Over the years in South African rugby, there has been harsh but often accurate criticism for players who are required to frequently switch positions.
Players as far back as Brent Russell through to the precocious talent of Francois Steyn and most recently Pat Lambie have been tossed around from one role to another.
One of the gripes, among expert panellists and past players is that a player who represents their country in a certain position should play in that position for their provincial team too.
This observation has taken on an augmented reality, that the root cause of talented players being unable to establish themselves on the Test stage is because they play one position at provincial level and another at Test level.
Has this idea or conversation slowly started to limit the selection criteria in South African rugby?
Absolutely. A quick observation of the world’s best sides over the past decade quickly serves as ammunition to dispel any idea that playing out of position is negative and disruptive to an individual’s career.
History tells us exceptional players who make up the core of their provincial side but represent their nation in a different position have been a characteristic of every World Cup-winning side since 1995.
So then why do past players and experts support this idea, when on the surface it is clear that in today’s modern game there is a huge benefit in having as many of your best players and decision makers on the field as possible?
This could be because there is a catch. On all occasions when a player began their Test career playing out of position and went on to establish themselves as elite, they had already made or were well on their way to establishing themselves as the undisputed incumbents within their provincial set-ups.
Sterling Mortlock began his impressive international career on the wing as did Jean de Villiers.
The two premier fullbacks in world rugby currently, Israel Dagg and Ben Smith, alternate between fullback and wing when representing the All Blacks.
Throw Beauden Barret into that mix. He too has started a few games at fifteen for the All Blacks before making himself the first choice ten after Dan Carter’s retirement from international rugby.
There are also players like Joe Roff who have been shifted around at a provincial level and Test level and still gone on to establish long and successful international careers. In Roff’s case, he represented Australia largely on the wing but often moved between wing and fullback for the Brumbies.
Nehe-Milner Skudder looks set to follow in a similar mould but this is a less common phenomenon especially in today’s professional environments.
Indeed the problem that tends to plague utility players in South Africa who haven’t gone onto bed-down long international careers is that at provincial and Super Rugby level they never settle in or own a single position.
Their franchises use them as utility players largely to plug holes that have not been covered with adequate player identification and investment, or alternatively, management seems unable to commit to their long-term future in one position.
It is worth mentioning that the significant player drain in South Africa among the young and established provincial professionals may have had a greater impact than we have realised on squad management and player investment.
The lure of the pound, euro and yen could be regarded as one of the reasons why at provincial players are forced to find their feet in a few positions without managing to settle and establish themselves as the undeniable first choice in their preferred position.
Any player who plays for the love of the game will hold onto a professional contract and play wherever the coach deems necessary. On the flip side this offshore player depletion exposes the lack of innovation and planning when it comes to player identification, investment, selection and contractual issues within South African rugby.
We saw a good example of this with Springbok selection, or the lack thereof, in last year’s embarrassment of a season. Early doors in 2016, Allistair Coetzee showed immense faith in an underperforming Damien de Allende and backed him until he could no longer ignore the impressive form of Rohan Janse van Rensburg.
You could make a good argument that the midfield stocks in South Africa, specifically in the twelve channel, are reasonably healthy with the likes of de Allende, Janse van Rensburg, Serfontein, and Odendaal. Throw in Lionel Mapoe and Francois Venter and you have some players to build your midfield around for the future.
Yet only one of these quality players can don the Springbok number twelve. There is no doubt in my mind that if the best of the rest are not accommodated for these midfield stocks will deplete with the call of greener financial pastures.
It is when you consider how poor the outside back positions are stocked that you begin to ask the question why de Allende or Mapoe, who have both played and performed provincially on the wing, have not been considered for selection outside of the twelve and thirteen channels.
This is why the question (is selecting players out of position in the Test arena to the detriment of player performance in the long run and has this idea slowly started to limit the selection criteria in South African rugby?) has to be asked.
It is criminal that in a season where the Boks broke numerous unwanted first-time records, with injuries to in-form players and a dearth of quality in back three options, Damien de Allende, Rohan Janse van Rensburg and Lionel Mapoe never saw action in the same starting XV.
