Balancing Your Backrow

[Braveheart81]

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...

Good post. I would also start Mowen and have MMM off the bench to cover 6 and 4/5.

I feel like Mowen's lineout skills and increased mobility make him a better option at 6 to start the game. In my mind, Dennis and Higginbotham have a lot to do to push ahead of Mowen at this point of the season.

This would be about the only position where the incumbents are well behind the uncapped player and the uncapped player has a really strong chance of a starting XV spot in my opinion.

 

[Slim 293]

Particularly as we're likely to play the likes of Horwill, Douglas, Timani etc in the second row...... you need a player like Mowen to run that set piece.........

 

[qwerty51]

This would be about the only position where the incumbents are well behind the uncapped player and the uncapped player has a really strong chance of a starting XV spot in my opinion.

I would have Barnes way behind Folau and Mogg atm. He's not going to be back for a couple more weeks, likely won't play 15 or even be in the 15.

Also Cummins has barely been sighted this year.

 

[Gnostic]

Scott,

It has been a long held belief of mine that we should consider selecting teams based on conditions of play, opposition and referee. Indeed we have history in the selection of Wallaby packs, with different combinations being selected on the basis of these factors, for instance the selection of Simon Poidevin over David Codey many years ago.

A backrow that could be very effective against one side under one ref. may well be less effective or totally ineffective against another side or under a different interpretation. For instance is a ref. allows hands in the ruck play two fetchers may well be justified if one has a very strong carrying game like Smith. However if the ref is strict about hands in the ruck or calls rucks formed almost immediately it may well be a better option to select a backrower for counter ruck ability rather than "on ball" strength. Indeed the Bok got burnt badly with just this situation in the RWC, when Lawrence's performance was totally within character of how he usually refereed the breakdown. My argument is that with selection and tactics they could have totally negated this aspect of Pocock and would have most likely won that game

I understand incumbency and combinations but I do not think that we should be blinded to the advanatges that this sort of versatility could bring.

One last thing I have noted with all Australian backrows since the retirement of Cockbain, Finnegan and Ofahengaue. The running 6 (which IMO is epitomised by the last two of these) is too often held up in the contact. Not only an issue with technique that we saw from Kimlin last weekend, but an issue with the support players not arriving early enough to prevent the ball carrier being surrounded and locked off from support.

What are your thoughts on these ramblings?

 

[qwerty51]

Indeed the Bok got burnt badly with just this situation in the RWC, when Lawrence's performance was totally within character of how he usually refereed the breakdown. My argument is that with selection and tactics they could have totally negated this aspect of Pocock and would have most likely won that game

The Boks had Brussow but got injured by Vickerman within 10 mins.

 

[Paradox]

I would carry only one of Smith/Gill/Hooper in my matchday 23. On the bench I'd have Kimlin to cover lock and 6 with Auleau to cover 8. Palu to start at 8 with Mowen at 6. Smith at 7 if eligible otherwise Gill/Hooper. 3M + Horwill start at lock. Front row is 1 Robbo 2 Moore 3 Palmer.

Scott Allen, Kimlin is pretty damn quick. He's always been regarded as quick forward in Brumby land.

 

[slaven]

Particularly as we're likely to play the likes of Horwill, Douglas, Timani etc in the second row.. you need a player like Mowen to run that set piece...

My thoughts exactly Slim. Even more so after hearing Ed O and Palmer on the recent podcasts. Ed, while singing the praises of MMM as a jumper, did note (I think and will stand corrected if I'm wrong) that he wasn't a caller. Also, Dan's revelation that Mowen actually runs the Brumbies lineout training rather than Lourie Fisher only strengthened my opinion that he should be in the team at 6 or 8 given how important the set piece will be against the Lions.

 

[slaven]

Scott, love your work by the way. Have been an avid reader/listener although not great poster. Have one Q though that ties in with my previous post. On the recent podcast you put forward a starting lock combo of Horwill and Douglas if I recall correctly. Given your backrow of Smith, MMM and Palu, who would you have calling the lineouts? I know Horwill could do it at a pinch, but I'd prefer him concentrating on other things. Does Douglas have any experience as a caller? If not, without a Mowen or Dennis in the backrow, could a case be made for Simmons to partner Horwill?

