6:2 split

All things Rugby
Post Reply
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 33653
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

6:2 split

Post by Ali's Choice »

I've noticed that it's becoming increasingly common for Super Rugby Aotearoa teams to name a 6:2 split on their reserves bench. Personally I'm not a fan of this, as I think it's taking an unnecessary risk. Perhaps I'm just too risk averse, or perhaps I still have PTSD from watching Matt Todd play for 45 minutes on the wing a few years ago for the Crusaders in South Africa after a spate of first half injuries left the team without enough backs?

Clearly coaches feel that they get better value with an extra forward - usually a loose forward - on the bench. SR Aotearoa has been very attritional and clearly this is impacting on selection.

My big concern is that it's also highlighting the lack of quality first fives in NZ at the moment. If you look at the teams who play a 6:2 split, it's generally the reserve first-five that misses out. This not only shows that we have a worrying shortage of quality 10's in NZ, but it will also exacerbate the problem into the future because we aren't exposing young 10's to Super Rugby level footy. This will come back to bite us on the arse if we aren't careful.
User avatar
Sensible Stephen
Posts: 3218
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Sensible Stephen »

Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:26 am I've noticed that it's becoming increasingly common for Super Rugby Aotearoa teams to name a 6:2 split on their reserves bench. Personally I'm not a fan of this, as I think it's taking an unnecessary risk. Perhaps I'm just too risk averse, or perhaps I still have PTSD from watching Matt Todd play for 45 minutes on the wing a few years ago for the Crusaders in South Africa after a spate of first half injuries left the team without enough backs?

Clearly coaches feel that they get better value with an extra forward - usually a loose forward - on the bench. SR Aotearoa has been very attritional and clearly this is impacting on selection.

My big concern is that it's also highlighting the lack of quality first fives in NZ at the moment. If you look at the teams who play a 6:2 split, it's generally the reserve first-five that misses out. This not only shows that we have a worrying shortage of quality 10's in NZ, but it will also exacerbate the problem into the future because we aren't exposing young 10's to Super Rugby level footy. This will come back to bite us on the arse if we aren't careful.
I don't like it either. Do we go down the path of mandating that 3 back reserves are required, just like they do for front row forwards?
User avatar
LandOTurk
Posts: 14881
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: 6:2 split

Post by LandOTurk »

Seems like the effect the B&I Lions left on your shores when we went heavy up front. Gats nearly always goes 6:2.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 33653
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Ali's Choice »

Sensible Stephen wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:28 am
Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:26 am I've noticed that it's becoming increasingly common for Super Rugby Aotearoa teams to name a 6:2 split on their reserves bench. Personally I'm not a fan of this, as I think it's taking an unnecessary risk. Perhaps I'm just too risk averse, or perhaps I still have PTSD from watching Matt Todd play for 45 minutes on the wing a few years ago for the Crusaders in South Africa after a spate of first half injuries left the team without enough backs?

Clearly coaches feel that they get better value with an extra forward - usually a loose forward - on the bench. SR Aotearoa has been very attritional and clearly this is impacting on selection.

My big concern is that it's also highlighting the lack of quality first fives in NZ at the moment. If you look at the teams who play a 6:2 split, it's generally the reserve first-five that misses out. This not only shows that we have a worrying shortage of quality 10's in NZ, but it will also exacerbate the problem into the future because we aren't exposing young 10's to Super Rugby level footy. This will come back to bite us on the arse if we aren't careful.
I don't like it either. Do we go down the path of mandating that 3 back reserves are required, just like they do for front row forwards?
I wouldn't mind a mandate. It would be hard to justify from a safety point of view, which was the rationale for the prop mandate. Frankly if coaches want to take an unnecessary risk then that's their business, but I'm sure any Crusaders fan who watched the Matt Todd game I spoke of in the OP would recognise the risk of naming just two backs on the bench. We actually had three backs reserves that day and still got caught out. I just worry that we're stunting the development of the next generation of young no.10's.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 33653
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Ali's Choice »

LandOTurk wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:32 am Seems like the effect the B&I Lions left on your shores when we went heavy up front. Gats nearly always goes 6:2.
It's only really happened this year, so I would disagree that this is a hangover of the 2017 Lions tour. Moreover I don't think Warren Gatland, with his winless 0-8 Super Rugby Aotearoa record, is starting many coaching trends in NZ at this point in time.
Last edited by Ali's Choice on Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Zakar
Posts: 18799
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Haunting your dreams

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Zakar »

Its a gamble, but hopefully its data driven.

