Balancing Your Backrow

[Iluvmyfooty]

I think the argument between Gill and Hooper can also come down to experience. I know Hooper doesn't have much more than Gill but he has played nearly all of last year and was arguably our best player. It is a Lions tour coming up and they will have a very experienced side. Therefore, my preference is Smith to start with hooper on the bench to use his spedd around the ground later in the test

 

[fatprop]

Why settle for "cover" when you can have a player that brings the real balance that is needed?

No. Smith is a 7.

He's our first choice 7, but he is still a 7. Trying to play Smith and Waugh as test flankers should have put paid to ideas otherwise.

The reserves is all about the ability to cover multiple positions if needed, we were playing Pocock at 7 & Hooper at 6 last year in June.

We will have a front row, a 4/6 cover and another backrower on the bench methinks.

 

[biggameplayer]

What are your thoughts on a unconventional backrow, probably not at test level but rather 3rd tier and below?For example, instead of a tall and abrasive number 6. who's primary role is in attack, what about playing a second number 7. My view has always been that if this were the case, you compensate by playing 2 very large second rowers adding size to the pack and utilise the number 8 as your fringe ball running forward, who must also jump in the lineout. This system would probably be exploited at test level and in the northern hemisphere it seems that the stereotypical number 7, who is always on the ball and generally the smallest in the forward pack is progressively being replaced by larger number 7s who function more as ball runners. Taking a look at the home nations (and Ireland); Ireland, England and Scotland have all taken this stance, even Wales to some extent. I predict that this will also flow through to the Lions. After his performance in the demolition of England, Sam Warburton, is arguably the first choice number 7 at the moment, and he is by no means a classic openside flanker, whilst he is quite good technically at the breakdown he is far more destructive with the ball in hand. In contrast, the Wallabies number 7 jersey which is still up for grabs, all three candidates; Gill, Hooper and Smith are in the mould of more classic number 7s, who furiously jackal in any breakdown they enter but give away size for mobility, especially Gill. It is important to have balance in your backrow, however, I always believe that it is necessary to adapt your backrow to your playing style and the opposition.

 

[Scott Allen]

Surely this gap is closing week by week from the start of the season.

Hooper has been close to the Waratahs best in the last few games and was just about MOTM against the Force (didn't see whether it was him or AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)).

Gill went off injured just after half time against the Highlanders.

I definitely agree that Gill's form in the first few rounds was much better than Hooper's but I feel like this gap is closing every week. If they are close to parity, Hooper will surely get the nod on the basis of how well played for the Wallabies in 2012.

It depends how you measure what you want from your #7. In order to have the balance I talked about I want the #7 to be first to breakdowns to control the ground battle.

Despite playing the whole match Hooper was only first to 4% of breakdowns again on Sunday - Robinson was first into 7% of breakdowns so a prop did more of what I consider to be the job of #7. Now the breakdown may not be something Cheika wants Hooper focusing on but I'd be very surprised if that's the case.

Despite only playing half a game Gill was first into 6% of the Reds breakdowns on Friday. Hence I say the gap is still significant in what I consider to be the key factor for #7 and is so significant that I don't see how the Hooper's form in 2012 is relevant at the moment - that's not to say he won't adjust his performance over the next few weeks or so and I agree that if the gap closes, his 2012 form would be a decider in his favour.

 

[fatprop]

Hooper wasn't a "1st to the breakdown" unit last year either, his running, linking and tackling were the business though.

 

[Scott Allen]

Thanks for starting this, hope to learn a bit.

I don't want to touch the lineout stuff, but from watching recent games (with the associated commentary) I have been wondering about this very topic! How did you know??

What I don't get is this 'insistence' on which number on the back does what. It may be purely coincidental? I mean why is that the number 6 has to be the wide runner and number 7 in tight, and number 8 the hard hitter up the middle. It is that sort of thing which I don't understand.

If those roles are required on the field, then would it not be sufficient that someone fills the role? Why is it that the number 7 can't be the seagull and vice versa. (if I got these numbers back to front at any stage bear with me m'k? Tis the concept I'm asking about)

Maybe it is because of which side of the scrum they pack??

