Recently, former England coach Clive Woodward issued a blunt assessment of the Wallaby scrum.
“Out of the three southern hemisphere countries the Achilles heel for Australia is the scrum, that’s what we all think. Nothing’s changed moving into this World Cup. Australia has to arrive at Twickenham with a scrum or we’ll munch them again, there’s no doubt that will happen.”
Arrogant? Probably. True? Definitely.
Whatever Australian rugby may think of Woodward, England, or the RFU, there’s little real controversy here. All Woodward has really done is to say out loud what the rugby world is thinking and that is that Australia has a soft underbelly at scrum time.
The intriguing question obviously is, what does Michael Cheika do about it? There has been much talk about the need for a scrum coach and dire predictions of what will happen if one is not appointed soon.
The problem with focusing on the scrum coach issue is that it reinforces the incorrect belief that the edge is to be found in scrummaging skills. That is partly correct, but only to the degree that all other things are roughly equal.
A good small scrummager will hold his own with a poor big scrummager. But a good big scrummager will generally beat a good small scrummager. It’s not desire, or technique, but simple physics.
Weight under the force of levers generally exerts a force greater than the weight alone – which is a fancy way of saying that a big man who uses his levers well is not just a bit harder to scrum against. He is exponentially harder to beat.
This brings us back to the building blocks of any good scrum, which is size. A coach must start with size, because it is one of the three main building blocks of any good scrum. The other two are technique and desire.
This line of course invites the pedants to wheel out every successful small prop in history – the Mighty Mouse defence. But we’re not really talking about props. The prop is the channel. The shove comes from further back.
This is where the ‘Aussie Assumption’ cripples so many Wallaby teams before they take the field. Perhaps it’s the subliminal influence of rugby league. Whatever it is, the Assumption holds that ball skills are more important than power.
In this sense most Australian selectors have it the wrong way round. Faced with two tight forwards, one who is a fraction light with excellent hands and one who is heavy and powerful, but with lesser skills, Australians have a tendency to overvalue skills and undervalue bulk.
If the balance was tipped a few ounces in the other direction, the Wallabies may well find that scrum dominance, and indeed forward dominance, comes much more easily. Bulk doesn’t only count in the scrum, but at the cleanout, on the carry and in defence.
A smaller side generally fatigues earlier and fatigue affects skills, defence and decision making.
So we can argue that a good scrum is firstly a selection issue. It is no accident that most successful coaches are good selectors. In this sense current Wallaby coach Michael Cheika may manage a half-decent scrum for the Rugby World Cup simply because he has shown that he is prepared to make some hard calls.
Selectors also need to consider tournament rugby. The World Cup is not a time or a place where players will gain weight. In most cases, they will fight to maintain it. The weeks of training, playing travel and general circus take their toll. It is a draining and emotional time. We can at least guarantee that most players will, if anything, finish lighter than they started.
The Wallabies need players that aren’t fighting to keep weight on – rather they must select naturally big men.
Many would read this argument and assume that I am talking about props. In fact, I think the focus is unfairly on the front rowers in this respect. The scrum is an eight-man concern and the most neglected contributors when the scrum is discussed are the backrow.
Backrowers are where a scrum can gain an edge. Selectors often favour lightweight running and fetching players over scrummaging backrowers. Given this, if a coach is willing to select for scrum weight, it is not out of the question for a scrum to have an edge of half a human in the backrow alone.
Consider a backrow of Liam Gill, Jake Schatz and Stephen Hoiles versus a backrow of David Pocock, Wycliffe Palu and Lopeti Timani. The Pocock/Palu/Timani backrow gives an immediate 40kg advantage to their scrum which is huge, particularly if they add dedication and good scrum technique into the equation.
There’s little to choose from among the locks, being as they are, all between 113 and 117 kilograms, with Will Skelton the standout at around 140kg. The argument here for selectors is not so much to pick the biggest, but to avoid the lightest. In this case, locks like Rob Simmons and Dean Mumm are on the outer when we are selecting for scrummaging.
Up front, there’s not so much a lack of variety (although there is that), as a lack of sheer size. Although the front row depends on weight coming through from the five players behind, some sheer bulk never hurts and the Wallabies will be confronting players like Charlie Faumuina (NZ, 127kg) and Coenie Oosthuizen (SA, 127kg).
To paraphrase Jimmy Malone in The Untouchables, “Isn’t it just like the Wallabies…bringin’ a knife, to a gun fight!”.
