Benjamin Tameifuna (centre) could have run riot against Saracens knowing he didn't have to play the full game. Photo: AFP/ROMAIN PERROCHEAU < p>How many forwards does it take to win a game at the highest level of rugby? This used to be a simple question; it was eight. Given the current trend of coaches choosing a bench with a 6-2 or even 7-1 forward-to-defensive ratio, the answer could be anything from 8 to 15.
Anyone who watched Bordeaux-Begles against Saracens on Saturday will have noticed how outclassed the English team was in terms of physical strength and size. This was all the more surprising given that just two weeks earlier Saracens had physically dominated Harlequins in the Showdown game. What chance would you give to Quins, who now face Bordeaux in the quarter-finals of the European Cup?
The Bordeaux — Saracens match is not the only example of this movement towards a large number of players and powerful influences. Take any of South Africa's recent matches and you'll see the dynamics of the size and strength of the Bomber Squad in action. There is no denying that this is effective, and as such, the trend is likely to evolve as parties try to compete by copying these examples.
In Europe we are yet to see this confirmed as a definite winning tactic, with Leinster still to be considered. They, like New Zealand at international level, don't have nearly two sets of monster forwards, but they do have dynamic forwards who can, provided they are at the top of their game, sometimes defy size. Even if Leinster fail to beat this trend, the point will be made even more fully stated.
Rugby needs to consider whether it wants to go down this path. Does he want the game at the top level to be open only to the biggest and strongest strikers? What will be the consequences of this and are they really what the game wants and, more importantly, demands?
Take, for example, Bordeaux's man of the match, Tongan Ben Tameifuna. It was a textbook case of physical exhaustion as he repeatedly struck Saracens players, scattering them all over the turf. It was a superb performance in the 53rd minute with a 148kg (23rd 4lb) propeller.
Ben Tameifuna, pictured here before the 2019 World Cup, is a very modern striker. Photo: Getty Images/Michael Regan
When he was substituted he looked completely exhausted, which was to be expected as he knew he would only be asked to play for that approximate amount of time. His replacement was Karlou Sadie, weighing just 138kg (21st 10lb), who carried on in the same physical spirit for the remaining 27 minutes.
Rugby needs to be clear on this issue. He can have any game he wants, and if you prefer massive clashes between huge players, you deserve this look. However, you must recognize the inevitable consequences of adopting this policy.
These consequences include, at a minimum, the following points.
To match this combination of size and strength, any opponent would have to have not one, but two screws of the same size, and this is true for any other forward position where the size is just as extreme. This represents another barrier to the development of international teams and smaller club teams. For example, Portugal could have a starting package that can compete with higher-ranked opponents. Asking them to find six to eight more strikers of a similar standard is an almost impossible task in a country where the game is still struggling to develop, has no 100-year-old tradition and is not generally played in schools.
At the professional club level, this means rosters are likely to increase by about 10 players, whose salaries could be the difference between breaking even and permanent annual losses.
From a safety perspective, for some players it may not be safer to play the full 80 minutes against two players trained and pumped up to only play part of each match. It is also less safe from a repeated subconcussion standpoint to have players who maximize their size and strength knowing that they will only have to play a limited role in the game. If players play a full game, teams will also be able to give players a full week of rest if they play in alternate games instead of playing a limited time in each match.
When it comes to the long-term effects, what do you think , what do parents think when they see this pursuit of size? From direct experience, I can tell you that they believe this kind of imbalance exists at every level, and this dissuades some parents from allowing their child to even try rugby.
Limiting the number of substitutions or prohibiting them unless there is an injury is one way to force players to train to play for longer periods of time and lose weight for aerobic capacity. We're getting to the point where certain levels of rugby won't be accessible to all shapes and sizes, unless you mean the shape and size are huge and heavy.
Свежие комментарии