Giants of the midfield – the rise of the 100kg inside centre in rugby

Over the past few decades the bodyweight of international rugby players has been consistently increasing. In the main such increases have occurred gradually, a reflection of improvements in resistance training and nutrition which have enabled hypertrophy gains without sacrificing speed and mobility.

A comparatively recent development, however, seems to be a deliberate preference for the use of very heavy players in the backline, most notably in the inside centre position. This would appear to reflect a fundamental rethinking of the role of the 12. Consider the following table showing the body weights of midfielders used by major countries in the European Autumn internationals:

Body Weights of Tri Nations and 6 Nations Midfielders - Nov 2010

	Five-eighths		Inside Centres		Outside Centres
Australia	Cooper	84	Barnes	88	Ashley-Cooper	98
England	Flood	91	Hape	102	Banahan	115
France	Traille	100	Jauzion	105	Rougerie	104
Ireland	Sexton	92	D'Arcy	93	O'Driscoll	95
Italy	Orquera	78	Sgarbi	101	Canale	94
New Zealand	Carter	92	Nonu	102	Smith	95
Scotland	Parks	91	Morrison	103	Ansbro	92
South Africa	Steyn	88	de Villiers	100	Steyn	100
Wales	Biggar	90	Bishop	93	Hook	92
Data from espnscrum.com site

The table lists players in the 10, 12 and 13 positions for the nine Tri Nations and 6 Nations teams in matches played on the 19th and 20th of November. It can be seen that six of the nine inside centres weighed 100kg or more. Only three outside centres and one five-eighth met that weight standard.

Of the sub-100kg 12s, D’Arcy of Ireland and Bishop of Wales each weighed 93kg while the Australian Barnes weighed only 88kg. Significantly the Wallabies have also played the 85kg Giteau at 12 on this tour while the All Blacks have made use of the 108kg Williams.

Traditionally the 12 was the more thick set of the two centres although by no means a huge player. He could play a crash ball type game but also had the speed and agility to be able to exploit gaps. He was expected to be a very solid defender who could cover if necessary for the less robust 10.

Reflecting its labelling of the 10 and 12 positions as first five-eighth and second five-eighth, New Zealand pioneered the practice of replacing a conventional inside centre with a player whose skill set and experience were those of a 10. More recently there has been a general tendency and expectation for five-eighths to attack the line rather than playing an essentially “white shorts” game. Having two light-framed players side by side each attempting to explore gaps encourages a very aggressive defensive reaction.

Possibly because of this many countries, including New Zealand, have gone back to a more conventional inside centre but with the important difference that these players are now very large and physically imposing. The notable exception to this trend is Australia.

The Deans experiment

Robbie Deans has now been coaching the Wallabies for just under three years. I have previously written about the physical conditioning regime which Deans and his strength and conditioning coach Peter Harding have implemented (“The Wallabies – sprinters not stayers”). But it is the type of backline structure and play that he has been developing that will distinguish his tenure as national coach.

As can be seen from the table below, when Deans took the Wallabies to Europe in 2008 their body weight and age profiles were little different to what they were two years previously. Two years later the average body weight and average age of the backs have declined dramatically:

Body Weight and Age Statistics - Wallabies 2006 to 2010

	2006 Squad	2008 vs. England (Nov)	2010 vs. England (Nov)
Average body weight (kg)	102.6	102.1	99.7
Average body weight - forwards	111.1	110.6	110.3
Average body weight - backs	91.8	92.4	87.6
Average age (yrs)	26.1	26.6	25.1
Average age - forwards		26.8	26.4
Average age - backs		26.4	23.6
2006 data from “Building bigger and stronger rugby players – the Sydney University experiment”; 2008 and 2010 data from espnscrum.com.site

The 2010 backs are on average 4.8kg lighter than those of 2008 and 2.8 years younger. The inside centre on the earlier tour was Stirling Mortlock who at 100kg was 15kg heavier than his successor Matt Giteau. During his tenure Deans has taken on tour quite a number of very young and small backs while ignoring or discarding heavier and more robust players. His desire to groom such players creates a potential imbalance which would seem to be reflected in the figures in the table.

Typically his backlines contain four players who would be classed as playmakers and inevitably the 12 position is filled by a back-up five-eighth. Having a small 12 and multiple playmakers in the one backline may prove to be an inspired strategy, although it hasn’t yet yielded obvious dividends. Clearly this approach is at odds with the current thinking of the other leading nations who all appear to have identified the inside centre position as requiring a very big player. Presumably next year’s World Cup will determine which approach prevails.
Read more...

Are Deans's Wallabies physically conditioned to last 80 minutes?

While there were some very encouraging signs in the Wallabies' performance against England in Perth it is significant that the home side was not able to build on their 14 point lead at half time and in fact lost the second half. This continues a quite worrying trend.

