Eddie Jones’s hybrid selection antics are nothing revolutionary

The history of Rugby Union may be read as a move towards specialisation, and then, or rather now, beyond it. The same may be said of some other sports, notably football, but I’ll stick with rugby because this view of the sport’s history was implicit in an article this week by the Guardian’s always interesting and well-informed, rugby writer, Robert Kitson.

Considering England’s convincing defeat of Ireland on Sunday, and Eddie Jones’s fondness for playing players in positions they don’t usually occupy, he wrote: “For decades coaches have spoken of upskilling players so that the number on their jersey doesn’t matter… Rugby’s much-discussed hybrid era, all of a sudden, was front and centre and hard to miss.”

Admittedly the examples he offered were few, and not that persuasive: “There was George Kruis, a lock, aiming to kick the ball out of hand, like a taller gangly version of Owen Farrell. Charlie Ewels, another lock, could be seen packing down at number 8. Ewels’ Bath team-mate, Jonathan Joseph, was on the wing, having played virtually all his top-level rugby at centre”. Even though he also recalled Eddie Jones’s suggestion that the excellent Exeter wing three-quarter Jack Nowell could do a good job as a flanker, none of this seems to me very revolutionary. It’s a long time after all since the sight of a prop forward carrying the ball and delivering a good pass occasioned surprise. As for Joseph being played on the wing, Kitson might have remarked that Gael Fickou, normally a centre, was on the left wing for France at Cardiff the previous afternoon.

As for the Ewels example, well, against Wales in 1987 Scotland fielded a back five of the scrum, all of whom normally played their club rugby at number 8. Derek White and Iain Paxton were at lock, Finlay Calder and John Jeffrey on the flanks, and John Beattie at number 8. They didn’t do badly, winning 21-15.

Nor is the sight of forwards like Kruis kicking from hand new. One of the most famous Scottish drop-goals was kicked from wide on the touch-line and at least thirty yards out by their number 8 and captain, Peter Kininmonth, against Wales in 1951. Since as a boy at Sedbergh Kininmonth had been a centre three-quarter this probably wasn’t the first goal he had kicked. Did this make him a “hybrid” before his time?

Then there was the great post-war French flanker and captain Jean Prat from the all-conquering Lourdes club. In one international – I think at Twickenham – Prat’s incessant badgering of one of his colleagues provoked the exasperated fellow to fling him the ball saying something like, “show us what you can do with it then”. Monsieur Prat promptly and coolly dropped a goal.

Versatility was actually quite common, perhaps even more common, in the amateur days. Over his long international career, Mike Gibson played fly-half, centre and wing for Ireland and Ken Scotland played both full-back and fly-half for Scotland. Indeed on the 1959 Lions tour of Australia and New Zealand he played in every position behind the scrum except wing. What Mr Kitson calls “multitaskers” aren’t new. Gerald Davies from one of the Golden Ages of Welsh Rugby played in the centre and on the wing, as did Tony O’Reilly for Ireland. Eddie Jones’s selection of Jonathan Joseph on the wing was hardly that unusual.

In France the positions of scrum-half and fly-half have often been inter-changeable: Freddie Michalak, Jean-Baptiste Ellissalde and Morgan Parra have all at different times worn the 9 and 10 jersey, as has Greig Laidlaw for Scotland.

Switching between the scrum and the back division is not so common, though way back in the 1950s the hefty Wasps and England wing, J E Woodward, got so fed up of being starved of the ball as he lingered on the touchline that he opted to play in the back-row of the scrum. More recently Richie Vernon played both number 8 and centre for Glasgow and Scotland.

Versatility is therefore nothing new, even if no one in the past thought to describe those capable of playing in more than one position as “hybrids”. What has undoubtedly changed and may be correctly described as a development is the blurring of the old distinctive demarcation of the roles of backs and forwards. The latter are now required to handle and pass as securely and skilfully as the backs, something that only a few of the more gifted ones used to be capable of doing.

Conversely, backs are now expected to go in to win or protect the ball at a ruck or maul, a duty from which many in the past might have shrunk with horror.

No doubt the fashionable term “upskilling” applies, and the result is that mastering the specialist skills associated with the number on the back of the jersey is no longer enough for anyone seeking to play at the top level of the game. Nevertheless possession of the specialist skill required by each position in the XV remains the first essential, the basic requirement without which no one can aspire to play international rugby.