Would reverting to a 2-3-2 scrum help make the game more attractive?

Kyle Preston clears from a scrum during last year’s Jubilee Cup final between Old Boys University and Tawa. Photo: Stewart Baird.

With a time machine, something that could be intriguing would be to go back and see how some sports were played ‘back then’. How have these changed and were the players and participants more skilful with inferior equipment and playing conditions?

Everyone has their own bucket-list of what they would like to see, but for this observer top billing would be to go back and watch Sir Don Bradman bat in his prime, say to watch him score 309 runs in a day in a test match against England at Leeds in 1930. And to then watch his favourite leg-spinner and former Wellingtonian Clarrie Grimmett taking 5 wickets the next day.

In rugby, the wish-list wouldn’t be so much a particular match, of which there are many. Such as Billy Wallace wearing a sunhat and helping the All Blacks to their 55-4 win over Devon to open the 1905/06 tour, any on the matches on the 1924-25 Invincibles tour, Petone beating Poneke 10-5 to win the 1922 Wellington Senior Championship and Ron Jarden scoring his ‘try that wasn’t’ for the New Zealand Universities against the Springboks in 1956.

Rather to watch how the game was played in New Zealand in the three decades up to 1932. This was with the “2-3-2” scrum set-up that was at the heart of the ‘romantic’ – or perhaps it wasn’t so great – decade of rugby in this country.

This was the era of slashing back play, and big crowds followed the action, often 10,000 plus at Athletic Park on Saturdays to watch club rugby (no internet back then so perhaps more compelling reasons to leave the house).

Perhaps the most exciting amongst them was Bert Cooke, who weighed 60kg dripping wet, but was a superstar of the day. Cooke played for four provinces and was in the Hawke’s Bay team that famously beat Wellington 58-8 in a Ranfurly Shield defence in 1926.

Speaking to the Dominion in 1984, one of those famous players in Wellington club and representative rugby of the 1920s, six-match All Black Beethoven ‘Beet’ Algar, talked of the virtues of the 2-3-2 scrum.

“Scrums in our days were genuine contests of skill between opposing front rows, “said Algar whose mother was a music teacher.

“Getting the put in did not automatically mean we would get the ball as it does in virtually every scrum now.

“The ball would be put in once and invariably play would flow the first time. Because the ball was being cleared more quickly from scrums the backs had more room. The idea was to move the ball as quickly as possible to the wings. It was then up to them to do things.”

Algar played in Poneke’s midfield in the 1922 decider noted above and was marking two other famous players of the day, Mark Nicholls and Matt Corner.

The 2-3-2 scrum was outlawed by world rugby’s rule-makers in 1931,  and the current 3-4-1 formation was universally adopted. This was used to great affect by the South Africans, following their introduction of the ‘eighthman’ at the back. The 3-3-2 scrum was also in use everywhere except for New Zealand at the time – a slight variation but crucially the three-player front row with two props and one hooker. Also, the rules of the game of the day allowed for scrums to be taken instead of lineouts.

The 2-3-2 set-up also had its critics in New Zealand, such as Petone’s Mark Nicholls who was tour vice-captain on the 1928 tour to South Africa in which the All Black formation got overpowered by South Africa’s and the tourists had to follow suit for the rest of the tour or get smashed in every game.

For more on this formation visit this article here https://teara.govt.nz/en/interactive/40044/the-2-3-2-scrum

The old style still had its supporters. In 1955 the Rugby Weekly (RW, 30/4/55) published a full-page article entitled “2-3-2 Scum the Best.”

Its introduction asked the following questions: “Is a scrum that gives virtual certainty of possession to one side in the best interests? Is a scrum that is just a mass of complications for players and referees worthwhile? Is the time opportune for New Zealand to crusade for the universal adoption of the 2-3-2 scrum?

It goes on say that a distinctive feature was “its simplicity and the fact that there was no certainty as to who would win the ball.”

“As a result, both backlines generally remained, except where they had poor hookers or were opposed by a highly proficient pair, poised for attack. The emphasis was on attack. The game was more open. There was more man-for-man football.

“When the ball was heeled fast, as often happened, the defending forwards had little chance to get across the field in time to buttress the defence as nowadays.

“The new laws tend more and more to give certainty of possession to the side putting the ball into the scrum. As a result, the opposing backs move up in a defensive line. Scoring from set positions, or even free movement of backs, has become so limited as to deprive the modern game of rugby of much of its former charm.”

It has got to be remembered; the above was written in 1955 – at the height of an era of ’10-man rugby’ that lurched from set piece to set piece and the ball could be booted out on the full for the next lineout up field from anywhere until the current rule of kicking it out on the full only from inside the 22 and recently the ’50-22’ kick for touch were introduced.