The simple point is that if Australian rugby is going to go on a worldwide search for a scrum coach, they might as well give him some ammunition to work with. And given the short lead-up, there’s no sense in throwing out one third of the scrummaging advantage by picking a lightweight scrum. Remember, size, technique, desire. A good big one will always beat a good medium one.
The number one scrum I would send to the Rugby World Cup? Scott Sio, Stephen Moore, Sekope Kepu, Sam Carter, Will Skelton, Luke Jones, David Pocock and Lopeti Timani.
The critics will knock each other down in the rush, and of course it isn’t the most balanced team around. However, imagine for a moment if you will, the Wallabies going into a Test match with a scrum guaranteed to dominate and a backline better than any in the competition.
Doesn’t that make your mouth water just a little?
Lroy
Guest
I would play Higgintottom as a 7 for one... and get Salesi Maáfu in the side as soon as I could.. he is a huge man, be scrumming up north for a few years now, he could be our new secret weapon. As Napoleon once said... if the enemy are strong in artillery, you must be strong also...
Noah Hughes
Roar Rookie
But you have to remember that Cruden can't play at the world cup after he ruptured his ACL, which means Beauden Barrett is next in line for the flyhalf role at the AB's, Barrett is still in deadly form though and is better than any of the Australian flyhalfs.
James in NZ
Guest
Birdy, for sure we view the big bad world through our goldfish bowl and yes I wish my countrymen wouldn't take the click bait lure and post 500+ comments when the odd Stephen Jones, Mark Reason(I appreciate he's NZ based and a regular writer) or the occasional Will Carling article is posted. So it was O'Neil that made that statement in 2007, that rings true, I think the Oz PM had to make a statement at the time to mend diplomatic bridges as it was headline news for a few heads. I concede that 'mind games' is probably not a fair description, but lets say certain teams have a reputation partially based in reality, such as the Boks being thugs or the Ozzie forwards are powder puffs, that is spoken about before a game, perhaps as a strategic opening for the home team, or maybe as a sincere way to motivate the team in question to evolve beyond their reputation. I don't know, but I think its safe for me to say the Oz scrum will be talked about in depth, especially the week of your game, which will get under the skin of the Oz team maybe just enough to make them doubt themselves with flash backs of the Al Baxter accordion impression at the same ground (in 2005?), whilst also urging your team rise even higher to put on that extra 5% pressure, resulting in another Oz scrum capitulation from the superior red rose scrum. Thus embodying the stereotype, or making it a self for fulling prophecy, this is all speculative of course. You have to analyse strengths and weaknesses I suppose, internally as well as it will be done externally. I remember Johnnie Howard's grimace and body language in that ceremony, not very gracious at all. While most Oz PM's feign interest in the Wallabies, he genuinely did love them, choosing to wear a Wallabie track suit everyday on his morning walks as PM. A very bitter and short men, voted out when he tried to wind back workers rights 100 years. Re the black strip, I think there's a four yearly battle within the war, between jersey manufacturers like Nike, Adidas and Canterbury etc to get one over on each other. It worked on us in our 2007 QF, that away grey away strip our guys wore when France booted us out, is stilled remembered with scorn, in fact I saw a guy wearing one at my local supermarket a few months ago and along with the dirty looks he received from other patrons, I felt like telling him to take it home and burn it. I heard theories about Carl Hayman shaving his beard before that game jinxed us(see http://haymansbeard.blogspot.co.nz/), the managers coin toss killed us and so on. Superstitious yes. Incidentally France won the coin toss in a 2011 final and graciously let us wear our traditional black strip, very classy gesture. Its been a pleasure.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
I'd love England to face a Wallaby pack like that. This article nicely (and broadly) summarises the Australian misinterpretation of forward play. The England pack isn't big... Scrummaging is about technique and team interplay. Forget jokers like Luke Jones (arguably the worst run on game I've seen by a sub - against Ireland), and concentrate on coaching at all levels.
JimmyB
Guest
Fair enough fella.
Bakkies
Guest
England didn't play that way against NZ and Aus to take rucks out of the game which nullified Smith and McCh..t. Do the opposite you run the risk of being killed by turnovers. They ran riot against the Boks who had a more physical pack so used the backs. It was the same in the Six Nations where they played an open offloading game.
Birdy
Guest
I'm sorry AK, if I miss the clever irony and wit in your posts - we're not used in England to the sort of subtle humour that the Aussies and Kiwis are famous for. I'll try harder.
Bakkies
Guest
Horwill has brought it on himself
Bakkies
Guest
There has to be a national directive that goes as far as schools and clubs so coaches know what work on. Then they have the requisite skills if they reach that level.
