It continues to amaze me how we frown upon versatility and how we want to make every single rugby player a specialist.
The game of rugby union has come a long way, just this weekend when Joe Pietersen left the field with a quad strain, I mentioned to a friend a story I heard about a rugby player (NZ’lander if memory serves) in the mid 1900’s once told the ‘team doctor’ (many thought they were actually vets) to amputate a finger so he can continue playing…
However, as the IRB’s Rugby Charter states, rugby is still a sport for players and athletes of all sizes, cultures and backgrounds, and in modern rugby where we create monster athletes, this is still the case in my view.
Rugby union is unique in the sense that you need such an array of skills across your match-day 22, that you really can almost find a spot for all types of players who brings different skills to the party.
Some players will have more limited skills than others, or more specialised skills for a better word, it is therefore logical that their contribution to the game of rugby will also be more specialised but also, more limited.
Rugby union fans and coaches (including players) alike however must be the only people in the world where being limited is preferred!
Of course understand that it also pisses me off to no end when players are shoved from pillar to post and yes, the game of union definitely relies heavily on specialised skills, otherwise we would not need numbers on jerseys to start off with, but it really irritates me how versatility is shunned in favour, or rather at the expense of limited specialist skills.
Being versatile is as much of a needed skill in rugby union as being a specialist, and can add so much to a team and team dynamics.
So why do we not identify players as being specialised, and being versatile? Why do we continually want to stick versatile players in a limited role where they will compete against specialist where their major contributing strength is nullified?
In rugby, where you are limited to a large extend with what you are allowed to do, or what (and how many) you are allowed to pick, options is key – the more you have, the better off you are.
This brings me to a guy like Ruan Pienaar who is again being touted as being the guy to lead the Sharks from the number 10 berth given Andy Goode’s poor performances on tour so far for the Sharks.
It is fine that Ruan is considered to be played there, he is good enough obviously, but why the massive drive or motivation to have him specialise there?
I ask this because I want to know, what has Ruan Pienaar’s biggest contribution been to rugby both for the Sharks and the Springboks since 2005? Is it his specialised skills as a 9, or 10, or is it his versatility which enables him to basically cover any position in the backline (starting or from the bench)?
Why is versatility not celebrated as a specialist skill as-well? Because one thing I can guarantee you, very few players have the ability and the skill to cover 9, 10, 12, 11 or 14 and 15 effectively at union and national level.
A guy like Ruan gives any coach options, and options in rugby is a massive advantage, same as a prop that can play both sides, a lock that can pack down at loosie, etc.
Ruan Pienaar will be in my match 22 every single time injury permitting for both the Sharks and the Boks, he is that damn good, and this cannot be said of many players in world rugby.
Morné, I simply cannot agree… a good specialist in his position is better than an excellent utility player in that position.
We’ve seen how Ruan’s play has degenerated due to the facination to play him as a utility back.
The examples are to numerous to mention.. and Dick Muir is probably the biggest culprit opting for versatility…. and look where it has him today at the Lions.
GBS,
This is almost as foreign a concept to us rugby fans as mental coaching and is quite difficult to express on a post by post basis but here goes;
Do not confuse versatility with playing guys at 15 the one week, 10 the next and 9 the week after.
The main thing to remember here, and where this is born from, is that rugby is no longer a game played by only 15 players a side, it is played by 22 players a side, for 85 minutes.
There are no longer substitutes, or reserves, but impact players.
Also, impact players are no longer the guys that comes on 50 or 60 or 70 minutes into the game, impact players can be used in the first 30 or 50.
The ability for players like Ruan to play successfully, at a very high level, in more than one position is a massive advantage in rugby union and one very few coaches get right.
In that respect, the only coach that got the role of impact players partly right in SA rugby was Nick Mallet.
Think back to Bob Skinstad.
Was he a great 7 or 8? Was his versatility and skills a blessing and a strength for his game in rugby, or because how it was used and utulised, a weakness?
