Karl Stefanovic said it all on the Today Show recently as he watched the Wallaby forwards training during their Spring Tour of Great Britain: “Look at those big units.”
Yes, the physicality of rugby players has dramatically changed over the past 10 years. That – sadly in my view – is a reflection of the law changes that came into being in the late 1990s that has limited the running game, which has only been mastered by New Zealand’s provincial and national teams.
For sure there has been some cracker Test matches when muscle and mind have combined to create pulsating action like the recent Bledisloe Cup match in Brisbane.
It was great to see the Wallabies at last matching the All Blacks in ball speed and the physical confrontations as well as finally throwing the ball into the lineout accurately.
But in general two things have changed rugby as a game and as a product.
First halfbacks, normally the smallest guys on the field, now have to be around 180 centimetres or six feet in the old measurement. Gone are the days of a small whippy halfback running the blind.
At five-eighth players have to absorb huge backrower traffic and take them head-on. One has to ask would a skinny 18-year-old Mark Ella have pursued rugby now, and the unfortunate reality today is that the traditional game breakers (No.10) spend more time bringing down huge forwards than cutting the opposition up (Beauden Barrett excepted, but he hides behind a big mobile pack).
(AAP Image/SNPA, Dianne Manson)
Second, when you talk to former representative rugby players, those who played prior to 1995, they all ask the same question: where has all the space gone to attack and where have all those free running backline movements gone? When was the last time you saw a classic backline attack with the fullback chiming in to make the extra man, split the defence and take the ball 50 metres upfield?
Except for New Zealand teams who have the confidence to stand very deep in attack, rugby tries are now being scored mostly by relentless forward phases where each ball runner actually only takes a few steps before being cut down or an overlap created 10 metres out.
What rugby administrators and referees do not understand is that rugby, like every other sport, movie or live act, is an entertainment business first and foremost, and in this modern world you either put on a good show or go home.
Simply rugby has become a big man’s game – and a big woman’s game if the recent World Cup in Ireland is any guide. There New Zealand used their monstrous props to seal victory. They had a wonderful running fullback but she got few opportunities.
With the Wallabies on their northern hemisphere Spring Tour will we endure more 9-6 scorelines that their rugby fans love, with the game slowed down to a series of mauls and crash ball running.
Still there is one jewel in the crown for rugby as so rightly pointed out by my colleague David Lord and that is the game does not stop when someone is tackled, unlike in the greatest game of all. However my argument is this – rugby does not take advantage of this advantage; ie where the ball never dies.
Unfortunately it is the laws and referees’ fault that stops the running game from putting on its best show and instead has created a game dominated by huge bodies that would not know the first thing about David Campese’s acceleration or step.
And it is here we get the full blast of what rugby fans crave. In producing Campo’s career video, ‘Campese: Rugby’s My Life’, I sourced a cutaway from a Bledisloe Cup TV match coverage that has never before or since been seen at any sporting ground and that was a 10 metre long cloth sign held up by fans that said: “Campese Walks on Water.”
No other footy or cricket champion has had such a sign at a footy ground and it reflects what rugby fans crave for and that is athletically gifted players running the ball with forwards reduced to securing the ball and staying out of the way.
(Photo by Getty Images)
So let us throw in some law change suggestions that would help swing the pendulum back in the running game’s favour. They include:
1. Change the whole philosophy of the game from defensive (which it is now) to attacking and use technology to achieve it.
2. Create a 10-metre gap between the two teams after phase 1, so both teams are five or more metres back from the breakdown and no this is not Rugby League because in Rugby the game does not stop at the breakdown. What it does achieve is provide the attacking team with space to create and employ moves which is what fans crave a la David Campese.
3. Reduce the game to a ten-law game and use technology to achieve this by placing a GPS chip inside the ball and have 10-metre electronic lines light up and down the field which allows players and officials to know when they are onside or offside.
4. Take away kicking the ball out on the full inside the 22-metre zone, eliminate marks, and introduce further incentives for teams to go for a try rather than kick penalty goals such as make the conversion worth three points, the same as a penalty.