Edward Pye
Roar Guru
Palu seems to go missing too, he's a great player when he's on but I don't think I've ever seen him boss a test match. Higgers has but without consistency and McCalman hasnt stepped up to test match level.
Edward Pye
Roar Guru
Graham Henry recognized this very fact when he took over the ABs and immediately brought Carl Hayman back into the squad - not the best runner or most skilled prop going around but he was a man mountain.
Birdy
Guest
James in NZ, I'm not saying Woodward didn't go in for mind games, he was one of the worst at it. But he was the coach then. The media don't go in for concerted campaigns - they hate each other too much. There'll definitely be a lot of rah rah England stuff in the run-up because the media will want to cash in on the enthusiasm, because you don't get the national interest in rugby all the time that a RWC generates, particularly one in England. The point I was making is that it is easy if, say you are a Kiwi, to get the impression that there's a concerted campaign every EOYT against the ABs because outlets like the New Zealand Herald and Stuff NZ seem to scour the English media in the run-up to a tour or match trying to find the negative article (or even the negative paragraph or sentence). If I was a Kiwi I'd probably believe the same. If you do any systematic check of the coverage the ABs get in the British press, though, it's overwhelmingly positive, so people get puzzled at the defensiveness and chippiness, but it's understandable if you judged the English media on the articles highlighted in the NZ media. The examples you give are interesting. The 'we all hate England' line was from O'Neil, who was the ARU chairman, before the 2007 QF. By any standards that was crass and pathetic and, as you can imagine, made the victory all the sweeter. The other one that didn't bother people at the time, but left a sour taste when they began to reflect on it, was Howard literally hurling the winners medals at the England team in 2003 with a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp. England fans tended to just roll their eyes, but the most common comment I heard was 'wonder what would have happened if the British PM had done that to the Wallaby team in 1991'? Moving forward can you imagine the uproar if David Cameron did that to the ABs or Wallabies in 2015? Similarly, if the head of the RFU says before the pool game in 2015 'we all hate the Aussies' all hell would break loose. We've already got Spiro writing, in all seriousness, apparently, that England don't have the 'integrity' to put on a decent RWC. The 'black' kit in 2011 was simply a crass cash grab by some half brain in the RFU who had been offered a lot of money by a kit manufacturer, It certainly didn't come from the team, nor was it a 'mind-game'.
Birdy
Guest
I think it's understandable, Piru. There have been times (and not all that long ago) when England were justifiably condemned for their weakness in the backs. Actually, the early 2000's (if we mean the team that ended up winning the RWC in 2003) were very unfairly labelled a '10 man team'. It was part of the campaign to undermine them in the run-up to the 2003 RWC, but that team had as good a try scoring record as the ABs at the time. They played what was in front of them. If teams were infringing they'd kick their penalties and drop goals off slow ball. If there were opportunities they'd take them. The classic example is the tour to NZ and Aus just before the RWC. They beat the ABs in Wellington in the rain in a slugfest, then ran in 3 tries all from flowing backs moves against Australia a week later in perfect conditions. In their Grand Slam winning game in Dublin in the 2002 6 Nations they scored 45 points running them in from all angles. There were times post-2003, though, when English backplay has been utterly dreadful and deserved all the criticism going. Probably not the case now, but they need to improve their ratio of chances taken against the big boys.
Charlie
Guest
Anyone else think Pocock should make the move to hooker? Controversial, but I think he would be brilliant. We have seen others make the move from flanker. We could then use his craftiness around the ground, retain Hooper/Gill as number 7s, and ensure succession (sorry I don't rate the current hookers coming through - Moore who is getting on, and TPN will have to retire soon for all his concussions).
piru
Guest
You get running rugby when your forwards earn it.
piru
Guest
agree Birdy - England's backs are very underrated in the SH, I think it makes us all feel better to imagine England are still the stolid, slow 10 man team of the early 2000s and that our amazing backs, given the chance, will cut them to ribbons. This is no longer the case and we'd do well to give them some respect
PeterK
Roar Guru
Sio should be 1 and Slipper on the bench, good pick up
taylorman
Roar Guru
funny how the two above you agree...bite away matey...
Luke
Guest
Nah my sook was about having to play both England at Twickenham and Wales at Millennium stadium in what is already a tough pool but as Bakkies has pointed out I got my facts wrong. My bad.
taylorman
Roar Guru
JimmyB: Well how about you read his post again Taylorman, he didn’t start it by suggesting that Oz were arrogant... Birdy: Can anyone explain why it’s ‘arrogant’ to say if the Wallabies don’t sort their scrum out... You're right...he didnt start it...he waited until the 6th word...apologies.