LONG READ Is it time to rethink the 23-player matchday squad?

Injuries, long-term player welfare concerns, the need for specialist replacements in every position in the front row. If there is one area where the world of professional rugby continues to walk a tightrope, and every footfall needs to land with extra care, it is in the availability of bench replacements.

Traditionalist or ‘amateur’ thinking tends to rebuff the tactical use of the bench, saving the pine for injury replacement only. These are the comments of ex-England and British & Irish Lions hooker Brian Moore in The Daily Telegraph:

“How many forwards does it take to win a game at the very highest levels of rugby? This used to be a simple question; it was eight.

“With the current trend of coaches picking a substitutes bench with a 6-2 or even 7-1 split of forwards and backs, the answer could be anything between eight and 15.

“Restricting the number of substitutes, or banning them save for injury, is one way of forcing players to train to play for longer periods and to shed bulk for aerobic capacity.

“We are heading for a point where certain levels of rugby are not for all shapes and sizes, unless you mean the shape and size is huge and heavy.”

In the aftermath of the Springboks’ crushing 35-7 pre-World Cup victory over the All Blacks at Twickenham last August, ex-Scotland and Waratahs coach Matt Williams repeated the same criticism in the Off the Ball Monday Night Rugby podcast. Springbok coach Rassie Erasmus had added an extra forward to the South African bench to create a 7-1 split.

“The bench came in for safety reasons. People didn’t come on for positions they weren’t trained for so we weren’t putting back-rowers in the front-row. Everything was done for a reason.

“[South Africa] had seven forwards [on the bench against New Zealand]. Seven forwards… really? Seriously? And World Rugby has just got to act on this.

“The way you fix it is to say: ‘you must have three recognised backs on your bench’. And that stops it.”

🗣 “It is not safe!”

🗣 “I have no criticism for South Africa or Rassie, because it’s legal.”

🗣 “The responsibility is on World Rugby.”

Matt Williams speaks strongly on rugby’s sub laws after South Africa brought six forwards on in one go against Ireland. #SAvIRE pic.twitter.com/5wkAHsGaS7

— Virgin Media Sport (@VMSportIE) July 7, 2024

From the traditionalist perspective, you need an eight-man bench to cover potential injuries to ‘specialists’: three in the front row, one apiece for the second and back rows up front; a scrum-half, a midfielder and an outside back behind.

From the more progressive or mature professional point of view, contact sports have evolved well beyond the needs of safety, to include a sophisticated network of tactical substitutions. American football matchday squads feature 53-man rosters divided among offence, defence and special teams, with players routinely replaced on a play-by-play basis according to the situation on the field.

Rugby league currently permits an 18-player matchday squad [13 starters, with four substitutes and a fifth mooted specifically for HIAs]. In Australia’s NRL, the number of possible interchanges currently sits at eight but that figure has been as high as 12. It is an important marketing tool. Fans love the tactical nuances of the interchange system in league. It stimulates interest in the game and creates a conversation in the age of social media.

The flip side of the traditionalist rugby view was reinforced by the comments of ex-Great Britain legend, turned Sky Sports pundit Sam Tompkins:

“I can’t see the benefit in having [only] four subs. If you have got 32 players fit, get them all kitted up, and let them sit in the stand.

“Rather than the game getting lost or won, if you lose a half-back after [only] five minutes, have as many as you want [on the bench]. We want the best product possible.

“Is it just tradition? I don’t know. The amount of interchanges has changed over the years. I think [it is best to] have everyone available, and as many fit, fresh players on the pitch as possible.”

The second round Rugby Championship match between South Africa and Australia brought fresh attention to the ‘pine problem’, with the Wallabies running out of loose-heads props in only the 48^th minute of the second half due to injuries to Angus Bell and James Slipper. Uncontested scrums were the order of the day thereafter.

In the process, Australia were gifted an unexpected advantage which it failed to exploit. South Africa’s superiority at scrum-time was completely neutered, and when hooker Josh Nasser departed only six minutes later with persistent cramp, the Wallabies were free to add 6ft 6ins of Seru Uru to their pack. With no need to push in the scrums as a proper prop, Uru was free as a bird to jump in the lineout and run around like a gazelle in the open.

There is a sweet balancing spot in the middle of the see-saw, between the extremes. The 2023 Rugby World Cup squads were restricted to 33 players, with the world champions splitting their original squad between 19 forwards and 14 backs.