 

[Scott Allen]

Scott, love your work by the way. Have been an avid reader/listener although not great poster. Have one Q though that ties in with my previous post. On the recent podcast you put forward a starting lock combo of Horwill and Douglas if I recall correctly. Given your backrow of Smith, MMM and Palu, who would you have calling the lineouts? I know Horwill could do it at a pinch, but I'd prefer him concentrating on other things. Does Douglas have any experience as a caller? If not, without a Mowen or Dennis in the backrow, could a case be made for Simmons to partner Horwill?

Horwill is a vewry good lineout caller as is MMM. I went to a lineout session with Michael Foley in 2008 and he showed video of how MMM had worked out the Welsh lineout at the 2007 RWC - he certainly knew how to read a lineout back then.

 

[ACT Crusader]

My 2 cents worth....

For me it doesn't really matter what number is on their back as long as all the core areas are covered and the players styles and strengths compliment each other. There are obvious situations, you obviously want you're best ball stealer/quickest to be playing on the openside of a scrum. You need a no8 that knows how to control the nut at the back of a scrum.

However all the other stuff in general play and at LO time, IMO just needs to compliment each other.

Take for example one of the more successful loose forward trios of the ABs in Collins, McCaw, So'oialo. Collins played blindside after being forced to play no8 to 'fit him in', but he was not the greatest at the back of the scrum. He did his best work on the blind yet he was the main ball carrier in that loose trio - the enforcer so to speak. Rodney was the ultimate garbage man who clean out, hit tackle after tackle, ran the field all night in support and most importantly cleared the tackle for McCaw to make a tilt at the ball.

One of my favourite players during that time.

They worked very well together linking and combining in attack and defence.

All three were used at LO time, with Rodney probably used more often than the others given out propensity back them to throw to the back (we soon changed that over time and Kaino and McCaw were the LO targets). Collins played the midfield battering role.

What's also interesting is that whilst that was the number one combination of that era, Graham Henry tried a few others. And one that I saw work brilliantly at test level was McCaw at 7, Masoe at 8 and a renewed Ruben Thorne at 6. They all seemed to be on the same page but covered all bases well. Masoe was a monster with ball in hand and Thorne was used a lot at LO time freeing up McCaw to also run the ball from set piece. Thorne did a lot of the 'Rodney' role of clearing bodies and clean out work.

The other thing that is key is time. That successful trio of McCaw, Collins, So'oialo got plenty of test matches together. Sure it helped that two were provincial and Super rugby teammates, but Henry persisted with them over a good stretch of tests despite the rotation of many other players.

For me the OZ back row has been chopped and changed a hell of a lot for to injury, probably lack of form, poor timing etc, so we don't really know what combination is the best one. Pocock when fit has been the one rock, but now he is broken and there is an urgent need to find 3 to gel.

 

[slaven]

Horwill is a vewry good lineout caller as is MMM. I went to a lineout session with Michael Foley in 2008 and he showed video of how MMM had worked out the Welsh lineout at the 2007 RWC - he certainly knew how to read a lineout back then.

Thanks Scott.
stand corrected. Have been impressed with Simmons work at the lineout this season so far, particularly his defensive LO work. However if MMM or Horwill can call, then the added physicality that a Douglas or Timani in the 2nd row provides is the way to go I think. Not to mention the grunt they add in the scrum.

 

[USARugger]

When selecting a backrow I believe you've got to get the balance right and my views on the role of each player are:

What do you think of the alternative system of playing more of a wrecking-ball at 6 and a more dynamic, albeit lighter 8? Think how the Sharks organize their back-row with Alberts at 6 and Skinny Keegan at 8. I'm asking mostly because this is how we do it at the club I play for.

Essentially the 6 is our line-bender and outside of forward pod plays is expected to be grafting in tight for the majority of the game. The 6 is also either primarily a back pod lifter or a runner in the back line during the line out although we will jump him occasionally in the middle pod to keep the opposition guessing.

Our 8 is extremely dynamic and like our 7 should be as fast as either of the centers and able to handle the ball in a similar fashion too. Our 8 primarily gets used the back jumper in our line out. I believe the overall coaching logic behind this is that while it does somewhat hinder our ability to run the ball off the back of the scrum the #8 is generally in the best position out of the three back rowers to make defensive reads at the back of the scrum as well as get involved in our own offensive movements off of the scrum so we opted for speed here, I'll explain why. We've lost a lot of size since my Freshman year so we've been actively trying to install systems like this that take us away from 150+ breakdowns a game and have us moving the ball to the wider channels as often as possible.

