The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Is rugby now a 22 man team game?

Roar Rookie
9th February, 2009
32
1586 Reads

Watching England’s stuttering performance against a poor Italian side at Twickenham on Saturday, I was utterly bewildered by the England coach’s replacement tactics.

Martin Johnson actually used 22 players – all of his bench came on to the field at one point or another in the game. Why?

England’s best player by far was the man-of-the-match scrum half Harry Ellis, but even he was replaced in the 60th minute.

Rugby is a team game and history teaches us that when fifteen players work together as a unit they will often beat sides with more talented individuals in them – if the teamwork is right.

When you chop and change at will, and even take off players who are on song, you risk disrupting the teamwork and require players to adapt immediately to the presence of a new colleague on the pitch.

The place to work out alternative combinations is on the training ground, not on the field of play during an international.

True, injuries may force changes, and if a player is clearly out of form then a replacement may be necessary (Italy had to get their scrum half Bergamasco off, for instance, and arguably he should have be replaced earlier than half-time). But surely if you start the match with fifteen players, you should give them 80 minutes to play together – unless a change is absolutely essential.

It is said that the physical demands of modern rugby are such that for many players lasting 80 minutes is difficult.

Advertisement

Having watched international rugby for 50 years, I’m doubtful that much has changed – and certainly we are told that fitness levels are much higher these days.

If this is true, and I am sure that it is, surely players should be able to last the full match?

close