I'm also seeing 9s play on the wing late in games to open up the 6-2 opportunity. This year I've seen Frank Lomani, Isaac Fines and Tate McDermott spend time on the wing.
User avatar
Thomas
Posts: 17753
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA!

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Thomas »

Zakar wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:38 am Its a gamble, but hopefully its data driven.

I'm also seeing 9s play on the wing late in games to open up the 6-2 opportunity. This year I've seen Frank Lomani, Isaac Fines and Tate McDermott spend time on the wing.
Tate McDermott is more than handy on the wing. He's quick, can tackle and can pop up as another playmaker.
User avatar
Whatever
Posts: 1285
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Rockyville, Merryland

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Whatever »

Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:26 am I've noticed that it's becoming increasingly common for Super Rugby Aotearoa teams to name a 6:2 split on their reserves bench. Personally I'm not a fan of this, as I think it's taking an unnecessary risk. Perhaps I'm just too risk averse, or perhaps I still have PTSD from watching Matt Todd play for 45 minutes on the wing a few years ago for the Crusaders in South Africa after a spate of first half injuries left the team without enough backs?

Clearly coaches feel that they get better value with an extra forward - usually a loose forward - on the bench. SR Aotearoa has been very attritional and clearly this is impacting on selection.

My big concern is that it's also highlighting the lack of quality first fives in NZ at the moment. If you look at the teams who play a 6:2 split, it's generally the reserve first-five that misses out. This not only shows that we have a worrying shortage of quality 10's in NZ, but it will also exacerbate the problem into the future because we aren't exposing young 10's to Super Rugby level footy. This will come back to bite us on the arse if we aren't careful.
South Africa, in their RWC 2019 win, played 2 locks off the bench in addition to PSDT who is a lock/loosie and plays 80.

The inference in all this is that the balance in 'the game for all sizes' isn't quite right.
User avatar
Peteray
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Peteray »

Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:26 am
My big concern is that it's also highlighting the lack of quality first fives in NZ at the moment. If you look at the teams who play a 6:2 split, it's generally the reserve first-five that misses out. This not only shows that we have a worrying shortage of quality 10's in NZ, but it will also exacerbate the problem into the future because we aren't exposing young 10's to Super Rugby level footy. This will come back to bite us on the arse if we aren't careful.
Certainly, when you think about it, the lineup of 10's around the country does look more like utilities are being 'cultivated.' Hunt and Ioane, Havili, Jordie, Love, DMac, Trask, and Perofeta examples, with only Mounga, and Black fulltime 10's on the go in regular 23 man squads.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 33653
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Ali's Choice »

Whatever wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:55 am
Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:26 am I've noticed that it's becoming increasingly common for Super Rugby Aotearoa teams to name a 6:2 split on their reserves bench. Personally I'm not a fan of this, as I think it's taking an unnecessary risk. Perhaps I'm just too risk averse, or perhaps I still have PTSD from watching Matt Todd play for 45 minutes on the wing a few years ago for the Crusaders in South Africa after a spate of first half injuries left the team without enough backs?

Clearly coaches feel that they get better value with an extra forward - usually a loose forward - on the bench. SR Aotearoa has been very attritional and clearly this is impacting on selection.

My big concern is that it's also highlighting the lack of quality first fives in NZ at the moment. If you look at the teams who play a 6:2 split, it's generally the reserve first-five that misses out. This not only shows that we have a worrying shortage of quality 10's in NZ, but it will also exacerbate the problem into the future because we aren't exposing young 10's to Super Rugby level footy. This will come back to bite us on the arse if we aren't careful.
South Africa, in their RWC 2019 win, played 2 locks off the bench in addition to PSDT who is a lock/loosie and plays 80.
Did they play with a 6:2 split in their pool match loss to the AB's?
User avatar
Zakar
Posts: 18799
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Haunting your dreams

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Zakar »

Thomas wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:00 am
Zakar wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:38 am Its a gamble, but hopefully its data driven.

