What's the real difference between #12 and #13?

[Jaguares]

Yeah I know that usually the #12 is the smart player who can pass and the #13 is the ball carrier who can't pass like Manu Tuilagi, AAC or Bastareaud.

But what is the real difference between their roles?

Someone says that you must pick the big guy at 12 and the skill guy at 13 (Like Nonu and Conrad) but Australia plays upside down (the big guy at 13, Kuridrani)

Of course the 12 must be the "reseller" or something like that and a more tactical player than the 13 buuut Are there so many differences between the roles?

I don't know, for me is not science rocket like some say.

It is assumed that the 12 is more tactical player, the smartest player in the couple but not always is true

 

[nickdnz]

I don't think you can characterize a 12 and 13 as "the big players" or the "smart ones".

The difference is simply where they would stand in the back-line.

Generally the 12 is going to play the 'second receiver role' more than the 13. Some teams like to opt for a big 12 - as it allows a hard runner to run off the flyhalf for when he takes the ball to the line. Someone like Nonu (when he started) to punch a whole through the line or set up a second phase off of Daniel Carter. Some teams however like a 12 with a good fast passing game, and a good kicking game - as since they generally operate in less space than a centre - it helps to have a player who can distribute quickly, and act as a first receiver to relieve pressure off the fly half. Someone like Aaron Mauger was very good in this role.

Same in many ways applies to a 13. As the 13 has more space to run - some teams opt to go for a big ball runner - as the space they have allows them to gain momentum. This is how Australia use Kurindrani and England use Manu Tuilagi. Other teams may pick a centre whose best attribute is their passing, as they want a centre who will try and create as much space for their outside backs. Centre is also typically a more difficult position to defend - because of the additional space and momentum generally afforded to the opposition players going out wide.

But the fact that some players may be limited in how teams use them, and their own skill-sets. Doesn't mean there are predefined roles. It depends on the squads makeup. You have guys at 13 like Mortlock and Umaga who were both really physical, and really smart players. Nonu's game has developed to the point is is both a great playermaker and linebreaker.

So no. The difference in the roles are probably more defined by how teams use them.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I'd also agree there doesn't seem to be a specific prefetermination to each position individualy but it does seem to me that the more succesful teams have a combination in the centers that between them cover all bases. The more complete either center the better of course!

On that subject I'm really looking forward to De Allende and Kriel going forward for SA. I think they have huge potential as a partnership. I think the support/creating role both of them look to be slightly lacking in currently should come with time IE hopefully they gain confidence in their roles and don't feel the need to 'prove' themselves individually and I hope as well that that aspect developes as they have time together with each other and those either side of them. A lot depends on the backroom staff/game plan/selections etc. Curretly the rumor is our coach won't be Heynecke Meyer but Allister Coetzee...

 

[valley commando]

Personally I prefer the more skilfull centre at 12 with an option for the scrum half to use him as an option to the 10 as a first receiver, Conrad S mentioned Basteraud and Tualagi as examples of big centres who can't pass, he is right and both are one dimensional okay playing domestic rugby but I don't see either as International players, subtle skilful centres are worth their weight in gold as far as I'm concerned, players like Regan King, Jeremy Guscott, Sonny Parker, Fofana, Gitau etc add twice as much to a team in terms of balance than brutes like Basteraud and Tualagi.

 

[Peat]

The big difference is space and congestion.

The 12 has to attack and defend a small space that tends to be very congested. The 13 sees less players but more space. This makes their defensive duties and the lines they pick subtly different. Even then, this matters less after the game hits multiple phases.

The players' attributes are very much secondary to that, as there's so many different ways of reacting to this in terms of selection.

 

[Jaguares]

I don't think you can characterize a 12 and 13 as "the big players" or the "smart ones".

The difference is simply where they would stand in the back-line.

Generally the 12 is going to play the 'second receiver role' more than the 13. Some teams like to opt for a big 12 - as it allows a hard runner to run off the flyhalf for when he takes the ball to the line. Someone like Nonu (when he started) to punch a whole through the line or set up a second phase off of Daniel Carter. Some teams however like a 12 with a good fast passing game, and a good kicking game - as since they generally operate in less space than a centre - it helps to have a player who can distribute quickly, and act as a first receiver to relieve pressure off the fly half. Someone like Aaron Mauger was very good in this role.

Same in many ways applies to a 13. As the 13 has more space to run - some teams opt to go for a big ball runner - as the space they have allows them to gain momentum. This is how Australia use Kurindrani and England use Manu Tuilagi. Other teams may pick a centre whose best attribute is their passing, as they want a centre who will try and create as much space for their outside backs. Centre is also typically a more difficult position to defend - because of the additional space and momentum generally afforded to the opposition players going out wide.