Let’s take Tompkins’ suggestion to build our bouillabaisse, by allowing 33 players to kit out and sit in the stand as potential replacements at the beginning of the game. Now let’s add a touch of the Moore/Williams red hot chilli pepper to spice our sauce rouille, by reducing the number of interchanges to six per game.

With five props [one of whom should be able to cover both sides of the scrum] and three potential hookers, there is ample injury cover to avoid the unwanted spin-offs from uncontested scrums. The restrictions applied to the number of interchanges would then govern:

• Injuries
• Tactical substitutions
• Yellow and red/orange cards

With both injury replacements and cards counting as an interchange, the tactical options are more constrained despite the wider range of possibilities on the bench. Once all the six interchanges have been used, all subsequent injuries and cards would result in a permanent reduction to 14 players.

This middle ground is a generous one: there are 18 potential bench options and all injuries will be covered by a specialist, but there is still plenty of scope for tactical substitutions. The interchange restrictions mean the coach needs to choose his moment wisely and factor indiscipline into the equation as well.

No uncontested scrums, increased tactical options for the coach and more punitive sanctions for cards issued. It is the best of all possible worlds, and it would avoid the inequities of the last half-hour in Perth. The Wallabies had a golden opportunity to uncork a few special moves under no pressure at the set-piece, and lift the spirits of the Western Australian crowd.

As ex-All Black Mils Muliaina explained on The Breakdown:

“You do not want to see that footage of the ‘Golden Oldie’ scrums, but they are all Australian feeds.

“They are getting front-foot ball, they are getting quality ball. So, [it] is a lot tougher to defend [for South Africa] because they are getting that pill.

“I think Australia are in dire straits.

“[With] ten changes, [the Springboks] didn’t play as well as they could have and still won convincingly.

“If there were contested scrums, they probably would have won by more.”

There were three major opportunities for the Wallabies to engage their fan-base and flash some creativity from scrum attacks in that last half-hour at the Optus stadium. The first occurred just after Billy Pollard had come on for James Slipper, and uncontested scrums had been called.

 

There is a nice opportunity to move the ball to the wide side of the field, where three quick outside backs [“1” Andrew Kellaway, “2” Tom Wright and “3” Max Jorgensen] are lurking, while Springbok left wing Makazole Mapimpi is playing well off the line to defend the depth of the field. Either a skip pass from Noah Lolesio, or even a kick-pass straight to Jorgensen would pay dividends, but the Wallabies choose to pump the ball high into the rain-sodden sky instead.

They had another chance from an even better position almost immediately afterwards.

 

With the defensive scrum-half forced to drop off and unable to ‘chase to the base’ under the new trial law, and Mapimpi again defending deep on the left edge, Australia could use a number 8 pick-up by Harry Wilson to create an extra man in the attack and narrow the Springbok line before releasing Jorgensen down the right.

The potential for a number eight pick-up was also the theme of a third attacking scrum in the 69^th minute.

 

The combination of a pick by Bobby Valetini at the base, with both Tate McDermott and Marika Koroibete breaking back down the short-side, would leave the single Springbok defender [Cheslin Kolbe] hard-pressed indeed to prevent a try, but the Wallabies look pre-programmed to play rather mechanically in the other direction. First Koroibete trucks the ball up for no gain, then Lukhan Salakaia-Loto fumbles on the next play.

The game between Australia and South Africa in Perth highlighted the need for a rethink on the rules surrounding substitutions. The existing guidelines requiring uncontested scrums after the departure of both Wallaby loose-head props created some confusion in the officiating crew and led to a lopsided situation which should have favoured Australia, after the replacement of a front-rower with a back-rower in the 54^th minute.

A full 33-man matchday squad, with 18 players on the bench, would permit more specialist substitutions with no loss of game-shape. A restriction on the number of interchanges [to six, or eight at most] would preserve tactical option-choosing while keeping starting players on the field for longer.

The Wallabies were unable to exploit the loopholes and new ELVs to their advantage. They had a scrum which could not be pressurised, a number eight who could pick up the ball under no duress at the base, and brand-new million-dollar man to finish on the wing. It is a scenario the likes of Rod Macqueen would have recognised, and relished, but that is 25 years ago now.