This article wraps up by stating that “This country would have been far better advised to have retained this formation and to have provided for legislation against the wing forward, as is now being achieved.”

Note the mention of the wing forward in the last line of the article here.

The wing forward was the ‘eighth’ forward as was commonplace in New Zealand but wasn’t liked overseas – particularly in the halls of the IRB, now World Rugby, who made the rules.

It had been introduced by Poneke’s Thomas Ellison in the early 1890s, his reasoning being to develop a position that acted as a shield for the halfback to get their passes away unobstructed. Previously this ‘extra player’ was like an unattached flanker on defence and could therefore harass and sack the halfback at will.

This quickly developed into a specialist position in its own right. Wellington even had a player throughout the 1890s known as ‘Offside Mac’ (real name William McKenzie) one of several players of the day who further developed the blocking role of the position.

There were many players that became wing forward specialists, such as Athletic’s Cliff Porter who captained the 1924-25 All Blacks tourists overseas and bowed out at the conclusion of the 1930 home Great Britain tour

The tourists manager was James Baxter, an immediate IRB past president and still on the IRB board. He immediately went to work running down the wing forward or rover position as he called it. He called it ‘contrary to the spirit of rugby football.’

New Zealand played its last test using the old formation on 12 September 1931 against Australia, and its first under current rules on 2 July 1932, also against Australia.

Poneke’s Ted Jessep was the All Blacks hooker in both of these matches. As a side note, Jessep moved to Australia and played against the All Blacks in 1934.

New Zealand players reared on the old style and the All Blacks in general adapted slowly to the modern ways, their 1935/36 tour to Europe not living up to the successes of the previous ones and again struggling. when they hosted the Springboks in 1937. Specialist props and hookers began to emerge though, such as Petone’s Artie Lambourn who took over from Auckland’s Swin Hadley in the 1937 series. The 1940 tour to South Africa would have shown how much the All Blacks had adapted but it was cancelled and rugby took a back seat for five years because of the war.

The Rugby Weekly on 31 May 1958 published an article reminiscing about rugby in the 1930s, which included the following when comparing the earlier decade:

“Probably the greatest decline occurred where this country had been strongest – immediately behind the scrum. Slowly lost was the skill and cunning by halves behind the 2-3-2 scrum except in a few instances.

“First five-eighths, previously key men who sought to direct the play, and usually had plenty of room, found it difficult to readjust their style of play to become quick links. Shallow back formations were easily bustled by the trend to intensive cover defence.”

Would a return to 2-3-2 formation work in today’s rugby context work – sans the wing forward position of the previous era?

What to do with the wing forward? Perhaps they could become like a second fullback or sweeper. Imagine teams devising [legal] decoys or deceptions with this player at set-piece re-starts, or placing him out on the wing or 15m directly behind the scrum in the six ‘clock position ready to spring on to attack either side.

Either that or this extra player drops out altogether and it becomes 14 a side with seven forwards, a halfback and six backs.  Two fewer players on the field equals more space, plus at least one fewer person on the reserves bench and less players required to make the team.

Not suggesting that the professional and higher representative game could or would go this way, that carries on unchanged.

But perhaps it would work for the participation levels of the game, some club and college grades?

An obvious grade to trial this could be the U85kg grade, but these players, many of whom have been playing for years in the current system, might not want this thrust upon them. So a logical starting point would be in a college grade such as U14s or U15s or even in junior rugby.

There is also a reason why many of rugby’s rules have been continuously tinkered with and amended over the years, to make it a more attractive game. For example one other such set-piece rule they cleaned up for the better was introducing the 15-metre line at back of lineouts. Previously the back marker in lineouts could stand out in centre field and terrorise opposing backlines. A famous exponent of that was Springbok Hennie Muller in the 1949 home series against the All Blacks, won 4-0 by South Africa.

Another issue, is if scrums suddenly became 50/50 contests between two evenly matched teams or at least highly competitive, then that could have flow-on affects.

What of situations where the scrum is currently used as an attacking platform such as big knock-ons by the opposition 30-40m from their own line or 5m scrums after a player has been held up over the line. If the odds of winning back possession are far from guaranteed that would negate that reward and possible certain try if close to the line. So perhaps a ‘tap’ res-start option could be introduced in these situations.

Of course, there are far fewer scrums in rugby now than there were then. Today there are free-kicks and much more generous advantage laws to help the game flow.

It seems that reintroducing 2-3-2 scrums has its pros and cons.