It shows the unoriginality in the selection process that the two were viewed only from a ‘like versus like’ single position perspective.
One feels there should be more patients and help given to South Africa’s most gifted youngsters. Players such as Beauden Barret, who is now arguably the world’s best ten, was introduced into Test rugby more often than not entering the fray at fullback where he was allowed more space and time to make positive, solid decisions.
Not many teams in the world have the luxury to slowly introduce exceptional players to the rigours of Test rugby, South Africa certainly do not. Which is, even more, reason to allow players like de Allende to settle in positions that allow extra time and space and less decision making responsibility.
Many players have forged successful Test careers because of their ability to perform in more than one position at Test level. Many have World Cup Winners medals including Hennie le Roux, Mark Andrews, Danie Rossouw and Francois Steyn, all played out of position in victorious World Cup sides representing South Africa.
The idea that a player is better off specialising in a single position is valid, the idea that a player who specialises in a single position doesn’t add value at Test level in a different position is ludicrous and limiting to selection possibilities.
lloyd marshall
Roar Rookie
Neil Powel is an Afrikaans speaking Caucasian, Suzy.
mania
Guest
suzy - 7's is specialist coaching. powel would need to prove he can coach 15's at all before i'd give him the Boks mantle. i agree its a shame you have to mention his colour but thats what this day and age has come down to. i dont know what coetzees excuse is but he's walking in a political minefield, blindfolded with his hands tied behind his back. maybe he isnt ready for all this but then i doubt any coach could handle the boks off-field environement
Suzy Poison
Guest
Mania. The Blitzbokke Sevens coach, Neil Powel, is a black dude. (boring that I need to say it, but it is South Africa, and he represents) Yet they are over achieving. And he can only select locally. So what Alistair's excuse? P Divvy beat the AB's three times. Coetzee's team got smashed 9 tries to zip at home by AB's. He can't coach bro.
J Estey
Guest
The thing about rugby positions is that you have 15 people out on that pitch, and there are only so many specialized skills that a sport can ask for. We need to recognize that not all positions require the same amount of specialization. The front row positions are all more of less unchangeable. In contrast, 12 seems to be almost a "wild card" position at times – just about any talented back can play there. It's the shirt for your less creative flyhalf (Farrell, Foley), your center who got big & old and lost a step (J Roberts, J de Villiers), your league import learning the game (SBW, Burgess), your 3rd best fullback (J. Kriel, Payne), or, once in a blue moon, an actual specialist 12 (Nonu, Horan). There are very few set-in-stone requirements for how to play 12, so it's a great position for a player who can contribute _something_ important, whatever that may be. On the forward side, 6 seems to fill a similarly flexible role – more often than not, test sides tend to put their 2nd best #8 in at 6 (Chouly, Kaino), or sometimes a big #7 (Robshaw, S Burger) or a skillful lock (Itoje, Mumm). Since test #8's are expected to possess virtually all the skills that a blindside flanker has, and then more besides, it's no big deal to ask them to move over. Conversely, there are some positions that demand such a wide range of skills that they create players who can cover a wide range of positions. Fullback is the most obvious one – 15's must be fast, elusive runners, strong kickers, good under the high ball, strong 1-on-1 tacklers, accurate passers, and solid readers of the game. This diverse skillset means that good fullbacks can and do cover virtually every backline position from 11-14 – they can play wing because they basically already are wings with better kicking and tackling skills, they can play 13 because they're threatening runners and can read plays to direct the defense, and they can play 12 because they're running threats who can also share the passing and kicking duties with the fly-half. That's why, for example, Ireland in 2013 played fullbacks at 15, 14, 13, and 12 all at the same time. (Kearney, Zebo, Henshaw, Payne) If you can pass, kick, run, tackle, and read the game, you can play any backline position with a bit of practice and coaching. If you can tackle, hit breakdowns, break the gainline, scrummage, and contribute in lineouts, then you can play any back three position (back 5 if you're also tall). There are 15 positions and only a few basic skills; they're not that distinct.
