30-man RWC squads - the selection problems

http://whiffofcordite.com/

Link is to an article by Whiffofcordite, an Irish blogger, which focuses on the selection problems that Joe Schmidt will face when he selects his 30-man squad for the RWC.  Had to say I had thought RWC allowed 35-man squads, allowing for 19-16 forward-back splits - but seems not.

Article is on Ireland but the reasoning in the article can be applied to any team in the RWC, as the 30-man limit will force coaches in every country to make some difficult decisions and potentially leave some big names out.

With front row positions now so specialised and few LH props able to play TH and vica versa, will teams bring 3 LH, 3 TH and 3 hookers.  As SH is so specialised will teams bring 3 SH's.  If so, then 12 places in a squad are already taken up by just 4 positions, leaving 18 places for just 11 remaining positions.  Blogger suggests that will make 6's who can play second row very valuable (in Ireland's case Henderson and possibly D Ryan), likewise players who can play anywhere in the back row, likewise 10's who can play 12, and likewise utility backs who can play FB, wing or centre. Players who can only play one position only may find it difficult as coaches focus on others who can play elsewhere.

What impact will this have on other countries, comments from other countries welcome

Well for England...Keiron brookes can play both sides very well....and what people dont know is that he also can play hooker...he recently played hooker in an A league game...taking the lineout throws etc.

Also with our stock of Scrum Halfs....i wouldnt bother taking 3. Care and Youngs as no others are good enough.

So that cuts the numbers down already

Well there's versatility, then there's the school of sticking a player in completely the wrong position (cc Mr Tom Wood)

Scotland's issues are made easy by the fact that our coaches don't give a monkey's about using players in their correct positions, and we don't tend to bother with specialist opensides at all. We also have a couple of versatile backs (in our case backs who don't really play well in any particular position) so I think we'll find we have inadequate cover despite the small squad.

Seriously though, Jon Welsh can play both sides of the scrum, Rob Harley can cover lock in an emergency, Josh Strauss plays both 6 and 8 (as does Johnnie Beattie) and Brown can apparently play both 6 and 7 (as can Blair Cowan). Laidlaw can play 9 and 10, Tonks can play 10 and 15, Horne can play 10 and 12, Dunbar can play both 12 and 13, Maitland can play wing and 15 and Hogg can play 15, centre or 10.

Having versatile options is less of an issue for Scotland as finding the right 1st XV.

Think they should really have just put the number of the squad up to 32.

You're allowed injury replacements though. Your injured players can't return so you either risk having a passenger like Kieran Read who didn't play until the quarter finals in 2011 or you bring in somebody else and trust them.

I think you can have 2 players for almost every position almost and bring in injury cover if required.

Gatland has regularly only picked small 28 man squads so that will be something he's use to and these squad sizes are where versatility does then come in.

For argument sake lets look at a few of our positions:

Front row - As much as I expect both of them to be picked both Jenkins and James have played both side of the scrum at International level so have that bit of advantage.

Backrow - Not sure if he will make the squad now but someone like Ryan Jones can be worth weight in gold, he can play 8 and 6 and in emergency 2nd row.

Then of course you have Wales' very own Mr Versatility - James Hook. Has been involved in most squads and on bench due to fact he covers 10, 12 and 15.

World Cup squads are not tour parties, so the selection constraints are different. Also, for all the Six Nations sides, replacements are on the doorstep this tournament, so there are no jet lag or acclimatization problems.

The thing is we dont want to destroy some people being specialists for the sake of versatility.

Ie Elliott Daly at 15 or 13.
Hook at 10, 12,13,15

But some people are just naturally that....Austin Heally for example.

From England's point of view, there aren't many that I would be happy with covering other positions even in an emergency

Maybe someone like Foden would have the edge over Goode, as he can play wing, with Watson acting as the 3rd FB/4th wing

I wouldn't be happy with any of our 10s at 12, 13s in the back 3, Flankers at 8 (other than maybe Haskell), locks at 6 (Slater probably the exception)

GF mentions Brookes playing both sides, but would like to see him get some sort of international time at loosehead before deciding he's capable of covering!

Abslutely...he's first and foremost a TH and an excellent one.

At club level he can cover LH to a high standard as he showed v Saints at the weekend.

At A / Development level he can play hooker.

Doesnt mean he'll be great at international level in those other positions....but its one possibility to investigate.

Though personally i think id prefer keeping 6 props and looking for versatility elsewhere most likely in the backs or back row.

Ie Launchbury covering the back row etc.

Versatility has certainly affected some players and Hook is one of the more high profile of those, he has over 70 caps but has never really tied down one position or been first choice in any of them for a considerable time.

I would go with specialists. If someone is injured they can always call up a replacement. There are few players who are good in more than one position.

For England Farrell could play 10 or 12 and Haskell 6 or 8. That's about it.

Exiledinborders wrote:For England Farrell could play 10 or 12 and Haskell 6 or 8. That's about it.