Last year there was intense speculation over the causes of the poor performance of the Wallabies during the Deans era, but one issue that has not been raised is whether their training has been appropriate for the intense physical demands of modern international rugby.

One indication that something is seriously wrong is the fact that the team has very frequently squandered a first-half lead. Of course there are so many factors that can influence how a game plays out that not much can be read into the scores in a particular game. The effects of long distance travel or a country fielding an under-strength team can have a major impact on the pattern of scoring.

However in contests between Australia and New Zealand distance is not really a relevant factor and both nations always endeavour to select their strongest team, so these matches provide an ideal environment to search for consistent patterns evident over a number of matches. Let's look at the last ten matches played between these countries prior to Robbie Deans taking over as coach. Australia is listed first with the first half scoreline, second half scoreline and overall result shown for each match.

15 Nov 03 13-7 W, 9-3 W, 22-10 W
17 Jul 04 0-3 L, 7-13 L, 7-16 L
7 Aug 04 12-12 D, 11-6 W, 23-18 W
13 Aug 05 13-3 W, 0-27 L, 13-30 L
3 Sep 05 5-20 L, 19-14 W, 24-34 L
8 Jul 06 7-14 L, 5-18 L, 12-32 L
29 Jul 06 6-10 L, 3-3 D, 9-13 L
19 Aug 06 20-11 W, 7-23 L, 27-34 L
30 Jun 07 6-15 L, 14-0 W, 20-15 W
21 Jul 07 9-9 D, 3-17 L, 12-26 L

It can be seen that the Wallabies won 3 of the first halves, drew 2 and lost 5. They won 4 second halves, drew 1 and lost 5. Overall they won 3 games and lost 7.

Now let's look at the stats for the eight Wallabies-All Blacks games since Deans has taken over:

26 Jul 08 17-12 W, 17-7 W, 34-19 W
2 Aug 08 10-21 L, 0-18 L, 10-39 L
13 Sep 08 10-3 W, 14-25 L, 24-28 L
1 Nov 08 14-9 W, 0-10 L, 14-19 L
18 Jul 09 13-10 W, 3-12 L, 16-22 L
22 Aug 09 12-3 W, 6-16 L, 18-19 L
19 Sep 09 6-16 L, 0-17 L, 6-33 L
31 Oct 09 16-13 W, 3-19 L, 19-32 L

Here we see that the Wallabies won an impressive 6 out of 8 first halves, but lost 7 out of 8 second halves and 7 out of 8 matches! Once the Deans coaching team had settled in, i.e., after the first Bledisloe match in July 2008, their team has lost very second half and every match. This looks like something more than random chance. The most likely culprit would seem to be inappropriate physical conditioning.
Read more...

Too old at 30 - Australian rugby's "scrapheap" policy

The Australian rugby coach and his selectors appear to be following a quite deliberate policy of favouring emerging players over those with significant international playing experience. One consequence of this is that the Australian Super 14 franchises are being denuded of senior players who traditionally mentor and guide those who are just learning their craft.

In the Test against Ireland, the Wallabies do not have a single player aged 30 or more in their starting fifteen. Their opponents have eight, a majority of the team! The average age of our 22-man squad is 25.2 years; theirs is 27.5. Our oldest starter is 28.

Consider the average age of the most recent teams of the top ten rugby countries, i.e., Tri-Nations, Six Nations plus Argentina. Every other side's players are more than a year older than the Wallabies. And every other country has two or more starting players who are at least 30 years old.

Rugby is an unusually complex game. It takes players years to achieve real competency. And yet we are seeing a new generation of talented youngsters rushed from school into professional football and then on to the international level. A minority manage to establish themselves at the top, but I wonder whether even they achieve their full potential. In their development years they should be playing in an environment where they can dominate instead of one where they constantly struggle to survive.

Because of the centralised control of the sport by the ARU, the premature discarding of experienced players has extremely adverse impacts at the Super 14 levels and even down through the clubs. The central body dictates how much players can be paid by the franchises who are basically mendicants surviving on handouts from the centre. It is therefore only those players who are on ARU contracts who earn large incomes. Once taken off the national list players have little choice but to round out their careers in Europe or in the Bermuda Triangle of Japanese rugby.

The effect of this is that all their accumulated wisdom and experience is lost to their Super 14 teams and their clubs; basically to Australian rugby. And then people say that we don't have a large enough talent pool in Australia. The main way in which the great minds who control our sport have dealt with this problem is to buy in so-called rugby league marquee players who then spend years trying to master the fundamentals of our sport. How can young players benefit by playing with extravagantly paid blow-ins who know vastly less than they do?

It has been observed that rugby is basically war without the guns. When you're forced to slog it out in the trenches, who would you want with you? A grizzled battle-scarred veteran or an over-excited kid who believes all the hype and publicity generated about him. Small wonder that we can't string wins together.

Read more...