I would have simply thunk it was a case of 'get the best guy on the field', in other words 'so what if there are two number 7's (or whatever)..if the second number 7 is 'better' than the usual 6, just put him in that position cause that part of the scrum has to pack, and let him rip'.

Let's say Pocock was not injured, and smith was available. Assuming pocock is the 'best' along with smith, why would you not play both?? (hearks back to your balance bit and I'm assuming that these two compete for the same spot)

Really looking forward to getting some insight on this, thanks ever so much for bringing it up.

(hope you understand my misunderstanding so the responses will help explain)

You want your most mobile backrower close to the forwards because the numbers around close breakdowns are always greater in tight, hence the importance of your most mobile man getting into those breakdowns early to deny the opposition a chance to win the ground war.

If you put your most mobile backrower out wide you could argue that he'd be more fleet of foot to go up against the opposition backs but if you're losing the ground war in tight, the ball won't ever get out to where your #7 is waiting.

You might not want to touch the lineout stuff but the importance of having three front line jumpers can't be ignored - you cannot survive with only two front line jumpers - just look at what happened to the Stormers in last week's match against the Crusaders. You cannot get away from the fact that you need three tall jumpers who are also dynamic into the air. Your #7 is normally a smaller player (so he can around the park) but is therefore not a tall front line jumper and your #8 is the big heavy bopper (who may have the height but is harder to get up quickly in the lineout) so is also not generally a front line jumper.

Both the #7 and the #8 I've described can fill the fourth jumper role but you need a #6 with some height - unfortunately players with more height are generally not the most mobile - hence they wouldn't be the best player to stay in tight and get into those tight rucks first.

Also asking your bigger (and less mobile) #6 to chase wide breakdowns and hook up with the #7 who's already out there doesn't work. You want your most mobile player in tight and then working their ass off to get out to the wide breakdowns.

Of course you could say the wide player is not so relevant and keep your #6 and #7 in tight but that takes away some of the benefits you get by having a wide backrower. As defences get better and better you need your attack to have width across the field and just leaving backs to cover any wide breakdowns makes it much harder to achieve that width successfully, particularly when the defending team probably has one of their backrowers lurking out wide in which case you put your backs up against a more formidable opponent at the breakdown. Not to say that backs can't compete at the breakdown against a forward but you would increase the risk of the ball being lost or slowed down out wide, which messes up your next phase of attack even if you can retain the ball.

Hence I come back to the need for balance - I could go on for ages on why this balance is so important but hopefully that answers your queries to a certain extent.

 

[Scott Allen]

Hooper wasn't a "1st to the breakdown" unit last year either, his running, linking and tackling were the business though.

It depends on what you think is the most important in the game - for me it's controlling that breakdown first. The Wallabies weren't great at it last year and their attack didn't fire averaging only 1 try per match. Is that a coincidence? I think not.

If you keep getting slowed down or turned over at the breakdown your attack will suffer. Cheika complained that the Force were fouling the Tahs on Sunday and said he's worried about teams slowing them down in the future. I've got no doubt teams will keep targeting the Tahs at breakdown to slow down their attack because they'll all be aware that Hooper isn't getting in there early enough.

I don't know how the Tahs are going to play a quick ball, running game unless someone gets in to the breakdown early - it's not going to be Dave Dennis - he also only got into 4% of breakdowns first on Sunday again. I doubt it will be Palu when he's back because he's not as mobile as the other two so I say it has to be Hooper.

Hooper's 4% for the match compares with Smith at 13% in the match the Brumbies lost two weeks ago against the Stormers who played a similar game to what I'd expect the Lions to play.

We all know that Will Genia operates best with quick ball so what do you need to get it for him? I say a #7 who controls the breakdown by getting in there first. Smith and Gill have been great at that in 2013 both averaging 8% first into breakdowns for the season despite both having missed games and only playing less than 75% of minutes for their respective teams. Hooper by contrast is averaging 6% despite having played every minute for the Tahs.

