Getting better all the time: Why rugby is the best it has ever been

By Harry Jones / Expert

Everyone who has read my articles consistently knows I love history. I like the threads that bind humans to the past.

I don’t assume we always know better than those who came before us. I love the stories of rugby; the evolution in the early days. I tend to go to history to understand the present.

But this should not translate into ‘good old days’ syndrome.

Rugby is better now.

The issue is will it continue to improve? Or will the forces and counter-forces that make up the tapestry of the world order of rugby conspire to stagnate union?

First, let me prove that rugby is better, as a spectacle and as a sporting code. The most important proof of this is the shape of the game.

From the time rugby became professional until now, the ratio of breakdown-to-set piece has gone from a mere 2:1 or 3:1, to its current 10:1. This is not merely due to the increase of actual ball-in-play (43-45 per cent of the time now, up from the mid-to-high 30 per cent level before 1995).

Knock-ons are a lot less frequent. This means that in times past, we could expect 27-30 scrums a game (a fact all of us who played in the 80s and early 90s remember all too well). Now, less than 15 scrums are frequent (8-12 is becoming a norm), and there are games when it is almost half-time before a scrum occurs.

The scrum is essential to rugby. Quite frankly, it is the organising principle still for the game and for forward selection, and remains a dangerous means of triggering attacks on the opponents’ line.

But given that collapses and resets and penalties are more common than easily-functioning scrums (and it is worse when top teams play each other), clearly the fewer-scrum change is a good development.

The conundrum is this. Lineouts and scrums are still the best means to score tries. Typically, more than half the tries scored come from these old familiar set pieces. But teams are becoming better at retaining their own lineouts, and thus, creating these try-triggers involuntarily is more difficult.

Also, while defensive pressure does create a scrum, most teams have better ball-handlers across the park than ever before.

For all the moaning about kicking nowadays, the halfbacks kick a lot less now than in the good old days. This is indisputable, outside of knockout rugby where teams kick 50-75per cent more than in other games.

In decades prior, a 50-punt game was normal, even 60 was typical. Now, a 40-punt game seems like a kick-fest.

This has resulted in lineout numbers plummeting, too from 37-39 a game to 20-24.

With the ball more in play on the field without handling errors, what we see now in top-level rugby is a quantum leap in passes.

In 1995, a 150-pass Test match was wide-open. Now, 260-275 passes in a game is not uncommon.

A spun backward pass is one of the quintessential rugby characteristics. This is more so than a kick or run, which has its antecedents or facsimiles in soccer or American football.

If done at speed, with two hands, fixing the defender, then a pass is the best attacking fulcrum in rugby.

All of this also translates into more tackles, and is there anything more satisfying for the true rugby fan than a proper or dominant tackle?

And thus, the rucks and mauls of rugby are up three times or more from the old day. It is not shocking at all to see 160-170 rucks in a game.

The breakdown is a more dynamic competition to watch. I would much rather watch David Pocock or Francois Louw ply their artful trade while Brodie Retallick or Willem Alberts try to clean them out, than see Adam Jones and Jannie du Plessis grapple.

The other thing about rugby, for all its grumpy detractors, is that the team who wins is almost always either the team who scores the tries – about 85 per cent of the time. Only about 1-3 per cent of the time does the team who wins the game score less tries. This is also a welcome change.

High-phase ball is still rare, because it does not work very well. About 75 per cent of tries come from movements with three or less phases.

As the phase count goes above ten, it becomes extraordinarily tiring and it becomes likely that the attacking team will spill the pill or run into infringements. As the rucks get messy they may win a penalty which they cannot turn down.

Avoiding the ruck altogether, or clearing it very quickly, is an All Black belief. They do it by passing 9.5-10.0 times per minute of possession, a lot compared to England’s or Ireland’s more pedestrian 8 pass/minute average.

South Africa is currently the multiple personality disorder team of passing. At times, it is off the charts, in other games, they are the stingiest of passers.

It is indisputable that the athletes we watch today are bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic than those we once revered.

Fatigue is a fact of rugby. About 55 per cent of tries come in the second half, as attrition creates space and tackle-cowards.

As this becomes the dividing line between success and failure, coaches may find ways to shrink space on the field and counter-trends may develop.

I love the memory of sweeping length-of-the-field tries from the old days, but when I actually sit down and watch those games, I realise there were some pretty dour contests

Today is the best time in rugby.

The Crowd Says:

2014-11-07T00:57:45+00:00

clipper

Guest


For the great majority of sport, you are right, but sometimes a great talent (s) comes along and elevates the sport for a period. I would say boxing was greater with Ali, Frazier etc, Cricket was better with a strong WI side - don't think better coaching or food would make a difference to them now and someone like Lomu or Jordan lifts the standard and profile of the sport while they are around.