We've scored a lot of tries this way by creating 4-5v1-2s in the outside channels by having our 7/8 in their faces with the ball before the first or second phase is even over. Defensively we force teams to keep their early phases off of the set piece towards the middle of the field or they risk getting the 7/8 bash brothers in the breakdown up against a wing and a fullback.

The 7 role is primarily the same here as it is in other teams, the 7/8 are just the bash brothers combination as opposed to the 6/7. The 7 is primarily a back/middle pod lifter or jumper depending on the call but can also be used as a runner.

I've enjoyed playing this system a lot, I think it gives us a pretty distinct attacking edge over most of the teams we face. At the least it surprises teams by how quickly we can overload the wider channels on both attack and defense. The downside is we do have a much, much harder time pulling away and closing games in the rain and mud.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

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.

I agree with your approach, except for one thing. I think the 6 needs to be a bit more flexibly used: at test level he sometimes needs to play as an extra 8 or maybe even lock for 5 to 10 minute periods depending on the flow of the game.

On the basis of Hoopers stats he has no form to play 7 at test level.
Your first to the breakdown stats tell Tahs fans a great deal about our problems: Dennis is lamented for not making the contribution he should . Reality is he's hitting the same percentage of rucks first as Hooper.
Dennis is not in the style of the 6 you advocate either, as I read it, this season.
I've been very disappointed in Hooper this season: he carried the ball more last week than he has all season but I don't "feel" he's having an impact. Frankly, I've been speculating that he's carrying an injury from the beginning.
Gill is more effective but he plays in 15 minutes on 15 off bursts, or something like that - lack of maturity/experience? Smith is the man.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Scott Allen]

Scott,

It has been a long held belief of mine that we should consider selecting teams based on conditions of play, opposition and referee. Indeed we have history in the selection of Wallaby packs, with different combinations being selected on the basis of these factors, for instance the selection of Simon Poidevin over David Codey many years ago.

A backrow that could be very effective against one side under one ref. may well be less effective or totally ineffective against another side or under a different interpretation. For instance is a ref. allows hands in the ruck play two fetchers may well be justified if one has a very strong carrying game like Smith. However if the ref is strict about hands in the ruck or calls rucks formed almost immediately it may well be a better option to select a backrower for counter ruck ability rather than "on ball" strength. Indeed the Bok got burnt badly with just this situation in the RWC, when Lawrence's performance was totally within character of how he usually refereed the breakdown. My argument is that with selection and tactics they could have totally negated this aspect of Pocock and would have most likely won that game

I understand incumbency and combinations but I do not think that we should be blinded to the advanatges that this sort of versatility could bring.

One last thing I have noted with all Australian backrows since the retirement of Cockbain, Finnegan and Ofahengaue. The running 6 (which IMO is epitomised by the last two of these) is too often held up in the contact. Not only an issue with technique that we saw from Kimlin last weekend, but an issue with the support players not arriving early enough to prevent the ball carrier being surrounded and locked off from support.

What are your thoughts on these ramblings?

I don't think you need to change players to play a different style for each match. Professional players have plenty of time to adapt their play to fit particular game plans - it is not like the amateur days when Poiveden or Codey would only have a couple of training sessions with the team before the weekend's game.

A player who is good at pilfering is also capable of changing their playing style to still getting in the same position but instead of going for the ball getting into position ahead of the ball if the referee is one that is very strict on pilfering.

If you want to protect your own ball and/or slow the opposition ball down you must have an on-baller.

The RWC QF in 2011 demonstrates this point perfectly - the Boks got burnt at the breakdown because their on-baller, Brussow left the field after only 19 minutes and the Wallabies on-baller, Pocock was magnificent on the day.

 

[Scott Allen]

What do you think of the alternative system of playing more of a wrecking-ball at 6 and a more dynamic, albeit lighter 8? Think how the Sharks organize their back-row with Alberts at 6 and Skinny Keegan at 8. I'm asking mostly because this is how we do it at the club I play for.

Essentially the 6 is our line-bender and outside of forward pod plays is expected to be grafting in tight for the majority of the game. The 6 is also either primarily a back pod lifter or a runner in the back line during the line out although we will jump him occasionally in the middle pod to keep the opposition guessing.