Now, stats aren't everything but the Tahs aren't getting the quick ball they say they want and that marries up to the stats on this occasion.

 

[Bairdy]

Dear Scott,

Do you have a coaching gig? Do you want a coaching gig?

Seriously, isn't it a great position to be in that our first pick Openside gets injured and we then start to have arguements about who is going to replace him rather than lament the loss of a key player. Personally I think that the choice is going to come down to the game that you want to play. If you feel that you need speed then someone like Hooper is going to be your man. If sneaky pilfering is more likely to be the requirement then you would take Gill any day. If you want a well rounded, flexible, adaptable fellow then pencil Smith in now. Personally I would start with either Hooper or Gill and have Smith coming off the bench as he provides more options later in the game. If Smith does start, I would be inclined to go with Gill on the bench purely because he seems to be able to get over the gain line more frequently than Hooper.

With regards to Blindside. I agree that they really need to be a lineout option. That is why I like Higgers at 6. Say what you like about his 'seagulling' he is a damn good jumper. But on form MMM is certainly killing it at the moment so I agree that he would be best. And Mowen has been performing very well this year. Higgers could also be a bench option as he too can cover 6 & 8.

As to 8... Other than Palu & Auelua we do not have any others that play the big strong run-over-the-top-you players. So we need one of them. If Palu is not fit Start with Mowen at 8 & bring Auelua on in the last 15-20 mins to run straight at some very tired players.

My 2cents.

As Marto mentioned in the game on Sunday, Richard Brown is coming into some kind of form for the Force, but because he plays out in the West, he doesn't get a second look.

He's not a 'run over the top' player, but he gets over the advantage line more often than not. You could argue that Auelua is really the only 8 in Australia who can run over the top of players at will, while Palu gets over the advantage line but isn't shrugging off a bunch of players every time he gets the ball in hand.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

Scott, can you explain the significance of Gill and smith playing fewer minutes vs Hooper? Wouldn't this skew the percentages in their direction if hooper is on for more time (and presumably tiring towards the end of games)? Are your figures percentage of rucks for while gill/smith are on, or percentage of total match rucks?

 

[Scott Allen]

What are your thoughts on a unconventional backrow, probably not at test level but rather 3rd tier and below?For example, instead of a tall and abrasive number 6. who's primary role is in attack, what about playing a second number 7. My view has always been that if this were the case, you compensate by playing 2 very large second rowers adding size to the pack and utilise the number 8 as your fringe ball running forward, who must also jump in the lineout. This system would probably be exploited at test level and in the northern hemisphere it seems that the stereotypical number 7, who is always on the ball and generally the smallest in the forward pack is progressively being replaced by larger number 7s who function more as ball runners. Taking a look at the home nations (and Ireland); Ireland, England and Scotland have all taken this stance, even Wales to some extent. I predict that this will also flow through to the Lions. After his performance in the demolition of England, Sam Warburton, is arguably the first choice number 7 at the moment, and he is by no means a classic openside flanker, whilst he is quite good technically at the breakdown he is far more destructive with the ball in hand. In contrast, the Wallabies number 7 jersey which is still up for grabs, all three candidates; Gill, Hooper and Smith are in the mould of more classic number 7s, who furiously jackal in any breakdown they enter but give away size for mobility, especially Gill. It is important to have balance in your backrow, however, I always believe that it is necessary to adapt your backrow to your playing style and the opposition.

Warburton is definitely not your classic #7 - he looks more like a #6 but was managing to play the role of #7 very well. Then along came Justin Tipuric who is a classic #7 and Warburton ended the season at #6 (where he was great). Their combination against England was superb.

I think that at club level most teams have to focus on just getting the best players on the field because there are not enough good players in each club to have the luxury to carry fresh reserves on the bench.

From my experience club teams still function best when you have a genuine #7 playing the on ball role. I know that last year in club rugby every time our attack didn't function as we wanted it to, I could trace it back to getting slowed down at the breakdown.

