The Six Nations title is still theoretically on the line entering the final weekend. But, let’s be honest, if France display the same power against Scotland as they did against Ireland in Dublin there is only one probable outcome. Even minus the unfortunate Antoine Dupont, now facing a long lay-off because of damaged knee ligaments, France have frightening reserves of strength and depth.
How good, for example, was the young back-row forward Oscar Jégou after he arrived off the bench to replace the centre Pierre-Louis Barassi? The 21-year-old from La Rochelle did not simply make a try-scoring impact; he made every specialist centre in the competition shift uneasily in their seats. Why bother with a subtle, ball-playing 12 or 13 when you have a 6ft 3in Superman who makes old-school positional orthodoxies redundant?
There was another such example at Twickenham on Sunday. Three English backs were among those trying to stop Ross Vintcent, the Italian No 8, as he surged away for his first-half try and none came close to catching him. Think about that for a moment: a 100kg back-row forward proving too quick for the fastest backline players in England.
So far, so eye-catching. Pace and power are key ingredients at rugby’s top level, particularly when poured into the same individual. Versatility is also increasingly important in today’s game. Dupont had been training at 13 in the event of his team needing to deploy him in midfield. His all-round ability, along with that of Maxime Lucu, meant France could get away with their forward-loaded 7–1 bench.
South Africa have already been there, having pioneered the whole 7–1 concept. Fair play to Rassie Erasmus for having the courage and personnel to make it work, most notably in the World Cup final itself. A calculated risk? Of course but, as with France at the weekend, it paid off. If you have the cattle and the laws allow it, why not deploy as much prime beef on the field as possible?
As with all the best ideas, though, everyone else now wants to do likewise. These days if a coach names anything less than a 6–2 split it almost feels like a pre-match admission of weakness. We increasingly live in the era of the power athlete where, more than ever, a good big ’un trumps a good little ’un.
Which, up to a point, is fine. Remove the physicality from rugby and it loses one of its core components. Power to the people, the survival of the fittest etc etc. There is, however, just one small snag. If nothing is done to address the jumbo-sized elephant in the room the shape of the game is destined to change for ever.
Because this is not just about “penalising” France or South Africa or standing stubbornly before the tanks of innovation. It is about looking five or 10 years into the future and asking how rugby wants to be perceived. If people are happy with 15 forwards and a maximum of eight specialist backs in a 23-strong matchday squad, so be it. But, at the same time, those people also need to recognise how significantly that tilts the playing field in other less immediately obvious ways.
Again, to be crystal clear, this is not about undermining the Springboks or the French. And nor is it entirely about prioritising player safety. There is some research pointing to fewer injuries when fresh bodies are on the field towards the end of a game than there is when fatigue is involved. As poor Dupont and Ollie Lawrence both discovered, bad injuries can be sustained inside the first half-hour as well.
But what about those countries with shallower resources from which to choose? Or normal-sized fly-halves and centres who, up until now, have survived by virtue of their subtler attacking skills? What if there are no longer any “mismatches” left to exploit because the opposition entirely consists of fast-moving, breakdown-hungry giants with a further fresh battalion lurking on the bench?
after newsletter promotion
Some of us have been standing up for the Davids against the Goliaths for a while. How interesting, then, to hear Donncha O’Callaghan on the BBC Rugby Union Weekly podcast also reflecting on Saturday’s game in Dublin as “a defining day for rugby” because of the souped-up French bench’s colossal impact. Scotland’s head coach Gregor Townsend, once a game-breaking fly-half himself, has also been addressing the issue. “Where do we think the game might end up?” he asked, rhetorically, querying whether a minimum number of reserve backs could be part of the solution.
The answer to his first question, assuming the present trend continues, is not a million miles from American Football or rugby league. Which, again, is fine as long as audiences, administrators, players and coaches really want that. But as the balance of power tilts ever more towards the big men – whether they be forwards or backs or modern hybrids – and further away from the creative types, the guardians of the sport have a straightforward choice.
Either they regard Saturday as a glorious blueprint for everyone at all levels to pursue in future. Or they opt, without delay, to take another look at the regulations around replacements, either by allowing just six of the eight reserves to be utilised or, as with specialist front rowers, requiring both teams to field at least three recognised backs. The monster packs of South Africa and France will probably still dominate but at least it will be a fairer fight.
This is an extract taken from our weekly rugby union email, the Breakdown. To sign up, just visit this page and follow the instructions.