5. Go recruit the best athletically gifted kids from far and wide and show them how the game has changed where they influence the game more than hulking forwards who now have to be more lithe to keep up.
6. Establish a referees school where they are taught the 10 laws but brainwashed with the attitude that Rugby is not about them but rather the fans and continuity is the mantra. By reducing the laws to just 10 it means they also will have less to adjudicate on.
7. And, safely change the scrum laws and protocol so we do not have to sit around for two minutes watching a scrum come together. This is up there as one of the biggest blights on the game and while I acknowledge scrummaging is sacred to rugby, as an entertainment factor it is a fizzer.
With rugby being played in over 140 countries it is in a wonderful position to capitalise on its massive footprint by making the product more entertaining to fans and most importantly kids and families.
Eliminate 130 laws, brainwash the referees into thinking like a live sports director and bring back the running game I say. My final wish is this: Rugby is a giant around the world and on the field and it could become even greater if only some of the giants were replaced by David Campese.
Unanimous
Guest
Scores have not reduced in rugby in the last 30 years. The game is not less attacking than it was. 10 man rugby was all the rage in the UK in the 1970s. You simply don't know what you are talking about, and this is the most stupid article in the last month.
Ruckin' Oaf
Guest
Agreed - I have a lot of relatives from the UK and watching rugby with some of them you realise that there are fans that really like watching good set piece / forward play. A well executed drive off a lineout or dominant scrum is as appealing to them as a twinkle toes winger in full flight,
Buk
Guest
I think you have hit on the most important point Mark - since professional rugby started, we have moved to 15 players strewn across the field like league in defensive positions, whereas previously you had 6-7 committed to rucks and mauls, and so only 7-8 in backline defensive positions - far more space for the backs, and for smaller, side-stepping, jinking players like Kenny Wright. In the old days, tight forwards staying out of rucks and mauls was greeted with derisive comments like 'seagulling'; now it is part and parcel of your defensive pattern.
lewismarsh
Roar Rookie
This article proposes solutions to non existent problems. Piru nails it.
Gary
Guest
Max , I agree with your thoughts and I am an Aussie born and bred as was my Fathers Grandfather and so on. Our fixation with league is complex. Australian Rugby , like no other country , has suffered from the divide and Rugby in Australia , in spite of itself and the elite establishment's superiority complex , has historically envied the league mungoes and the things that professionalism provides . The drain on our playing resources was huge and as has been said many times the fact that we have managed to stay near the top of the Rugby tree is a credit to us ( and I realise there were similar situations in Britain and NZ but no where near the same level ) So for years we saw the best of the best , after a short and bright stint in Rugby , lost to our game . As a result the general consensus here was that league was the better game , more entertaining ( remember here we have mainly dry and fast grounds ) and Rugby was seen by the sporting public a second rate , niche sport. That's the game I entered in the late 60's. At the advent of professionalism we actually benefited from league , by being able to tap into their methods and for a change knocking off a few marquee players and the crowds came , we were winning most of the time as well. I agree that our fixation with being the kings of running Rugby is sounding a bit sad and that ripping it up the guts tight play is just as interesting to true believers like yourself , me too , but you need to understand the local dynamics.
sheek
Guest
BTW Harry, The reason why guys like David Campese & Mark Ella are celebrated today in Australia, is because what they did back in the 1980s & 1990s was cutting edge. They were pioneers doing stuff that wasn't commonly believed possible at the time. Of course, a lot of the stuff they did back then is commonplace today. But the fact remains, they were pioneers. Just because everyone can do today what they did in yesteryear only highlights their brilliance back then. Just as Gareth Edwards was a pioneer of sublime halfback play, or Jonah Lomu was the first prototype of the giant, speedy winger.