I'm also seeing 9s play on the wing late in games to open up the 6-2 opportunity. This year I've seen Frank Lomani, Isaac Fines and Tate McDermott spend time on the wing.
Tate McDermott is more than handy on the wing. He's quick, can tackle and can pop up as another playmaker.
All three are more than stop gaps. Isaac Fines has been picked as our wing reserve.

I do think to have a 6-2 you need a loosey that is fast that can plug in emergencies in case three backs go down (which tbf rarely happens). Is Hooper still fast enough?

Apparently Lachlan Longeran is faster than all the inside backs at the brumbies as well as some of the outside backs.
User avatar
Zakar
Posts: 18799
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Haunting your dreams

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Zakar »

Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:57 am
Whatever wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:55 am
Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:26 am I've noticed that it's becoming increasingly common for Super Rugby Aotearoa teams to name a 6:2 split on their reserves bench. Personally I'm not a fan of this, as I think it's taking an unnecessary risk. Perhaps I'm just too risk averse, or perhaps I still have PTSD from watching Matt Todd play for 45 minutes on the wing a few years ago for the Crusaders in South Africa after a spate of first half injuries left the team without enough backs?

Clearly coaches feel that they get better value with an extra forward - usually a loose forward - on the bench. SR Aotearoa has been very attritional and clearly this is impacting on selection.

My big concern is that it's also highlighting the lack of quality first fives in NZ at the moment. If you look at the teams who play a 6:2 split, it's generally the reserve first-five that misses out. This not only shows that we have a worrying shortage of quality 10's in NZ, but it will also exacerbate the problem into the future because we aren't exposing young 10's to Super Rugby level footy. This will come back to bite us on the arse if we aren't careful.
South Africa, in their RWC 2019 win, played 2 locks off the bench in addition to PSDT who is a lock/loosie and plays 80.
Did they play with a 6:2 split in their pool match loss to the AB's?
They didn't, no.

Maybe that was the difference.
towny
Posts: 22987
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: 6:2 split

Post by towny »

Zakar wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:38 am Its a gamble, but hopefully its data driven.

I'm also seeing 9s play on the wing late in games to open up the 6-2 opportunity. This year I've seen Frank Lomani, Isaac Fines and Tate McDermott spend time on the wing.
Lomani starts games on the wing, and Fines played on the wing when there were two specialist halfbacks on the bench.
User avatar
Whatever
Posts: 1285
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Rockyville, Merryland

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Whatever »

Zakar wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 6:13 am
Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:57 am
Whatever wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:55 am
Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:26 am I've noticed that it's becoming increasingly common for Super Rugby Aotearoa teams to name a 6:2 split on their reserves bench. Personally I'm not a fan of this, as I think it's taking an unnecessary risk. Perhaps I'm just too risk averse, or perhaps I still have PTSD from watching Matt Todd play for 45 minutes on the wing a few years ago for the Crusaders in South Africa after a spate of first half injuries left the team without enough backs?

Clearly coaches feel that they get better value with an extra forward - usually a loose forward - on the bench. SR Aotearoa has been very attritional and clearly this is impacting on selection.

My big concern is that it's also highlighting the lack of quality first fives in NZ at the moment. If you look at the teams who play a 6:2 split, it's generally the reserve first-five that misses out. This not only shows that we have a worrying shortage of quality 10's in NZ, but it will also exacerbate the problem into the future because we aren't exposing young 10's to Super Rugby level footy. This will come back to bite us on the arse if we aren't careful.
South Africa, in their RWC 2019 win, played 2 locks off the bench in addition to PSDT who is a lock/loosie and plays 80.
Did they play with a 6:2 split in their pool match loss to the AB's?
They didn't, no.

Maybe that was the difference.
It - 2 locks on the bench - did mark a 'point of difference' of them from other teams in that comp. Is it a strategy for teams dependent on a big tight five, in future? It's not often that SA comes up with something innovative, although it could be argued this was regressing to type.
sunnybanana
Posts: 2268
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: 6:2 split

Post by sunnybanana »

All things being equal, if you’re looking to maximise performance, it makes sense to substitute your 8 most fatigued players.
The obvious reason to have a full fresh tight 5 on the bench is that the starting players in those positions are likely to be the most fatigued players on the park when they come off.
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 13728
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Mog The Almighty »

Zakar wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:38 am Its a gamble, but hopefully its data driven.

