- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Since rugby is a truly international game it is often interesting to consider how national characteristics influence the way national teams play. Are they national characteristics or simply racial stereotyping?
Can a team’s national style be changed by coaching or will the style overpower coaching instructions?
I suggest that styles are embedded in national psyches and are very difficult to change – only an injection of coaching at lower levels is likely to change things.
Some of the national stereotypes we’re familiar with are as follows.
South African teams play a forward dominated 10-man style of rugby designed primarily to overpower opponents through brute force.
This stereotype, or style, is probably based around the strong silent Afrikaner farming type who dominated South African rugby last century. Most innovations in rugby born in South Africa are based around forward play. The most obvious of these innovations have been the 3-4-1 scrum, specialist props and hookers, lineout lifting and the use it or lose it principle in the maul.
New Zealand teams play a 15-man style where forwards are just brutal enough to gain sufficient possession to allow back play to flourish, and forwards are regularly expected to play like backs.
This style is based largely around the Polynesian influence on rugby – Maori players from the 1870s and Pacific island immigrants since the 1970s. New Zealand forward play has been based on a player similar to South Africa’s, the strong silent farmer type, but New Zealand has been fortunate to always have the Polynesian influence to balance it and encourage running with the ball.
It is notable that (other than the poor 1976 team) New Zealand teams got most heavily beaten in South Africa when Maori players were forbidden to tour. The South African strong silent types were stronger and more silent than their New Zealand counterparts.
Notable New Zealand developments in the game have mainly been mainly in the backs: the wing forward, second five/eighth, or second ball player rather than inside centre, hulking wings, and lob and spin passing.
Australian teams were usually thought to play the game intelligently, always struggling for possession, but out-thinking their opponents with fancy moves and innovative back play.
This is probably because of the private school nature of rugby in Australia. Rugby league was where brutes played, while rah-rah was the thinking man’s game. Australian rugby innovations have been mainly tactical, such as the Randwick flat attack and rush defence.
The modern requirement for rugby to be entertaining, has led to the New Zealand and Australian styles being favoured by recent rules and refereeing interpretations which has allowed these two countries with their relatively small playing populations to remain at the forefront of the game.
It is no coincidence that as the professional era began, South Africa and New Zealand were roughly equal on wins against the other. Since that time, New Zealand’s more balanced style has enabled them to streak ahead to where the score is now: New Zealand 51 wins to South Africa’s 35.
The South African approach is now considered outmoded and it will be interesting to see over the next twenty years or so, whether the increasing influx of black and coloured players is able to influence the South African style. Thus far coaching alone does not seem to have changed much, although South Africa has yet to appoint a national coach who is prepared to play a more expansive game, and the Super Rugby coaches are also largely focused on an outdated style.
It is interesting that France has attempted to move away from their Gallic flair, which should be well suited to the modern style of game, to emulate the English 10-man style. This, coupled with the reducing number of actual French backs showing any Gallic flair in their national competition, has led to a changing of the French style.
Will they be able to conjure up the unstoppable flair which won them their 1999 Rugby World Cup semi-final ever again?
England are also changing their style. Although like Australia, their rugby is based around the Public (private) school system, they have had the numbers of players to maintain English rugby as the forwards based game it always was. With the influx of New Zealand coaches their style is gradually changing at the top levels. They have enough players to be able to pick players to play any style of rugby at that top level.
These different styles are part of what make international rugby so compelling. Hopefully we will see all these different styles at the Rugby World Cup. May the best stereotype win.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.