sheek
Guest
Harry, A couple of things. Back in 1995 we didn't know what/how rugby would be like in 2017. That's all we knew. But we knew what/how rugby was like in 1985. In 1985 we didn't know what/how rugby would be like in 1995. That's all we knew. But we knew about what/how rugby was like dating back to 1900. During Campo's time, the rugby he played was cutting edge. If when you do this revisionist stuff, it's important to understand what people knew & understood at that time. Not looking back with the benefit of hindsight. Many rugby fans might have actually liked what they saw in 1985 or 1995 because they had nothing to compare against in the future. The future can be guessed at, but is always unknown. Also, an advantage of breaks in sport is to appreciate reflectively on a good passage of play you've just witnessed & look forward expectantly to the next good passage of play. if law framers make it so that there are no breaks in play, then the game will pass in a blur, & we will be left to remember nothing without the replay facility. Is this what we want? Already, there is too much of every sport. The ability to reflect on a recently concluded series & look expectantly to the next, is gone. Every sport is stacked up like dominoes, being knocked down to the consumer, one after the other. It's not my idea of nirvana.
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
Exactly!!! :-) Spot on. I actually couldn’t help but start laughing as I realised this writer was being serious and believed in his own text which couldn’t be further from the truth. I thought you’d pull these stats Harry. Me- with a 3 month old, toddler, time consuming job and everything else thrown in I just don’t have the time to find these stats anymore!!! Ha ha.
Mark b
Guest
nice. i like the extra space idea. and you are right.... rugby is a form of entertainment. so give the fans what they want to see..... running rugby and not a defensive push and shove. and of course give the next three world cups to the southern hemisphere.... as its 3 in a row for the north. SHAMEFUL decision a european nation getting the world cup... it was a transparent process reommending south africa put to shame by a non transparent vote in which there would have been FIFA soccer style deals done to get france the world cup. SHAMEFUL...!
Harry Jones
Expert
This happens to all of us as we get old. We remember a bright shining moment from our impressionable youth, and it becomes burned into our memory as a heavenly example of "when things were better." But the Good Ol' Days syndrome does not hold up under scrutiny. David Campese played for the Wallabies through 1996. When you look at the statistics of rugby in 1995 and track them through today, you see these FACTS: - Ball-in-play percentage in 95 was a turgid 35%; it has worked its way to an average of 44-45% now (steady improvement) - This massive increase in actual rugby being PLAYED within the 80 minutes is NOT just kicking ping-pong. KIcks per game are DOWN by an average of 20 less per game! (In Campese's time, teams kicked about 60 times per game, total; now, it's less than 20 each, on average). - Passing is MASSIVELY more developed, with almost all teams asking their forwards to operate in passing pods. The average number of passes per game in 2017 compared to Campese's heyday is 290 per game versus about 200). - There are about 10 fewer scrums per game now, than in the Campese Era (23-24 per game in 95, about 10-13 now). - There are fewer lineouts (20-25 a game versus 35-40 in 95); and many more quick lineouts taken. - Teams attempt far fewer drop goals (15 in the 95 WC and 3 in 2015). The thing is we only go back and watch highlights of our favourite old players. Danie Gerber or Ray Mordt cutting up the Kiwis: 2 minute clips on YouTube. But if you watch the whole game...it's almost painful! The skills were so low, amongst the forwards, for instance. It's cringeworthy. It's not about size. Michael Hooper, Sean McMahon, Dane Coles, Gus Creevy, Sam Warburton, David Pocock, Heinrich Brussow, and Jaco Kriel are NOT bigger than the forwards of yesteryear. They are much faster and stronger (ratio to weight) and more skillful. All the forwards are faster, even the ones who are bigger. Think of Maro Itoje or Siya Kolisi or Malcolm Marx. Eben Etzebeth could outrun any of the greatest old SA locks; and destroy them in the gym, too. But if it's Campese we want to focus on, let's look at his Bledisloes: In 1982, Australia scored less than 20 points in all three Bleds. In 1983, Australia scored 3 and 8 points in the Bleds. In 1984, it was 16, 15, and 24. In 1985, only 9 points in Bleds. In 1986, average of 15.6 points by OZ in Bleds. In 1987, a low scoring "RWC." In 1988, average of 11.6 points by OZ in 3 Bleds. In 1989, 12 points by OZ in sole Bled. In 1990, 14.6 point average by OZ in 3 Bleds. In 1991, 12 point average in Bleds, and a 16-6 SF win and a 12-6 final win. Etc. Etc. Rugby is much better now, than it was in the Campese Era. Much better. The rules are fine, and every tweak proposed would have another problem. If you devalue penalties, teams kill the ball more bc it makes more sense to give the opponent 2 or 3 instead of 7 or 8. If you don't allow kicks out on the full, you have more kicks, not less. If you dumb down the maul or the ruck, you wind up with even bigger dumber athletes.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Screwing them? They are attempting to recover the costs they are legally entitled to.