davSA
Guest
I agree Hoy. Its precisely because he could fill multiple roles that has been to his detriment. By now Lambie should be one of the best nr 10,s in the world. But he is not.
davSA
Guest
It's great to know that there are those out there who are still deeply concerned about the state of the game in SA Rugby Tragic. Sadly these days the conversations over SA rugby are almost exclusively around these same issues. We also have quotas in cricket yet it was managed so much better for so much longer than rugby has. This goes back to the initial post isolation period where Dr Ali Bacher set up really good structures in the sport . Our junior programmes are terrific and the support of KFC through mini-cricket has been absolutely immense. So sure it is still an issue in cricket but nowhere near the scale of rugby. Also the cricket side is performing . I guess if they weren't the heat would be on. So yeah we now have these constant conferences and committees coming and going looking for rugby reasons why the Boks are in decline when the solution can only be political. Unfortunately with the strong emergence of the radical anti-white far left wing in SA politics preaching land and property repossession , calling us temporary visitors etc .and attracting considerable support doing so. The ANC needs strong and similar rhetoric to counter it as it is losing voters hand over fist to this party (EFF). Sport is an ideal weapon given its profile. So not only can you expect quotas to not be relaxed , they are going to be intensified. The only way to move forward on this is for the international community to stand up and say no guys. We wont play you if you racially profile your sports teams. But I wont hold my breath. So yeah figure.
Rugby Tragic
Roar Rookie
SP, South Africa has talent, anyone who follows the code know that. Quota's is another issue, my side of the argument is that it doesn't work but that debate has yet to play out fully. Again as an outsider looking in, to me, if the ANC's objective is to diminish the code of Rugby as a legacy of the 'past apartheid' days then they only need to continue their path to destruction. Will it right the wrongs of apartheid ... no it won't but the world has moved on, so too should SA. The decision to appoint (politically I think) Allister Coetzee and the vastly experienced back coach (sic) Mzwandile Stick, from the great performing franchise the Southern Kings (sic, sic) as being part of the Coaching squad to make South Africa Rugby great again must have been an April 1st announcement. (I believe that Mr Stick 'has been released') While very different games, the Blitzbokke have been great to watch, the pace they operate, they are a team of stars who play as if they really enjoy the game (and why wouldn't they!) compared to the Springboks who do not look as though they are enjoying the game nor seem to be playing for each other. I wonder how long it will be before Coetzee, loses the changing room? Sorry for ranting on about your country but like many rugby loving Kiwis, I care about some of the traditional rivalries which make our game so great.
mania
Guest
Boks demise wasnt solely due to coetzee. im givng the guy a break. all his prime white guys are playing overseas for better money and they must think that if they're going to be victims of being on the wrong side of the quota then why not go make a living ? a nest egg for their family. that has a spin off effect of meaning that the domestic players dont get to play against the best their country has to offer. quality of players suffers. then coetzee has to pick at least half coloured guys. so players that need a fire under them like the beast get preferential treatment and stays in as a starter. then u start running out room for players like louw and vermulen as u juggle the roster. coetzee needs support and needs every one who doest contribute to SA Rugby bk the eff off . boks completely sukd 2016 but if ur gonna screw up any given year then the one furthest from the next wc is ideal. last year wasnt all coetzees fault. players need to take responsibility as well but with a rapidly shrinking quality player pool coetzee is in an environment never before taken on by any other boks coach. where are all the bruisers who play with accuracy? theirs hope but coetzees gotta be smart . good luck
Suzy Poison
Guest
Thanks RT. Agree 200%. Sad to see the rapid decline. Look watching France run England close, in the first Six Nations game, means Alistair demise will come in June. But that means the new coach is also on a hiding to nothing. Little time to prepare before the Rugby Championship. A complete shambles and terrible planning again. Plus the players will then be low on confidence and need a re-boot again. I believe South Africa has the talent, both black and white players. The shining example of the new South African game and talent is the blitzbokke, sevens team. So for me, the 15man code decline has nothing to do with quotas, it's purely poor coaching, and secondly terrible administration of the game at the highest levels.
