The key is in the pack

Some things in rugby will never change, will they?

The basics are the basics, are the basics, are the basics…

In a discussion just the other day the question of the current England team’s No1 ranking came up and whether they could go on to win the World Cup next year.

While happy to concede the outstanding properties of Martin Johnson and his men I made the comment that I would like to see how they go against a team able to get their pack under pressure.

Understand, this was not just me being a wise guy. Many years of watching and reporting on the game have convinced me of one of those basics – the team with the most dominant pack will more times than not win the match.

I made the point that while Jonny Wilkinson deserved a lot of credit for transforming England and that Jason Robinson had brought an exciting new dimension the real secret to their success was that pack of their’s.

Props who scrummage, a hooker who joins them at the coalface and throws in accurately, locks who concentrate on their primary functions and a well-balanced loose trio consisting of a flyer, a worker and an orthodox No8.

Johnson and his men are aggressive, they tackle hard and they get numbers to the ball. They provide Wilkinson with controlled possession and they make few mistakes.

So, I was making the point that if you can knock them out of kilter, their composure might start to break up. And it did. Against France. The Tricolores were as tough and forceful as Johnson and his men, they were as big and as strong, they closed down the spaces and they tackled tough.

Call it an inability to bully, if you will, but England were unable to impose their will on the forward exchanges and the upshot was another Grand Slam letdown.

I have argued for some time that part of the Springboks’ woes can be traced to the fact that our forwards have lost that mystique that used to frighten other teams. The reputation that caused Colin Meads to admiringly refer to the Boks as “tough bastards” is no longer and we have struggled because of the fading of this intimidation factor.

And, by that circuitous route, we arrive at the Brumbies.

The men from Canberra have fascinated me – especially in the last two years in which they have topped the log.

They have taken ball retention to previously unheard of levels and in spite of all the video analysis available to other teams none seem able to decipher what it is that makes the Brumbies so exceptional.

Inevitably one’s attention goes to George Gregan’s generalship or Stephen Larkham’s unorthodoxy but perhaps I’ve been looking in the wrong place. The key is in the pack.

The Brumbies have developed a system of close support which I believe rests not on the premise of beating a man or sucking someone in but on keeping in touch with networks of close support.

What they have done is perfect the triangles or diamonds of support that Izak van Heerden, the great Natal coach who is considered the father of Argentine rugby, advocated in the 50s and 60s.

The Brumbies have other little quirks – such as the way they rip the ball to ground rather trying to hold it up because they know there are always two or more men ready to come in either side of it – but most of all their success is based on the competency of their forwards and their confidence that they can protect the ball.

It struck me this weekend that the Brumbies are never out-scrummed, they very seldom lose their own lineout ball and with George Smith in the van they rarely get beaten to the loose ball.

So, to beat them you have to beat their forwards. You have to force them back, with power in the set-pieces and strong hit-the-man-back tackling, and you have to close down the spaces. They key is to make them struggle to win and keep the ball, to make them turn… and what’s so new about that?