I'm also seeing 9s play on the wing late in games to open up the 6-2 opportunity. This year I've seen Frank Lomani, Isaac Fines and Tate McDermott spend time on the wing.
Lomani is more than capable in the wing and has played there plenty. McDermott was a winger before he was a halfback which partly explains why his passing game isn't as polished as some others.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 33653
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Ali's Choice »

The problem with a 6:2 split that I have always had is that's it is risky. You're risking not getting more than two backline injuries, because if you do you'll be forced to play a loose forward in the backline.

Even more than that, it can f**k with your required rotations. It's very rare that a halfback plays 80 mins because of their workload. They will be substituted usually around the 50-60th minute. But if you have an early injury to a backline player you're now limited because if you run with your usual rotation of your 9's, a 2nd backline injury after this rotation means you have no-one left to bring on. So you end up playing a loosie in the backline after just two backline injuries, not three, because you've already rotated your halfback.

I guess coaches will continue to gamble until they get caught out, but to me it just seems unnecessarily risky. Is the benefit of having an extra forward on the bench worth the risk of having to play one of your flankers in the backline for a big chunk of the second half of a game? As Dan54 would say, perhaps I'm not qualified to comment on the risk of a 6:2 split?
User avatar
alliswell
Posts: 10612
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: location, location

Re: 6:2 split

Post by alliswell »

Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:44 am The problem with a 6:2 split that I have always had is that's it is risky. You're risking not getting more than two backline injuries, because if you do you'll be forced to play a loose forward in the backline.

Even more than that, it can f**k with your required rotations. It's very rare that a halfback plays 80 mins because of their workload. They will be substituted usually around the 50-60th minute. But if you have an early injury to a backline player you're now limited because if you run with your usual rotation of your 9's, a 2nd backline injury after this rotation means you have no-one left to bring on. So you end up playing a loosie in the backline after just two backline injuries, not three, because you've already rotated your halfback.

I guess coaches will continue to gamble until they get caught out, but to me it just seems unnecessarily risky. Is the benefit of having an extra forward on the bench worth the risk of having to play one of your flankers in the backline for a big chunk of the second half of a game? As Dan54 would say, perhaps I'm not qualified to comment on the risk of a 6:2 split?
The 6:2 split is really more of a 3:3:2 split. The three front row subs will be required in the front row. Also there are plenty of teams whose half backs play pretty much 80 minutes but that's usually down to the quality of the alternatives.

I'm sure someone has done the numbers on it but I'm not sure there is a greater risk of 3 injuries to your backline than 3 injuries to the back 5 of your pack.

If you've little or no faith in one of your reserve half backs and one of your reserve or starting halfbacks are pretty versatile then it's probably the best use of resources.
User avatar
blindcider
Posts: 8497
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: 6:2 split

Post by blindcider »

alliswell wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:10 am
Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:44 am The problem with a 6:2 split that I have always had is that's it is risky. You're risking not getting more than two backline injuries, because if you do you'll be forced to play a loose forward in the backline.

Even more than that, it can f**k with your required rotations. It's very rare that a halfback plays 80 mins because of their workload. They will be substituted usually around the 50-60th minute. But if you have an early injury to a backline player you're now limited because if you run with your usual rotation of your 9's, a 2nd backline injury after this rotation means you have no-one left to bring on. So you end up playing a loosie in the backline after just two backline injuries, not three, because you've already rotated your halfback.

I guess coaches will continue to gamble until they get caught out, but to me it just seems unnecessarily risky. Is the benefit of having an extra forward on the bench worth the risk of having to play one of your flankers in the backline for a big chunk of the second half of a game? As Dan54 would say, perhaps I'm not qualified to comment on the risk of a 6:2 split?
The 6:2 split is really more of a 3:3:2 split. The three front row subs will be required in the front row. Also there are plenty of teams whose half backs play pretty much 80 minutes but that's usually down to the quality of the alternatives.

I'm sure someone has done the numbers on it but I'm not sure there is a greater risk of 3 injuries to your backline than 3 injuries to the back 5 of your pack.

