Sometime in the 90s, I vaguely recall the rugby powers that be sending out a message to all that the new names for the no. 12 and no. 13 would now be known as ‘left centre’ and ‘right centre’ respectively.
I do recall thinking, ‘well that makes sense’. I felt this was just the next step in the evolution of backlines moving into the professional era.
How wrong I was. This centre-a-side rugby league copycat idea never really caught on and pretty soon it was forgotten, but where they simply predicting the future?
Historically speaking, most northern hemisphere teams played a ‘bullock’ at 12 and an ‘athlete’ at 13, referring to them as they preferred, as inside and outside centre. Think Carling and Guscott as the perfect example and forget that for ridiculous sentimental reasons Carling wore the 13 and Guscott wore the 12.
Most southern hemisphere sides with more expansive intentions, have preferred a second five-eighth/ second fly half/ball playing inside centre (which ever you wish to call it) to partner an outside centre. Think Tim Horan and Jason Little.
But as the game has transcended into professionalism, the environment became different. As Darwin once said, “In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment”.
Since rugby went professional, you may have noticed that generally all Test teams have moved away from the ball playing no 12. They seemingly now prefer the powerful ball carrying, dominant defending option. Even Australia, finally with Pat McCabe, have evolved to follow suit. With McCabe’s inclusion into the Wallaby leadership group that tactic is set to remain in place for some time.
For many years, the thinkers of Test match rugby have recognised that a Matt Giteau at 12, despite all that he offers, doesn’t work for the majority of Test rugby minutes. On the other hand a Jamie Roberts at 12 does.
Unfortunately for Australia, this has been a lesson learned slowly. This was evident by a consistent lack of productivity in the success department. The idea of Matt Giteau or Berrick Barnes carving up opposition defensive lines is one thing, but has it really ever happened? If it did, it didn’t happen often enough.
The current calls for a return to the ball playing 12 are merely a desire to head back to a nostalgically perceived golden era where ball playing no. 12s helped carve up their amateur rivals.
Those days died when the accountants, estate agents and lawyers that played rugby were forced to give up their day jobs and join the world of professional sport. The days of the ball playing no. 12 have gone with the Dodo because in the land of the giants, bigger is better.
But is the evolution of the centre pairing complete and if not where is it heading?
By watching the various centre pairings in world rugby this month, I have been drawn to the thought first suggested by the rugby powers all those years ago. We may have seen glimpses of the next logical step in centre pairing evolution, the tactic of selecting prototypical centres and playing centre-a-side.
It was interesting that Earls and O’Driscoll played the centre-a-side style against the All Blacks in the first Test. I thought it was a shame that Earl’s injury meant from the second Test they went back to their traditional formation.
At times, the new English pairing of Tuilagi and Joseph, probably more through accident than any tactical brilliance, have played on opposite sides of the pitch. This positioning makes sense.
The Wallabies certainly had McCabe and Horne playing centre-a-side for the Wallabies, particularly in defence and sometimes in attack from phase ball.
A centre-a-side pairing does not have much significance in first phase play from a set piece. But we are in the age of phase play and in phase play at least, it will revolutionise the way in which teams as a whole approach the game. Teams would no doubt stop playing the one-way rugby that they do, which often results in running themselves into touch.
Instead, the emphasis would be to use the pack to move up through the centre of the field with an option of attacking either side of the ruck, using one of the centres as the main fulcrum of attack.
In defence, many coaches could get more sleep at night knowing someone will always be on the left or the right of field shutting down any wide attacking raids.
Whether the centres have already now reached their evolutionary peak, or if the centre-a-side theory is going to become the norm, one thing that must take place is that the second play-maker must come from somewhere else.
In my opinion it already has. The Wallabies and sometime the South Africans are setting the standard in picking their best two fly halves and playing the first at no 10 and the second at no 15. With this tactic combined, with the like for like centres, you have the best of both worlds and it may not be long before others follow suit.
The last thing that is changing is the back three is no longer the back three, for the Wallabies at-least. We’ve just seen a series where the no’s 9, 10 and 15 cover the back three positions in defence, in most scenarios, allowing the wingers to stay up in the line and track back in support.
