Are our Wallabies all bent out of scrummaging shape?

Roy & Fellow Readers, you thought it was finished? Nop, I have a bit more ink to add to your article.... With the aim/objective to throw more light into these "scrummaging murky waters, here I have a couple of points for your consideration in planning your training sessions. Am not imposing anything to anyone here but in my 42 year experience the following is what I say it works best: First and foremost we need to SELECT a "Rugby Player" (someone comprised by: mind, body, attitude and knowledge of the Law) and provide adequate training so they learn: a) The fundamentals of collective formations (Coaches need to learn it first!). b) Learn and practice often enough "Individual basic skills for each position". Many of the above qualities take many years to develop and fine down to competitive standards. WEIGHTS CONDITIONING: is a very good supplement/complement to training of strength, flexibility and stamina BUT NOT A REPLACEMENT for technique, tactics, strategies, togetherness, timing, error correction and overall forward attitude. SCRUM PRACTICE: It is advisable to start gradually building up from say 20 scrum upwards. Good technique and form are always more important than Volume/Quantity (these two will provide other things like stamina, mental toughness, etc.) As a good rule of thumb, you do not increase more than 20% from the previous session. So to reach 100 scrum might take you between 9 or 10 sessions. A gradual physical and mental adaptation are very important, particularly with younger players (18-23 y.o.). LIVE SCRUMS: Are only done after several weeks of "volume work" is done in the machine. These live sessions need to be done with very careful supervision. Results may be very good but also could have high levels and serious injuries due to the "competition and carelessness" factor, as well as diverse levels of fitness and technique of players involved. YOU MUST NEVER DO ANY MORE THAN 30 min. of live scrummaging. Best regardfs,. TOPO

I agree with those who said that the way to get better at scrummaging is twofold: A good weights and conditioning program Scrummaging sessions lasting upto an hour or more where upto 100 scrums are done under intense pressure against live opposition.

Without getting into war stories, I have served all around the world including SE Asia, East and North Africa, and of course the Middle East. One of the worst nights of my life was spent in -31 degrees on a mountain in Afghanistan. But the absolute worst environment possible is mountains + jungle + humidity. No protein shake, dead lift, bicep curl or squat can prepare a person for the torment of a few weeks at a time against live opposition in that hellish environment. I always wondered whether it wasn't jungle operations alone that drove a few Vietnam-era blokes a bit bonkers rather than the other stuff.

Ahh the "core" is always a contentious issue. Firstly by core do you mean the deep abdominal and back muscles (namely transverse abdominus, lumbar mutlifidus and at a stretch the diaphragm and pelvic floor)? The function of these muscle is to stabilise the spine during perturbations. So naturally our thinking is work the core, stabilise the spine, strong core equates to stronger muscles around the body. I'm not a huge believer in isolation "core" training, unless there are inherent problems already. This specifically applies to an athletic rugby population. Why waste an hour doing a standing reverse cable wood chop whilst balancing on a medicine ball (taking the piss), when you'd be much better served deadlifting, squatting or power cleaning. When in fact these movements as a prerequisite to proper technique, require strong stabilisation of the spine (i.e. the core!). 2 birds, one stone. Mark rippetoe - although a polarising identity has some salient points about the core in this article (if anyone is interested). His argument more or less boils down to - someone who can deadlift 500lbs has a stronger core than someone who can deadlift 200lbs. Hard to argue with that. http://startingstrength.com/articles/core_stability_rippetoe.pdf

I agree - it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that the players from 1999 are stronger in the hips and thighs than the modern players. Blind Freddie knows that, over the time, players get to be bigger, stronger hopefully and faster hopefully. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that these things have not been noticed by the people. I personally have been concerned that there has bee an emphasis on the upper body development at the expense of the work on the core muscles. Had that been the case, then we would have had a direct relationship between body shape and scrum performance, as the cores are so important to the scrum. Mac assures me that the S & C fraternity have been banging on about the core for a few years now and you have assured me that there has been no particular emphasis on the upper body development. I am pleased to hear these things because, if our programs have been effective, the necessary remedial action on our scrum will be much simpler. Of course the relationship between 1999 and 2014 is not the central issue. The real question is where did we stand in the world scene on these matters in 1999,and where do we stand now? Like many others - commentators, coaches, players and all, I worry about what I see out there on the paddock. Yes I am well aware of a variety of problems affecting our scummaging that have their basis, I believe, in the Australian rugby psyche. But I am yet to be convinced that we are competing on an equal footing in the power game with some other countries. Oh! If only a comparison mechanism existed. Whatever the outcome, it would force a response from the rugby community. We might get to the crux of our scrum issues. In conclusion, I do find it interesting that you and the respondent 2 up hold contrasting views on the Wallaby strength. I note he was a close up observer who counted the weights. Please peoples, no more -this has gone on a long way past what I expected. Thanks for your interest.

