It is not new that the games that really matter at the RWC are the product of a war of attrition in which the teams attempt to wear down their opponents physically.

This is complemented by the judicious use of kicking to get field position and, when this is far enough away from the team’s own goal line, so as not to concede points really going for it in the areas in which the Laws are more of a lottery to gain penalties to score with drop goals being a close second.

Even when the team uses the kick to gain territory and goes find touch the ball is immediately recoverable to resume the kicking duel. To prevent this the flight of the ball is so much over the touchline so it cannot be recovered, that the territorial gain is limited and seldom leads to a try-scoring platform.

As we know penalties are more frequent from scrum and post tackle/ ruck situations but the increased use of the maul is making this a further source because they are so difficult to defend.

So here’s the scenario in attack. It is probably no different to what you are currently seeing in most major unions.

Persist with the kicking duel and a well-disciplined chase and receipt line. Show patience and don’t get so frustrated that the ball carrier has a “crack” when insufficient support has reloaded for the pass/ run option to be on.

Once we get down there create momentum using pick and goes taking advantage of the defence’s unwillingness to contest the ball because the risk of penalty is so great. But also to be blinded to the numerical advantage the defence has from ruck ball enhanced by any delay that has been created in the balls delivery.

To be fair the turnovers at the breakdown are growing in number in the provincial rugby I am currently watching. So in these games greater commitment is likely because the ball can be regained.

So what we have is a stacked defence line and a lateral attack line with a further line coming from behind after a couple of crash balls.

These crash ball aim to get over the gain line. Of course the further they get over it the greater the momentum but this is made difficult by the attack line standing flat waiting on the ball while the defence line can move forward as soon as the ball is out. This can be the product of poor reloading and not running onto the ball with any evasion in mind. Here once again in provincial rugby I am seeing linear support and the offload making great gains. While the concept has been around for a long time international teams don’t use it – what is the risk?

WHAT OTHER OPTIONS ARE THERE?

WHY WILL THEY NOT BE CHOSEN?

WILL IT REALLY MATTER?

AND WHAT OF THE REFEREE”MANAGEMENT” OF THE GAME THAT IS CONTRAVENTION OF THE LAWS AS WRITTEN?

Tom Jones, our North American colleague, quoted an example of where this can lead. He used the ice hockey example in the NHL in which the Laws of the game and the management style of the umpires meant that the game was losing contact with its principles. In Rugby this is The Charter and the principles of attack and defence to which the playing of the game is accountable.

In the NHL the refs were instructed to implement the letter of the Law. What transpired was a number of weeks of shambles following by the player re-owning the game. They got their game back.

Rugby is a game in which the attack forces an over commitment by the defence to one part of the field enabling the attack to move the ball to where the defence is not. By exploiting this space they can go forward and eventually score a try or two.

This erosion in our game is in what euphemistically called a ruck. Because of the need for assured possession the attack commits more than the defence who can see no point in contesting the ball because of the risk of penalty around a referee decision that is at best confusing and at worst inaccurate and inconsistent.

In my opinion the real trap is that this assumed ruck bares no relationship to the definition of a ruck. The consequence of this, and it is exploited in Sevens, is that there is no offside line, it is general play, and the defence can stand next to the attack. OK they can be forced to retreat if a ruck forms. But what defence in its right mind would form the ruck in the first place.

I won’t go into the formations that are nominal rucks for the sake of retaining the games identity. Analyzing a range of games on the TV around 90% of the rucks formed in all but the space from 10metres to the goal line are not rucks by definition. This is close to 100% if the ball is delayed and the defence en masse, joins the defence line. For obvious reasons the interminable hit ups from 10metres out do force a commitment to the tackle and the ruck. But even here the players miss the point, not all but some. The point is that the defence has been drawn in and, by retaining their depth; the attack has an overlap and can score. There is a huge contrast between the options chosen in these 2 parts of the field and the irony is throughout the field the ball is moved wide where there are many defenders while close to the goal lines the defence is drawn in only to have the attack run at them.

30 September

After watching a number of games it is a pity to see that the games are a war of attrition with teams playing the same way against each other.

It would seem that the easiest way to improve is through strength and conditioning and the hard part is improving the range of skills, which leads to greater options and more interesting decision-making.

I feel England have set the tone by relying on receiving penalties at scrum and after the tackle and they got their just reward.

The lesser countries tend to follow their example.

What is great about the Pumas is the development of their back play and the improved mobility of their forwards. Here’s hoping they make the semi finals, they will definitely make the quarterfinals.

The parts of the tight games that are interesting are the last quarter in which the most fatigued team allows their opponents to get more momentum over the gain line and they are able to play open rugby from there.

But where is the variety. All too much east to west and one pass hit ups and not enough north to south with players supporting down the channel and the ball carrier offloading and not just accepting the tackle.

Let’s not draw conclusions yet; there is a lot to go.

A Couple of Hours Later

I am writing this as I fly to the Gold Coast to meet up with my wife Noelene and my second eldest daughter, her husband and their 4 kids who live there. This after some work in Korea, Chinese Taipei and, earlier in the year Singapore. I need the break as I return in mid October along with a Level 3 Course around Wales Vs. Australia.

