarely plays blindside flanker these days. Yes, quite correct – the teams he plays in have simply switched the roles of the number eight and the blindside flanker.

In his comments to my recent article Chivas argued that Hooper is a primary ball carrier for the Wallabies, and very effective at it.

He also argued that if Hodgson were to replace Hooper at openside flanker you may well have better ball retention at the ruck as Hodgson would play much closer to the ball and would therefore get into more attacking rucks but the question would then be, who would get the Wallabies over the gain line?

They are both valid points and Hooper is definitely the best ball carrying forward the Wallabies currently have.

I think the primary ball carriers in most teams today are the number eight in tight, the locks working both tight and loose and the blindside flanker working wide. Most teams don’t consider their openside flanker as a primary ball carrier. I think that’s the way it should be as it provides good balance.

However, the Wallabies aren’t getting any real impact from the players I think should be the primary ball carriers so Hooper is filling the role.

But does that allow Hooper to perform the core roles of an openside flanker? No – if he’s not playing tight because he’s a primary ball carrier and he’s also defending a little wider, he’s never going to be an on-ball openside flanker.

I don’t think you can compete against the top teams without a player in that role so in order to balance the backrow, another player has to take on the role of the on-baller.

If Hooper is playing the blindside flanker role, is it Scott Fardy or Wycliff Palu/Ben McCalman who is the on-baller? Could it be Higginbotham? I’d suggest the answer is no for all of those players.

Is the solution to bring Hodgson in as the blindside flanker? I think the better solution may be to switch Hooper to blindside flanker and bring in Hodgson as a genuine openside flanker.

Just as Read plays at number eight in the scrum but plays like a blindside flanker, Hooper currently plays openside flanker at the scrum but is really playing as a blindside flanker, so why not give him that position anyway.

That would let Hooper do what he does best. Let’s not expect him to be an on-baller because that isn’t what he does best.

The main issue with that option is in the lineout where playing both Hooper and Hodgson weakens the primary jumping options. With the two locks as primary options you then need the number eight to be a third primary jumping option.

An international team won’t be competitive with only two primary jumpers. Palu and McCalman are really backup jumping options, not primary options and without a third primary jumper the lineout could come under pressure.

A backrow with Hooper at six, Hodgson at seven and Higginbotham at eight would be an option with Higginbotham’s lineout capability overcoming that issue.

However, for that combination to work Higginbotham would have to play tighter. He’s done that a lot more in his last two seasons at the Rebels so that combination could offer a good balance with two primary ball carriers and an on-baller but still having three primary jumpers in the lineout.

Would it work with Hooper, Hodgson and Palu/McCalman? I don’t think it would.

Does it make sense to change the backrow makeup to accommodate Hooper not being an on-baller? Hooper is a a definite selection in the starting team, not just because he’s currently captain but because he’s the most effective attacking forward. I’m coming around to the idea and think it’s worth a try.