If you've little or no faith in one of your reserve half backs and one of your reserve or starting halfbacks are pretty versatile then it's probably the best use of resources.
England regularly do the 6:2 split it did catch them out against Ireland when they ended up with Robson at 10 but I think that was more for EJs stupidity/ignorance of the sub rules than an actual need.

With England they usually have a sub on the bench covering 9 and an outside back. In the typical recent squads Ford and Farrell both covering 10, Slade at 13 can cover 12 and 15, Daly can cover FB, wing and Centre, Watson can cover FB and wing, May as we know can expertly cover for backrow. Malins who has been the extra sub can cover 10 and 15. so unless there is an absolute injury-fest there is normally enough cover. It might not be ideal but its easier to cover a backs spot than it is to cover a specialist forward position. If you need that extra cover in extremis its also very possible for a flanker to cover one of the centre spots and still be less of a crowbar than Faz.

I'm not a fan and prefer to see bench spots used for game changing players but I can see the logic
User avatar
DOB
Posts: 20290
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: 6:2 split

Post by DOB »

I’m not a fan of it. Do we need to revert to 7 or even 6 on the bench?

And I know we’d hate to go back to players faking a limp to bring on fresh legs, but the game went from no subs at all; to only if injured; to fcuk it, go ahead and empty your bench; in about a generation. There was never really an effort to find a middle ground of 2-3 tactical subs. So many of these massive players nowadays know (and their coaches know too) that they only have to last 40, or even just 20 if introduced later in the game.
User avatar
DOB
Posts: 20290
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: 6:2 split

Post by DOB »

alliswell wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:10 am
Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:44 am The problem with a 6:2 split that I have always had is that's it is risky. You're risking not getting more than two backline injuries, because if you do you'll be forced to play a loose forward in the backline.

Even more than that, it can f**k with your required rotations. It's very rare that a halfback plays 80 mins because of their workload. They will be substituted usually around the 50-60th minute. But if you have an early injury to a backline player you're now limited because if you run with your usual rotation of your 9's, a 2nd backline injury after this rotation means you have no-one left to bring on. So you end up playing a loosie in the backline after just two backline injuries, not three, because you've already rotated your halfback.

I guess coaches will continue to gamble until they get caught out, but to me it just seems unnecessarily risky. Is the benefit of having an extra forward on the bench worth the risk of having to play one of your flankers in the backline for a big chunk of the second half of a game? As Dan54 would say, perhaps I'm not qualified to comment on the risk of a 6:2 split?
The 6:2 split is really more of a 3:3:2 split. The three front row subs will be required in the front row. Also there are plenty of teams whose half backs play pretty much 80 minutes but that's usually down to the quality of the alternatives.

I'm sure someone has done the numbers on it but I'm not sure there is a greater risk of 3 injuries to your backline than 3 injuries to the back 5 of your pack.

If you've little or no faith in one of your reserve half backs and one of your reserve or starting halfbacks are pretty versatile then it's probably the best use of resources.
That’s another thing; do we need to bring the scrum laws back to how they were when a team could be expected to only need one prop on the bench? Some time in the late 90s tighthead became an incredibly specialist position, and by 2012-ish and poor Tom Court getting massacred in Twickenham, the IRB just gave up on the idea of anyone being able to do both. Ever since, teams have been able to pull their whole front row as early as they like, safe in the knowledge that even if all 3 get injured, they can just bring all the starters back on.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 33653
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Ali's Choice »

DOB wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:46 am That’s another thing; do we need to bring the scrum laws back to how they were when a team could be expected to only need one prop on the bench? Some time in the late 90s tighthead became an incredibly specialist position, and by 2012-ish and poor Tom Court getting massacred in Twickenham, the IRB just gave up on the idea of anyone being able to do both. Ever since, teams have been able to pull their whole front row as early as they like, safe in the knowledge that even if all 3 get injured, they can just bring all the starters back on.
Yes the front row replacement laws are obviously focused on safety, but they are wide open to be abused. Frankly I don't know a Rugby coach hasn't gone full rogue, and used the laws to sub his front rows on and off the field every 20 minutes. There is nothing in the laws that would prevent someone subbing his props 3-4 times each per game.
User avatar
Zakar
Posts: 18799
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Haunting your dreams

