The Growing Fixation on Forward Rotation: Is Rugby Losing Its Essence?
There was a moment in the history of rugby union when the term "Bomb Squad" felt groundbreaking and fresh. South Africa pioneered the effective use of replacement forwards, making a significant impact when they substituted fresh, powerful players onto the field during the second half. This tactic has proven to be incredibly effective, especially when a team possesses the necessary depth in their squad.
However, as is often the case with successful strategies, others quickly began to replicate this approach, leading to what can now be described as a modern-day arms race in rugby. Nowadays, almost every team aspires to have their own version of the Bomb Squad. Around the 45th to 50th minute of nearly every match, you’ll witness a lineup of fresh substitutes ready to replace the initial starters. Coaches are even willing to sacrifice having fewer than three specialist backs on the bench just to bolster their forward lineup.
This trend is certainly beneficial for teams with a wealth of quality players, such as England. For instance, during their match against Australia, coach Steve Borthwick unleashed a powerful combination of five forwards all at once, showcasing a strategy that overwhelmed the Wallabies.
This same formula has also been adopted by the English champions, Bath, who stack their bench with strong players to overpower opponents in the latter stages of the game. Under current regulations, this practice is entirely permissible. While World Rugby did form a working group to explore options for creating more space on the field and reducing injury rates, no changes were proposed, which may turn out to be one of the sport’s significant missed opportunities.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the nature of the game is shifting toward a focus on raw power, distancing itself from the unique character that previously defined rugby union. Matches once revolved around wearing down opponents until their big players felt as if they were running in lead-filled boots. Only then would space open up for the agile, nimble players to shine.
In stark contrast, today’s games resemble a band with numerous drummers but lacking a guitar, leading to a monotonous rhythm. While it is crucial to ensure that injured players do not feel compelled to stay on the field, the endless substitutions are largely favoring teams with deeper resources and player pools, putting smaller nations at a disadvantage.
Some might argue that this dynamic has always existed. For example, matches between New Zealand and Australia began allowing replacements for injured players as far back as 1907. An interesting rule change in 1947 stipulated that injury-enforced substitutions could only occur before half-time, likely to deter potential manipulation of the rules. It wasn’t until 1968 that the International Rugby Board allowed substitutions on a global scale, and the first instance in England occurred in 1969 when Keith Fielding left the field due to injury, paving the way for Tim Dalton to step in against Scotland—a small but notable moment in Twickenham’s history.
The first official blood replacement in England took place in 1995 when Dewi Morris replaced Kyran Bracken. It wasn't until 1996 that the IRB officially recognized tactical replacements. England utilized three tactical substitutes in their next match against Italy that November and has leaned into this strategy ever since.
Today, any savvy coach builds their game plan around a deliberate second-half shift, typically featuring multiple substitutions all at once. As Borthwick puts it, "Clearly if you change en masse, it’s much more straightforward because you can train that combination together," emphasizing the importance of the final quarter—often referred to as "Q4"—in most matches.
While South Africa may not have the same caliber of heavy hitters as their original Bomb Squad from the 2019 World Cup, their upcoming match against France is expected to be heavily influenced by the power struggle in the last thirty minutes. Although replicating the tremendous impact of their 7-1 bench split against New Zealand in August 2023 may be challenging, many teams now covet that option.
Yet, what if someone decides that enough is enough? Influential figures in rugby, such as Sir Bill Beaumont, Eddie Jones, and Wayne Smith, have raised concerns about this trend in recent years, but their warnings have not shifted the prevailing consensus. Imagine if, starting January 1, international teams were limited to using only six of their designated eight matchday substitutes, with three of those needing to be specialist backs. This would effectively decrease the reliance on overwhelming power, potentially level the playing field for smaller nations, and create more opportunities for creative players to thrive.
Will such a change ever come to fruition? It’s hard to say. The risks associated with larger, fresh players colliding with fatigued opponents in the late stages of matches must be carefully weighed against the potential shifts in coaching and player behavior that could arise from reducing substitutions. Additionally, the definition of a "back" is becoming increasingly blurred, with hybrid players like Ben Earl, Henry Pollock, and Kwagga Smith capable of fulfilling multiple roles.
Ultimately, while the Bomb Squad concept is a focal point of the discussion, there is a more significant narrative at play that deserves our attention.