Our 8 is extremely dynamic and like our 7 should be as fast as either of the centers and able to handle the ball in a similar fashion too. Our 8 primarily gets used the back jumper in our line out. I believe the overall coaching logic behind this is that while it does somewhat hinder our ability to run the ball off the back of the scrum the #8 is generally in the best position out of the three back rowers to make defensive reads at the back of the scrum as well as get involved in our own offensive movements off of the scrum so we opted for speed here, I'll explain why. We've lost a lot of size since my Freshman year so we've been actively trying to install systems like this that take us away from 150+ breakdowns a game and have us moving the ball to the wider channels as often as possible.

We've scored a lot of tries this way by creating 4-5v1-2s in the outside channels by having our 7/8 in their faces with the ball before the first or second phase is even over. Defensively we force teams to keep their early phases off of the set piece towards the middle of the field or they risk getting the 7/8 bash brothers in the breakdown up against a wing and a fullback.

The 7 role is primarily the same here as it is in other teams, the 7/8 are just the bash brothers combination as opposed to the 6/7. The 7 is primarily a back/middle pod lifter or jumper depending on the call but can also be used as a runner.

I've enjoyed playing this system a lot, I think it gives us a pretty distinct attacking edge over most of the teams we face. At the least it surprises teams by how quickly we can overload the wider channels on both attack and defense. The downside is we do have a much, much harder time pulling away and closing games in the rain and mud.

You've pointed out the negatives of not having your strongest ball runner at #8 to come off the back of the scrum. Another negative is that I'd want your faster more mobile player of the two at #6 to get out faster and defend any blind side move off the back of an opposition scrum.

Having pointed out those, the only negatives are at scrum time. In general play there's no reason what you're suggesting doesn't work. The more important point is that you have one of each - the big bopper (who stays tight) and the tall player with more mobility (who plays wider) to get your balance right.

 

[USARugger]

You've pointed out the negatives of not having your strongest ball runner at #8 to come off the back of the scrum. Another negative is that I'd want your faster more mobile player of the two at #6 to get out faster and defend any blind side move off the back of an opposition scrum.

Having pointed out those, the only negatives are at scrum time. In general play there's no reason what you're suggesting doesn't work. The more important point is that you have one of each - the big bopper (who stays tight) and the tall player with more mobility (who plays wider) to get your balance right.

We had some chronic issues with ball stability at the back of the scrum (having pretty significantly smaller locks and props than we used to can lead to a shaky scrum sometimes) which is why we decided to almost entirely opt out of running the ball from the back. Thanks for the feedback though - was just curious what you thought of it and if there was anything you think we could improve within our current system.

I am a bit biased to this style as I was the #7 when we started to implement it and having as many chances to embarrass center pairings as we were given in this system made it incredibly fun to play in at times. Honestly our 8 is what holds this system together right now though. He's a better play maker than some of our backs and definitely is a huge aid in our quest to go through and around defenses but not over them. This is all college play in the USA though so everything is much different.

I don't think you need to change players to play a different style for each match.

What do you think about games like that nightmare vs. Scotland? Do you think it would be more appropriate to institute a more grafting #6 in games like that to ensure quality of possession since the wider channels won't be getting utilized as much?

Also, what do you think of players like Justin Tipuric/Michael Hooper (dynamic ball-running 7) or Dan Lydiate (more of a grafter but he still plays at 6) or Sergio Parisse (seems to 'seagull' far more than what you'd like out of your 8)? Do you adjust your formula to this or do you adjust their play style to the formula?

 

[Scott Allen]

I agree with your approach, except for one thing. I think the 6 needs to be a bit more flexibly used: at test level he sometimes needs to play as an extra 8 or maybe even lock for 5 to 10 minute periods depending on the flow of the game.

On the basis of Hoopers stats he has no form to play 7 at test level.
Your first to the breakdown stats tell Tahs fans a great deal about our problems: Dennis is lamented for not making the contribution he should . Reality is he's hitting the same percentage of rucks first as Hooper.
Dennis is not in the style of the 6 you advocate either, as I read it, this season.
I've been very disappointed in Hooper this season: he carried the ball more last week than he has all season but I don't "feel" he's having an impact. Frankly, I've been speculating that he's carrying an injury from the beginning.
Gill is more effective but he plays in 15 minutes on 15 off bursts, or something like that - lack of maturity/experience? Smith is the man.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think Dennis meets my criteria for #6 to be a frontline jumper. He seems mobile enough but he plays tighter than I think a #6 should play and given the Tahs are trying to play a wider game that doesn't make sense (although that may be Cheika's instructions to Dennis).

