The population of earth is approximately seven billion. Interestingly, all of us appear to descend from a group of hunter-gatherers living in Africa around seventy thousand years ago.
The most recent genetic research suggests that a tribe of about 200 migrated from Africa, crossed the Red Sea, and gradually colonised the planet.
Homo Sapiens were not alone. As they continued to push further into new territory, they became increasingly exposed to Homo Neanderthalensis and possibly Homo Erectus.
Despite this, it was not long before our ancestors, either by displacement or eradication, had eliminated all competition.
Some scientists have suggested that it was the ability of complex speech that gave Homo Sapiens the edge over the larger brained and more physically powerful Homo Neanderthalensis.
Clearly the ability to communicate is important, but how important is communication in rugby?
It’s well established that successful teams possess strong communicators. Being able to provide economical, clear and precise information under fatigue and stress is a hallmark of good players and teams.
It’s also critical to be able communicate openly with team-mates in the time away from the training field. No team can prosper without developing a culture of honesty and trust.
These are well understood and accepted truisms, but what about communication between the coaching staff and players during a match?
All teams utilise an array of strategies that allow coaches to send messages onto the field during a match. The most common method seems to be to radio messages to water boys, physios and doctors, who are then able to relay them whilst on the field during breaks in play.
As coach of the Free State Cheetahs, Rassie Erasmus had a large panel of “disco lights” fitted directly above the coach’s box. From there Rassie would vary the colour of the lights to instruct his players from up in the stands.
Technology will continue to play an ever increasing role in the game.
The amount of information that players and coaches are now able to access is impressive. When I first arrived at the Brumbies, matches were still recorded on VHS. By the time I left, we had software that made it possible to know if an opposing player folded or scrunched.
Or so it seemed.
As coaches have access to more information, it becomes inevitable that they will be best equipped to identify the strategies for a given field position or set piece. Real time data analytics will make it easy to imagine a scenario whereby a coach will know precisely what the best on-field options are.
This will likely give rise to a host of creative yet subtle strategies that allow coaches and players to communicate during a match.
On a basic level, this is already occurring. It’s not uncommon for players to attempt to “run off” an injury during a match.
This info is usually communicated from the sidelines in the hope that there might be an opportunity to target a weakness in the defensive line.
There are a lot of qualities that made Steve Larkham a great player, but one thing that really stood out for me was his ability to make consistently good decisions.
Bernie could make a snap assessment of a number of factors: our position on the field, the score line, time remaining, which plays he’d previously used during the match, the chance of us winning clean ball from the set piece, where the opposing D-line was most vulnerable, and so on.
From there, he would mentally select a play from a long list of choices best designed to get us out of our defensive zone, produce a line break, go forward ball or a score.
I wonder, though, if a future technology trend has the potential to make a Larkham-type player less special. Will the next generation of on-field generals simply execute orders rather than steer the ship?
I’m not sure I believe that even the current ability to so closely scrutinise the opposition has led to better outcomes for rugby. It’s fairly difficult to genuinely surprise another team these days.
The opposition has poured over countless hours of footage readying themselves for any eventuality.
Innovation is still most certainly possible in the game. It’s just that much more difficult to get any sustained benefit from it.
If a new strategy is successful, it’s quickly adopted by all. Which brings me to the Brumbies.
At the hight of their dominance, they were playing a style of rugby unseen before: sustained ball retention, quick ruck ball, and building pressure made them trendsetters.
Which team will be the next to produce a truly unique strategy?
Jock M
Guest
The breakdown laws are the problem. Bring back true competition for the ball and innovation,forward impetitus etc will reappear. I am amazed that even the majority of Test level players and ex players cannot grasp this fact. It is time that demonstration matches were organised. I will guarantee that if true competition is reintroduced the extra demands on the players will see their size diminish very quickly.
joeb
Guest
Clyde, your first five introductory paras seem to suggest you've been catching SBS's recent evolutionary series called, "Becoming Human", quote: "First Steps - Where did we come from? What makes us human? This three-part series investigates dramatic new discoveries that are transforming the picture of how we became human. The first program explores fresh clues about our earliest ancestors in Africa, including the stunningly complete fossil nicknamed 'Lucy's Child'. These three million-year-old bones from Ethiopia reveal humanity's oldest and most telltale trait: upright walking rather than a big brain. (From the US) (Documentary Series) (Part 1 of 3) G CC", broadcast on SBS TV1, Sunday, 4 March, 2012. "Which team will be the next to produce a truly unique strategy?" Think last night's Highlanders / Stormers game gave an indication. That Stormers outfit were simply too big and powerful to handle, even for a side as strong, big and quick as the Landers... and the homeside missing their penalty kicks didn't assist matters either. ;)
Bob
Guest
Rath Thanks for your reply. Perhaps I was a bit harsh on Eddie Jones - I have to bow to superior knowledge there - but I found his (Wallaby in particular) teams' tactics depressingly predictable. Whether that was due to the players rather than the coach, or simply my unrealistic expectations, is in any event moot. Anyhow, I appreciate the considered, thoughtful approach you are taking to analysing the game. And thanks for engaging with the hoi polloi!
