Subs and Second Choices

It wasn't too long ago when deciding on the replacement for a team was pretty simple. Take the players who were nearly good enough to start, give them a number between 16 and 23 and you were done. That's all changed now. Eddie Jones is not the first coach to realise that the eight substitutes will be the ones who finish the game, but he is probably the one responsible for bringing the concept into the limelight with his famed coining of the phrase "finishers". Although what does the idea mean in real terms?

Eddie Jones and his infamous "finishers" brought the reality of replacements into the public eye.

Probably the best way to showcase the difference between picking your second best players, and picking your best substitutes comes from New Zealand at the minute. As always the All Blacks are at the forefront of rugby's evolution. After it was announced last season that Lima Sopoaga would be leaving Super Rugby, Steve Hansen had to begin looking for his back up to, world player of the year, Beauden Barrett. Two options directly presented themselves at the start of the year, Damian McKenzie and Richie Mo'unga, and over the last five months of Super Rugby its become apparent about the relative strengths and weaknesses of both players. Mo'unga offers steadfast game control, and excellent kicking game, while McKenzie brings what he always did from fullback sheer attacking flair with a side of risk. Something which saved New Zealand on more than one occasion last year as they struggled to dominate games.

McKenzie has a lot of supporters, but worries remain
about his ability to control a game at fly-half.

Most pundits agree that arguably Mo'unga is the more complete fly-half, the steadier hand, and capable of running a backline, more so than the erratic at times McKenzie. So under any logic, Mo'unga would be sitting on the pine come this weekend as New Zealand take on France. The chances of that happening, however, are slim. McKenzie instead will be handed the replacement shirt, because he offers something "different". The age-old quote "plans never survive contact with the enemy" is prevalent in sport just as much as war. The best coaches know that what they'll have prepared for all week, might not work on the day and plans B and C need to be available. That is where the bench becomes so important, not just changing players, changing systems, changing styles. After 60 minutes both teams can become settled and understand how the opposition is looking to attack and it can become a struggle to break them down, introduce someone like McKenzie who will completely change how New Zealand will threaten, running more, jinking through space. Suddenly the other team becomes nervous, they're no longer sure how they need to defend, and holes begin to appear.  What would happen if Barrett were to become injured would throw up an interesting response, because it is quite likely that instead of McKenzie being elevated from the bench to a starting spot, Mo'unga would leapfrog him and McKenzie would bring his game breaking, tempo raising, style as before, from the bench.

Anscombe has shown to be a very
good second half 10 for Wales,
and the Cardiff Blues

New Zealand aren't the only exponents of this. As mentioned England and Eddie Jones are big favourites of it, Ben Te'o being used to change England's attacking system from the bench gave them great success and stole many a victory for the white shirts. Wales could be looking at something similar with Biggar, Patchell, and Anscombe. With little over a year to go before the World Cup, and coaches looking for their best possible team, trying to fill these "impact" slots up on the bench is likely to become a theme of the next season. By now most teams know their best starting XV, or at least the majority of it, it is now a question of figuring out the eight men on the bench who can provide the game-winning ability at the end.

There are flaws in this method, obviously. With the nature of rugby in the modern era, injuries appear at the worst possible time. It is a rare sight now to watch a game and not see at least one player leave the field because of injury. If you've loaded your bench with impact subs, what happens when a key starting player break their leg within ten minutes of kick-off. Can you trust your whizz-kid magician to run a crucial World Cup knock out game for 70 minutes? With every potential reward of this "finishers over backups" ideology, there is a similar level of risk. Personally, I think it is worth the risk, you can't prepare for the worst so why not plan for the best? After all three years ago we saw Barrett pull off the game-changing moment from the bench in a world cup final to seal the trophy for New Zealand, it could happen again.

Every coaching decision over the next 15 months will be part of trying to claim the Webb Ellis Trophy.

Let me know your opinions in the comments, whether you think the second best player should be put on the bench, or instead choose a different style of player.