The role for the versatile player and his role in modern rugby has never been clearly defined in my view, and we are stuffing it up – what could be a major strength, is in fact a major weakness. Where Ruan should be one of the most valuable players in any rugby team because of his tremendous skills, he is being misused, abused and suffer from low confidence because of this.
The potential to alter your team dynamics with the skills of a Ruan like player, is absolutely tremendous.
Yet we stuff it up, with coaches like Muir player Frans Steyn at 14 stating “he is just too valuable to leave out of a team”.
That I totally disagree with, and is not what is said in this article.
Versatility in rugby is a major strength for any coach and team, AND PLAYER, if used correctly, versatility in specialised positions is like gold dust.
Morne, this an interesting take on versatility, and i will ponder on this for a while. Maybe we should strife for a specialised player who is versatile in other positions.
Players like Ruan Pienaar and Frans Steyn are exceptional players and in our current rugby climate, their talent is more of hindrance to them than a help. While its great to to have a player like Ruan who can cover 9-15 in the backline and Steyn who can cover 10, 12, 11, 14 and 15, my opinion is that they should play in the position of their choice for the majority of the season. Unless like at the Sharks they have a crisis at flyhalf, then Pienaar must play there. But as you say Morne, we cannot shunt a player around the positions he can play. That’s madness. Because by shunting the player around he cannot settle into combinations, defensive patterns etc, and a couple of blunders can severely dent the players confidence.
I will use cricket as an example of this. Ashwell Prince is a good middle order batsman, solid dependable, and able to build an innings, all good qualities needed for an opener, so when SA needed an opener they turned to Prince. That exeperiment was a disaster, because Prince, in an unfamiliar position in the batting order, was firstly not as confident as he could be, and secondly, got a few really good balls that found him wanting. As a result he has not been a good experiment at thye top of the order.
By the same token, we cannot expect a player who is a 9 or a 10, to be as good in other positions as his favoured position. That player should be played in his favoured position because if he is experiencing a good run of form, and he needs to move in order to accomodate an emergency, he brings that confidence with him. But a player who plays 9 today, 10 tomorrow, and then 15 the following week, we will see a player lose confidence, and ultimately bring the teams confidence down. Versatility cannot and must not be confused with positional roulette.
Snoek,
Having had many discussions surrounding this issue there is no doubt it is more of an out-of-the-box approach to something in modern rugby.
It definitely challenges conventional wisdom.
But it is a fascinating topic.
Lions,
Versatility cannot and must not be confused with positional roulette.
Bravo.
I would suggest that versatility must be a given for a player that sits on the bench. Seven players that covers 15 players on the field dictates that those players must be multi-talented.
Also when you guys get your head around this, consider the following which has become trends in modern rugby when assessing players…
PLayers today are largely assessed on the ‘impact’ they make for whatever time they spend on the field.
This can be broken down or analysed very scientifically but in our terms, also has a huge bearing on a player’s impact practically on the park.
Impacts are measured as positive or negative, also, it is measured in a success or numerical number success scale from 1 to 5 as an example where 1 is average, 5 is exceptional.
This becomes very relevant when one considers something like tackle stats.
I have question for a long time how SuperSport’s tackle stats, or all their other stats are measured.
Schalk Burger for instance is always credited with a tackle stat of let’s say between 10 and 19 tackles a match on average, which is massive.
The impact however measures each tackle from 1 to 5 as an example as to how effective, or what the impact of each tackle was in each situation. So Schalk might make 10 tackles, but only scores 1 point per tackler (10 impact points on his tackle stats).
Francois Louw only makes 3 tackles, but scores 5 for each tackle…
You see where I am going here?
Now coming back to the topic, each player has an impact points system, or their effectiveness is judged on the ‘impact’ they have in each game.
Is it therefore that difficult to imagine, that Ruan (just using him as an example now) can make more of an impact, in only 30 minutes coming on in the last 50 or playing him in the first 40 only of the game than what he could the whole game at 15, 10 or 9?