Hoy
Roar Guru
So my issue is that Pat Lambie may well be the best in any one of those positions, IF he was given the chance to settle into any one position for a period of time. This is what drives me bonkers.
Rugby Tragic
Guest
As an outsider lining in, you say "but the June France inbound tour should seal his fate" .... then what. If SARU cannot raise the funds to retire his contract now, at the end of June, the pro-rata payout (I assume that's how it works if buying out a contract) will not be much less. In the meantime how much damage is being caused in terms of loss of Sponsorships and the damage to their supporter base. Perhaps Alexander's position should also be considered.
Jarryd Thompson
Roar Rookie
Cheers, The headline is a tad off, I would agree. The reason it's up there is because there does seem to be a serious lack of intellectual competence coming out of the top levels in South African Rugby. The attempt was to use the lack of thought put into the selection process and player investment as an example of it. I believe there is always room for a midfield specialist to excel out on the wing at test level. Outside of the guys I mentioned in the article Richard Kahui played at 11 in the 2011 World cup final, Keith Earls recently for the Irish has performed on the wing. The point of carrying on about this in line with the title is that this is where the selections brain trust and whatever ideas and criteria that are governing their decisions appears so backwards. There is no reason why de Allende or Mapoe never made an appearance on the wing in 2017. Granted they don't represent their franchise sides in that position but both have played there with success and both have the traits to be effective there while gaining valuable experience and possibly finding confidence and a sense of belonging on the test stage. That said I do agree that being a specialist will stand you in greater stead. What I was trying to impress is that JdV, Sterling Mortlock etc began on the wing but settled in their specialist positions based, largely, off what they had achieved and brought to the table playing out of position.
davSA
Guest
Good article Jarryd . I do however think that your headliner does not represent the article much. The issue of utility players as opposed to specialists is topical for all teams. So let me deal with the header first. The SA brains trust , if they can be called that with any sincerity has a number of parallels with the Aussie cricket management. ie. A bankruptcy of common sense. Both bodies for some bizarre reason seem to believe that losing games is a team building process. Both have very good players to select from . Both have a passionate , knowledgable and loyal public supporting the respective codes and both are rapidly exhausting the patience of those same supporters . Anyway onto the article. The example of Patrick Lambie is a good one. He can play literally in any position on the backline with proficiency and can also place kick as good as anyone. Unfortunately in not one of those positions is he the best available . As a bench player he is absolutely invaluable because of his versality . It allows the coach to choose other players onto the bench to strengthen other areas of the team depth..He is always therefore the first name pencilled in on any side. he can of course at very short notice fill in for a late injury. He is totally aware of game plans etc. There are players mentioned in your article who are very good in multiple positions but my thoughts are that the game is evolving so quickly technically that specialists may be the only way to go.
Rugby Tragic
Roar Rookie
Thanks SP ... maybe I'm old fashion (actually, I'm just old!) ... but having grown up with the rivalry between the All Blacks and Springboks on the rugby field, it has been disappointing to see the South African national team fall of a cliff, so rapid has been their decline. I was in Durban last year for the King's Park match and enjoyed the banter with Bok fans, but the game was many levels down from what I was hoping for. Sure, I love to see the AB's win, but the surrender was there for all to see, it was not a contest, and I can only blame the Head Coach who fell even further with his trip to the NH. South Africa, without doubt has talented players, but Coetzee has been, in my opinion as inept as any I recall. I realise it is wrong for me to criticise another countries choices but my motive is that I long to see the competitive games come back between the 2 proud rugby nations, I cannot see that with Kootchi Koo in charge... sorry.
Suzy Poison
Guest
RT, Coetzee will survive. Only because of the incompetence of SA rugby. There was no performance clause in his contract. Therefore it would cost SA Rugby 13Million Rand to pay him out. Most news outlets predict the only change will be, Coetzee will get new assistants, but the June France inbound tour should seal his fate. http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Springboks/france-series-to-decide-bok-coachs-fate-20170206 The delay...SA Rugby is stuffing around with the assistant coach contracts... Brendon Venter is signed up as the defence coach for Italy, but has an opt out clause to coach the Boks, if the contract is right.