Well, I keep reading people saying Tom Wood can cover seven. In some of the match day squads Lancaster has selected, he has been the only open side cover in the event of a crocked Robshaw.

If that is regarded as a genuine option, I'd very much like to see him play there in a test. It seems a hell of a risk just to assume he'll be able to cope because he occasionally fills in at 7 for Saints.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:For England Farrell could play 10 or 12 and Haskell 6 or 8. That's about it.

Well, I keep reading people saying Tom Wood can cover seven. In some of the match day squads Lancaster has selected, he has been the only open side cover in the event of a crocked Robshaw.

If that is regarded as a genuine option, I'd very much like to see him play there in a test. It seems a hell of a risk just to assume he'll be able to cope because he occasionally usually fills in at 7 for Saints.

In the matches they both played against NZ I have the vague memory of Robwood playing left and right.

Haskell played 7 for several Martin Johnson sides in 2011 and did a surprisingly good job. I'm not overly bothered about back row cover as long as we have a fit specialist 8 and 2 of Robshaw, Wood and Haskell.

LondonTiger wrote:In the matches they both played against NZ I have the vague memory of Robwood playing left and right.

The scenario which sees Wood playing seven is one where Robshaw is off the pitch. If the coaches really see him as a seven option, then he should be tried there at some point in a Test with someone other than Robshaw at six.

Given that Lancaster was willing to try him at 8, and has selected Lawes at 6, Foden, Tuilagi and Brown on the wing, and Farrell in the centres, I don't know why we wouldn't want to see how a key back-up strategy looks in practice.

I can't believe the IRB have sanctioned the 23 man squad for Test rugby and then not increased the 30 man RWC limit.

The scrum is the one area of the game that is most contentious, and teams haven't had props swapping sides since the three front row subs came into force. All it takes is for one minor injury in training to stop a prop making the match bench and his (mandatory) place having to be taken by someone who has hardly played there under the current Laws. If that prop is called on the resulting scrums are likely to be more of a farce due to lack of recent experience. If that prop isn't called on then the workload on the starting prop will make him tire and the scrums will become more of a farce.

Either way is that what the IRB really want in their showcase? They allowed the extra front-row sub to get away from the farce where bench props patently couldn't cover both sides, and now they are indirectly tempting teams to skimp on their frontrow cover because the squad size is unchanged.

It is frankly ridiculous of the IRB not to extend the squad size to at least 31, and ideally 32.

The IRB increased the number of props to having 4 in a match day squad to stop teams from resorting to uncontested scrums. I believe Michael Cheika with Leinster was the straw that broke the camel's back

The sight of two key members of the front five including the captain depart the scene after only 18 minutes was a major blow, as both Leo Cullen and CJ Van Der Linde were forced off due to injury at the same time. In difficult circumstances substitutes Cian Healy and Trevor Hogan made vital contributions off the bench.

UP to this point the Leinster scrum was in all kinds of trouble with Vickery destroying Van Der Linde. Passed fit at the eleventh hour, the South African World Cup winner was clearly not fit to play. Asking a prop to play with a dodgy calf muscle is like asking a golfer to perform with a broken bone in his hand. It simply cannot be done.

With an injury doubt also surrounding tight head Stan Wright, Leinster’s scrum was a clearly targeted with success by Wasps. Wright only lasted 20 minutes longer than his loose head colleague. Whether by accident or design, the reality of uncontested scrums after only 38 minutes offered Leinster a get out of jail card. It also facilitated the introduction of an additional back row forward in Sean O’Brien, which contributed to Leinster’s efforts at the breakdown.

Most teams brought 4 props to the last world cup. Teams like Ireland brought 5, but 4 should be fine this time as there will be no jetlag etc. if someone gets injured.

Sin é wrote:Most teams brought 4 props to the last world cup. Teams like Ireland brought 5, but 4 should be fine this time as there will be no jetlag etc. if someone gets injured.

The rules are that there will be two props starting and two on the bench. So are you saying that if Cian Healy has a niggle that keeps him out of the game against Romania, Schmidt has to send him home and bring in say Kilcoyne for the rest of the Tournament? No chance.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Sin é wrote:Most teams brought 4 props to the last world cup. Teams like Ireland brought 5, but 4 should be fine this time as there will be no jetlag etc. if someone gets injured.

The rules are that there will be two props starting and two on the bench. So are you saying that if Cian Healy has a niggle that keeps him out of the game against Romania, Schmidt has to send him home and bring in say Kilcoyne for the rest of the Tournament? No chance.

Nope. If its just a niggle, Healy can sit on the bench. Last world cup England brought 4 props (Cole, Corbisiero, Stevens & David Wilson). France brought 4 - Barcella, Ducalcon, Mas and Poux, Japan brought 4 props, New Zealand had 4 props.

