The Freedom of Being the Underdog

Having been unable to see most of the All Black’s games on the European Tour I showed my patriotism by getting up to watch the Irish test early on Sunday morning.

We all know what happened and how it happened. The Irish got stuck in and were 19-0 up before the All Blacks were able to regroup.

This led me to ponder on commitment, the willingness to “have a go” when your team is expected to lose. Based on their previous performances this was fair but the marginal differences in many of the tests at the top level seldom amounts to 2 scores and frequently it has been just one.

I would like to grab the reporters’ copy with 10 minutes to go in games where the score changed late in the game to see what influence the result has on what is written.

So given the underdog situation how does the better performed team cope with this situation.

Something similar occurs after half-time in games in which your team is leading against a worthwhile opponent. After half-time the losing team is bound to come out and throw the “kitchen sink” at the winning team. The coach’s rev up and their self respect causes this to happen.

In rugby pressure is applied by the team playing to the three “P’s” – possession, (field) position and having achieved this pace to take advantage of the previous two. But these two come first as they enable you to control the game. To achieve this control you may limit your options to those that ensure these first 2 principles are met. To these I would add a third “P” and this is patience. So by controlling the ball, playing conservative options and giving the opposition nothing to play off you pour water on the oppositions fire.

This applies to both the underdog and the trailing team after half-time.

Under these circumstances the wrong decision is to try harder to implement something that is not working and speeding the game up by taking more risks.

Decisions have to be made on the field as to whether to continue to play with all the options available, such as attacking from within your own 22m line when you have space and an overlap or do you play to these principles by kicking the ball to get out of your “red” zone and chase hard to get field position. I feel it is better to make the decision to be more conservative early and, once order has been restored, work your way back to points scoring options.

If your team is winning results can often mask performance in which plays are not going as well as they should be. Coaches and the leadership group have to divorce themselves from the result and focus on mechanics that maybe becoming sloppy. The conscientious opposition will be showing great interest in how you are playing assisted by the use of computer programmes that enable analysis in detail.

So if we go to the Irish Vs All Blacks test small things that collectively made for major problems had crept into the All Blacks game and these were exploited by the Irish, for much of the first half.

In the attack line from phase play players at first and second receiver, anxious to carry the ball forward, stood flat as they wanted to be the receiver. This meant that, if they ran onto the ball, the pass would have to be forward which meant that they were catching the ball standing still. This can be solved if the ball carrier is deeper can run onto the ball. They can hold the defence by running at the defence. The ball carrier can re-create space for the next receiver if the pull the pass back. To use this space and threaten the defence the receiver must retain depth. If they don’t they will receive the ball and the tackle at the same time.

From phase play the defence, on the other hand, was able to move forward as soon as the ball emerged committing one tackler on the ball and another taking away the ball carrier’s legs. This dominant tackle leads  to messy ball, ball delivered when the team is on the back pedal,  if not a turnover or a penalty. Just a query, is a penalty to the defence measured as a turnover?

In this game this situation was aggravated by the miss matches at the post tackle. Not only did the Irish commit greater numbers they did so with superior skill, which enabled them to counter ruck.The Irish committed their loose forward trio and both Darcy and O’Driscoll, their midfield, were expert in the range of post tackle roles. If they were being successful they could count on other team mates joining in.

 They at least slowed down the ball and, as it frequently occurred before the gain line, placed a premium on re-loading by the attacking team so that it could run onto the ball if they retained possession. Not doing this resulted in the repetition of the situation once again.

I thought that the Irish used outside-in defence which created few opportunities wide out. This compensated for them having fewer numbers in the defence line caused by their commitment to the post tackle. As a result the attack had to take place around one of the first 3 ball carriers where the Irish had a stacked defence pattern.They were prepared to commit more players to the contest for the ball and have fewer in the defence line.

Some years ago I used the Blues Vs the Chiefs game as our case study for the Game Planning course. We were fortunate to have both coaches, Pat Lam and Ian Foster, to talk to the course prior to the game.

The Blues phase play was based on the ball being re-cycled within 3 seconds.

The Chiefs won the game well largely due to turnovers. You see the Blues forwards had taken their coach very literally. This meant that, if they couldn’t be there in 3 seconds, they shouldn’t go. What they should do is join the attacking line. What they missed out was that commitment was needed if there were too few there to ensure ball retention.

Maybe there is an element of this in the All Blacks play. Are they too regimented in taking up position in the attack line to continue the attack? Are they not playing to what is in front of them to make sure they win the ball so they can attack?

A further aggravation was the lack of protection given to Aaron Smith, the All Black halfback.

Because of the lack of depth in the defensive ruck the off-side line is about 1 metre from the gain line with another 2 metres to the attacking halfback. Defenders are able to hover in an onside position. When the attacking players drive through the line of the ball they go well beyond the ball. If one player does not assume the “No. 8” role to control the delivery of the ball the hovering defenders can launch themselves interfering with the halfback’s clearance.

All of this creates momentum by playing over the gain line because support by the team that has won the race to the gain line has a shorter route to the ball than the opposition who have to go back before coming forward. They have to take a longer route.

The other consideration following a turnover is the speed of reactions in transition. Share enthusiasm seems to make sure that the reaction of the team going from defence to attack is faster than their opponent.

This was compounded by the Irish attack that ran onto the ball and they used their forwards to run at the All Black backs. While they were tackled the tackle caused by the miss match had to be around the legs freeing the ball carrier’s hands to offload.This was assisted by their ability to step into space.

Many years ago while coaching University Collidge Dublin I was approached by the coach of the team we just defeated. Our warm-up, which included linear support – playing down a channel and offloading –  distracted him from his own warm-up as he hadn’t seen this being used before. The only difference was in the warm-up the reserves were the opposition while in the game it was his team.

This was a long time ago but many teams are using this now. I guess what goes around comes around.Have a look at the “Top Coach” video I did with O’Shea, Hitchcocks and Villepreux at the RWC Coaching Conference at Bishem Abbey in 1991 it is all there.

On another issue all indications are that the management of scrums based on the new guidelines have not solved anything and they are an embarrassment for supporters of the game and a pain in the neck for the refs who are the “fall guys.”

The only other point I would make about the game is that Ben Smith is finding that the new role at centre is very different from being one of the back three. Centre sets up the wings and full back and cannot be played like one of these three. Too many cooks?

In conclusion I go back to the principles that lead to pressure – possession, (field) position, pace and above all patience – if a union is to develop a team that can shut the opposition out of a game. The team that does this will always have a fall back position while those that don’t will always be vulnerable on the day.

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »