The Wallaby props have copped a lot of flak for not being good enough in recent weeks, but it can be argued it’s a poor second row, not the props, which are the cause of Australia’s scrumming woes.
I would also suggest the All Blacks – who struggled against the Argentinians – are in danger of being taken apart by the Springbok scrum, because of the type of locks the teams in Australia and New Zealand have cultivated in recent years.
During my years of playing rugby at school and first XV in South Africa, as a lock we were always referred to as the engine room – the powerhouse of the scrum.
South Africa prized power and technique from its second row. I am only 1.88 metres tall, but played lock because I have calves almost as big as my thighs and had good explosive power (it was also, of course, just club level).
In recent years this focus has become diluted by a demand for more mobile locks, particularly in Australia and New Zealand.
The Antipodean preoccupation with running rugby has meant a shift to locks like Sam Whitelock and Luke Romano.
These locks are chosen because of their diverse skills base, including their line-out skills, but more for their ability to range as a second set of loose forwards and even as extra options out wide.
In the past you could have argued props were the cause of a team’s scrumming woes because the front row battle was what scrums had been reduced too.
In fact, in recent times we’ve often heard calls for the scrums to be scrapped. The feeling was they had passed their use-by-date and were boring (for good reason).
They were set piece token gestures, a way to get the ball into circulation after play had broken down – like a league scrum, which can be described, at best, as a thing of convenience.
The scum-half/halfback was allowed to feed the ball almost under the feet of his locks and the ball was cleared as fast as humanly possible. It just wasn’t a contest.
The hooker’s ability to hook, and power of the second row and in particular their technique, was supplanted by an almost unhealthy focus on propping technique – balance was lost and the scrums were so one-dimensional in their front row focus they literally caved in.
It was a circumstance that suited smaller, wily props and left far too much open to the referee’s interpretation. This meant other work had to be found for the locks.
Again, locks were further sidelined – particularly last year – by a penchant to keep the ball in play, and so starve sides that specialised in the set piece i.e. South African and Argentina.
This week Ewen McKenzie said he knew South Africa would prize the set pieces and the Wallabies would have to limit those.
It was old thinking that did not take into account the new scrum laws (until now, New Zealand and Australia had only played each other under the new laws, which was a case of like-versus-like).
South Africans however, in the vein of Bakkies Botha and Eben Etzebeth, continued to focus on power and second-row technique, utilising their powerful locks more in enforcer roles than ranging roles.
South African locks held a limited profile except for the lineout, i.e. Victor Matfield, and when, in all likelihood, being carded for clearing out a ruck with a bit too much enthusiasm, i.e. Bakkies Botha.
The new scrum rules have restored balance to the scrum in terms of workload.
Scrums are taking up to or more than 50 per cent longer to clear. And that is key – scrums are longer, therefore the game is slower.
Slower scrums mean the engine room once again has to work massively harder. Ranging locks can no longer break up and run, as they have been used to in recent years.
Suddenly they’re in a cauldron and they don’t like it.
The apparent dominance this year of the Springbok and Puma scrums is because both nations have eschewed the running game in favour of an almost cultural pride in power and scrumming well (their traditional strengths).
We forget however these were also traditional strengths of the All Blacks in years past – not that they are that far off.
Flip van der Merwe, Eben Etzebeth and Juandre Kruger are better tight forwards than ‘ranging’ forwards. The Springboks have instead used the likes of their hookers, in Bismarck du Plessis and Adriaan Strauss, as their second set of loose forwards.
Etzebeth, in particular, has the potential to be the best lock South African has ever produced. He is power personified; an enforcer, rapidly becoming Matfield’s equal in the lineout and it would appear a superb scrummager.
It’s not like South Africa or the Pumas anticipated the outcome of the new scrum laws, it’s that the new laws are better suited to the Pumas and Springboks game – slower scrums, slower game.
The days of ranging locks like Samuel Whitelock, Luke Romano and Rob Simmons are numbered unless they improve their scrum technique.
James Horwill, Kane Douglas, Scott Fardy and potentially Brodie Retallick, however, may well be about to discover a whole new world.
KevinSaffa
Guest
Another key aspect with respect to scrummaging is the impact of the bench. Against the WBs the Bok replacement front row came on and tipped the scales comprehensively.I'm aware of how close it was until then though. Kruger coming on as a lock replacement was also fortuitous in helping get the Boks second try. If the WBs had made more of their line break in the 51st minute, or opted for 3 points instead of a lineout things might have been a bit different. Despite the forward battle being important, the AB black line, as a unit, has far more experience at successful attacking play, rather than just exploiting scraps.
Colin Kennedy
Roar Guru
I remember that ThelmaWrites, funny how it's gone roundabout, loosies have to stay bound and locks have to be almost as loose as the loosies.
Colin Kennedy
Roar Guru
Thanks Mike, guess I was indulging in a bit of wishful thinking there. Still think the ABs are on a whole other level for their all round game. The Boks have a way to go yet in the backs.
Mike
Guest
"although the Boks remain the one team that can roll them from time to time." Teensy bit of an exaggeration there, Colin. But I agree that the Boks have by far the best chance of rolling the ABs - I make it 5 wins from 13 since 2008. But the other top 5 nations can still do it occasionally. Taking Robbie Deans tenure as the period (he having the worst Wallaby coach record against the All Blacks in recent history): Australia still managed 3 wins and a draw from 18 matches In the same period England took 1 win from 6 matches and France took 1 win from 8 matches. And a few of of the losses were rather tight. So ABs will always be a bit nervous against teams ranked 2-4. After that it drops away and the lower ranked nations haven't managed anything in that period, nor even looked close. Interesting that Peter de Villiers had problems vs Wallabies but did well against the ABs.