It is interesting that I am wanted there, as the Asians don’t see me as a threat but help. Unlike those who followed us at the IRB and the FORU group for me.

It is interesting to reflect on the way the IRB, sorry World Rugby, has gone with the movement away from improving the playing of the game and the emphasis on auditing and discipline and, of course, the reluctance of those now in positions of influence to use anyone in the coaching, playing and officiating side of the game with more knowledge than themselves.

I guess it is about defining your raison d’etre in your own image and if the reflection doesn’t suit you get rid of the image.

In my experience it is in refusing to define your role and accountability, because you want an ever-changing feast while at the same time rigidly defining that of others and, when that doesn’t fit your purpose ignoring, making informal changes to which accountability is claimed.

The note below to Jorge is one of hope but, to their credit, the top unions seem to be able to run faster on the treadmill than the others that we hoped would challenge. Maybe there is a deep seated reason for success that others cannot match even when nearly all their players have the benefit of top union high performance clubs. I hope this is not because most of these are in England and the inherent strengths of a diverse game are bled out of them.

4^th October

Just watched Aussie beat England. I have often criticized Japan for thinking more is better and the extent to which they spend money on their team and I have always recognized that while England have done the same thing they got a better return because of a greater inherent understanding of rugby.

I felt against Australia they showed the limited options that they have at their disposal even though this team has been developed over a long period of time.

Rugby should not be a game in which penalties at the scrum and good goal kicking decides games. For England putting this in place made them vulnerable to a team who could do it to them.

It also is a game for all shapes and sizes and their is a place at the breakdown for a shorter loose forward or two who can jackal under those who have a long way to bend at the waste let alone a lack of speed over short distances to the loose ball.

Add to this the focus on propping and hooking and locking and size elsewhere and you have players with to few options, that French term “polyvalence” comes to mind.

I know the English are not French and should play to a pattern that suits their national character of empire and colonization but this is to deny the way the game has changed and to not go with it and play to an old blueprint can have consequences.

Given the number who play the game in England they must be able to meet all contingencies unless the way they play is so heavily in bred into them.

I feel sorry for them but are they capable of change?

If the game was played the way it is in England elsewhere, in places without the luxury of numbers both on the playing field, in the grandstands and in front of TV it would not have the patronage it currently has.

Is it time for countries who have followed this limited blueprint to think again including the English themselves?

4^th October – Part 2

Its all east to west and no north to south with the intention of creating a miss match and even then support down the channel is infrequent so the ball carrier is not looking for the offload and the support players are not providing it.

New Zealand is trying an 10.1m kick off that is flat and hard rather than one going the same distance but with more hang time while Australia have learnt from Sevens and are putting snow on it with a 10-12 man chase from a sprint start right across the field. Being deep inside the opponent’s half they can risk contesting the tackled ball with a high degree of impunity. If they do their homework on their opponent’s lineout they can regain possession inside the opponents half. At the least they can force their opponents into a default option.

Having just scored it is beyond reason to see the receipt team from kick-offs going to post tackle and ruck inside their own 22m line. Maybe if the wings are drawn up, and they seldom are, the kick can be made behind them. One up to Australia using left and right foot kickers at Giteau and Foley to give them that advantage.

If some thought is given to beating square on defenders to overload a channel and to running at pace from depth to isolate teams who persist with outside in defence, we may get some north to south.

What about the extra man entering the attack line especially from set piece, entering late and off the shoulder to inside out space or outside in space around the play maker?

Did you know that the All Blacks lack so much pace that the receiver has to stand flat to catch the ball and that the attack line has to stand so close to the gain line that they can more easily accept the tackle as they are hit ball and all and spill the ball? It is important to give the opposition their share of the ball.

I don’t wish to be sarcastic but no one can accuse them of peaking early and leaving their best performances in the pool rounds. If it plays out this way we will all claim what a stroke of genius it has been but no one learns anything by playing poorly. All it does is lead to a lack of confidence, hesitation and anxiety. Are they too old and not up to it especially where it counts especially goal kicking?

What do you think?

5^th October

Just to keep you alert.

1. The Puma’s backs look the part and while they may be young the prospects for the future are very good.
2. Does the use of the arms apply to joining a ruck?
3. How can you avoid contact above the shoulders at the ruck given the low body position of the players jackalling? This is back to my old gripe in which the incentive to contest the tackle ball is so limited that the ball is won easily only to find your selves against a stacked defence pattern.
4. Don’t think playing through a huge number of phases is any feat when the ball is not contested. Equally don’t think it is tiring the defence out play this number of phases, it is the ball that is doing the work not the players. The defence line makes the tackle, pulls back into the line and waits until the ball comes back to the channel that is being defended.
5. Is there any hope of duplicating the Sevens blueprint of cup, bowl and plate if we are really trying to create a greater number of competitive teams? The players are there, the crowd is there, the hosting union and its hospitality sector would love it. I have just watched the Rugby League Grand Final in Australia. Grand finals at 4 other levels preceded it. Imagine this being the case at the RWC. And it’s all money over the counter.

Ireland Vs. France is going to be a biggee, wouldn’t you think?

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »

---