Donal Lenihan: Time for rugby to undergo a radical overhaul
DONAL'S VIEW: The scrum is an integral part of rugby, a compelling contest, and a potential game-changer on the scoreboard, but it is also in need of refinement. Pic: FRANCK FIFE/AFP via Getty Images
nother World Cup has come and gone. South Africa remain world champions and deservedly so.
While their style and approach may not be to everyone’s liking, there’s no doubting their innovative approach and ability to play to their traditional strengths. They have also excelled with their desire to play for a wider cause, something far more important than the needs of the individual. That approach was driven from the top with the combined rugby smarts of Jacques Nienaber and Rassie Erasmus eventually proving too much for all challengers.
What the seven-week, 48-game sojourn in France also highlighted was the inescapable fact that the game needs to take a very critical look at itself and is in need of a radical overhaul. The scrum is an integral part of the game, a compelling contest, a potential point of difference but also one in need of refinement.
Rugby has gone through a massive transformation since the advent of professionalism in 1995. Given that players can now devote themselves 24/7 to becoming the best version of themselves as opposed to having to deal with the distraction of a day job to put bread on the table, it was inevitable that players would get bigger and stronger.
I reckon the modern player is about 10kg heavier than his amateur equivalent would have been. As a consequence, the collisions are more impactful with an imbalance of power over skill an inevitable consequence.
In the modern game, size matters. In addition, having a structured and organised defensive system, as South Africa had, over a well-choreographed attacking game will, more often that not, see you emerge on top. Under Nienaber’s direction, South Africa conceded eight tries in seven games at the World Cup, just one of those over the course of the semi-final and final.
With the best defences so difficult to breach, teams are kicking more and with good effect with increased evidence that those who do so emerge on top. Even the French, who scored some scintillating tries in their epic quarter-final defeat to the Springboks, changed their attacking formula in the year leading into the World Cup, deciding to kick after three phases if they failed to breach the opposition defence to that point.
A number of games at the World Cup saw teams making in excess of 200 tackles, a target that appeared impossible a few years ago. In the final, South Africa’s amazing defensive stand against New Zealand saw them make 209 tackles.
In their quarter-final defeat of Ireland, New Zealand made an incredible 226 tackles en route to thwarting Ireland’s dream of ultimate success while Andy Farrell’s men registered 195 tackles in their pool defeat of Scotland.
While advances in strength and conditioning have enabled teams to stay in the fight physically for longer than ever before, there’s another significant issue at play here. In my view, a major factor in facilitating all this change has been the expansion of the reserves bench over the last two decades from five to eight players.
Let me state immediately that this is not a dig at the Springboks for having the gumption to go for a 7/1 split on their bench. I admire the commitment to backing their traditional strength up front but, the very fact that a team is willing to enter a World Cup final carrying just one back on the bench is proof positive that you don’t need to carry eight substitutes in the first place.
The capacity to carry up to seven forwards on the bench makes it easier to cater for monstrous men of over 22 stone weight with a reduced aerobic capacity that enables them go full tilt for no more than 40 minutes.
It also creates a window for serious injury where a fatigued back, several stones lighter with 70-plus minutes of high-octane action under the belt, is faced with smashing one of those rampaging replacement forwards in the tackle. It’s a complete mismatch.
n inevitable side effect of the increase in player size when the professional game was finding its feet from 2000 onwards was the rising incidence of concussions, the impact of which is about to come to fruition next month with confirmation of a class action being taken by 294 former players against the English and Welsh Unions along with the governing body World Rugby. The outcome of that case could have massive implications for the game and will dominate the rugby landscape in 2024 and beyond.
World Rugby needs a complete rethink when it comes to looking at the composition of the replacements bench. I’d recommend a reduction from the current level of eight players to a maximum of six, with the compulsory inclusion of a front row unit comprising a tight and loose head prop along with a hooker for safety reasons.
Ideally the remaining three would include a hybrid second row/back row, a scrum half and a utility back. That said, there would be nothing to prevent you going with a 5/1 split. The other change I’d make to support the reduced bench options is the facility to make a maximum of 12 changes per game through rotation over the course of the 80 minutes, a system that is already in operation at amateur AIL level and is quite effective.
Under the current system, so many of the switches made by coaches are preordained. The majority of the front five are told in advance that he can empty the tank as they will only be playing for a maximum of 50 minutes. This facilitates carrying even bigger replacements with a limited aerobic capacity on the bench.
I was shocked a few years ago when, in an AIL game, when my own club Cork Constitution were forced to start a hooker in his first year out of school due to an injury crisis. The youngster had a blinder and played the full match. Visiting the dressing room after the game, I found him prostrate on the floor. He was knackered.
Congratulating him on his performance, if a little surprised by his physical condition, I dragged him to his feet. “You don’t understand” he said.
He went on to explain that it was the first time since he was 14 years of age that he played an entire rugby match. As a hooker, from junior schools rugby upwards, he was always substituted. I found that bizarre.
The fact that you have fewer options off the bench would force coaches to be a little bit more innovative and dilute the comfort blanket of being able to plan all your substitutions in advance. Reducing the number of replacements would prevent the option of being able to carry close to an entire replacement forward unit, even bigger than the starting one, capable of inflicting serious damage.
Going back to when you had only five or six subs on the bench, games were normally decided in the final quarter when the better team got on top of their opponents and seized control. The facility to make so many changes early in the second half has changed that dynamic. In fact, it has changed the face of rugby.
When South Africa opted for seven forwards on the bench for the biggest game professional rugby has to offer, they helped magnify the unintended consequences that has emerged from the tweaks made by the law makers to make the game safer over the last decade.
If anything, facilitating so much change has added to the problems and the impact of that needs to be addressed. The other area that assumed too much importance at the World Cup and also in need of refinement is the scrum. More on that to come.