Colin Kennedy
Roar Guru
Just coming from my own limited experience Ben.S, :-) but I know what its like to be in a scrums that are longer than I would have liked, and also how physically exhausting it is to be on the losing end of one (not that I'm comparing apples with apples because these guys are the best of the best), but it seems to me that if you're required to use more strength related stamina, and to deal with additional tension and pressure at scrum time, there is going to be a knock on effect in terms of strength, endurance, technique and also how quickly you can get away from the scrum to do loosie work - of course, referees and new tactics may make that all irrelevant. Just thinking that at this time and place, that's how it looks to me.
Colin Kennedy
Roar Guru
Thanks Mick, I particularly enjoy the discussion part of it all -- some very wise heads on the site (I think some have missed their calling as rugby journos) :-)
Colin Kennedy
Roar Guru
Thanks sixo_clock, agreed on every point :-)
Colin Kennedy
Roar Guru
They did meet Chan Wee and the All Blacks have held the wood over the Springboks for a long time now, although the Boks remain the one team that can roll them from time to time. The new scrum laws came in only this year, so I'm suggesting the dynamic is/will change to favour scrummers over more mobile locks - a theory yet to be properly tested I guess. Massive respect for Brad Thorn, a consumate athlete, but in terms of Romano I'm not convinced - compare his physique to Thorns -- Thorn was about 116kg and 6.3, while Romano is 119kgs (a bit heavier, but 6.5 in height). All these athletes however are good enough to adapt, but I guess that's what I'm saying is that they will have to adapt their focus from playing as an extra loosie to dusting up on their scrumming skills.
Jeff
Guest
His Crusader Props say he loves to scrum.And he himself says Thorn taught him all he knows.
Thanks Mick, I can only speak for myself, there is some good rugby debate on the Roar.
Seb Vettel
Guest
Fix it next year with fitter players. 1.Faumuina 2. Marshall 3. Tamiafuna 4.Luatua 5.Whitelock 6.Kaino 7.McCaw 8. Read Luatua used to play more at lock... I would not mind seeing him beefed up a little more next year and tested there. Thorn replacement haha.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
That is true re: Bekker having injuries, but I'm of the opinion that he is a Super lock and not a Test lock. I don't think he is physical enough for international football, and I also think he's too tall to effectively hit rucks. I will keep an eye on Du Toit. I've certainly read a lot about him.
@SGR_CT
Guest
Andries Bekker has never made the step up, but he hasn't actually started that many games for the Boks. As soon as Matfield retired Bekker got injured for about 2 years. As to Du Toit, I think he's going to be the next Juan Smith. He was the most influential player on the park when the SA U20 side beat the NZ U20 side at Newlands in 2012 (he played flank that day). He can play lock, but he is one of only 2 (with Alberts) quality running number 7s (6 in NZ) playing in SA at the moment. Kolisi, Lappies and Marcel van der Merwe are all hybrid flanks, whilst Du Toit is a devastating out and out runner.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
Matfield absolutely, but beyond him... Bekker has never ever stood up to Test rugby, and isn't Du Toit essentially a 4 being developed into a 5?
@SGR_CT
Guest
Matfield and Bekker weren't bad no. 5s...also, wait for Pieter-Steph Du Toit (4, 5, or 7).
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
Thank you Colin Kennedy for an excellent read which generated a most interesting exchange between both has been :) and recent forwards well schooled in the most honorable of endeavours. I enjoyed last weekend's matches because of the forwards' work - the traditional Argentinian Forwards' University honours graduates testing the best in Hamilton and then the power of the Springbok pack, resurgent with its young newcomers, pulling together as a unit as well as I have seen them do in years. They put on such a complete, disciplined display and it was a pleasure to watch. Meyer has impressed me and the successful rebuilding after losing the very best of them - Burger, Matfield and Botha - has been quite extraordinary. We have much to enjoy this weekend a Eden Park, where I think the mighty All Blacks will prevail notwithstanding the strength of the challenge and also in Perth, where I am most interested in whether the Pumas can put together another gritty display for the whole game, lured by the bait of a potential win over the Wallabies. I see a few of you South Africans here now, Biltonbek is another, and I do enjoy your thoughtful contributions - a welcome change from the kiddies breast beating about a game I suspect many of them have never experienced.
Haribaldi
Guest
There are only 3 clear (but small) Bok advantages over the All Blacks: Kicking distance and accuracy Lineouts Scrums We'll need to be 100% on those; NZ has the edge in every other facet, including the most important one: the breakdown.
Lazza
Guest
This arricle is unbalanced and rubbish. To compare ab scrum with wb scrum is ludicrous. Abs had the edge. They also gave as good as they got with Argentina (mania you watching a different game me thinks). The book scrum is good and will be a great battle which will be alot closer than the previous combatants. The bok technique has never been as good as the abs they rely on their size foremost. All teams have struggled on their own ball. Proof will be the game time on sat. Mania at its best lol
Paul from Melbourne
Guest
Anybody can throw the ball in as long as it is straight, the only problem is that he can't join the line out afterwards. That effectively means the thrower is out of play until he's back in position.
Chan Wee
Guest
THere is no law that says the hooker must throw the ball in , right? I have seen the scrum half do it , in a team that had a pretty tall guy at school level (much like eben e, coz ur 99% sure of getting the ball securely.) the scrum half thows the ball in and has enuf time to be at the back of the maul becoz the ball is caught and not slapped down. but maybe the competition at lineout is so much now that teams wish to think inside the box. a lot of LAW changes have come : the the big gap, having to use the inside arm , no pulling or interfering the jumper , not closing the gap till ball is thrown , lifting..... older matches will show how different line out was compared to the more organized today