American journalist David Epstein notes in his most recent book Range: Why generalists triumph in a specialised world that in life and professional circles, there are two types of individuals: generalists and specialists.
Generalists are commonly known as being jacks-of-all-trades (masters of none) who possess the tools required to succeed in a variety of fields without having a particular specialism or outstanding skill that can mark them out as leaders in their field.
Due to their variety of skills, they are capable of adapting to new situations with minimal fuss, maintaining a consistent level of performance.
That is all well and good, but generalists only get you so far when competing against a team of specialists.
Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, the Wallabies were a team of specialists. Players were world leaders in their respective positions and Australia were a consistent powerhouse.
Then something happened. New talents came along and in order to get them experience, players were shoehorned in to teams when a space became available.
Coaches, keen to show how clever and revolutionary they were, continued with this tactic with players A, B and C interchangeable as opposed to A being a fly-half, B being a winger and C being an outside centre.
Many players fell in to this way of thinking. Matt Giteau shuffled around the backline and only really found his best position after leaving Australia.
Now backs, it could be argued, are easier to move around given the fluidity of multi-phase rugby, but moving players around is not exclusive to those who could wear the 9-15 shirts.
Forwards are increasingly becoming more generalist, with almost every second row having had a stint at either 6 or 8. There are some hookers who now also operate in the backrow, and specialist opensides that have to pack down at the base of the scrum or on the other flank.
Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images
There is nothing wrong with versatility. Clearly it can help players garner gametime and increase their value within squads. But at what point did versatility become a replacement for specialty? If I go out to an Italian restaurant I don’t go to one that also does a decent or curry or Peking duck!
Rugby Australia needs to realise that at some point, most players have to specialise in a position. There will always be exceptions but these should be few and far between.
Across the Tasman, players are often earmarked for a position early on and then given time to achieve the required level. If they don’t, they are moved to a position that is more suited to their developed skillset.
Damian McKenzie is the prime example. Noted as a future 10, he has been given opportunities to prove that he can direct a team, but has come up short on too many occasions and is now content with making himself the best 15 in New Zealand.
The Wallabies have blunted many careers by shifting players around. We still don’t know Kurtley Beale’s best position, despite him being held up as one of the world’s best players. James O’Connor moved around Australia and Europe before coaches realised that he is a 12.
Reece Hodge is a recent victim of this system. Lacking the distribution game to play 10, but with a big boot, he isn’t quick enough to play in the back three internationally. I’d be tempted to start calling him ‘Poly’ as he is only ever used to fill cracks. Play him at 13, where his boot will be useful and he can crash it up as required, but this would require joined-up thinking between the Wallabies and the Rebels, so that isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Jack Maddocks is another. When he was coming through I kept hearing that he was a future 10, yet he has almost exclusively played on the wing. He could probably be a quality fullback if given a chance, as his skillset suits the role, but we will never know that until he gets a run of games.
The lad has good core skills but is not a natural finisher of a winger. He’s not a worker in the form of England’s Jack Nowell, who you will see pick and go from the base of rucks, connect the inside and outside back, and cover the backfield. He isn’t a hot-stepper, who can make space for others to utilise.
He is a good footballer, but rather than make him the best back in the world, why not make him the best fullback or flyhalf in the world?
Now is the time for Michael Chieka to get his coaching team together and mark players’ cards. If someone is unavailable, then play whoever is the next best in that position. It doesn’t matter if it is a forward or a back, just pick the best players in each position.
Generalists have provided Australia with a consistent level of performance, unfortunately this has been a consistently negative trend.
Rickster
Roar Rookie
Suspect Cheika's "strategy" all along is to have a team of generalists for the RWC? At the RWC you have to be able to manage injuries and make use of the squad players you've come with. Unfortunately with this "strategy" it means you don't necessarily have the best/specialists playing their positions.... and you will simply struggle to beat the best in the world at the RWC. In the meantime four years of experimenting and developing generalists has meant losing games, followers, and with that any commercial gains. What a loss and what damage... regardless of what happens at the RWC.
Shed
Roar Rookie
Yes this happened but the point is the movement of players is nothing as compared to how it currently is. There would be stats which show the amount of times Roff played wing and fullback, and the number of games at wing would be significantly more. Same for Cockbain and Finegan. Look at the number of times they actually started tests in the 2nd Row as compared to their true position 6.