AUTHOR

2014-11-06T12:03:38+00:00

Harry Jones

Expert


I agree! 1 and 2 right now is an enthralling duel You get the sense that Meyer and Hansen really love figuring each other out

2014-11-06T07:26:20+00:00

Demark

Guest


Well said RT

2014-11-06T00:47:29+00:00

Rugby.ftw

Guest


I dont think the contests are as epic as they used to be. I seem to remember that there was so many great teams: ABs SA AUS ENG and more. But these days the only great team is the AB's. Obviously AB's v SA has been pretty awesome over the last 2 years but i still dont really rate the current SA team, not going down in history IMO. the last lions series was average and the last world cup didnt really live up to expectation. But i do think the fundamentals of the game have improved...its bigger, stronger faster which is still good to watch

2014-11-06T00:39:50+00:00

scottmit

Roar Rookie


Ella talked a lot about dealing with this in his book about backline play. The problem hasn't changed that much. Players might be fitter so they can keep the pressure up for longer, but the pressure was always there.

2014-11-05T22:52:13+00:00

Rugby Tragic

Guest


Dan, Joe Karam was the fullback at Eden Park v Scotland

2014-11-05T22:38:22+00:00

scottmit

Roar Rookie


Ella gets annoyed with people who assume that it was all talent and instinct. Everything they did was practiced and practiced and practiced. He was fit - he just never looked hurried. He was never (IMHO) a flashy player a la QC or Carlos Spencer. He was much more like Foley or Aaron Cruden, with sympatheic passes to players going forward and backing up.

2014-11-05T21:46:47+00:00

Alex Wood

Roar Guru


Harry, Great article, a thoroughly enjoyable read. Thank you for putting together and I agree with you entirely. I would go a step further and say that beyond the improvement in the modern game, we are witnessing a rare crop of players led by the current All Blacks, but also the current Springbok side who (save for the All Blacks) I will speculate would be dominant in any other era. Great work, looking forward to the next one. Cheers, Alex

2014-11-05T19:34:32+00:00

Matt

Guest


I dunno, I think your stats are top-notch and the article well-researched, but I still feel was the game was at it's height from around 1997 to 2001. I think after that, some of the more negative tinkering to the laws and refereeing directives from the IRB started to make the game more scrappy and attritional. We may be starting to get back to that quality over the last two years, but we had to endure some lean years, 2003-2010 maybe, and quite a lot of negative teams winning matches during that period. It could be nostalgia though, but I do remember there being more classic test matches and a more enthralling Super Rugby prior to that period.

2014-11-05T16:48:04+00:00

Magic Sponge

Guest


Ella would walk into this wallaby side

AUTHOR

2014-11-05T15:27:33+00:00

Harry Jones

Expert


But was it a running sport in the 50s, 60s, 70s?

AUTHOR

2014-11-05T15:10:55+00:00

Harry Jones

Expert


Yes, it was full of scuffle and handbags and real punches! Hahaha I did my share of that

AUTHOR

2014-11-05T15:10:25+00:00

Harry Jones

Expert


Thanks, Digger man.

AUTHOR

2014-11-05T15:10:09+00:00

Harry Jones

Expert


In Brief, I am with you on the scrum, but not the ruck. I like a contest at the presentation, because it forces more attacking forwards to attend the ruck to build the distance, it creates space on the field, and the constant threat of a McCaw or Louw or Cane sniffing that ball makes it very "union-y." On the scrum, it seems odd that "being weaker" gets you penalised.

AUTHOR

2014-11-05T15:08:07+00:00

Harry Jones

Expert


I know. It's a syndrome. We all get it. The "good old days" belief. But really, the game is better to play and watch now. And it was already, always the best game in the world ever.

AUTHOR

2014-11-05T15:02:35+00:00

Harry Jones

Expert


Good one Kia. I was wondering if you could play a game, with 15 Bismarck-shaped guys.

AUTHOR

2014-11-05T14:58:08+00:00

Harry Jones

Expert


dsat24 The condensed 3-second flashpoint of a breakdown-to-ruck is very hard to adjudicate, and maul defence is becoming that way too.

AUTHOR

2014-11-05T14:56:37+00:00

Harry Jones

Expert


True. The line speed on defence and the footspeed of loose forwards in pursuit and the wingspan of modern midfields create very little space and time for an attacking flyhalf.

AUTHOR

2014-11-05T14:54:42+00:00

Harry Jones

Expert


Great post, Sheek, as always. It's like remembering a hilarious old movie, and then when you actually watch it, it's horribly slow and only has a few moments of comedic genius. That's how it is for me. I love old rugby, but honestly, this is a better game, with so much more power and pace. In my opinion. Even though I revere the old guys.

AUTHOR

2014-11-05T14:32:26+00:00

Harry Jones

Expert


Yes, IRB has to do SOMETHING right?

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar