We are living in the rugby ‘age of phase play’, a term that is easily thrown around and dismissed at will. I’m here to tell you that this is hugely significant and the king is the ‘open-side’ flanker.
It dawned on me that six of the top eight sides in world rugby are currently led by back-rowers, and most of these are indeed ‘open-sides’. What might surprise some is that this is a new phenomenon in the history of rugby.
Richie McCaw (New Zealand), Chris Robshaw (England), Sam Warburton (Wales), Thierry Dusatoir (France), and Michael Hooper (Australia) are all current captains of their countries and they are all ‘open-sides’.
I recognise that some might argue that Thierry Dusatoir is a ‘blind-side’ flanker. Don’t let the number on his back fool you. The truth is that this 6-foot, 100-kilogram flanker from Toulouse is indeed an ‘open-side’ that just happens to wear a no. 6 at Test level.
Not only does he physically measure up as an ‘open-side’, not only has he generally worn the no. 7 for his club these past ten or so years, but he indeed plays the game as the perpetually motioned ‘open-side’ within the non-descript flanker ideology of the French. He is not a scavenger but not all ‘open-sides’ need to be. His worth is his work-rate particularly his super human efforts in tackle counts.
Regardless, since 2010 there has been a changing of the guard in terms of leadership in rugby.
This is important because it is yet another indicator that the game has changed. This observation should help to put this loosely stated ‘age of phase play’ notion into perspective. It should help to place worth on the opinions of those from yesteryear. because when they say the game has not changed you will know they are kidding themselves.
The reason why there are so many ‘open-sides’ leading their Tests sides around today is because they are now the players of most worth. This is purely because what they do matters the most on a rugby field. Once upon a time the ‘open-side’ played his role, but it was proportionally much less significant. This is not because the likes of Michael Jones were any less of a player than the modern ‘open-sides’, but simply because the game has changed a great deal.
To help put this in perspective, let’s look at some IRB research led by the famous Mr Corris Thomas a few years back.
His team compared a few different eras of Test rugby. Granted most of the research done by the IRB, led by Mr Thomas, is from data gathered from major tournaments such as the World Cups or Six Nations – but they have also taken the time to look at archives from the early 1970s.
Here are some of their findings that plot three different distinct periods.
Average rucks/mauls per match
1970-73 – average of 31 ruck/mauls per Test
1995 – average of 69 ruck/mauls per Test
2011 – average of 162 ruck/mauls per Test
Average set pieces per Test
1970-73 – average of 101 set pieces per Test (63 lineouts/38 scrums)
1995- averaged of 64 set pieces per test (37 lineouts/27 scrums)
2011 – average of 41 set pieces per Test (24 line-outs/17 scrums)
There are many reasons why Corris Thomas has stated rugby has ‘changed more in nature and character than any other team sport in the past 40 years.’
We could theorise that it comes down to professionalism or rule changes or changes in tactics, but that is beside the point. All we need to understand is that there is a vast difference in the amount of time the ball is play and therefore there are more chances for the ‘open-side’ to shine and to inspire his teammates. This is the reason we are seeing a change at the leadership level within Test rugby teams.
The ‘open-side’ has risen to lead the world of rugby in the same way mammals rose to dominance after the death of the dinosaurs.
It’s evolutionary.
The trend in captaincy of most major nations reflects all this.
Here is a breakdown of each Rugby World Cup and the amount of captains in the quarter finals that were also ‘open-side’ flankers.
1987 – 0
1991 – 0
1995 – 1
1999 – 0
2003 – 1 (two if we count Colin Charvis as an ‘open-side’, which is hard to do)
2007 – 1
2011 – 4
Sure there have been examples of captains wearing a no. 7 here and there, David Wilson comes to mind, but it wasn’t until 2011 when it became apparent that there was a clear change of leadership across the rugby world.
By 2011 there was no denying that the game had permanently evolved.
In 2015 it is looking like the ‘open-sides’ are going to continue to rule the ‘age of phase play’.
I say long live the king, for he is here to stay.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Admittedly you did clarify a couple of days later that Izzy was not the most important player for us to win the RWC. On that day you stated: "Here are the five Wallabies we need to perform to win the World Cup, listed in order of importance. 1. Wycliff Palu................." . . . . (That is the last reply to myself, I promise) :D
jeznez
Roar Guru
In the article your comment reads as - open sides being captains is a recent phenomenon. You now appear to be saying that the term and style of play is new. Within what period do you consider it a new term/style of play? PS - your view on Izzy seems to have changed in a very short time - this is what you said less than a month ago: "Folau is the best I’ve ever seen play for the Waratahs, win or lose, and just about the best ever for the Wallabies, win or lose. He is the best no. 15 in world rugby and has been almost since he started playing in 2013." http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/03/24/the-best-player-in-losing-sides-what-makes-israel-folau-special/ Now he is not the most important but instead just paid highly due to marketing?
jeznez
Roar Guru
What is your frame of reference on "recent" for the term open side? Also when were props and flyhalfs dominating the captaincy positions? I recall David Sole and Peter Fatialofa as prop captains but not too many others spring to mind and I can't think of any 10's off the top of my head. Given your period of review covers 1987 to now - what other props and flyhalfs have been major captains in the period, ie. consistently captain not just a interim measure?
Michael Essa
Roar Guru
yes jeznez you are on the right track... folau is the highest paid player because he is the highest profile and he is the most marketable...pretty much as soon s he came from AFL.. what does that tell you.. it has nothing to do with as i said 'the most important on the field' yes flyhalfs and set piece players were once all argued to be of much more value than flankers.. thats why once upon a time they were the usually captains with only the odd case of a flanker being captain.. it has now completely reversed.. I have even mentioned the fact that the term 'open-side' and its style of play is only a recent addition to the rugby vocabulary as well... i think that information might make you explode.. hope not. Historically players were just flankers or wing forwards with no real distinction between thew two.. in a sense not only is the open side captain anew phenomenon its very existence is almost just as new.. again showing just how much the game has changed.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Don't trouble yourself to point out where my lack of logic lies! I do have a number of assumptions but I think they are easier ones to back up than: "The reason why there are so many ‘open-sides’ leading their Tests sides around today is because they are now the players of most worth. This is purely because what they do matters the most on a rugby field." Isn't Folau the highest paid Waratah? Therefore of most worth as measured by his coaches? Shouldn't he be captain by the logic you are presenting? Historically debate around the most important players on the pitch has tended to be between Tighthead prop or Fly Half - by your 'logic' if these were the most worthy positions historically - then shouldn't they have been the most common players selected as captains? I enjoyed your article - as poorly argued as it is. It highlighted an anomaly that I had noticed but not reflected on. In considering it I think the use of the bench as a match day 23, rather than the historical match day side plus reserves, coupled with a general desire to have the captain be an 80 minute player means that if other attributes are equal the captain is ideally coming from a smaller pool of positions than it has historically. You have provided a topic that made me think and for that thank you. Your general level of argument needs to lift though and the statements questioning whether I have read the article or just stating my logic is wrong without an indication where aren't very helpful.
jeznez
Roar Guru
There is no doubt that the mental attributes to be a really top openside are a good match to a number of those for being a good captain.
taylorman
Roar Guru
I see we are starting our 19 year old sevens star Ioane this week: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/67788591/blues-give-star-rookie-akira-ioane-start-against-highlanders wonder how long he'll last without a French cheque book hanging around...
taylorman
Roar Guru
I know, I think we lost a few on those days too! yet here we are now hardly ever playing on Sundays
Rugby Tragic
Guest
taylorman, I was devastated when Michael Jones wouldn't play on Sundays due to his religion, it was almost "slashing wrist time"
taylorman
Roar Guru
Exactly. Thas why Pococks needed in the World cup. Its a straight trade off so constitutes a risk. What you gain at the breakdown you lose in Hoopers ability to scavenge and make yards, something he's extremely good at. Neither can play anywhere else as they're not big enough so I would have Pocock start and Hooper come on when legs are tiring. He'll end the game wanting more but when things are tight, Oz needs as much plusses in the tight as they can get.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Michael Jones was a flanker well ahead of his time. That means he would acquit himself in today's game. For me he remains the best flanker to have ever played the game. McCaw distinguishes himself in terms of his captaincy, his durability, longetivity, his rugby brain, and sheer ability to reign supreme at the breakdown. Michael Jones was the athlete. Faster and more skilful than any flanker before or since in his prime and the most devastating tackler of his age- those two traits he beats McCaw hands down. He had a sixth sense about where the threat was going to come from and would be there to end it. The 7 role has evolved over time hence the marked difference in styles between the two. Like the greatest players, he could win test on his own. I know your views on amateur vs professional but as you did not live in the era to witness it first hand your view is biased towards the modern era is somewhat misguided. For those that have seen both first hand Jones will always remain one of the true greats, in EVERY sense of the word.
Michael Essa
Roar Guru
yes and none of thee other flankers that are arguably just as good, i.e. Michael jones, are ever branded about as the greatest rugby player ever.. thats because when they played there deeds were not as highly valued.. not a criticism... an observation
Michael Essa
Roar Guru
I've been to see Gloucester play in Gloucester... what surprised me is that the there is hereat interest in the town... but it's a small place so it will never be as financially viable as the big clubs in lindon of course. The ARU is not influential because it has very little going for it.. it is down in registered players and down in its finances... this was part of the reason the home unions threw out the ELV's
Michael Essa
Roar Guru
Jeznez your arguments are not logical
RobC
Roar Guru
Thanks Michael. Good post. I intended to write a similar, short piece. Agree 100%
JimmyB
Guest
I say old bean, that sounds like a very full day. Time for a cheeky G & T?!
Birdy
Guest
Well; you've finally sussed me RT. I'm sitting here in my top-hat and monocle having just beaten one of my inefficient Kiwi servants (I'll get them to return the favour later) and lamenting the loss of the Empire. Right, that's me done for the night. I'm off to shoot a few pheasants, sack a few peasants, and then find some colonials to oppress. Toodle Pip.!!
Zero Gain
Guest
Exactly. As I have been banging on for a long time, the breakdown is by far the most important aspect of play in the game. This is why I see Michael Hooper as a weakness because he isn't very good at the breakdown. Yes, he swoops in for a turnover every now and then but otherwise contributes little to rucks. He does other things brilliantly of course, like tackling, playing in the centres and flicking his hair...
JimmyB
Guest
We are all biased RT, yourself included. You point out that Birdy often champions the Poms, well come on fella, there's more than enough people championing everyone else especially the ABs and there's also plenty who revel in having a pop at the poms whether it's warranted or not, heck it's become a sport all of its own. Birdy appears to rub a few kiwis up the wrong way, simply because he doesn't blindly worship at the altar of the ABs. I happen to think Birdy offers a much needed balance and I appreciate his gumption even if some of the more sensitive posters on here don't.
JimmyB
Guest
You're a wit Taylorman, I bet you had a good old giggle to yourself didn't you? Yeah thought so.