JP
Guest
I`m glad our best 10 by a long way Quade is not playing. Cheika doesn't deserve his talent .Burn Cheika burn.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
The only way those examples could have been more self-evident was if Terrence had asked what Coles best position was.
Tooly
Roar Rookie
Not bad. We have always had problems picking the best players in their best positions. It seems we pick them and then juggle the spots. Matt Burke the best 15 we have ever had was moved for Latham’s ability to run into a gap, Matt Rogers and Andrew Walker we’re shifted around because they were just so bloody good. George Smith our greatest ever 7 to 6/8 to accomodate Phil Waugh. Pocock the same for Hooper. Beale with solid defence in front of him is our 15. Lealiifano is our best 10 with Beale at 15. Hodge is nothing but a 15 and not needed. Banks again a 15 but not needed but with his step 14. Maddocks is an enigma ; not fast enough, no defence but a good runner. O’Conner really never has been anything other than a poser.
max power
Guest
spot on, the authors assertion that the 90s wallabies were all specialist is also erroneous and irrelevant
PeterK
Roar Guru
Roff played wing and 15. Finigan and Cockbain both shifted between lock and 6 for the wallabies
Gepetto
Roar Rookie
For years contributors to this site have advanced the names of people who can play #10 better than Quade Cooper. CLL, James O'Connor, Mat Giteau, Reece Hodge, CLL, Bernaaard, Karmichael Hunt, Kurtley Beale, Mat Toomua, Hamish Stewart ... the list goes on. Many of of the less likely candidates get a game or two before the folly of selecting them at #10 becomes apparent. It seems to me that Coach Clown's job is to listen to his employing RA board and accede to their every whim; he has earned six years at Wallaby coach following that rule.
Shed
Roar Rookie
Good article @NP. You are absolutely correct. During our golden era we had a high number of players playing in specialist positions. They were also very highly skilled and acutely aware of their individual roles, and all other roles within the team. This allowed them to transition between positions if and as required for they were absolutely aware of what was required of them performing that secondary role. And one of the best things about the golden era, our Wallabies had the same number on their back at test and super rugby level. Yes there are examples of players playing in a secondary positions, but nothing like what we currently see, and at no time did we have players being given a shot at every position in the backline bar halfback....ludicrous! Burke, Tune and Roff wore the same numbers at Super Rugby. So to did Horan, Herbert, Little, Grey and Mortlock for the 'far majority' of their careers. Larkham was a 15 but when showed real potential to play 10 he was left in that position by the Brumbies and Wallabies. Key word....left, meaning allowed to develop. A little more movement/ versatility in the forwards back then as opposed to the backs, but again, no where near the extent we see today. Players were picked in the positions they played at Super Rugby and given the opportunity to own it at test level. In the example of LSL in today's team, my personal belief is he has the makings to be a big, athletic, abrasive 6 but he is let down by the fact he plays mainly 2nd row at Super Rugby level. This is another example of the lack alignment between RA and the Super Rugby Unions. If RA high performance officials see him as a 6 then they need to issue the Reds and Brad Thorn a directive to play him at 6 (conditions apply of course such as injury etc).
piru
Roar Rookie
10, 15 and 12 respectively
freddieeffer
Roar Rookie
Thanks NP, a thought-provoking article. I basically agree with the thrust of your argument, but have a few additional thoughts. Imo, players fundamentally know what their inherent rugby attributes are, and therefore, what is the best number that goes on their back. There are some players, probably a minority, who have the breadth of skills and attributes that permits them to be a hybrid player who can also play one number next to their best fit. ( eg like Ben Smith who is fundamentally a 15, but also ticks all the boxes for a 14) An alternative to the generalist v specialist dichotomy, is firstly, there are set, minimum core skills and attributes that every player needs to perform to. This leads me to what I believe is the fundamental problem with too many players in the Wallaby squad. Folau is/was the best example - he has some skills and attributes that are simply 'off-the-scale'. However, he also has some very large gaps and deficiencies in his general rugby skillset, as well as his 15 skillset, that make him a significant liability in certain circumstances that will arise during the game. Folau is neither a generalist or specialist! He played 15 mostly on the basis that that is where you get most out of his freakish talents. He also played 14, but his full talents were wasted to some extent or just less utilised, but on the other hand, having another more well-rounded 15 (with Folau at 14) reduced the exposures at FB to the liabilities that come with Folau there. So the generalist argument, to me, is really an argument that Test level players can't have fundamental skills or attribute gaps with their core positional duties and responsibilities. You just can't carry more than one player with significant flaws or deficiencies in their game at Test level. The opposition always find the flaws like a heat-seeking missile, and simply exploit it to keep gathering points to keep winning. The Wallabies have been carrying several players with Test level general rugby weaknesses as well as positional weaknesses for too many years now. Beale, Foley, Cooper's defence for example. Hooper at 7 and so it goes on. To me, it just comes down to poor and confused coaching that does not address player weaknesses in relation to the fundamental positional requirements for the team to be in balance and harmony. Instead of earmarking players with a list of things to fix in lesser competitions, players have been retained in their starting jumpers and keep making the same dumb mistakes, and we've slid down the rankings accordingly. So to me, the sooner we field the best players in their natural position, the better we will go. Secondly, all players have to have the essential core skills and attributes to a minimum high standard, otherwise they get punted with a 'fix-it' list before they will be considered for Test selection.