Peter
Guest
Because the East Coast Rugby Union is screwing them for legal costs after the Senate Committee found the EARU to be a bunch of liars. As you say, hahahaha. Brilliant incisive comment.
Yabba
Guest
I believe this to be the single most inane story I have ever read on The Roar. The writer plainly has no clue. The Wallabies have averaged more than 3.5 tries per test this year, including the disasters. Way higher than 10 years ago.
DavSA
Guest
Actually most South Africans have no clue about Fed's ancestry . He however on occasion alludes to it and refers to himself as half South African. So I guess if he says so , we can too and legitimately lay claim to half of one of tennis' all time greats . I'll take it. His mom is from Johannesburg.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Bit of a hornets nest here. The ideas are pretty good but most of them lead back to league. I accidentally watched AU vs NZ international a few months back and the rules had changed even further than the last time I watched. Quick re-starts from the side, uncontested scrums. All great for the the speed of the game and discourages the ADD crowd from reaching for their rittilin and mobile phones.. But, to me, it is still 50 shades of bland. I loved the first 30 minutes, but it was dejavu for the next 50. I fell asleep at the 65 minute mark. Rugby has a real soul part of which is the complex rules. I don't the the English style of rugby where sluggish forwards flop over the ball and players slowing the game down, and then feigning injury while they catch their breath prior to the next scrum or lineout. I would like to see rule changes that encourage more mobile forwards, which will in turn make them lighter and fitter. It will probably come from changes to ruck, maul and breakdown, I like your idea of a shock collar on players that are in front of the offside line. I think that this practice is responsible for slowing the attacking game significantly.
Train Without A Station
Guest
I think they’re talking about fan interest.
Connor33
Guest
Yet it is Hansen who has said in recent years that he detests the maul as 'boring.' McCaw was next to him at the time and seemed to suggest that he enjoyed a good maul. Indeed, the maul provides a good point of distinction with league and is employed by AU to suck in the forwards so to allow for space in the backline. Hansen seemed to ignore this perspective, though. League doesn't really have set piece play. There's no lineout. No competing scrum. The cross field kick is employed, but this is some thta the Abs have adopted ad nauseam. Dare I say, AU is the only team in the RC is playing set play rugby in it purest form--not this made up rugby league nonsense. And then you speak of contest, which I agree with. But the Abs have now moved to non-compete ruck and simply fan out in defense. AU is now doing the same. Perhaps things will change next year when Pocock returns.
Max
Guest
As an outsider I simply cannot understand Australians obsession with this topic!? Rugby is fine how it is and booming around the world. To play "running" rugby you have to have a solid forward pack that gets you front foot ball and protection round the ruck. Australia needs to invest in forward play more to get the end results of entertaining rugby. League also has to be the most repetitive game on the planet and its just not for me, truly I cannot get through more than 20 min of it before I turn it off. Please don't say rugby would be better by making it more like league.
In Brief
Guest
Interesting comment about scrums. I'm pretty sure they have improved this year and would be interested to see the stats. Certainly 10 years ago scrums were a complete mess. But there is still work to do and they are not working as well as they should.
In Brief
Guest
How on earth does league do the running game better? There is a lot of dummy half running and lot of running one off the ruck but very few actual backline moves in league. I think rugby union does do running better (if you mean backline moves not just one-off runners).