You can also get away with two primary lineout jumpers for many club teams with a third 'part-time' jumper so you have more flexibility with selections.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Scott, another great post. I have no problem with your analysis nor with your selections (maybe Palu) but I do have one question about the mix of 6, 7 and 8 that you describe. It seems to me that the ABs have moved away from this mix over the past few years with Keiran Reid their No 8. He is not a big bopper, but I think plays more like the wide 6 that you describe. Could this be an indication that the game might be changing so that two No 6s might work better together? Pretty much how Mowen and Kimlin play it at the Brumbies.

 

[Scott Allen]

Scott, can you explain the significance of Gill and smith playing fewer minutes vs Hooper? Wouldn't this skew the percentages in their direction if hooper is on for more time (and presumably tiring towards the end of games)? Are your figures percentage of rucks for while gill/smith are on, or percentage of total match rucks?

Measuring every attacking ruck for each team regardless of whether the player was on the field or not or even playing in the game (because i only have totals for the matches and it would be a pain to go back and count the rucks when a player wasn't on the field).

Take Smith for example - I've measured his performance against rucks that occurred when he wasn't even in the country for the first two games. Same for Gill - I've measured against the rucks that occurred when he was missing for one full game and then the second half last week. Apart from those games they've both basically played every minute of every other game so they've been just as tired as Hooper at the end of games.

If I only measured the number of times the player got into rucks first against only the rucks that occured when they were on the field (which I haven't got time to do) Hooper's numbers won't change because he's played every minute of every game. Take out the rucks when Smith and Gill weren't playing and their % will go up further.

My measurement (to save time) distorts the figures against Smith and Gill, not Hooper.

 

[Scott Allen]

Scott, another great post. I have no problem with your analysis nor with your selections (maybe Palu) but I do have one question about the mix of 6, 7 and 8 that you describe. It seems to me that the ABs have moved away from this mix over the past few years with Keiran Reid their No 8. He is not a big bopper, but I think plays more like the wide 6 that you describe. Could this be an indication that the game might be changing so that two No 6s might work better together? Pretty much how Mowen and Kimlin play it at the Brumbies.

Palu is quoted as 1.94 m and 120 kg. Read is quoted as 1.93 m and 116 kg. Not much difference in size. Both big boppers.

Read however is much, much more mobile. As a result I think he's an exceptional #8 or #6. With that size and mobility you definitely have much more flexibility between #6 and #8.

Mowen is quoted at 1.95 m and 115 kg so he has bulked up and is a really good option at #8 now. Laurie Fisher told us on the podcast a few weeks ago that he's using the #6 and #8 in almost exactly the way I've described with Mowen at #8 being told to focus more on the tight role rather than getting wider as he did when playing #6 - combined with his extra muscle mass this has helped him to really step his play up.

Whilst Kimlin has been going well as #6 (and in combination with Mowen) he doesn't have the mobility of say Victor Vito or Liam Messam both of whom form a great combination with Read.

I think you'll see that the #6 (whoever it is for the AB's) and Read swap the roles a fair bit but when one goes wide, one stays tight. They're just lucky to have players who can handle both roles really well.

 

[terry j]

Hence I come back to the need for balance - I could go on for ages on why this balance is so important but hopefully that answers your queries to a certain extent.

Hey, if you're happy to type I'm happy to read!

Thanks.

You want your most mobile backrower close to the forwards because the numbers around close breakdowns are always greater in tight, hence the importance of your most mobile man getting into those breakdowns early to deny the opposition a chance to win the ground war.

Ok, please suffer me (or tell me to bugger off if this is taking the thread in the wrong direction)

Firstly, allow me a little conceit, I'll repost a bit of your initial post to try and explain one of my confusions.

#7 - must be one of your front line lineout jumpers together with your two locks - should be the only wide running forward, call them a seagull if you like

#6 - must live on the ball in both attack and defence and therefore needs to be the most mobile forward you have

You'll notice all I have done is swap the numbers for the roles required. (I get your explanation that usually (?) these players will have different skills in terms of agility and speed). But why is that the person who plays '7' have to be a lineout jumper? If between the two one is a competent jumper and the other not, would not the same goal be achieved if it were the number 7 that could jump? What is it about the position in the scrum which determines that a specific one 'must be one of the lineout jumpers' rather than the other.

