The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Opinion

Australian Rugby must prioritise developing big loose forwards

28th November, 2020
Advertisement
Autoplay in... 6 (Cancel)
Up Next No more videos! Playlist is empty -
Replay
Cancel
Next
Roar Pro
28th November, 2020
76
1554 Reads

Playing dual openside flankers in Australian rugby is a practice dating back to at least as early as when George Smith and Phil Waugh played together under Eddie Jones, coinciding with when Australia stopped winning Bledisloe and the Rugby World Cup.

This has been long enough to demonstrate that the practice can never be more than a short-term fix for a team lacking in other aspects of their game, which ultimately comes unstuck against the best teams.

The short-term fix that dual opensides can achieve for a team is to facilitate a supreme defensive game. The high work rates and pilfering ability of a good No. 7 are doubled, starving the opponent of the ball and halting their attack.

We have seen it work several times in the last five years, including the Wallabies in the games leading up to and including the 2015 World Cup final and the Queensland Reds in the 2020 Rugby AU competition. On each occasion teams employing dual opensides played well until the final match of the tournament, when the strategy was unpicked by the best team in the competition and they were beaten.

In the finals against the All Blacks and ACT Brumbies both teams buried the pilferers under big ball runners and efficient cleanouts, effectively kicked when they loomed as a threat or played the ball away from the pilferers, making good use of the short side.

The second Brumbies try of the Super Rugby AU final was a masterful example of this. First Reds captain Liam Wright was targeted, buried under 123-kilo lock Cadyrn Neville. The Brumbies then passed away from looming Fraiser McReight towards the blindside, making ground through centre Tevita Kuridrani and the forwards. They then spun the ball back out to the right away from McReight and to Kuridrani again, who made another bullocking run, setting up flyhalf Noah Lolesio for some smart footwork and an offload to winger Andy Muirhead to deliver the coup de grace. Both Reds opensides were completely neutralised.

Advertisement

With the advantages of dual opensides being able to be nullified, only the disadvantages are left to consider. The first disadvantage is that with a traditional shorter openside the lineout is likely to be compromised. The All Blacks ruthlessly exploited this against the Wallabies in the 2015 World Cup final.

The second disadvantage is lost physicality, which is required across a range of scenarios, including in the tackle, at the defensive and offensive breakdown, in the maul and when running in traffic. Adding an extra pilferer and perhaps a slightly higher tackle rate during a game does not make up for this critical work in the highly physical game of rugby.

Some opensides may be able to offset one of these disadvantages. For example, Reds captain Liam Wright is an excellent lineout jumper and Wallaby David Pocock was as physical as many No 6s No. 8s, but neither of these players has been able to fully offset the disadvantages of their unsuitable body type for those positions.

The reason Australia has continually used dual opensides lies in statistics. Men measuring 183 centimetres make up about 14 per cent of the Australian male population, while 193-centimetre men make up about one or two per cent. There are simply many more men in Australia who are of a suitable build competing to play No. 7 than there are to play at Nos. 6 or 8.

Add to this competition for this body type from rugby league (and AFL early in development) and that these players are often required to fill in at lock and it is no wonder Australia has a hard time finding elite big loosies.

Sports opinion delivered daily 

   

Advertisement

The issue is that surrendering to this statistical reality and selecting a second Bo. 7 at Nos. 6 or 8 simply hasn’t worked, so Australian coaches and rugby administrations need another strategy.

In the short term the development of our current large loose forwards should be a priority, including maximising game time in these positions. The temptation to start two excellent opensides just because a team has them should be avoided because a good big loosie will ultimately play their position better than a great openside.

The question that selectors should have on their lips when deciding whether to play a larger player is: would I be worried about the need to select this genuine blindside or No. 8 if a second excellent openside wasn’t available? If not, the hard choice to select the larger player should be made.

In the longer term this body type should be made the number one priority for investment by state union and Rugby AU funding. These sorts of players are critically important to Australian rugby if they are good enough – think the likes of Sergio Parise or Kieran Reid – so the strategy should be highly marketable to the fans.

close