The question regarding scrummaging that I have wanted to get an answer to was 'how many a session'. I am strongly of the belief that if you train for scrummaging by scrummaging then you will develop the right muscles, then you can augment it with weights. In my day whilst playing in NZ we did approx. 100 scrum sets per training session, they were repeated quickly and adjustments made whilst still down, working on feet positioning, connection, timing and power transfer (ie a good platform). We had a very strong scrum. When I came to Australia I could not believe how soft the scrummaging was, my team in Australia pushed the Wallabies all over the park one time, yet we struggled against a Japanese team who were well trained in this area. There is an immovable truth that if you don't focus on something, you won't be good at it. We ain't good at it - excluding McQueens time. Blades to my mind was an average prop compared to Noriega and Topo. Yet neither of these guys are included in the ongoing discussions of what is needed in the scrum. If it is power we want then I don't think we are going about it the right way. Move Blades aside and get a forwards coach who knows what makes a good scrum, breakdown and lineout. Then all we need to fix in the forwards is catching the bloody thing from kick offs!

Hi Roy, Thanks for your echo and empathy (we all need it). I agree 100% with you on the fact that don't have neither the time nor the patience to sustain "light hearted" or just plain "silly banter" on this subject, I think this is best left to the pub and patrons. Also do not want to offend people with my "directness". Hence the reason why intermittently quip my comments when I see might be of benefit or I decide to do so. YELLOW LIGHT: Just about 99% of the comments refer to the physiques in amazing scientific details, some I agree others do not), also technique and teamwork or lack of it. Fellows, What about the centre of Commands and Actions? MIND & ATTITUDE. Everything we do in life is commanded by our own will that decides to follow or not Coach, Captain and Referee (an oldie "Brain over Matter"). Of course in a good SCRUM it's got to be the same 8 objectives within different techniques. Hence my analogy of a Symphonic Orchestra that plays different instruments out of the same script! My book The Art of Scrummaging (August 2012) is a full colour, 218 page THESIS that presents Headings & Chapters such as: Introduction & History, The Mechanics of the Scrum, Tactics, Traps, Troubleshooting, Scrum Practices & Physical Conditioning, Scrum & Player Safety, The Psychology of Scrumming, Law Dissertation and the opinions of many International Expert Collaborators. You may get the digital or print version at: www.talubooks.com And the website is: www.theartofscrummaging.com Should you have any problems please revert back to me on: toporod@gmail.com Cheers, TOPO

O Topo! Re the hurtful situation of the selectors of coaches knowing less that the candidates. I know of a case where a respected Wallaby forward was subjected to a "put down" at interview. He, of course, was the one with the knowledge. He did not get that job, but did know enough to go on to have a significant coaching career. Who selects the selectors - and on what basis? Might it be reasonable to expect that the greater the depth of specific knowledge required, so then, should that of all decision makers? I was just so pleased to see you thump the issue of the 8 man pack. No more talk restricted to what goes on with the props (or hookers). I am told that there is currently an interesting photo of the Reds scrum on their Facebook. Apparently the faults showing in the photo demonstrate that this 8 man bizzo has yet to register with all at the S R level. The Reds scrum coaches might face a busy time. Psychology is an element of the scrum I have not raised before because I am simply unable to comment on it. A reading of Brad Thorn's comments might suggest that the ABs are right into it. Some of your comments in some of your posts fit this bill. Have you written a paper on it? Where do I get hold of this book that everyone is talking about? Cheers to you, Roy Hose

gs, just watched a show about troops in Korengal Valley. Its interesting the soldiers said they could do any kind of gym work and exercise. But nothing prepared them for the fitness needed for mountains. Broken ankles etc. Interesting parallel with some player leg injuries. And yes, thanks for the v interesting post.