The 30 man squad is standard,BUT a wider squad is there for injuries during the RWC
usually.3 hookers and scrum halves are picked,4 props 2 each specialists LH/TH ,4
locks and or 3 then 5 or 6 loose forwards.A lock covering 6/8 or vice versa most squads
contain backrow men comfortable at 6,7,or 8.

The backs 2 of each is usual but a utility may cover 10/12 or 15 some are happy at 9 or
10 as required.Of course you may choose to risk injured players in the early rounds
rather than pick a less fancied player instead.

Sin é wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Sin é wrote:Most teams brought 4 props to the last world cup. Teams like Ireland brought 5, but 4 should be fine this time as there will be no jetlag etc. if someone gets injured.

The rules are that there will be two props starting and two on the bench. So are you saying that if Cian Healy has a niggle that keeps him out of the game against Romania, Schmidt has to send him home and bring in say Kilcoyne for the rest of the Tournament? No chance.

Nope. If its just a niggle, Healy can sit on the bench. Last world cup England brought 4 props (Cole, Corbisiero, Stevens & David Wilson). France brought 4 - Barcella, Ducalcon, Mas and Poux, Japan brought 4 props, New Zealand had 4 props.

... that's why I said "that keeps him out of the game" - i.e. not fit to play even from the bench. Or are you suggesting that he plays with an injury? That would be ridiculous man management of one of Ireland's most important players. Of course he could also get a one match ban (or be serving one at the start) and not be allowed anywhere near the pitch so you would have to replace him from your squad. It would be lunacy to go with anything less than three loosehead props.

OTOH Ireland could possibly go with only two tighthead props. That's because none of them have become as crucial to the team. If say Ross and Moore were the initial picks and one wasn't available for a matchday squad, it would be an easier decision to bring in a replacement.

The squad should be big enough to accommodate such temporal vagaries, and that is why the IRB should have increased the size from 30 to at least 31.

As it is the most likely make up is:
3 LH
3 Hookers
2 TH
4 Locks
5 Backrows
3 SH
2 FH
3 Centres
4 Back three
1 Utility back

There is an alternative: ensure your third and fourth choice players in their respective positions do not have a huge drop-off in performance from the first and second choice players. Teams able to best adapt to inevitable injuries tend to be able to progress further. You never know which position will take a hammering. It does come down to luck or lack thereof. The best you can do is try to cover as many contingencies as possible and manage the injuries you get as best you can. Even having 36 in the squad might not be a guarantee against misfortune in one particular position.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Even having 36 in the squad might not be a guarantee against misfortune in one particular position.

Depending on how he's playing, having 36 in the squad could easily be a misfortune for one of our particular positions

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:There is an alternative: ensure your third and fourth choice players in their respective positions do not have a huge drop-off in performance from the first and second choice players. Teams able to best adapt to inevitable injuries tend to be able to progress further. You never know which position will take a hammering. It does come down to luck or lack thereof. The best you can do is try to cover as many contingencies as possible and manage the injuries you get as best you can. Even having 36 in the squad might not be a guarantee against misfortune in one particular position.

It's fine for teams like the All Blacks with hundreds of professional players to choose from to not expect a drop off at the elite level, but it's not all about that either. There are only limited opportunities for players to practice with the rest of the team/squad so forcing replacements in at the first sign of injury breaks all continuity.

It's not just NZ in that position. And don't replace your players at the first sign of injury. Ride it out if at all possible and if you have to call up a player, then ideally pick someone who has some combinations with the players around him at club or provincial level.

The Great Aukster wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:There is an alternative: ensure your third and fourth choice players in their respective positions do not have a huge drop-off in performance from the first and second choice players. Teams able to best adapt to inevitable injuries tend to be able to progress further. You never know which position will take a hammering. It does come down to luck or lack thereof. The best you can do is try to cover as many contingencies as possible and manage the injuries you get as best you can. Even having 36 in the squad might not be a guarantee against misfortune in one particular position.

It's fine for teams like the All Blacks with hundreds of professional players to choose from to not expect a drop off at the elite level, but it's not all about that either. There are only limited opportunities for players to practice with the rest of the team/squad so forcing replacements in at the first sign of injury breaks all continuity.

At the moment, loosehead would be the position Ireland needs to be least worried about as there are a number of very good looseheads around. I don't think the scrum is so important now as it was in the last world cup now that they have removed the 'hit'. Healy would be a loss in the loose though, but I don't think I'd be as upset about losing him like I'd say be worried about losing Paul O'Connell, Rory Best, Jonathan Sexton or Conor Murray who play in positions that really need them and where there is a big drop off to the next available. These are the players I'd hold out for if they had a niggly injury that would get better if we made it past the knockout stages (which we should in our pool).

Compared to 2011 it is now an IRB dictated requirement that there is one loosehead, one hooker and one tighthead on an 8-man bench. The IRB have increased the bench size by one manadatory front row forward and it is ridiculous that they haven't increased the squad size by at least the same amount.

Is no one else interested in the risks of playing a prop out of position that will arise from the 30-man restriction?