So this now comes back to where Ruan again has been more effective over the last 5 years as a rugby player, or where he had the most ‘impact’.
Or better yet, where would he make the most ‘impact’, as a specialist 9 or 10, or as a multi-skilled player used specifically for his impact ability?
Also remember, the impact of a player is not only important individually, but also in a team context and team impact score.
Ruan’s impact by just sitting on the bench or covering both 9 and 10 already has an indirect impact on the team score since such a player, allows you to pick your bench or full 22 more strategically covering more bases, with less players.
Fuck I think I lost most guys now!!! 😉
Quite simply, the science of rugby today dictates that you do not pick the best 15 guys and the next best 7 to cover them in case of the shit hitting the fan in a game.
You pick 22 guys that will make the most impact in an individual and team context.
For my money, a guy like Bob Skinstad was a clear cut case of a specialist impact player.
Morne, you are getting very technical now, but there is a sense in your view. I always thought that certain players was at their best as impact players when coming from the bench. Bobby Skinstad was one of those players. The problem is when a good impact players is now seen as a better starter for the team, and then his play, although still good, is not in such high standard as he was as an impact player.
Other examples in my view of these are players like Brent Russel, Ryan Kankowski and Adi Jacobs.
Versatility is a good thing in rugby, and as an example i will use Pierre Spies. This is a guy withe the strenght of a forward who has the speed and step of a back. Now this is versatility, and it is hailed in blue bull country. And if i understand Morne correctly, this, and not where he actually plays, makes him versatile.
Bobby was a great impact player, but was in my mind not an 80 minute player. The biggest impact player we have at the moment must be Earl Rose, and he unfortunately has a negative impact on the team. He might kick a few penalties over, and the odd conversion, but he concedes a lot more through his pathetic defence in an already weak defensive side. And then add to that his brainfarts and he is the oppositions’ greatest impact player.
Snoek,
You got the idea mate.
L4E
I’m very glad that he is not playing for the Sharks. Yes he can do some great things with the ball, and some might see that as being good, but the package over 80 mins is extremely poor. And surely a player like that must have a negative influence on the other players in the team.
8@ Morne – I get it Morne…. fark, you WP okes are strange okes!
Met ander flokken woorde dissie hoeveel jy tekkel nie maar hoe fokken hard en goed jy tekkel… is nie hoeveel keer jy pass nie maar eerder hoe oordeelkundig en korrek jy pass… dissie hoeveel rucks jy slaan nie maar hoe effektief jy elke ruck slaan….. et cettera, et cettera.
We get the picture….
Impak gaan nie oor watse klere jy IMPAK in jou tas om op toer te gaan nie…. hehehehe
Also consider the following;
In rugby you have to have 15 players on the field at all times.
Some are 80 minute players (they have to be) and some will not be 80 minute players.
The 80 minute players will have to sustain, and deliver the necessary impact for 80 minutes which is required of them.
The 30, 40, 50 and 60 minute players will have to come close, or equal the same impact of those you have on for 80 minutes (theoretically speaking but not always practical but this is the goal).
Also, do not confine your thinking to believing impact players are only used at the back end of a match, they are, and should also be used in the first 30, 40, 50 and 60.
Depending on the versatility of your impact players (not the 80 minute players) either starting, or coming from the bench, will directly influence your selections, your in-game and pre-game strategy and tactics.
Danie Rossouw is another example.
Bulk of a tight forward, skills of a loosie.
Danie and Pierre’s versatility is quite different, but their individual and team context impact they will have will be quite similar.
Perhaps I should not get too technical, I am afraid I will lose or deviate from the context of the piece.
GBS,
Bliksem maar julle manne daarbo in die Noorde vat doners lank om te verstaan!!! 😉
17@ Morne – Jy het sopas in 700 paragrawe gesê wat ons laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaankal weet en toepas…. hahahaha
GBS,
Ek voel jammer vir Bulls coaches want dit vat n moer lank artikel en 700 lang paragrawe voordat jy verstaan wat n mens se!!! 🙂
19@ Morne – Nee, ons hou net daarvan as jy baie moet tik…..
