Scrumma-mogram: Wallabies Scrum (Part 3)

Today we compare Wallabies-Ireland in 2013 versus 2014. We also included cheerleaders, whose presence is unanimously agreed by the panel and should be added into the rulebook somewhere.

In this forum, we invite you to share your thoughts, fears and (happy) tears about the scrum. Everybody is welcome: backs, forwards, fans, non-fans, referees and coaches.

Please feel free to review the introduction article of the scrumma-mogram.

1. Andrew Blades and Ewen McKenzie versus Ireland 2013
Continuation. First one here, and the second one here.

Firstly, we look at what was expected to be an Ireland demolition of the Wallaby scrum in 2013. In the previous few months, the Wallabies were hammered by the British and Irish Lions, All Blacks, Springboks, Pumas and England.

The Wallabies managed well versus the Italians in the previous week, which was considered lucky due to injury. While luck of the Irish seemed to have rubbed off on Stephen Moore and the pack in this video, it took a while for it to sink into the commentators that the Wallabies scrum isn’t what was expected.

2. Andrew Blades and Michael Cheika versus Ireland 2014: Attitude check
Twelve months has passed. It is the same scrum coach with a new head coach. Scott Fardy is missing, along with Big Kev, Stephen Moore and Ben Mowen. Instead we have Sam Carter, Luke Jones, Saia Fainga’a and Ben McCalman. Big Willy comes in at the most crucial time where the Wallabies need to win their own scrum in Ireland’s redzone, and score winning points.

There is an observable difference in attitude and performance, compared to 2013. A similar stark difference is also observable for the Wallaby versus Wales scrums, when comparing 2013 versus 2014.

DaffyD says
The Wallabies forwards are not highly regarded for their scrummaging. However, they have shown occasionally where they are quite capable of being the dominant pack. They just cannot go out and simply try to survive or have parity, all eight have to work together and release their inner mongrel.

But there is also a technique and timing issue. With there being such a small difference to winning and losing a scrum, it is critical that the back row stay attached before the ball is out. At times the number six, seven or eight seem to be looking to get the quick ‘breakaway’ before the ball is actually out of the scrum. Getting the timing right is critical.

In the modern game it is important for the back row to stay bound, keep the pressure on and trust the backs to do their job in defence.

While putting pressure on the inside backs is part of the role of the open side flanker, and the number eight is expected to cover, it should not be at the expense of conceding a penalty. Many teams these days would prefer to force a scrum penalty rather than run the ball, therefore if the scrum cannot be won, it is better to lose the ball than concede a penalty.

At the 56:11 minute mark (of game time) we see Michael Hooper’s poor body position on the side of the scrum. It seems to me that he regularly lifts his head to meerkat, often when the scrum is sliding backwards. Not being the biggest flanker he has to stay attached, give it his all and bide his time before breaking.

In the final scrum of the second video, it’s all about mongrel. In the end the Irish dig deeper and find that little bit extra. Australia can’t win the quick ball that was needed and concede a penalty. Where was the Wallaby pack’s inner mongrel? Like that dog that stands growling over the bone and daring you to take it from them?

What’s the difference? One team wanted it more than the other.

Diggercane says
The major difference between the two performances was the work of the loose forwards, far more disciplined in 2013 as opposed to 2014, where they were not in good position and coming off far too early or meerkatting.

You can see Schatz’s position on the blindside was terrible in the last scrum, pushing up and essentially forcing his loosehead down and collapsing. You don’t want that.

3. Big BIFF: Round 13 – Stormers versus Brumbies
Requester: Harry Jones

The Stormers won this game. We look at how the scrums helped them in this win, especially considering the Canberians were 31 kilograms heavier that the Capetonians. We missed out on the Scott Sio versus Frans Malherbe contest. Instead we see 120-kilogram loosies JP Smith and Allan Alaalatoa push with Rory Arnold. Jake White and Laurie Fisher would not be very impressed.

Diggercane says
Check out the binding, the majority on the arm, or with a handful of jersey then around the arm, resulting in a lot of lost binds. Lots of silly buggers going on in the front row that day but at least the cheerleaders were happy.

DaffyD says
Awesome scrummaging from the Stormers, a team with one of the best scrums in Super Rugby. For me this game was a litmus test to see whether or not the Australian conference scrums were improving as much as I had hoped.

1. At the 2:15 mark (video time), watch for as the Brumbies’ number eight lifts his head from the scrum. It’s only an instant but at that instant the Stormers give a second shove, and the Brumbies’ scrum is smashed.

2. In the reset sequence – scrum three and four – the number eight’s head is out of the scrum and taking a peek. (The earlier scrums don’t have the angle to see if it happened there as well.)

It’s hard to win scrums, especially against a pack like the Stormers, when you only have seven men pushing in the scrum. And finally after five resets the ball emerges onto the field and the Stormers score a try.

And the cheerleaders cheer, yay!

3. The third last and second last scrums show the importance of being the dominant scrum and being seen to be the dominant scrum. The benefit of the doubt tends to go to that team. And then the referee misses the hand on the ground by Steven Kitshoff, is it worth a penalty?

In my opinion, no, but I don’t make the laws and the ref should enforce them as they are written, equally as possible to both teams. I have no doubt the Brumbies would have appreciated it.

This sequence of video shows two things to me. It seems to me that there is only small differences between packs that count for a lot on any given day. The first is all about attitude.

To be top dog in the scrum it is imperative to let the mongrel out. There is no coping or surviving in a two-dog fight. If the pack goes into a scrum to survive and not to clearly dominate the other, sooner or later the scrums, the penalties and the benefit of the doubt will go against them.

All eight men in the scrum must stay bound and not detach early. Having only seven men in the shove will invariably lead to loss of scrum and loss of referee perception. In the scrums above involving Australian teams there are many examples of ‘Scrumma-interruptus’*, where the back row has detached and stopped pushing too early. Will the back row please stay on the scrum and give it everything until the ball comes out?

OK, that’s all folks! We hope it was fun and your observations are appreciated. Questions are even more appreciated, and no question is too silly. And anyone can answer.

Please request any other engagements you want to be ‘Scrumma-mogramed’. We need ideas, and complaints…

Also, stay tuned for the next round:
– Fourth instalment of ‘Wallaby Scrum: Hope? Or Dopes?’: Rugby Championship 2014
– The Sharks request by ‘adsa’

*Scrumma-interruptus: When the back row stops pushing and or detaches prematurely often signifying the scrum is about to be screwed. It generally leaves half of the viewers feeling deeply unsatisfied.