0
Bring in interchange to change face of the game
Mark Ella | June 21, 2008
THERE was only one disappointment from last week's win by the Wallabies against Ireland: why didn't coach Robbie Deans use all of his bench players, including Ryan Cross?
And, from all reports, it would appear Deans is going to run with much the same side for the first Test against France next Saturday in Sydney.
I am not criticising Deans; as a new coach he is trying to form combinations as quickly as possible, but it is obvious he requires his key players on the field at the end of the game.
Against Ireland in Melbourne, one could have imagined changes to the line-up early in the second half, especially when the Wallabies were struggling with the conditions and many were almost at the point of exhaustion.
But true to his word, Deans kept faith with his players.
Since professionalism came to rugby in the mid-1990s the code has often looked at rugby league in terms of training techniques, fitness levels and, more importantly, defensive patterns.
One area of the game I feel needs consideration is the interchange rule: to allow tactical replacements as league has done to improve the speed and excitement of the game. Australia's biggest sport, Australian football, also allows interchanges.
I remember when I was coaching in Milan in the early '90s and what surprised me most was that in rugby, as in soccer, the coaches were allowed to make tactical changes.
This simple difference put more pressure on me as a coach to know when and who to replace. It took me time to come to this adjustment, but once I had I realised just how important it was to replace my players and how those coming off the bench could have an impact.
In the modern game it doesn't take a genius to know that after the first 10 minutes of the second half there is an 80 per cent chance of a change to either a prop or lock and then 10 minutes later perhaps a hooker et cetera.
During the final 15 minutes of a match, predictably half of the starting line-up is off the field and breathing deeply on the bench.
As a coach, doesn't it make sense to have your starting XV, which in normal circumstances is your best team, finish the game as it started?
In rugby, we need an interchange system that allows the game to be played at a frenetic pace, with fresh players on the field.
I am not suggesting we have 12 or even 10 tactical interchanges each game, but possibly five or six strategic decisions by coaches would bring a new dimension to the game. It would ensure our stars are on the field when it matters most - at the end of the game.
As in Italy all those years ago, the emphasis would be on coaches making the right changes at the right time.
It would redefine the role of an impact player coming off the bench. A player may only have a short time on the field to make a difference and, depending on his performance, he could be taken off at any time.
Cross could have easily upped the tempo of the Australian backs who struggled to contain the energetic Irish backline, which chanced its arm against a weakening Wallabies defence.
The same could have been said of Adam Ashley-Cooper, who also didn't make it on to the field. Fullback Cameron Shepherd didn't have a bad game, but the backline lacked punch.
Given 20 minutes on the field, perhaps, Ashley-Cooper may have been the right player along with Cross to change the game's flow.
As it was, Deans didn't make these changes because he didn't want to lose his captain, Stirling Mortlock, in what was a tight situation. Also, he obviously wanted to give Shepherd as much game time as he could.
Many will say tactical interchange is heading down the same path as rugby league, but rugby isn't in a position to reject innovations that will make it a better spectacle.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...015651,00.html