Hi Allan, An interesting interview with JOC, about French Rugby. Esp the section about how front-rowers are viewed: http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/james-oconnor-says-getting-a-taste-of-france-left-him-hungry-to-fulfil-his-potential-in-australian-rugby/story-e6frf4pu-1227180866496

Hi all, Great article and have enjoyed all the posts. Maybe there is a basis to the training question. The English front row certainly have the beef to highlight this but, as has been mentioned the All Blacks scrum as 8 and have the intensity to counter the Brits. My comment concerns the focus of Oz rugby, and relates to what Topo is saying. Rugby is obviously business and guys like Izzy are great in regards to their marketability. Who in the general public knows the front rower's names and - dare I say it, their faces? Then we have this flash fullback - an awesome athlete undoubtedly- who can't kick and doesn't have the raw speed or ball skills to finish movements. It's the focus of the business of rugby on getting these 'poster boys' in place that has filtered down to the detriment of the scrum. Then we are losing consistently and the crowds get despondent... Seems arse-about doesn't it and I think this is why so many learned rugby people are so frustrated. Relatedly, in Oz the majority of spectators don't see the finer points of rugby. There is also not a great scrummaging tradition here as there is in many European countries. Maybe they are all league influenced but I know that if I'm watching rugby in a pub full of Kiwis there will be respectful applause for good forward play, that Aussie crowds just don't appreciate in the same way. Mind you, I'm talking about the '80%' here, not the club people and probably not most of the people on these boards. These are the majority that the ad. execs at the ARU have in their plans. Therefore we have Izzy lauded endlessly and he is getting worse as a Wallaby, rather than better.

It is utterly ridiculous to assume that players from 1999 are stronger in the hips and thighs to players in the modern game. Strength and conditioning is research and experience based, and there is no doubt players these days can squat more and deadlift more than players in 1999 (with the squat and deadlift being the arguably the most beneficial developers of the posterior chain). The emphasis placed on S & C these days is considerably more than pre 2000's. In regards to you thinking that the 1999 players had more developed lower bodies when compared to the current crop of players, a few things may be influencing your logic. Firstly, players are much fitter and leaner (i.e. lower body fat %) than players 15 years ago. As such, this extra bf % was held around the thighs and hip regions. As such they may look "bigger" but are in fact just fatter. Keeping in mind muscle is a much more dense tissue, so a smaller looking person could conceivably weight the same but will just have more muscle and less fat. As such the current crop of players - which have an emphasis on all round field work and not scrummaging are likely leaner and look smaller due to less fat, but likely more muscle. Secondly, as mentioned before pre 2000 S & C was very basic. As such they probably weren't doing as much weights as players these days. Now this relates to androgen receptor sites. Which basically means certain parts of the body grow bigger in response to weights than other sites. What we know is that the upper body is saturated with androgen receptors - resulting in significant upper body hypertrophy. The lower body is not as heavily saturated - hence hypertrophy is not as big, As such - regardless of strength gains, the upper body will always "look" bigger and stronger, but this may not necessarily be the case. I can guarantee they can squat and deadlift a whole lot more than they can bench press. So due to the advanced nature of S&C these days it may appear that players do a lot more upper body work, where in fact the lower and upper body just respond differently to resistance training. To give an example of basic strength standards all players should probably be achieving: Bench press 1.5x bodyweight Squat 2 x body weight Deadlift 2.5 x bodyweight Press 1 x bodyweight It is likely these lifts perform the basis of their resistance training - with added lifts such as the power clean. Players 15 years ago i doubt would have been achieving these numbers. In short our lack of scrummaging ability is unlikely to come from S & C standards. Rather the importance we place scrummaging, competition with other winter sports, the all round nature coaches from Australia like in props.