Dit wys nou maar net die Kaapse Universiteite speel nie net flokken goeie rugby nie, party mense leer ook iets daar?
#21
Ikeys forever!!!
BTW, van die Os op die Jas, het julle Brok Harris se touchfinder gesien Saterdag? Peter Grant hoef nie te kan skop nie, want ons forwards sal dit sommer VIR hom doen…hehehe
#22
Ikeys are gonna get whipped in the final I’m afraid, I don’t know if it’s the wine or the culture, but Maties is having a Stormer!
Dont count your chickens too sooon…
Ikeys was the only team to give Maties a good go this year, losing by some piss-poor kicking missing about 5 kicks at goal and leaving 3 tries on the park on the try-line through knocks.
And then only losing in Stellenbosch in the last minute and movement of the game…
Schalk on the Brok kick:
“We send him to kicking practice because we don’t want him to pass the ball in the 22!”
Let’s start at the beginning…
I believe in the best 15 specialised players (in their specific positions) who will make the biggest impact (in their positions) as your starting 15 on the park….. amplified by 7 players in the squad of 22, who when and if they are used, will not weaken the presence on the field and who might just enhance the team’s performance on the field at a given situation.
To my mind these “Bench” players should be the more versatile utility players who can slot into more than 1 position as the game dictates.
Insisting that ALL players are multiskilled utility forwards or backs is what I have a problem with, there I say the preference should clearly be on the specialist in his starting position.
Stuffing multiskilled players from pillar to post, is in my mind more than a sin, it is criminal!
Brent Russel is a prime example, Ruan too… Fransie Steyn….. we can name the hordes of them and all weep, because so much talent went to waste…. and 2 of the 3 mentioned now sit overseas for exactly this reason!
GBS,
Why did it go to waste?
Because they were multi skilled or because their skills were not used effectively?
Is the problem here being multi-skilled or versatile, or coaches and teams not having the ability to utilise this?
And I disagree with you on one very fundamental point.
You still look at rugby as a 15 man team, with 7 subs.
To me, rugby has definately become a 22 man game.
There is little to no difference between who wears jersey 1 to 15, and 16 to 22.
‘Versatility’ is goed. Die Stormers doen goed daarmee: Brock kan nou losskakel speel met daardie skopvoet van hom !
#27
I don’t know what Morne has to say about that, but I still don’t think that you are getting the point.
Multi-skilled players and utility players are more than often not the same thing.
I think that the talking centres more around the amount of skill-sets each player possess. For instance De Wet Barry, who was a hard-running, no nonsense defending centre, however, should he make a tackle, more often than not, he’d also steal the ball in the same movement. In other words, he was a specialist centre, but he also possessed some flanker skills which allowed him to better his overall play.
In other words, by acquiring skills, not necessarily used in your position, you are adding worth to your overall ability as a player.
Think Gio Aplon, a wing that can kick, tackle, take high balls, and attack with the same measure of effectiveness. With him in your team, you are essentially playing two fullbacks, without losing out on a wing.
Bismarck Du Plessis & Andries Bekker, rucks and mauls as good as any tight forward, but frequently gets down and wins the turnover as well, freeing up the loose forwards to be more places than usual. Bekker also makes 60% more tackles than any other lock in the world, taking pressure off other players in the team.
I think this is the point Morne is trying to make, each player needs to be more effective than what the rugby public expects of his position. They need to be more versatile and have more skills, which will benefit any team.
I think Jake White had a bit of that idea when he said, there is no such a thing as a fetcher, because everyone in the team should compete for the ball. Yes, it was a skewed verdict, but the message therein remains valid.
Users Online
Total 58 users including 0 member, 58 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,635,630 Page Impressions
_