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Zakar »

Force currently using a 6:2 bench and have lost a back to a HIA. Lets see if the gamble backfires.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 34552
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: 6:2 split

Post by eldanielfire »

Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:34 am
LandOTurk wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:32 am Seems like the effect the B&I Lions left on your shores when we went heavy up front. Gats nearly always goes 6:2.
It's only really happened this year, so I would disagree that this is a hangover of the 2017 Lions tour. Moreover I don't think Warren Gatland, with his winless 0-8 Super Rugby Aotearoa record, is starting many coaching trends in NZ at this point in time.
Ideas can take a while to gestate and be analyzed and accepted. South Africa took the 6:2 split in a major way forts I think for the RWC. Wales played with the rush defense for a while before more teams adopted it.

It means you can get your front 5 to be bigger and work harder for the time they are on the pitch and have more impact and replace the lot with a spare backrower for cover in important positions. Maybe a lock who has huge fitness is left and a backrower swapped instead.

It makes sense, for over a decade we have seen backs get changed around 60 minutes and then the attack get disjointed and inefficient. So why alter the part of the team that rewards continuity and by nature will not get anywhere nearly as exhausted for the most part? Changing forwards, assuming you have the quality to replace them, makes more sense for keeping the teams physical work rate high all game. Scrum Half an obvious exclusion in that backs generalisation.
User avatar
Comic Bok Guy
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Back again.

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Comic Bok Guy »

Without Francois Steyn, the Springboks' 6:2 split would not have worked. You've got to have the right personnel and only in one-off games (like in the RWC) for it to work. I can't see a domestic team doing it successfully all season, and as AC says, it does nothing for development of up-and-coming backs, particularly the flyhalf.
User avatar
Nieghorn
Posts: 19262
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Centre of the Universe

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Nieghorn »

At least many of your forwards have the skills to be in the backs.

In the NH, they barely even use their centres for anything but shoveling the ball on, forwards take more passes from the SH anyway, some backs just barge into the first defender. Makes sense for them with so many phases being one-out or pick and goes.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 33653
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Ali's Choice »

eldanielfire wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:09 pm
Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:34 am
LandOTurk wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:32 am Seems like the effect the B&I Lions left on your shores when we went heavy up front. Gats nearly always goes 6:2.
It's only really happened this year, so I would disagree that this is a hangover of the 2017 Lions tour. Moreover I don't think Warren Gatland, with his winless 0-8 Super Rugby Aotearoa record, is starting many coaching trends in NZ at this point in time.
Ideas can take a while to gestate and be analyzed and accepted.
Firstly, the 6:2 split (used to be the 5:2 split) has been around for as long as I have been watching Rugby. Claiming that it's a Warren Gatland innovation would be incorrect. Eddie Jones was the first pro coach I remember who consistently used this bench setup when he was successful in the early 2000's because he didn't ever replace George Gregan, and had Matt Giteau in his team who could play 9, so didn't play a reserve back.

Secondly, the 6:2 split hasn't ever been used successfully at SR level in NZ, and teams definitely aren't copying Warren Gatland after his winless, humiliating season in charge of the Chiefs in 2020. He may have been a coaching God in the NH, but he's yet to achieve anything as a head coach in NZ.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 34552
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: 6:2 split

Post by eldanielfire »

Ali's Choice wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:10 am
eldanielfire wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:09 pm
Ali's Choice wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:34 am
LandOTurk wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:32 am Seems like the effect the B&I Lions left on your shores when we went heavy up front. Gats nearly always goes 6:2.
It's only really happened this year, so I would disagree that this is a hangover of the 2017 Lions tour. Moreover I don't think Warren Gatland, with his winless 0-8 Super Rugby Aotearoa record, is starting many coaching trends in NZ at this point in time.
Ideas can take a while to gestate and be analyzed and accepted.
Firstly, the 6:2 split (used to be the 5:2 split) has been around for as long as I have been watching Rugby. Claiming that it's a Warren Gatland innovation would be incorrect. Eddie Jones was the first pro coach I remember who consistently used this bench setup when he was successful in the early 2000's because he didn't ever replace George Gregan, and had Matt Giteau in his team who could play 9, so didn't play a reserve back.
I've made no claims Gatland innovated it. But ideas in sport are cyclical. And Gatland and Erasmus seem to have helped make it vogue again.
Secondly, the 6:2 split hasn't ever been used successfully at SR level in NZ, and teams definitely aren't copying Warren Gatland after his winless, humiliating season in charge of the Chiefs in 2020. He may have been a coaching God in the NH, but he's yet to achieve anything as a head coach in NZ.
You seem to get very precious about Gatland here. All of it is irrelevant.
User avatar
Margin_Walker
Posts: 13092
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Margin_Walker »