Great article Roy and welcome aboard! With regard to the gym work including cardiovascular training, the value of this cannot be in my opinion be underestimated. If players are losing flexibility from their training then the gym work they are undertaking is incorrect. In my experience of training it is not the size of ones muscles but the density in the muscle and the fibre strength in the tendons. That is why one man of the same size has a lot more strength than another. I watched a Wallaby weight training session and was surprised how weak the players were. The players looked big but they were definitely not strong in proportion to their body size e.g. the forwards had no real power through their shoulders and lacked muscle density and not one was able to lift more than their own body weight through their shoulders. In my opinion for their age they should be able to lift do at least 120% of body weight. The leg strength in the players was also very similar. With regard to cardiovascular work, my opinion the standard should be set for each that on each non playing day player they should get their heart rate daily for to 180 to 190 beats per minute for 1 hour. The players should all be doing yoga for flexibility too. With this foundation the Wallabies and aspiring players will become lean and have great body density. This I think is the partial secret for success.

What I mean is that we don't necessarily see the best scrummagers or most powerful players at Wallaby level due to the style of game we play and the players we select the team. Using Ben Alexander's example, he is not selected purely on his scrummaging ability (even though at SR level, he is OK). He is selected on his ability to play TH to a given standard in the scrum, but more for his ability around the park. If it was all about scrumming, as it is in some other countries, then Alo-Emile or one of the Alaalatoa brothers might already be there. Even then, Alexander himself isn't losing out because of size, strength or power in the scrum, but largely technical issues when up against the likes of England or Wales. Slipper is in the same sort of boat. In some games, he plays a lot of first and second receiver. He has excellent hands for a prop and carries the ball a lot. While he's clearly doing OK in the scrum, again, that's not why he's picked. If it was a pure scrumming thing, there are bigger, more powerful, probably more competent scrummaging loose heads who would get a look-in. And I'm not complaining about that, either. A coach has the right to play the style of game he wants and select the players he thinks he needs to do so. There are players with good strength and power credentials available, though. And that doesn't necessarily exclude the incumbents.

It's an indictment that two ex Wallaby props (and rare good ones at that) who have been on the coaching staff require extra knowledge to teach the players.

Riding on the coat tails of Deans' results against the Boks.

Roy, RobC et al, In my view, it is a sad indictment when "the rugby selectors of coaches" know considerably a lot less than the possible future Technicians or Consultants. Who conducts a true audit? "The dog has been chasing its tail for more than 12 years" My interest for 17 years has been to set up a Scrum & Forwards Academy not only for players bur for all National Coaches! Yet, the powers to be refuse to see the light indicating to Mecca. When such academy produces 10 to 12 National Coaches for any skills, formations or sector then The Wallabies shouldn't have a problem in selecting a Technician on demand. My idea is completely opposite to the current one of hiring coaches on a "personality basis" and experience acquired overseas in many cases with dodgy credentials and CV? I have made this idea public so many times and had 6 direct attempts approaching the ARU. I do not kid myself, from the moment the ARU flew Patricio Noriega in 2009 to coach the Wallaby scrum, I knew that somebody DID CROSS MY NAME OUT for good! - I will leave you guys to judge but from my perspective it has been not only THEIR LOSS, but also the loss of the whole Australian rugby community. It appears they are looking for younger blood! I was 32 when I arrived here with my family... Cheers, TOPO

Mac, Damn you Mac - I did not want to get involved in endless discussion because, over the time, I have seen too much of it become pointless. But you have got me with your comment about power and scrimmaging "not necessarily coming together at the Wallaby's level". Does that mean that when the Wallabies do not exhibit both power and scrimmaging at the same time, then we can have one or the other or neither being played out? If so, you and I have watched the same thing often enough, even if we have started from different bases. I would be very interested in your views on "how we select teams."

So, end of discussion? I find it odd you wouldn't want to discuss something reasonably if you felt strongly enough to pen an article. Nonetheless, this is not a debate per se. I'm afraid that I've simply not articulated the point very well. We do have great power on the paddock. We also have excellent scrummagers. We're just not necessarily seeing both come together at Wallabies level due to how we select teams.

Mac, Great- we agree on what I regard as the root cause of our problems. The last lines of my article flag what my real concern has been. Our difference of opinion really boils down to the question of whether or not we actually do have a lack of power problem. You believe we do not because of the expertise of the S&C fraternity. I belong to the school that says we see it on the paddock. I respect expertise and do not ever rubbish it, but nor am I intimidated by it. After all, tomorrow's expert will often enough tell you why he thinks today's is wrong. No more comment from me - I do not wish to engage in a never ending debate.