The game of rugby union is one of those sports that is forever changing to the point I doubt it would be recognisable to each separate generation that has gone before the other. This means that rugby is always exciting and evolving. I hope that, in this respect, change is the only thing that doesn’t change so that rugby can continue to evolve.
Ra
Guest
Dan Carter is probably the best No12 in world rugby, and he's not a big boy. I like OConner at 12. Reminds me of a Timi Horan, pace, power, pass and deceptive upper body strength. I feel for Giteau. I'm wondering why he wasn't handed the 15 jersey. Dingo did with Beale what some coach should have done for Giteau - put him in a position where he could play his natural open running game - it's not too late for Gits.
Colin N
Guest
"What Colin is saying is pretty obvious" Quite. Cheers Ben. WW, I also suggest that if you don't have any valid points to come back on, then you don't resort to abuse. What is that phrase the mods constantly use here? 'Play the ball and not the man?'
Ben S
Roar Guru
Try watching some rugby, friend.
seek help friend
seriously ben get some help!
Ben S
Roar Guru
I'm not comparing anybody, and certainly not a hooker to a blindside flanker, I'm simply pointing out that Wales were missing two first team players. Ian Evans missed the build-up, btw. Why would anybody think they could take concrete conclusions from a single tournament? How can you expect to be taken seriously on that point?
Ben S
Roar Guru
What Colin is saying is pretty obvious - that Jauzion's size was less relevant than his ability as a player. Pretty simple. Did you ever watch Jauzion? He had no kicking game, but he ran excellent angles and he was a good distributor. When did France ever utilise him like Jamie Roberts, for example? Also, Jauzion was the exception to the rule in terms of size during his better years, so simply comparing him physically to Giteau isn't particularly appropriate.
Ben S
Roar Guru
NZ: SBW 6ft 4-108kg Aus: McCabe 6ft 1-95kg SA: Steyn: 6ft 3-110kg Wales: Roberts: 6ft 4-110kg France: Fritz 6ft 1-95kg England: Tuilagi: 6ft 1-110kg wake up to yourself! I think you just need to stop, please. Fritz has just started three Tests for France in a long time. One Test was at 13, and two at 12 and yet you're referring to him as if he's entrenched in the position. Likewise Tuilagi has started only two Tests at 12. Aside form that I have no idea what point you're trying to make listing these numbers.
Ben S
Roar Guru
'As for Mermoz he’s been around for many years and has never cemented the french no 12 spot. Fritz is the superior no 12 because he is the more powerful player for France and played both tests in the centres against Argentina. Fofana is a ball carrier. What more is there to say? He’s a very good ball carrier and has a limited passing game hence he plays a lot of rugby on the wing.' As for Mermoz he is injury prone, but was Lievremont's prefered 12 when fit. Did you not notice this? Fritz is the more powerful player for France? That's typically nonsensical. How do you even gauge power? Are you the French fitness coach? Also, how many Tests has Fritz started for France over the past three seasons at 12? Fofana is a very talented ball carrier, but he isn't a bludgeon, and he hardly has a limited passing game. Rougerie has a limited passing game, not Fofana. Also, Fofana does NOT play a lot of rugby on the wing. He plays 12. You either watch French rugby and know these things, or you don't. Clearly you don't, so it's probably you best avoid commenting on the subject lest we have any further statements like this. 'None of what you said about the English players makes any sense in trying to argue your point but then it is clear that you have lost what you’re argument is actually to do with because not much of what you say has added any evidence to what you’re originally trying to say ie that despite that all major test nations prefer a ball running no 12 they are all actually crafty smaller men… when of course they just aren’t.' Your article has no point. Kurtley Beale only got a start when Horne pulled out injured against England a few seasons ago. There was no masterplan to involve two 10s, so that's basically the end of that, and as for Lambie... Young 10s do tend to get some game time at 15 to broaden their rugby horizons. That's pretty much it. There is no standard being set by SA or Australia. Further, re: ball runners - not all ball runners are the same. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Jamie Roberts plays different rugby to Fofana, Earls, Steyn, Williams and D'Arcy. There is no point in making these broad comparisons. It just doesn't compute. Erm... I think it's pretty relevant that Lancaster revealed a desire to develop a ball-playing 12, and that he played a former 10 at 13, and also a 10 at 12. 'I live in the Uk and so i’ve seen a lot of club and 6 nations rugby. So Beck and Williams again are not IMHO opinion going to make very good test players particularly when they are of course simply minding Jamie Roberts the best no 12 in the world’s spot in the side.' Oh, I can tell you watch a lot of UK rugby. That much is obvious. You've still yet to determine why the fact Beck being a rookie (and in your informed rugby opinion) was irrelevant when comparing him to McCabe, and yet now he's not worth considering because he's not Test quality? Just all over the place.
Rob9
Guest
Werewolf there's a lifeboat floating near you called the SS Admit-ur-wrong. Jump on it man and save yourself!!
NZ: SBW 6ft 4-108kg Aus: McCabe 6ft 1-95kg SA: Steyn: 6ft 3-110kg Wales: Roberts: 6ft 4-110kg France: Fritz 6ft 1-95kg England: Tuilagi: 6ft 1-110kg wake up to yourself!
Ben S
Roar Guru
I'm going to get back to this when I have more time later today. Some pointers: 'Steyn’s presence at 12 only helps prove my point. By continually bringing him up you are only adding fuel to my argument that no 12′s need to be massive nowadays. I’m not sure where you are going with this other than to prove that I am right or that you yourself are the hypocritical and disingenuous one.' Again, not making any sense. Steyn is a ball-playing 12. You dismissed him merely as a heavyweight. That statement suggests you've rarely seen him play. Steyn is big, yes, but he is also a very clever footballer. It is pretty informative that Meyer picked him over Olivier. Think on that. 'Hook played a bit of fullback in June. He did not play at 13. You are deluding yourself if you think he is a 13. I doubt you could get anyone to argue he is a test match 13. You could get some to argue he was a decent test match 10 or 15 at one point but again i don’t see how bringing up a player that is currently a bench player helps your cause.' It's statements like this that confirm you don't know much, if anything, about European rugby. Hook has played Test rugby at 13, on multiple occasions. Do some research. Further, do some research why he has been benched. Gatland went out of his way to include Hook in the Wales team as he is a ball player.
Jauzion was 6ft 5 and weighed 110kg. I'm not sure what you're arguing?
Colin N
Guest
But then he's not the same as a Roberts, Nonu or McCabe. He's far more creative than that. Who have they generally played at 13? From memory, it's usually been the likes of Marty, Fritz, Rougerie who are renowned as strong ball carriers and have not very good distribution skills. So Jauzion is there as a distributor. At Toulouse, they have Yann David as the second option at 13 who's also a strong ball carrier without much subtlety.
Rob9
Guest
Hold up, this from you, “If you can name one 1st choice no 12 for any top tier test country at the moment that is not a 6ft plus monster than you’d have an argument”. None of these players (or the ones that you fail to address) are that you nini! Re Fofana; yes I’m aware he’s not a natural ball player but you won’t see him running over the top of guys either. Recently he’s been shuffled around the backline since he debuted in the 6 Nations at inside centre. I think you’ll find he started at 12 4 of the 5 games at the 6 Nations. It wasn’t until the final game when they lost to Wales that they moved him onto the wing to keep him out of the way of Roberts. Did you know that given his form to that point and the frogs desire to play an entertaining brand of Rugby, before and after the game the move was widely criticized in France? I think you can also take selections on a tour of a weakened Argentina with a grain of salt too. The fact remains, look at any 6 Nations team of the tournament and you’ll see his name next to the number 12 (not on the wing). That means that he’s recognized as THE BEST 12 IN EUROPE! Not only that but most commentators have him just behind (some even above) Lydiate as the player of the tournament. All this on the back of playing 4 out of 5 games at 12. Re D’Arcy; you have an amazing insight into team selections, almost as if you’re on the coaching staff of each of these countries. I’m well aware that for the last couple of years (nothing new) his form has traditionally been a bit hot and cold. Regardless, of the 13 tests Ireland have played (RWC, 6N, JT) he’s started at inside centre for 10 of them. Going off that record how can you seriously suggest that Ireland’s ‘first choice’ is Earls/O’Driscoll? And you’re putting forward a guy who’s 90kg as their ‘first choice’ inside centre? You’re proving yourself wrong! I’m also aware of the style of 12 that D’Arcy is. Yes he loves to truck it up the middle similar to McCabe, but there are a few key differences. He knows when to move the ball along, he offloads in contact, as well as running into traffic he runs to holes and he engages and links up with his Leinster/Ireland partner BOD that generates creative backline play. You don’t often hear of Ireland’s back three being starved of ball. Yes he’s out of sorts at the moment but he’s brought so much more to an international rugby field than McCabe ever has. You keep on harping on about first choice. The nature of test rugby selections these days means that there are a lot of positions within an international team that you wouldn’t know who the first choice is unless they were playing in a RWC knock out game or something of similar importance. If I can just remind you of a few quotes you made in your article, “Since rugby went professional, you may have noticed that generally all Test teams have moved away from the ball playing no 12. They seemingly now prefer the powerful ball carrying, dominant defending option”. And then this, “The current calls for a return to the ball playing 12 are merely a desire to head back to a nostalgically perceived golden era where ball playing no. 12s helped carve up their amateur rivals. Those days died when the accountants, estate agents and lawyers that played rugby were forced to give up their day jobs and join the world of professional sport. The days of the ball playing no. 12 have gone with the Dodo because in the land of the giants, bigger is better”. You continue to warp and change the parameters of your article which is making you look silly. Originally the small ball playing 12 died with professionalism and now only ‘bigger is better’ at the international level. You’ve been shown countless examples by myself and others as to how this isn’t the case. But apparently the players we put forward aren’t starting or what you deem to be ‘first choice’. The fact that they’re there suggests your article is flawed. I’m not suggesting the small ball player is the only and best way. I’m suggesting that the reality is that there is no ‘go to’ mould for an inside centre and all shapes and skill types can still be relevant in today’s game. At the international level there is still a place for the fleet footed gazelle (Fofana), the ball player (Farrell), the ‘effective’ compact nugget (which D’Arcy has been and McCabe is not) and the bull (Roberts, Nonu etc.). Keep arguing it (as I’m sure you will) until you’re black and blue in the face but it doesn’t change the fact that most of your article isn’t valid.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Google it. Wouldn't really call Smith a playmaker, tbh. I think he tidies up a lot rather than making the plays. But even if we consider him a playmaker, how many other centres are there in his vein in NZ?
Are you comparing Bennett to Ferris, Oconnell or Tommy Bowe. If so are you being serious? Surely you jest. Ian evans was available for the last two tests. He just wasn't selected. What will defensive records from 2009 tell us Ben. Four fifths of.... nothing.
Steyn's presence at 12 only helps prove my point. By continually bringing him up you are only adding fuel to my argument that no 12's need to be massive nowadays. I'm not sure where you are going with this other than to prove that I am right or that you yourself are the hypocritical and disingenuous one. Hook played a bit of fullback in June. He did not play at 13. You are deluding yourself if you think he is a 13. I doubt you could get anyone to argue he is a test match 13. You could get some to argue he was a decent test match 10 or 15 at one point but again i don't see how bringing up a player that is currently a bench player helps your cause. As for Mermoz he's been around for many years and has never cemented the french no 12 spot. Fritz is the superior no 12 because he is the more powerful player for France and played both tests in the centres against Argentina. Fofana is a ball carrier. What more is there to say? He's a very good ball carrier and has a limited passing game hence he plays a lot of rugby on the wing. None of what you said about the English players makes any sense in trying to argue your point but then it is clear that you have lost what you're argument is actually to do with because not much of what you say has added any evidence to what you're originally trying to say ie that despite that all major test nations prefer a ball running no 12 they are all actually crafty smaller men... when of course they just aren't. I live in the Uk and so i've seen a lot of club and 6 nations rugby. So Beck and Williams again are not IMHO opinion going to make very good test players particularly when they are of course simply minding Jamie Roberts the best no 12 in the world's spot in the side.
yes he was the best but he was no play maker in the Giteau mold which is my point. His game was based on the fact that he could cut defences to shreads with incisive running. What was he 6ft 5, 110kg? giteau was what 5ft 10, 85 kgs?
read the article Ben. I specifically say that Australia and sometimes SA play a second play maker at 15 which is setting a standard for others to eventually follow. Or not. but then they won't have a 2nd play maker. If you are going to debate the author on his article please read the article first.