RuggaBugga
Guest
Great article Clyde. I wonder if we will reach a point where technology will actually create robots to play the game? Look forward to next week's posting.
Lorry
Guest
this neo-biologism is dull and, more importantly, a dangerous slope..... Culture/society and economic systems affect humans far more than any biology
drama city
Guest
Garry Russell-Sharam It's Ken Wright not Keith Wright.
sledgeandhammer
Guest
Actually,unless you are African you do: "human whose ancestral group developed outside Africa has a little Neanderthal in them – between 1 and 4 per cent of their genome, Pääbo's team estimates. In other words, humans and Neanderthals had sex and had hybrid offspring. A small amount of that genetic mingling survives in "non-Africans" today: Neanderthals didn't live in Africa, which is why sub-Saharan African populations have no trace of Neanderthal DNA." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18869-neanderthal-genome-reveals-interbreeding-with-humans.html
sittingbison
Guest
No Neanderthal genes in us seiran, so no inbreeding. However there is a very interesting postulation that we were Neanderthal prey for thousands of years at the interface in the Levant, which has programmed many of our characteristics, and when we finally overcame them hunted them and the inbreeds to extinction (bone evidence shows possible inbreeding once occurred).
Seiran
Guest
'Despite this, it was not long before our ancestors, either by displacement or eradication, had eliminated all competition.' Let's not forget interbreeding, the most likely reason for the Neanderthals elimination.
Who Needs Melon
Roar Guru
Nice of you to defend Eddie. He has his faults as does anyone but is unfairly maligned and demonised here in Oz.
stillmatic1
Guest
i would argue that although the intensity is higher, it is all relative to the professional conditioning that todays players benefit from, hence, todays players can play at a higher intensity for longer than their forebears. but again its relative to the time in history in which someone is playing. we have to remember that the old touring parties played 30 odd matches not 12-15 and did it all without todays professional methods of training etc. i agree with gary in that technique is the over riding factor of a players ability and the modern player has either forgotten this or had it coached out of him/her. good technique and discipline is a vital pre requisite for anyone, let alone a football player, and yet how many of these behemoths are technically astute at anything but running through people!! if we want rugby to be part of the entertainment business then unfortunately this doesnt equate to having the smartest footballers on the park, just the most rampaging players that a coach can find. although the beauty of sport is that anyone can have a go and break the stereotypical mould and make an impact. agree with Rath about the supposed lack of skill of the modern player opposed to yesteryear is absolute hogwash. re watching games from even the 80s can be torrid viewing, and there is a lot we should be thankful for the game going professional. just dont over look all those skinny kids who love the game and want to play!!
Rath
Guest
Bob, I disagree that Australia "generally" does not produce "players who think on their feet". There is no doubt that between NZ, Aus and SA we place third in terms of having the best athletes at our disposal. I firmly believe that Australian rugby is at it's strongest when we are forced to innovate. We simply don't have the raw numbers to compete on an even footing. That said I tend to agree that we don't see as many intelligent players currently in the game as has been evident in the past. I put this largely down to players focusing entirely on rugby as opposed to professional development in areas away from the game. Having played under Eddie I can assure you there was no "robot era". In fact I would argue that under Jones the Brumbies produced some of the best attacking Super Rugby on record. Eddie understood that structure set the platform for players to make instinctive decisions. A game plan without structure makes it difficult to build momentum and create pressure both of which are vital in having direct control over "what's in front of you". Rath
Lorry
Guest
Gary, 67kgs is tiny, almost underweight for a rugby player. I am only 171cms, not overweight, dont go to the gym and I weigh 74kgs Why would a player who does any amount of fitness training/weights at all weigh anything less than 78 or 80kgs? I think some of you have rose-coloured glasses. Guys like Farr-Jones, Poido, Lynagh, Little were pretty big guys. Even Campo was by no means small
Bob
Guest
I think Australian rugby players, generally, don't think on their feet very well. The ones who do stand out a mile - the Campos, Larkhams, Ellas. We produce a lot of players who are great athletically but do not have vision. I can think of a few others who had vision, but not the athleticism to really shine - Lloyd Walker, David Knox, etc. I applaud Deans' approach in encouraging players to use their noggin and play what's in front of them. The Eddie Jones robot era was a depressing one for a follower of attacking, running rugby. Unfortunately, vision and awareness are a combination of innate sense and training from an early age. It's pretty hard to teach a 23 year old how to make decisions on the run, particularly at the pace international rugby is played at, unless it's already habitual. What galls me is that Australian teams, particularly in the forwards, don't seem to have or use vision on the field as well as the Kiwis or South Africans. I'm not just talking about the freaks like Michael Jones or Zinzan Brooke; simply the average All Black 4,5,6 or 8 seems to be able to know when to run in support (and off which hip), how to create space and pass into it, when to pass and who to, where to be to cover and kick, and when to put the head down and run it up the guts.
