Scrummaging - old school vs current style

I was very fortunate over the past few days to get another chance to observe our MNT in training. One of the biggest areas where change has occurred over the past few years is at the scrum. There are more variations on scrummaging than I could possibly cover - bind high, low, high and low, crotch bind, waist bind, pocket bind, balls of feet, splayed feet, lock out, knees bent, bla bla bla.

Much time is being spent improving our scrum, and our MNT scrummaging coach recently did some training with players in Rochester. Clearly this is an area that the MNT staff has identified for improvement in the upcoming world cup.

Rather than dissect the whole thing, I thought it would be useful to post a summary that compares how "we used to do things", with how "we are doing things". Some of he old school methods referred to below may be things you are currently doing, some of the current methods may be things your currently doing. Feel free to comment. Bill LeClerck, the current MNT scrummaging coach, has posted a paper with key points on the usarugby coaches portal - if you've got a chance to check it out, there is a lot of good info there.

old school	currently endorsed method
props sit on locks shoulders	prop and locks are perfectly in line - shoulder to buttocks
everybody "looks up", locks looking at their opponent	head is in a neutral position, tongue to teeth, look through the eyebrows to create muscle tension
binds are top priority - shoulders "pop out" for a tight fit	binds are a means to an end - body profile is the top priority, binds are designed to channel power forward
Scrummaging is a "less important" role for flankers and 8	flankers and 8 are part of the "back 5" and are critical power contributors, participating in all aspects of training previously thought of as "tight 5 time"
the tight head prop "leads in", and the rest follow	the back five, but especially #8, drive the props in, so power generation starts from behind
forwards engage on an auditory cue from the referee, going on "engage", with the front row generally a spit second ahead of the rest of the pack	the #8 takes his/her cue visually from the hooker to initiate the drive, the remainder of the players, while still "listening" react to the drive behind them as the primary trigger
flankers set up in a split legged "sprint start", and maintain the position throughout the scrum	flankers set up in a power position and driving just as hard as locks
#8 sets up like a lock and drives off of both legs at engagement	#8 sets up in a sprint start and drops the forward leg back at engagement, effectively "letting off the brake"
locks start on their knees, and enter the scrum via the space between the calf and the knee of the prop and hooker, sliding their head up and "locking" it into position	locks start off their knees, in a comfortable power position, and the props and hookers simply let them in
locks "hang" from the prop in front of them, treating that playe as a pillar	locks bind in such a way as to apply pressure to the buttock/leg "seam", while the props push back against them for balance. Both players have identical profiles
power comes in waves, with an initial drive and secondary drives as distinct phases	pressure and tension are continually in balance until the ball is out of the scrum.
locks "lock out", splaying their feet with all 8 cleats in the ground to hold the scrum steady	all 8 stay in a bent legged position applying constant pressure to the individual in front of them, the individual behind them, and the ground
upper body and leg strength are considered THE bottom line attributes of a tight five player	core strength is considered THE bottom line attribute of a tight five player

On the definition of high level rugby ....

Along with the idea of "high level coaching", we often speak of and hear of "high level rugby". This summer I've an an opportunity to attend a variety of high level rugby events, and observe both the players and coaches in action.

So what's the difference between "high level rugby" and the rest of the rugby? How do we as coaches get "high level rugby" to happen? Is it in fact happening here in the US, or are we kidding ourselves when we use the term?

Certainly "high level rugby", as I see it, requires more than just highly skilled athletes. It's about the team's ability to make collective decisions, on the fly, to overcome the defense, or, defensively, overcome the offense. That much I feel sure of.

What about the individual players and their skills? Do we teach players progressively, ie level 1, 2, 3 skills? Or, do we teach the skill at the highest level, and progressively coach to success?

If the skill set does not have a safety component, I say go for it. I'm tired of seeing players who have been told "just run forward" by their coach, simply because they are new. I'm tired of the athleticism being coached out of players in order to facilitate better ball retention. Here's an example if that doesn't make sense.

A player with a couple of years of college experience, very athletic, good power and size, comes to a camp or a practice. Nearly 100% of the time, he or she chooses to "take the contact" offensively. Why? Because they've been told FIRST learn to hit someone, hold onto the ball in contact, and place the ball. By the time they were "ready" to learn how to pass through contact or run evasively, they had already developed habits and muscle memory to do exactly the opposite. So, to coach them through to this next skill level, we need to deconstruct what they've worked so hard to get good at.

So what's the answer? Do we coach how to run evasively and pass FIRST, and then teach all the ball retention pieces? This method will undoubtedly result in lots of 50-50 passes and lost balls in contact.