But the fact that some players may be limited in how teams use them, and their own skill-sets. Doesn't mean there are predefined roles. It depends on the squads makeup. You have guys at 13 like Mortlock and Umaga who were both really physical, and really smart players. Nonu's game has developed to the point is is both a great playermaker and linebreaker.

So no. The difference in the roles are probably more defined by how teams use them.

For u, the Kiwis, the #12 is the second five eight and the #13 is the centre, right? So when you talk about the centre you are talking about the #13?

 

[nickdnz]

For u, the Kiwis, the #12 is the second five eight and the #13 is the centre, right? So when you talk about the centre you are talking about the #13?

Correct.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't think you can characterize a 12 and 13 as "the big players" or the "smart ones".

The difference is simply where they would stand in the back-line.

In some cases, esp in the NH, both players are referred to as "centres" and they play left ad right centre rather that the inside/outside arrangement we play here.

Generally the 12 is going to play the 'second receiver role' more than the 13. Some teams like to opt for a big 12 - as it allows a hard runner to run off the flyhalf for when he takes the ball to the line. Someone like Nonu (when he started) to punch a whole through the line or set up a second phase off of Daniel Carter. Some teams however like a 12 with a good fast passing game, and a good kicking game - as since they generally operate in less space than a centre - it helps to have a player who can distribute quickly, and act as a first receiver to relieve pressure off the fly half. Someone like Aaron Mauger was very good in this role.

Aaron Mauger was a deft kicker and offered an option as a right foot kicker outside of Carter's left-foot speciality. I can recall many an occasion where Mauger, whether playing for Canterbury, the Crusaders or the All Blacks, carved off large amounts of territory with the "wipers" kick behind opposing backlines. Its a skill that Nonu has picked up only in the last two or three years of his AB career.

Mauger was also a deceptive runner, using guile and skill to glide through opponent's backlines, rather that the "battering ram" approach of Tuitavaki or Nonu in his earlier years.

 

[AzaMatt]

I was wondering this as well because wales and france seem to have it opposite ways around, we have a big carrying 12 (roberts) and a skillful 13 (davies) and france tend to use a skillful 12 in fofana and then basterau as a big carrying 13. as others have said though it just appears to be based on how the team play, i feel its more useful to have a more skillful 12 to play second receiver (ironic i know as roberts is certainly not that, but does his job very well)

 

[Hendo74]

I was wondering this as well because wales and france seem to have it opposite ways around, we have a big carrying 12 (roberts) and a skillful 13 (davies) and france tend to use a skillful 12 in fofana and then basterau as a big carrying 13. as others have said though it just appears to be based on how the team play, i feel its more useful to have a more skillful 12 to play second receiver (ironic i know as roberts is certainly not that, but does his job very well)

Battering ram though he is, Roberts is a good, clever passer - his throw out wide in the build-up to the try v England in the WC being a good example (nothing fancy but created space). At 13, Scott Williams might well be a more skilfull player than J Davies, although as long as at least one of those two are playing I don't mind!

 

[RedruthRFC]

In some cases, esp in the NH, both players are referred to as "centres" and they play left ad right centre rather that the inside/outside arrangement we play here.

When where have you seen this smartcooky? I've seen old programmes that refer to left and right centres, but they were from the late sixties, early seventies at the most recent. I don't recall seeing anything other than 12 playing inside centre and 13 playing outside centre (teams with letters not numbers, superstitious players and retired jerseys aside) with my own eyes having followed the game since the late 80s.

In the late sixties in England, the concept of open and blind side flankers was something of a radical concept to some! A friend of mine who played at a very good level in those days was picked to play in a regional team and asked the other flanker in the team who came from a much more illustrious club and county (possibly an England player) "open or blind" only to be told "we play left and right". IIRC his reply was "no wonder we beat you then"! But I digress!

 

[psychic duck]

Personally I prefer the more skilfull centre at 12 with an option for the scrum half to use him as an option to the 10 as a first receiver, Conrad S mentioned Basteraud and Tualagi as examples of big centres who can't pass, he is right and both are one dimensional okay playing domestic rugby but I don't see either as International players, subtle skilful centres are worth their weight in gold as far as I'm concerned, players like Regan King, Jeremy Guscott, Sonny Parker, Fofana, Gitau etc add twice as much to a team in terms of balance than brutes like Basteraud and Tualagi.