Akari
Guest
Made sense, Hoy. I don't have any problem with gifted players being moved around so the coach could work out where they are better suited in their game plan/s at international level. It would help if provincial coaches gave some support by playing these players at positions nominated by the national coach. My bug bear is where the coach (both national and provincial) moves a player into a position they are not really good at and persist with that decision just to prove them right. It rarely ever works and the talents of these gifted players are then wasted. JOC is a classic example.
Hoy
Roar Guru
I know, I know... I know all that. Beale was off the bench, in the same game against Italy that Cooper won wasn't he? That is what I am saying... You can start your 10 career at 12, because you learn what your 10 is doing, how he works the game. Though I disagree about 12 at 13... completely different spots... you can fill 13, but you won't get what you need out of the role I don't think. But to think you can switch an established or establishing player all over the shop is silly I think. Hook was going to be awesome at Wales. I can't help but feel they buggered him up shifting him all over the place. The list of players that could have been great until they were shifted all over the place is long and isn't confined to any particular country. I just feel very strongly that the careers of many young players have been buggered up by putting them everywhere and anywhere. I mean, once JOC was a wing/fullback, then he was never going to go well at 10 against the Lions with 0 game time was he? Individually, he probably didn't do too badly, but the team really suffered for him there. Lambie? Is he a 10 or a 15? Pick one, and leave him there. Otherwise, you get what you have now... a player who was to be the great hope of South Africa, now in and out. There are a variety of reasons for that, but the coaches shifting him to 15, to 10, back to 15 really doesn't help his game development.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Hoy IMO it is fine with very similar position requirements. Although I see nothing wrong with a 10 debuting at 12 if you are playing 2 playmakers. Nor a 12 debuting at 13 or a 13 at 12 if they are playing 2 running centres and not as a second playmaker. Nor a f/b on the wing since the roles are very similar for at least 1 wing. Nor a 6/8 interchanging. A 10 or centre on the wing is wrong. Beale his first test off the bench. An injury forced him to play on the wing when he came on. He started at only f/b for the next 3 years until 2012 spring tour where he started at 10 which was a wrong move, he is not a good 10.
Hoy
Roar Guru
This is my absolute pet hate... prepare for a bit of an incoherent rant: The Springboks and the Wallabies make these errors in their haste to blood the next big thing. Anywhere... everywhere. No matter where. Lambie, Steyn, Goosen, Pollard... It seems the Springboks like selecting 5/8s anywhere and everywhere. Just get them into the team/setup/anywhere, and we will work it out. Beale, JOC, AAC, our entire backrow... etc. Australians pick almost everyone on the wing, just to get them in the game. The issue is two fold really. One it wastes time getting a player up to speed in an unfamiliar position, and two, wastes time developing their own specialist position. They can never settle, and develop their game in that one spot. There are outliers of course... For example a young 10 can be an apprentice at 12. Happens all the time. Isn't that bad. It also isn't forever. But for an example, to see an out and out 12 in JOC debut on the wing (or fullback?), then shift to fullback etc, over and over and over... just breaks my heart. Beale, a prodigious schoolboy 10, again, debuting on the wing? Now I don't think he was a very good 10 really, but to start him on the wing, then shift to fullback (where he actually did well, until he was injured and then selected horribly unfit) then to 12... Just wastes so much time for him as a player. And I agree, the provincial position should be the national position, and vice versa... so we have Kerevi, who I think is a better 12 than 13, but there you go... Say he is looking at being Australias answer to the 13 question. It will be interesting to see where the Reds play him. I think he will shuffle a bit this year. I am not sure any of that made sense, because I was blinded by my hatred for these scenarios... Sorry.
Rugby Tragic
Guest
Cannot be erased from memories mania .. indelibly etched in stone ..