Are frontrowers an endangered species?

With regard to the Australia v England tests Dan Cole simply took Ben Daley apart. He nearly split Daley from Faingaa countless times. Case closed. 3. That Australia's scrum was fine against France and Italy (A lot of Roarers would disagree with your assertion that Australia scrummaged well against France.) that doesn't necessarily mean that their scrum would be 'fine' against other nations. If you're a front rower, as you have claimed, then you would understand that propping is like boxing. Styles make fights. No scrum will ever be the best in the world because there will always be props that other props will struggle against. Further, simply because a scrum is strong against other sides and then less strong (More drops and re-sets.) doesn't automatically indicate that the other sides are to blame. Props in the ascendcy as well as props under pressure will drop scrums. Tony Woodcock's scrummaging ability is a myth based on what evidence exactly?

Kidney's right. I don't think it was particularly subtle, but it obviously bypassed you.

This is just sophistry. 1. The article you cited referred directly to the Joubert game - that was the whole point of it, to defend Joubert's inability to police a scrum and the effect that had on the game. 2. The "statistics" cited in the article are meaningless. Resets can happen for a variety of reasons. They do not only happen when scrums collapse, and even when they do, a higher rate is just as consistent with gamesmanship as it is with a "defect" by one side or other. 3 As I pointed out above (a point to which you apparently cannot respond) Australia's scrum was fine against France and Italy during that same season. That indicates that the "problem" of resets was as much with the Boks and All Blacks as it was with Australia. In fact, when one side is trying to milk penalties through the scrum, resets are precisely what you will see because that is what the milking side wants - a reset is fine, so long as you can influence the referee to think that its the other teams fault. 4. In any case, the statistics cited in that article were doubtful. Rugby game statistics seem to be highly elastic, to say the least. You have missed your number one argument - i am surprised no-one has come up with it: that Australia got away with the same thing during the Gregan years. But that just supports my point - scrummaging is primarly not a matter of skill in the contest for the ball but of influencing the referee. And I won't waste my time with watching Tony Woodcock - his scrummaging ability is indeed a "myth" - as was demonstrated by that game with Joubert.

@Mike I'll make this my last post on the subject as it's nearly all been said. I sited no game, only the article. You mentioned a particular game. I cite the number of scrums in all games in 3N last year. Let me again to be clear: In matches involving only New Zealand and South Africa, there were 60 scrums, 8 resets and 8 collapses. In matches involving Australia, there were 100 scrums, 40 resets and 65 collapses. So there is a collapse every second scrum in games involving Aus, and about one in every 8 scrums in games not involving Aus. This cannot be due to the referree - he's not pulling it down! Some scrums will be dropped on purpose, some not. Some games one team will get the upper hand. But the common factor is that Australia are playing these games. If you only watch games involving Australia you'll see heaps of reset scrums. Calling for 'the international game' to be fixed because 'international scrummaging has become a joke' based on only watching games involving Australia is not logical. It's like saying international football is no good after only watching the All Whites play! Or should that be the Socceroos? You can choose to blame the number of reset scrums in games involving Australia on Australia's scrumming or the opposition dropping it because they suspect they'll get a penalty if you wish. I think it's the former. If you have time, watch NZ v Wales this week. Both failry evenly matched in the scrums last week initially, NZ got better in the second half when Tony "The Myth" Woodcock came on. You might change your view on the value of scrumming in the international game.

Okay, you have me there - if you want to define "neutral" as meaning simply that you come from New Zealand, be my guest. I did not watch the games between Ireland and the ABs, nor any games involving Georgia or Mongolia for that matter. We can chase our tails for ever with such things. My point remains that the refereeing of the scrum by Joubert in that match you cited, and by both referees in the last two Australia tests (although Owens was by far the worst) and in a number of other tests is just plain arbitrary. In most cases, the referees seem to make their mind up before the game because of Australia's "reputation", their decisions bearing no comprehensible relationship to what is actually happening in front of them. It is not always the case - in the same season as the Joubert debacle, Australia scrummaged very well against France and Italy, who both have strong packs. This of course is never cited by those who argue as you do. But it wasn't because the Australians suffered a complete personality change or possession by aliens between matches separated by only a few weeks (which is an absurd proposition). It was purely the refereeing. its easy enough to see what is happening - a referee who doesn't really understand what is going on just allows himself to be swayed by whoever talks the loudest, either before or during the match. if Australia or anyone else gets "a reputation" (which is an artificial concept anyway) then an incompetent referee will follow the "reputation" because he has nothing else to go on - certainly not an understanding of what is happening there. And opposing props know that their best chance is to attempt to hoodwink the referee rather than to actually try to win the ball through skill.

Out of interest, why am I not neutral? Because I don't think Australians are good at scumming? Or because when I showed you that in games in the trinations involving Australia had vastly more scrum collapses than games that didnt? I don't know why the opinions below the piece I quoted you have anything to do with the number of scrums dropped in games involving Australia. I'm just trying to back up my opinion that Australian scrummaging is not strong. You think the problem is scrumming generally, I think it is Australian scrumming, or at least scrumming in games involving Australia. Maybe the other teams are dropping them on purpose??? In any case, and for example, the scrums in the All Black games (Ireland, Wales) this year have been very good and interesting part of the competition.

No Kidney, he just didn't read the post. Nothing subtle about it.

Kidney, You are not remotely neutral on this issue. Your citing of an article defending Craig Joubert's mind-blowingly incompetent performance in that test reinforces my point. Not a win that NZ can cite as any proof of their ability. Have a look at the comments below that article that you cite - so much for proving points from statistics. And thank you for reinforcing my point: international scrummaging is a joke. It is meaningless and will remain so until we get competent referees to police it. At which point the so-called "inferiority" of Australian scrummaging will disappear. As I wrote above Australia's main error is take the idea of scrummaging as a contest for the ball seriously.

