Trim the bench to bring back those mismatches
Don’t you just love it when Eddie Jones throws a handgrenade to get the rest of the world talking about an issue. His latest cause celebre surrounds the use of replacements and how rugby finds a way to create more space for attacking play. Well, for once, this Welshman is with him on the call to reduce the number of subs.
No doubt still miffed at the way the Springboks overpowered his England side in last year’s Rugby World Cup final in Japan by changing their whole front five during the contest, he now wants to speed up the game by reducing the number of replacements and seems to believe that making the piano lifters play longer will tire them out and help to create some space.
This extends a theme that Nigel Owens has often talked about. He believes the introduction of fresh forwards into a game in which other, smaller players are beginning to tire creates a risk of injury. If you put the two thoughts together there seems to me to be a valid argument for taking a long, hard look at the number of replacements that are permitted in the game.
When you look at a boxing match, the fighters work to the body to try to take the defensive guard away from the head to give them a shot at the knock-out punch. It is pretty similar in rugby. The props work for an advantage against their opposite number, yet find they are up against a fresh rival after less than an hour.
That often means all bets are off in the battle for supremacy at scrum time. It also means that the mismatches being sought after by the backs are ruled out. Fresh legs mean space is cut down and the wings don’t have a tight-head prop to run at who is blowing out of his backside.
We’ve all heard the phrase that modern day rugby is a “23 man game”, but what if we went back to it being an 18, 19 or 20 man game. Perplayed haps it should be a game, once again, where only injured players can be replaced.
That might be a bit extreme, and would obviously upset the players who had their chances of winning a cap limited, but it is perhaps a better debate to be had looking to reduce numbers, rather than go down the Rugby League route of permitting up to ten inter-changes during a game.
I loved nothing better than trying to find a mismatch on the field, a stray forward with a dead leg, dodgy shoulder and with fear in his eyes. Spot them, beat them and it’s try time!
But when that tight-head hasn’t
for the previous 60 minutes and, instead, is full of energy having just come on two minutes earlier, it is a totally different contest. Eddie has changed the way in which we look at the replacements bench, calling his subs ‘Finishers’. But why don’t we give the ‘Starters’ more of a chance to finish the whole job?
It would be interesting to see how far back we have to go to find the last international game in which no replacements were used.
Replacements came into the game 52 years ago and Mike Gibson became the first player to be used as a substitute in the first Test on the 1968 Lions tour in South Africa.
When he came on to take over from Barry John, who had broken his collar bone, it took 14 minutes for him to join the game. He wasn’t allowed to change before the game and had to wait for the doctor’s signal from the sideline to indicate that Barry couldn’t continue. Only then was he allowed to go down into the dressing room, get changed and run on without even a hint of a warm-up.
Nobody would advocate a return to those dark and dangerous days, but changing all ten forwards in the front two rows of both packs, as so often happens these days, is probably equally as extreme.
If that wasn’t allowed then maybe the front five forwards wouldn’t be as big or as powerful and might have to work even harder on their fitness.
“Perhaps rugby should be a game, once again, where only injured players can be replaced”