Hence the swap above, all the required needs on the field have been covered, 'but by the other number'. That's why I wondered if it had something to do with how the scrum packs down..(as I said I'm dumb on this)..does one of them always take the narrower side of the field as but one possible answer?

You might not want to touch the lineout stuff but the importance of having three front line jumpers can't be ignored

Hey! Only because I did not want to be even more exposed ignorance wise!


Look, in the scheme of things it's prob not important so don't waste much time. Maybe all it comes down to is tradition? It has always been the number X that does this so we just carry it on? Or, as i asked, some more logical reason (like) which side of the scrum they pack down on therefore what they are expected to do.

Hah, one of the drawbacks of only ever really playing league. So simple.

No wonder I often read that it takes years to get to know how to play union, if this is an example of the arcane mysteries of the game.

thanks

 

[Brumby Runner]

Palu is quoted as 1.94 m and 120 kg. Read is quoted as 1.93 m and 116 kg. Not much difference in size. Both big boppers.

Read however is much, much more mobile. As a result I think he's an exceptional #8 or #6. With that size and mobility you definitely have much more flexibility between #6 and #8.

Mowen is quoted at 1.95 m and 115 kg so he has bulked up and is a really good option at #8 now. Laurie Fisher told us on the podcast a few weeks ago that he's using the #6 and #8 in almost exactly the way I've described with Mowen at #8 being told to focus more on the tight role rather than getting wider as he did when playing #6 - combined with his extra muscle mass this has helped him to really step his play up.

Whilst Kimlin has been going well as #6 (and in combination with Mowen) he doesn't have the mobility of say Victor Vito or Liam Messam both of whom form a great combination with Read.

I think you'll see that the #6 (whoever it is for the AB's) and Read swap the roles a fair bit but when one goes wide, one stays tight. They're just lucky to have players who can handle both roles really well.

Thanks for all of that. I wouldn't have thought Read was that heavy, but regardless, he seems to play a more elusive game than just using his bulk to run over the defence. Also thought Mowen had trimmed a few kilos off this year and that seemed to improve his mobility and speed.

Have to say that I've not been impressed with Victor so far this year. Seems to be well off the mark in regards to his impact on a game. I truly think Kimlin can match it with Vito in terms of mobility and ability to break the line, but his hands are another issue.

 

[qwerty51]

Read is the the perfect #8, he has all the skills in the world mixed with the power game. I honestly think by the time he quits rugby he'll be assessed as the best #8 ever.

 

[The Red Baron]

#7 - must be one of your front line lineout jumpers together with your two locks - should be the only wide running forward, call them a seagull if you like

#6 - must live on the ball in both attack and defence and therefore needs to be the most mobile forward you have

You'll notice all I have done is swap the numbers for the roles required. (I get your explanation that usually (?) these players will have different skills in terms of agility and speed). But why is that the person who plays '7' have to be a lineout jumper? If between the two one is a competent jumper and the other not, would not the same goal be achieved if it were the number 7 that could jump? What is it about the position in the scrum which determines that a specific one 'must be one of the lineout jumpers' rather than the other.

Hence the swap above, all the required needs on the field have been covered, 'but by the other number'. That's why I wondered if it had something to do with how the scrum packs down..(as I said I'm dumb on this)..does one of them always take the narrower side of the field as but one possible answer?


Hey! Only because I did not want to be even more exposed ignorance wise!


Look, in the scheme of things it's prob not important so don't waste much time. Maybe all it comes down to is tradition? It has always been the number X that does this so we just carry it on? Or, as i asked, some more logical reason (like) which side of the scrum they pack down on therefore what they are expected to do.

Hah, one of the drawbacks of only ever really playing league. So simple.