I think Colin was being subtley ironic there perhaps. Never mind.

Thanks for your "commments" Mike. 1) I am neutral. I'm a NZer living in NZ. I don't care whether Australia beat England or vice vera. 2) Vastly superior is how I would describe England's scrum relative to Australia. That's my opinion having watched the two tests. I don't know what eye gouging, while abhorrent and yet unproven, has to do with it. 3) I don't think you understand the term 'neutral'. And I couldn't be buggered searching Roar, but now you've got me interested again to see if I'm remembering correctly. Here's the quote: In matches involving only New Zealand and South Africa, there were 60 scrums, 8 resets and 8 collapses. In matches involving Australia, there were 100 scrums, 40 resets and 65 collapses. Here's the whole article. Enjoy. http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/07/23/its-not-craig-jouberts-fault-australia-cant-scrum-robbie/ 4) Well, unlike you, I can only speak for myself. I enjoy the scrum contest the way it is, please don't break it. I guess you might say the fact that there is much to discuss means that at least some people like to talk about it? Perhaps we should have a poll??

"Australians aren’t vastly superior scrummagers" - which I didn't write. If you go back and re-read the posts you will see that I was responding to a claim by Kidney that the English pack were "vastly superior scrummagers" - rather surprising in the circumstances even from a one-eyed England supporter. "It’s an irrelevant point." That is your opinion. I think it is very relevant. "A claim not proven" Of course its not proven - so is just about everything to do with a scrum. But its all part of a picture of front row forwards who are not committed to the scrum as means of contesting the ball. And I don't primarily blame those forwards, but the referees who are incapable of policing them (or so it would appear).

"“Vastly superior” scrummagers do not need to bind on to arms, fail to bind at all, bend to bring down their opponent or push off the mark." Australians aren't vastly superior scrummagers. "Nor do they need to gouge the eyes – that was the claim made by Slipper and Elsom, they appeared very genuine about it and the marks on Slippers face appeared consistent with it, but of course gouging in the scrum is almost impossible to detect by cameras or refs (and certainly not by referees of the current standard in international rugby)." A claim not proven, despite the many cameras in todays game and one not followed up by the extremely rigorous citing commisioners on this tour. Do you have any evidence other than the say of Slipper immediately after the incidecent which wasn't then raised post-match. It's an irrelevant point.

"As a neutral observer" - that's a good one. Far from being vastly superior at the scrum, the English were if anything inferior (at real scrummaging I mean). "Vastly superior" scrummagers do not need to bind on to arms, fail to bind at all, bend to bring down their opponent or push off the mark. Nor do they need to gouge the eyes - that was the claim made by Slipper and Elsom, they appeared very genuine about it and the marks on Slippers face appeared consistent with it, but of course gouging in the scrum is almost impossible to detect by cameras or refs (and certainly not by referees of the current standard in international rugby). "I’m sure I read last year that ..." - yes, that's a neutral basis for observation. Very rigorous. I have seen people try to do this with match statistics before - for every set that supports them, there is another that doesn't. "Overall I think the scrum works pretty well and is usually a v interesting contest in international rugby." I doubt that more than a handful of observers would say that, and no "neutral" ones. The scrum is an embarrassment, and unfortunately one of the more boring aspects of the game. It should be one of the strengths and drawcards of international rugby which would attract new fans, but instead invites mainly ridicule.

As a neutral observer, it's clear that although there were some inconsistencies from the ref, and penalizable offences that were picked up, and the usual variability in performance from one scrum to the next, England were vastly superior to Australia at the scrum. Particularly in the first test. There were lots of scrum collapses, but there always are if you're only watching Australia play. I'm sure I read last year that the numbers of reset scrums in tests involving Australia last year in the 3N were about twice that of games not involving Australia. Overall I think the scrum works pretty well and is usually a v interesting contest in international rugby. The issue is the poor quality of the Australian tight forwards scrumming performance.

Then respond with something meaningful.

Discussion? “But the scrummaging? Ridiculous, as usual. The England pack applied their standard tactics – illegal binds, bending, grabbing the arm, pushing off the mark – except in this case they seem to have added gouging as well… And the referee as usual went along for the ride because he didn’t have a clue what was actually happening.” I think not, sir.

I agree - you are trolling, and "shoulda, coulda, woulda" describes you very well. Now, if we can leave the uneducated name-calling behind and get back to the game - I agree it was a good series with some good rugby. Unfortunately, virtually none of that was in the scrummaging. And, yes, I have propped. I have no idea if you have or not, and even if you tell me you have, I have no way of knowing if you are telling the truth. So, how about we leave the silly taunts and discuss like adults?

Yep, a good England win. Good to see them actually play some rugby for a change. Marvellous what actually playing attacking rugby can achieve. Great game by the halfback...all over Genia. Bad kicking options by Australia...I think they will be well and truely poleaxed by the Kiwis and Boks. Glad to see RD stayed with the front row. Grew in stature this game I think. Unimpressed with Giteau thinking missing a sitter was funny. Slipper had a good 27 minutes...will have gained a heap out of these starts. Overall though, a poor performance by Australia rather than an outstanding performance by England. TN's will be very telling, me thinks.

Lamentable trolling. Take it elsewhere Mr Shoulda Coulda Woulda. It was a good series, with some good rugby. You clearly aren't a prop, so take it on the chin.

Nice try, Colin. The only advantage England have is in hoodwinking referees. They do not know how to scrummage (in any meaningful sense) and this was demonstrated again tonight.