Mella
Guest
Fascinating article. On the anthropology side, apparently if you go back a bit further to about 100,000 years, the species was on the brink of extinction and all modern humans can be linked back to 5 maternal ancestors. I think the only way to keep player weight down is to keep the ball in play more, a high fitness requirement will naturally control players from building up excess bulk. You will still get different body shapes, but without the gym muscles. A prop with a squat build can of course be just as fit as a slim winger, but they will only get that fit if the game requires it.
Gary Russell-Sharam
Guest
Nice to read an opposing post from a different angle Rath, that what makes this format interesting.
Rath
Guest
Howdy Gents (and ladies?), Couple points. I don't see the trend away from smaller nimble players that some have highlighted. There has been a size increase but it appears to be relative. The best backs in Australia are not behemoths. O'Connor, Ione, Cooper, Beal and Genia all posses good power to weight ratios and agility. The point of difference from an athletic perspective is that these players have power, speed and agility. None of these players dominate with brute force but all of them are a nightmare to defend against. Granted that what you gain from these players in attacking prowess you may lose in dominant defence but overall I think the amount of running players are now asked to do does tend to favour agility over pure mass. It seems pointless to compare injury rates from the pre modern era to current day players. Today players train more, play more and do it all at a higher intensity than players did before the game went professional. Players don't use machines to strength train, free weights and olympic lifts are used because they are a proven method of translating strength increases to functional on field performance enhancement. As to the argument that skill levels have declined in the modern era I think that’s hogwash. The ball is in play a hell of a lot longer now than it was say 20 years ago, more ball in play time equals more errors. All the arguments I’ve seen against the modern skill levels tend towards opinion rather than fact. I’m on the fence re the coming impact of technology in rugby. Overall I think it will be a good thing and it will open up a world of ideas and opportunities that are not currently obvious. Technological evolution is inevitable and I think for the most part it improves sport. Have a good long weekend! Cheers, Rath
Gary Russell-Sharam
Guest
It would be interesting to see the statistics on injuries ie hamstrings quads calfs etc on the modern rugby player as apposed to the player from pre pro days. There seems to be a hell of a lot of hamstirng injuries just in this early part of this season as apposed to previous seasons, maybe this might be cutting edge reporting but I doubt it. I think it bears food for thought to whether all that time in the gym is really all that justified. I appreciate that if being a front row forward you would need to spend considerable more time building large muscle mass to justify your selection. But I have my doubts that a fleetfooted back needs to spent equitable time building muscle. And this seems to be the trend these days. I have two sons 19 and 18 who have spent considerable time trying to get bigger doing countless hours in the gym to impress the coaches so they can be selected at a young age. Coaches consistently go for the bigger players no matter what in the early years. It is bordering on an obsession with young rugby players to do heaps of gym work to get big muscles. Coaches in all probability are the people to be held accountable for this. They in general want bigger stronger players. The actual reality of the size of the player not necessarily being litmus test for winning can sometimes be seen when smaller physical players pack against the SA packs and hold their own and in lots of cases get the better of them, showing that size is not always the prerequisite for winning; technique can have a large bearing on the result. So to when looking at the backline in comparing some SA backs to others. Don't for a moment think that I don't appreciate how good SA players are but there are a lot of times where they are all over the park bigger in every way than their opponents but still they can be beaten by smaller players running around them. Giving an example of bigger is not always better.
Red Block
Guest
The greatest inhibitor of creativity is structure, coaches must allow and practise the 'free rein' approach. Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead! It was once the hallmark of Wallaby rugby to play with structure but the ability to ad lib if the situation arose, a la Campo , Ella etc. IMO too many current players seem to be too scared to take that chance for fear of being seen as a 'loose cannon'. A leading coach of yesteryear once said, 'I would never pull off a player who was trying something different'. I wonder how many modern coaches would say this. Professionalism has seen some of the fun go out of rugby. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
kiwidave
Guest
I've thought this for quite some time. Most of these machines work by isolating the principal muscles, which means that the main muscle ends up much stronger than the smaller muscles supporting the movement. Many movements on a rugby field are pretty complex and use a variety of muscles. Of course someone who's actually a physio or a doctor will probably correct me.