No wonder I often read that it takes years to get to know how to play union, if this is an example of the arcane mysteries of the game.

thanks

To add further confusion, look at how South Africa generally structure their backrow. The first thing you will notice is that their 6 will sometimes play similar to how we expect our 7 to play, and vice versa. Nevertheless, South African teams generally don't have a 'fetcher' or on the ball type player countries like Australia and New Zealand do. Players like Juan Smith and Heinrich Brussow are the exception to the rule. I suppose it boils down to how as a coach you want your team to play.

With regard to scrum positioning, my opinion is that generally your 7, or openside flanker, would always pack down on the openside of the scrum as they are the mobile forward who has the best opportunity to either secure or distrupt the first breakdown after the scrum. Hence the 6 would position himself on the blindside. But the roles are reasonably flexible come scrum time. Sometimes you will see flankers termed 'left' and 'right' as the positional requirements post scrum don't dictate that one particular player be present at the ensuing breakdown.

So it then follows; traditionally as your openside (if we discard the notion of left and right flankers) is your on the ball fellow, he will generally be smaller than your blindside (who is less mobile but plays a little looser, doesn't have to move around as much!). Therefore, the bigger guy becomes a viable lineout target due to his increased size.

This isn't set in stone though. I have seen all manner of forward being tossed up in the lineout. It sometimes really does depend on their skills in the air. But as Scott said, you generally don't want your 7 in the air contesting the lineout as this will detract from his main job on the ground.

I hope that has helped somewhat, rather than cloud the issue further!

 

[Dumbledore]

Thanks for all of that. I wouldn't have thought Read was that heavy, but regardless, he seems to play a more elusive game than just using his bulk to run over the defence. Also thought Mowen had trimmed a few kilos off this year and that seemed to improve his mobility and speed.

Have to say that I've not been impressed with Victor so far this year. Seems to be well off the mark in regards to his impact on a game. I truly think Kimlin can match it with Vito in terms of mobility and ability to break the line, but his hands are another issue.

No. No he can't. Kimlin is having a good season, but he's just on the same level as Vito at the moment.

 

[terry j]

thanks TRB

I do wonder a bit just how different these guys are in the 'mobility' dept. I'll tell you what tho, thanks to this thread I'll be paying just that bit more attention to who is in the lineouts! I forget now just who is supposed to be in the lineout, I might have shot myself in the foot by changing these numbers arrggh. Anyways, I think I see smith more often than not lurking at the back of the lineout. Toi either hit the opposition when they get it or scavenge a bad throw and get the ball on the oppositions throw.

See? Learning from the thread haha.

So in the light of this, would not for example either smith or pocock be able or professional enough to both play? After reading some of the posts I looked them up (for height as an example) and smith is the smallest, but there is often only four inches in it. That is enough to make a difference in the lineout? Surely that is more the ability of the lifters rather than having a few inches height advantage.

Are they too slow to fulfill the wide function?

Think I'm learning heaps.

 

[Slim 293]

Thanks for all of that. I wouldn't have thought Read was that heavy, but regardless, he seems to play a more elusive game than just using his bulk to run over the defence. Also thought Mowen had trimmed a few kilos off this year and that seemed to improve his mobility and speed.

Have to say that I've not been impressed with Victor so far this year. Seems to be well off the mark in regards to his impact on a game. I truly think Kimlin can match it with Vito in terms of mobility and ability to break the line, but his hands are another issue.

No, the opposite........

He shed quite a bit of weight when he came to the Brumbies to improve his mobility and speed, but this year he's put on a few kilos to add some power back into his game.......

And it shows, he's been very physical this year........ his counter rucking has been phenomenal and always gains ground with the ball.........

Last year he was receiving praise for his game but never really looked like being a better option than Higginbotham and Dennis......

This year, on current form at least, he deserves to be ahead of those guys starting for the Wallabies........

Mowen and MMM would be the top 2 candidates for the 6 spot, but I think Mowen's lineout skills puts him ahead......... although MMM could be a smokey for a lock spot, otherwise I'd play him off the bench covering both positions.........