We can take a whole-part-whole approach to things, but this is really hard, and takes a willingness by coaches to let failure occur, let players struggle, and sometimes, lose games in the interest of developing skilled decision makers. Using this approach, the decision making about WHEN to pass happens a whole lot sooner, but we need to continually go back to the pieces and tweak the pass, the body control in contact, etc.

What would you describe as "high level skills" as opposed to "beginner or intermediate" skills? How do you know "high level rugby" when you see it? Or, is high level rugby simply what happens when EVERYONE on the pitch is fit enough to accomplish their jobs at a moderate level?

And more so, how to you "teach" high level rugby? How do they do it outside the states? And really, how many of us who "say" we coach high level rugby are actually doing that? Seriously ... ?

on being qualified to coach high level players

I'm going to split my next post into two parts - one regarding coaching, and one regarding game, since it's a topic that could generate much discussion.

I got an email while I was on vacation from a new coach, who is experiencing some self doubt (I'm keeping her name anonymous by request).

"I've never played for a really good team, I've never played select sides, and I never even dreamed of playing for the Eagles. Now I'm coaching a team that is getting really competitive and I don't know how to take them to the next level, since I never played at that level".

So here's the question - is it necessary for a coach to have "high level athlete experience" in order to coach "high level rugby?", or, can a coach educate themselves to the point where they become qualified to coach high level rugby.

To this new coach - I totally understand how you feel, and have wondered the very same thing myself. Elite level athletes play sports at a different level, but how much of that is based on genetics/fitness/training/instinct, versus how much is based on study and education? As a player I never reached the highest level. As a result, when I first started coaching I was very comfortable coaching "up to" the level that I had reached. It took quite a bit of time and study before I felt comfortable with players who achieved greater glories that I did on the field. I'm confident that practicing the craft of coaching, studying video, attending camps and clinics run by other coaches, and actually working with higher level players can build your coaching skills to the degree necessary to meet your players needs, but what of that final extra step that takes a coach and/or her players all the way to the top?

As a player who never instinctively knew how to evade defenders, I had to dissect how to decelerate, shift weight from one foot to the other, accelerate, balance, etc etc etc. Often I've heard the naturally evasive athlete say something along the lines of "why didn't she just step that defender and take that hole?". For some at this level of skill, "how" to execute isn't nearly as hard to learn as "when" to execute. I seemed to always know "when", but couldn't get my body to do it in time. While this was somewhat disatrous to me as a athlete, I think it helped me develop as a coach (especially when working with newer or less athletic players). But how about coaching the elite level athlete whose bodies CAN execute? Is there something a coach with an elite athlete past can give them that I'll never be able to? What do you think?

If we were to look at the coaches in our nation who work with the senior US teams and with the senior territorial teams, there certainly does seem to be a pattern of retired USA players occupying those roles, particularly in the women's game, particularly women coaches. Yet this doesn't seem to be true of the men who coach the women's high level teams/programs. Are we, as women, holding each other to a higher standard than we hold our male counterparts? Or even worse, are we, as women, making gender assumptions that we shouldn't regarding the skill/knowledge of male vs female coaches? Can a man without International PLAYING experience achieve the highest level of coaching in the US? Can a woman?

Interestingly, when i google Peter Thornburn, the men's national team coach, the press releases speak entirely to his coaching experience - not a word about him as a player. When I google Kathy Flores, the women's national team head coach, the press releases mentions primarily her playing career and this despite the fact the her achievements as Berkley's head coach make her far and away the most impressive coach in US women's rugby, and that under her our WNT is back on track and fast on the road to success.

So - is this just random? Or, as Americans (men but especially women), do we demand that our home grown rugby coaches have an international athlete resume? Is it wrong to suggest that coaches born outside our shores are not held to this same standard? Is it because we are still young as a rugby nation?

And to the original question - Can a coach, who has never competed as an athlete at the select side or higher level, coach players with those ambitions and even those experiences? Opinions please!

My advice to this individual - keep working at it. Go to camps, go to clinics, go to coaching workshops. If you can't find a rugby coaching workshop to go to, go to another sports workshop. Reach out to the select side coaches in your area and ask to attend their camps and tryouts. Ask to help - get guest coaches to come to your trainings. Find someone to mentor you. When you see something you like - TRY IT. Just like players take chances, we as coaches have to take chances. America is the land of opportunity and invention. Keep working at it, perhaps in a few years you'll be the one introducing new techniques, defensive systems, or attacking strategies. Just keep coaching.

Here's an interesting article from the USOC Coaching newsletter about coaching veteran elite athletes vs emerging elite athletes.