Here are some more interesting stats regarding the Tahs at the breakdown that show why they're struggling to get good, quick ball to play with that Cheika wants:

• In last week's match against the Force it was a back who was first into 39% of rucks - Folau led the team with 15%, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) was next on 11%, the same number for Betham - compare that to 4% for Hooper and Dennis and 6% for McCutcheon;
• For the season to date the best at getting into rucks first is Folau on 9%, then AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) on 8% then Hooper on 6%. Dennis at 5% is level with Drew Mitchell despite Mitchell missing a game.

These numbers show the Tahs are playing wider but because their #6 isn't out wide to help out at the breakdown the backs are having to do the work to secure the ball. I'm not saying the backs shouldn't be working at the breakdown but there is a better way.
If the Tahs continue playing this way I expect we'll hear Cheika calling "foul" a lot more as oppositions target the Tahs ball at the breakdown and slow them down.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think Dennis meets my criteria for #6 to be a frontline jumper. He seems mobile enough but he plays tighter than I think a #6 should play and given the Tahs are trying to play a wider game that doesn't make sense (although that may be Cheika's instructions to Dennis).

Here are some more interesting stats regarding the Tahs at the breakdown that show why they're struggling to get good, quick ball to play with that Cheika wants:

• In last week's match against the Force it was a back who was first into 39% of rucks - Folau led the team with 15%, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) was next on 11%, the same number for Betham - compare that to 4% for Hooper and Dennis and 6% for McCutcheon;
• For the season to date the best at getting into rucks first is Folau on 9%, then AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) on 8% then Hooper on 6%. Dennis at 5% is level with Drew Mitchell despite Mitchell missing a game.

These numbers show the Tahs are playing wider but because their #6 isn't out wide to help out at the breakdown the backs are having to do the work to secure the ball. I'm not saying the backs shouldn't be working at the breakdown but there is a better way.
If the Tahs continue playing this way I expect we'll hear Cheika calling "foul" a lot more as oppositions target the Tahs ball at the breakdown and slow them down.

Certainly in the emails to members, the Tahs have highlighted that the outside backs are getting to the rucks first because they are playing a much wider game.

With McCutcheon playing at 8 (who has primarily been a 7 in the past), I'm guessing that he's playing more of the 6 role and playing wider and Dennis is playing the tighter game of an 8. I think the stats back that up with McCutcheon being the first at quite a lot of rucks.

When Palu comes back this weekend I'm guessing that Dennis will start to play a wider game as Palu won't be playing the same game as McCutcheon.

 

[fatprop]

Cheika in his last post game suggested they may have to refine their approach to supporting the ball carrier with a unit posted on/near the hip of the ball runner

My actual concern is what happens when the Tahs play proper counter attacking sides (we will find out this week) spinning it wide is nice, but we get done in transition too often

 

[Scott Allen]

What do you think about games like that nightmare vs. Scotland? Do you think it would be more appropriate to institute a more grafting #6 in games like that to ensure quality of possession since the wider channels won't be getting utilized as much?

Also, what do you think of players like Justin Tipuric/Michael Hooper (dynamic ball-running 7) or Dan Lydiate (more of a grafter but he still plays at 6) or Sergio Parisse (seems to 'seagull' far more than what you'd like out of your 8)? Do you adjust your formula to this or do you adjust their play style to the formula?

Against Scotland if the plan was to keep the ball tight you bring your #6 in tighter. If you still want to play with some width, they're even more important out wide because the heavy conditions will make it harder for any other forwards to get across the ground fast enough to help out at breakdowns.

Tipuric does a lot more work in tight than you may think.

If you have a dynamic ball running #7 who isn't going to be an "on-baller" then someone has to fill in for that role. If the dynamic #7 is so important to your attack then maybe you need to play two #7's with the other covering the "on-baller" role. You can't just leave the "on-baller" role unfilled or your attack will suffer from slower ball than you want. McCutcheon at #8 has done more of the on-ball work recently at the Tahs but when Palu's back, I think Dennis and Hooper will have to do more.

As I've said your #8 can be the wide player (like Parisee) but you then need to get your #6 playing tighter. You can't afford to have two wide backrowers. Worse still would be having two wide backrowers and a #7 who wasn't on the ball!