Kidney does it a lot with LI

It's a gamble and has been a problem a couple of times this season following backline injuries. Once when Nick Phipps had to spend 50 minutes playing on the wing and again last night where we had to play a wing out of position in the centre for most of the game.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 33653
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: 6:2 split

Post by Ali's Choice »

eldanielfire wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:06 pm You seem to get very precious about Gatland here. All of it is irrelevant.
Why would I be precious about a coach with a 0% winning record in SR Aotearoa? He has the worst SR record of any Super Rugby coach ever.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 34552
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: 6:2 split

Post by eldanielfire »

Ali's Choice wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 3:38 pm
eldanielfire wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:06 pm You seem to get very precious about Gatland here. All of it is irrelevant.
Why would I be precious about a coach with a 0% winning record in SR Aotearoa? He has the worst SR record of any Super Rugby coach ever.
You brought up his record, with the usual dull bollocks you sprout constantly.
User avatar
LandOTurk
Posts: 14881
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: 6:2 split

Post by LandOTurk »

eldanielfire wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:05 pm
Ali's Choice wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 3:38 pm
eldanielfire wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:06 pm You seem to get very precious about Gatland here. All of it is irrelevant.
Why would I be precious about a coach with a 0% winning record in SR Aotearoa? He has the worst SR record of any Super Rugby coach ever.
You brought up his record, with the usual dull bollocks you sprout constantly.
It's true. Its just a discussion and you want to downplay Gats. I think the Lions tour result and his record in the NH reflects well for him. Is he the best. Probably not. And he may well have his limitations in getting the best out of a NZ style of play as he is too focused on defense and the forwards, but to label him as the worst coach is not accurate. Steve Hansen took an age to get the Welsh team to where he wanted it - I suppose he is shite too??
towny
Posts: 22987
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: 6:2 split

Post by towny »

I don’t like It.

A back with fresh legs can create great impact -Toomua off the bench looks like a superstar.

I’d prefer a team to select a specialist backrower and a lock/backrower hybrid. There’s a few of these guys around - LSL, Uru, Barrett, etc. Otherwise there’s too much risk. Scrumhalves are super fit, but even the best slow down as the game goes on - this is there you need speed in the last 10 minutes; however if you’ve had to put one on the wing, you’ve now got two weaknesses. A halfback can hold his own at best on the wing but he’s not going to have the impact that you’d expect otherwise.

For the backs I obviously want a 9 as well as two blokes that can offer impact - one ball player and one speedy thing. I don’t really think you need a guy that can play 10-15 at a mediocre standard. That was Hodge’s role, but he didn’t have the PoW to ever come on and win a game.
towny
Posts: 22987
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: 6:2 split

Post by towny »

LandOTurk wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:17 pm
eldanielfire wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:05 pm
Ali's Choice wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 3:38 pm
eldanielfire wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:06 pm You seem to get very precious about Gatland here. All of it is irrelevant.
Why would I be precious about a coach with a 0% winning record in SR Aotearoa? He has the worst SR record of any Super Rugby coach ever.
You brought up his record, with the usual dull bollocks you sprout constantly.
It's true. Its just a discussion and you want to downplay Gats. I think the Lions tour result and his record in the NH reflects well for him. Is he the best. Probably not. And he may well have his limitations in getting the best out of a NZ style of play as he is too focused on defense and the forwards, but to label him as the worst coach is not accurate. Steve Hansen took an age to get the Welsh team to where he wanted it - I suppose he is shite too??
You are right - Gats knows what he’s doing.
The kiwi coach I fear the most is Wayne Smith, but I’m starting to get a bad feeling about Jamie Joseph and Tony Brown.
Post Reply