nwgull
Well-known member
Cheers Pogue,
The main difference is that whilst there are a set of core skills which apply across a rugby team there are a number of specialist roles/positions which are generally very difficult for another player to backfill.
A particular player might be the lead in calling and receiving the lineout throws, or the main kicker. There's also the difference in size, so if you lose a forward then it'll be harder to cover that particular area as someone else will have to move up.
Then there's the way the game is played. In football you defend a goal, in rugby it's an entire end. Losing one player means that there will either be (i) wider spaces between the team down to 14 men if they spread out or (b) an overlap if they try and defend narrow.
Though no football team would like to play with 10 men for 10 mins they are far more able, by the nature of the game itself, to not concede or make it harder for the opposition to score. In rugby the chances are you will concede points.
I think your 3rd point is the most pertinent. In football, a much weaker team can be battered for 90 mins and still come away with a draw or a sometimes even a win from a single flukey goal. In rugby the dominant team will inevitably accumulate points, which is why Japan beating SA over 80 minutes on Saturday was incredible.
During commentary of England v Wales a couple of years ago, Brian Moore quoted that the average number of points conceded in the 10 mins that a team is down to 14 men: I think that it was as many as 8!