Rugby League formations

[Dunbar]

So, while we are now officially in the silly season, we are allowed to have a few off the wall threads.

I was looking at some football fixtures on the BBC and their team lists graphics in 'formations' got me thinking about whether Rugby League will evolve past where we are now or if the formations are set.

Some examples / questions. 

Is the idea that the second row is now left and right side set in stone or would we ever see a point where the whole pack operates over the park like previous years?

With the hooking in the scrum being obsolete, would a team look to play three props from the start of a game and use the #7 as the dummy half and #1 and #6 as pivots and then bring a more specialist #9 off the bench later in the game (or even a specialist #9 starting in place of one of the halves). I am sure we have seen variations on this, but not a defined and regular tactic.

I know the #13 has beem moving between a ball handler and a 3rd prop but combined with the above it could be interesting. Imagine if the Kiwis started the game with James Fisher-Harris, Moses Leota, Joseph Tapine and Naufahu Whyte all on the pitch at the same time.

Any others?

(p.s. let's not bother with the 'just leave it' replies, as I say, it is just a fun discussion)

[Damien]

The scrum half one is the interesting one when you think about it. The 7 at dummy half is essentially replicating what happens at Union so isnt that strange when you think about it.

As you say there could still be 2 playmakers with the full back being more of a stand off and you could essentially play with another middle forward.

[Griff]

The hooker often stands at loose forward. Scrum half peels away to provide a seventh back.

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, Griff said:

The hooker often stands at loose forward. Scrum half peels away to provide a seventh back.

Of course. I was thinking more in general play, start the game with three props and sacrifice either a half or the specialist #9 during the first 25/30 minutes.

What would an extra prop mean in the initial part of the game - anything or nothing?

[Big Picture]

A related matter, can anyone tell me why the hooker came to be the main acting quarterback (to describe the role accurately)?  The one forward most likely to get the ball from scrums is the loose forward so wouldn't it have made more sense for the loose forward to have gained that role?

[Dunbar]

Just now, Big Picture said:

A related matter, can anyone tell me why the hooker came to be the main acting quarterback (to describe the role accurately)?  The one forward most likely to get the ball from scrums is the loose forward so wouldn't it have made more sense for the loose forward to have gained that role?

It is a relatively recent phenomenon for the player packed in at loose forward to pick the ball from the base at every scrum. It happened previously, but it was much more common for the #7 to pick up the 'hooked' ball.

[Griff]

59 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Of course. I was thinking more in general play, start the game with three props and sacrifice either a half or the specialist #9 during the first 25/30 minutes.

What would an extra prop mean in the initial part of the game - anything or nothing?

Well, defence is still important.

[Blind side johnny]

52 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It is a relatively recent phenomenon for the player packed in at loose forward to pick the ball from the base at every scrum. It happened previously, but it was much more common for the #7 to pick up the 'hooked' ball.

When did the ball ever emerge from the base of the scrum? My memories are largely of two scrum halfs wrestling for possession on the muddy floor with the loose forwards main job being to clobber the opposition scrum half if he had the temerity to run with it.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

When did the ball ever emerge from the base of the scrum? My memories are largely of two scrum halfs wrestling for possession on the muddy floor with the loose forwards main job being to clobber the opposition scrum half if he had the temerity to run with it.

Indeed, its went in and out, and very rarely past the feet of the second row.

[Big Picture]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

It is a relatively recent phenomenon for the player packed in at loose forward to pick the ball from the base at every scrum. It happened previously, but it was much more common for the #7 to pick up the 'hooked' ball.

My question is, since the hooker would never get the ball from scrums why did the hooker become the main player getting the ball when it's played and then feeding the backs?  That just seems odd.

[Coggo]

58 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

My question is, since the hooker would never get the ball from scrums why did the hooker become the main player getting the ball when it's played and then feeding the backs?  That just seems odd.

It’s not that odd. The hooker is a forward, traditionally a smaller central forward, who attacks and defends in the middle but is not a ball-carrier. Ideally placed to be acting half-back.

As @Dunbar suggests, it’s possible that hooker eventually becomes another middle forward to be a ball-carrier. There’s advantages to that, such as outnumbering the oppo upfront. 

I personally doubt it, as it would effectively mean losing a back if the scrum-half becomes acting half-back.

It would also mean losing a ‘centre forward’ who can do it all - play 80 minutes, make 50 tackles, open up defences with craft, guile and often pace, and sometimes kick.

The hookers are some of the best players around.

[Sports Prophet]

I see potential for a time where one half is replaced by a big forward and the remaining half controls the plays either side of the park.

Worked successfully for the Sharks against the Storm a couple of seasons ago when prematch injuries played their part in the run on line up.

[Tommygilf]

We have middle and edge forwards, a dummy half, 3/4 pivots (one of whom also becomes a FB in defence), 2 centres and 2 wingers. 

Changes in formations seem to be focused around exchanging a pivot for either a front rower or a runner (13 or FB), at the moment anyway.

I personally think we could do a lot more learning from using all our backs in attack rather than just one side as currently.

[arcticchris]

22 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

I see potential for a time where one half is replaced by a big forward and the remaining half controls the plays either side of the park.

Worked successfully for the Sharks against the Storm a couple of seasons ago when prematch injuries played their part in the run on line up.

That usually ends up running into trouble when there are too few viable kicking options and it’s easier to key in maximal pressure on the main playmaker on the 5th tackle.

 

You might get away with it your full back is a creator as well.

[dufftown1]

Id argue that we have and do already see 'different formations' in RL but lack the ability to articulate them easily as football would with say a 442 vs 532 (though many in football would also say thats also a bit reductive in describing how a side plays)

In a very simplistic example compare Leeds 2015 GF winning side to the 2011 one

2011 they had 6,7,9 of Mcguire Sinfield and Buderus with Burrow on the bench who could come on for Buderus, but if he did he wouldnt defend in the middle as a 9 normally would. Sometimes all 4 were on the field at the same time along with Webb playing almost as a 2nd stand off in attack They got away with having 5 'attacking' for want of a better word, players on the field by having two 'defensive' centres in Ablett and Hardaker to take the pressure off

2015 Burrow was starting hooker but still didnt defend there so they had Singleton at 13 and 4 forwards on the bench to cover along with a better defensive and running FB in Hardaker. But this meant they lost a lot creatively. They addressed this by having two ball playing creative centres in Moon and Watkins

Theres no shortand description of any of that, we can struggle to articulate different roles and how they fit in systems which means often the tactical aspects of our game get disappear behind positional views. 

Was Sinfield not a stand off because he made 40 tackles and defended in the middle? Was Burrow a hooker because he played at dummy half or a half because he defended outwide? How do we describe a system where you have 5 'attackers' at 1,6,7,9,13 as opposed to having them at 3,4,6,7 and 9? 

[Padge]

On 15/11/2025 at 19:18, Big Picture said:

A related matter, can anyone tell me why the hooker came to be the main acting quarterback halfback (to describe the role accurately)?  The one forward most likely to get the ball from scrums is the loose forward so wouldn't it have made more sense for the loose forward to have gained that role?