JP
Guest
Since Cheika took over as coach of the Wallabies we have had 14 different centre combinations .Yes 14. The bloke is a buffoon !!
Red Rob
Roar Rookie
yes and no, mostly no. The specialist v generalist dichotomy is false and misleading. A person can be a generalist and still have specialist skills. All rugby players need to be generalists to some degree - if you can't catch, pass and tackle you'll never make it past juniors. Rugby is not like golf or tennis, requiring endless repetition of fine motor skills in order to master it. There is no rocket science in catching a ball in a lineout or stepping a defender. The reason Simmons could never play fullback and Beale could never play lock is almost all down to simple physiology. A reserves bench would be grossly understaffed if you didn't have at least 2 decent generalists, to cover back row and back 3. A prop who can play both sides at international level is gold. The Wallabies problem is not with picking (or trying to develop) generalists, it's with picking players who simply are not good enough in the position in which they are chosen. Fortunately, no-one made Elise Perry specialise. And most of Italian (and other) cuisine started somewhere else - pasta, rice, chilli …
Ruck_Me_Ragged
Roar Rookie
Very good article.
Realist271
Guest
It's called strategic thinking which Cheika is bereft of.
PeterK
Roar Guru
exactly easy to stick with specialists if the quality drop off is notmuch. Aust really struggles for depth so it shoe horns the few quality players it has. Sure some are poor choices and no real reason to continue with like LSL at 6. When you talk about the best era ever in aust 98-02 aust had world class players for many positions so it did not need to shift players around much, mind you Larkham was a converted 15, Mortlock spent time on the wing, Cockbain played a 6/lock utility position, so he was a classic generalist in in the forwards. Finegan played 6/lock and even started as a NO 8 once in tests, so there is another generalists. So this sort of disproves your theory that in the golden age they were all specialised.
Jockstar
Guest
This comment has been removed for breaching The Roar's comments policy.
Waxhead
Roar Rookie
@NorthernPom good article mate - totally agree :) But forget Cheika changing his spots - he's the major cause in Aust of this over emphasis on generalisation. He's done it too a long list of players mainly at the expense of individual careers and team performances. A reset to a better balance between specialisation and generalisation will have to wait until there's a new coaching team - hopefully 2020 :)
QED
Roar Rookie
Hi NP I agree. Strangely just yesterday I posted the below comment on another article. “It seems the Wallabies squad is blessed with a plethora of ‘specialist’ subs. None of whom possesses the complete skill set to lock down any one specific role. Beale (15,12,10,11/14), Hodge (15,12,13,11/14), JOC (12,13,10,11/14,15), Toomua (12,10) This is either the master stroke of a genius to have developed the ultimate flexible squad with endless possible combinations and game plans to keep oppositions guessing as to your match day strategy and tactics. Or incompetence.”
Sherry
Guest
Good stuff, and we'll forgive you for being a Pom. England's starting 15, or close to it, are mainly specialists with the exception of Etoje and Lawes who are talented enough to play lock or BR. The WBs don't have that versatility without a big loss in quality. The ABs know now that BB is not a 15 and that Ben Smith can play there, or on the wing, and be dynamic at either spot. They have multiple choices in the midfield for the RWC and the WBs don't. Our problem is that whether a player in our current squad is regarded as a specialist or a generalist, he's not a world beater.