'Subtle skliful centres like Sonny Parker'? ****ing hell. Your unrelenting idiocy has reached new heights.

 

[TheOvalBall]

12 controls inside play, 13 controls the outside play to 11,14 and 15.

 

[racingmetro92]

In Racing 92, Alexandre Dumoulin wears #13 but plays 12 alongside Chavancy or Laulala

 

[Thingimubob]

Personally I prefer the more skilfull centre at 12 with an option for the scrum half to use him as an option to the 10 as a first receiver, Conrad S mentioned Basteraud and Tualagi as examples of big centres who can't pass, he is right and both are one dimensional okay playing domestic rugby but I don't see either as International players, subtle skilful centres are worth their weight in gold as far as I'm concerned, players like Regan King, Jeremy Guscott, Sonny Parker, Fofana, Gitau etc add twice as much to a team in terms of balance than brutes like Basteraud and Tualagi.

HAHAHAHAHA :lol: Potentially my favorite post of yours to date!

While a good player at his best, he is never in a million years in the same bracket as a "subtle, skillful centre" when compared to the others you have named. I always saw him as more of a physical centre with decent offloading skills, rather than a creative type.

 

[big ginger 8]

When where have you seen this smartcooky? I've seen old programmes that refer to left and right centres, but they were from the late sixties, early seventies at the most recent. I don't recall seeing anything other than 12 playing inside centre and 13 playing outside centre (teams with letters not numbers, superstitious players and retired jerseys aside) with my own eyes having followed the game since the late 80s.

In the late sixties in England, the concept of open and blind side flankers was something of a radical concept to some! A friend of mine who played at a very good level in those days was picked to play in a regional team and asked the other flanker in the team who came from a much more illustrious club and county (possibly an England player) "open or blind" only to be told "we play left and right". IIRC his reply was "no wonder we beat you then"! But I digress!

Ireland used it with D'arcy and O'Driscoll.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Generally you want speed at 13. Whilst 12 usually involves powering through to distribution to get through the line, 13 is more likely to use speed to get on the outside shoulder and open stuff up for the wingers. Moving a 12 to 13 can have problems if they are too slow, as shown with Barritt in the world cup. Normally pretty solid defending 12, he was poor at 13 because players would more often run round him than through him. Doesn't matter how good you are at tackling if you can't catch the guy. His attacking ability didn't change due to having none to start with.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Ireland used it with D'arcy and O'Driscoll.

Thanks, I know that they used to switch, but thought that the switches were dictated by the situation they faced, not by the side of the breakdown / set piece they were lining up on. What was the rationale behind this?

 

[big ginger 8]

Thanks, I know that they used to switch, but thought that the switches were dictated by the situation they faced, not by the side of the breakdown / set piece they were lining up on. What was the rationale behind this?

Yeah I think it depended more on the situation you're right, I just remember one of them referring to it as left and right.

Think the rationale was basically just to unsettle the defence as much as possible. They were both able to do the key roles (apart from kicking) to a good enough standard that it didn't make much of a difference and if the defence was uncertain it was likely to create more space for at least one of them.

 

[Which Tyler]

To massively over-simplify things, I think you have 3 basic categories of centre.
Your bosher - used as a battering ram in attack; to either create some front-foot ball, ideally breaking the defense, and then putting someone else through. Best used at 12, but not exclusively so.
Your distributor - provides the FH with a second pair of eyes, can call the plays, offer the SH options when the FH is unavailable, or the breakdown is pretty central on the pitch; often a 2nd kicking option. Should be equally effective at 12 or 13, but not all players can do so, especially in defense.
Your speedster - can often create a little space themselves, but best used when others give him a yard; scares defenses with his pace and should be able to go the length if he gets through. Best used at 13 where it's a little less cluttered, and he's closer to other speedsters to support him on a break.

In defense, the difference is pretty large and complex, depending on your defensive pattern.

Then the issue is with balance - you pretty much need a bosher in there somewhere - though you can get away with having him on the wing, or by executing the right gameplan perfectly; but you need someone who will attract more than 1 tackler and get you on the front foot off slow/spoiled ball.

A "natural" centre ought to have 2 of those 3 principal attributes in attack; and any centre will be asked to take a turn at all 3.

Of course, in England we also have a 4th type of centre, with no discernible attributes at all in attack, but pretty awesome in defence. Need to be at the top of their game 100% of the time to be worth considering, and then should generally be discarded anyway. Generally have names like Mike, Jamie or Brad. The English media will generally refer to them as boshers, purely because they are capable of running into people and will occasionally do so without being turned over; whereas they're patently incapable of showing any pace or invention.