Winning or Entertaining?

Both Australia and New Zealand suffer from the same problem when it comes to the style of play at the RWC. Both, at least during the intervening years, have to play entertaining rugby. Australia has to attract an audience in a country in which rugby ranks after football, AFL, NRL and cricket. In New Zealand the small population means the base from which an audience can be drawn is around 1 million in Auckland, the next best being Christchurch or the Greater Wellington area where about 300,000 live. Current lifestyle choices means that the game is not the only game in town and the majority of those attending have to be theatre goers if numbers are going to be significant.   South Africa has about the same population as Australia and you would have thought that the divisions in interest that exist forces them to conform but rugby is one of the big two along with football and it has strong links with the more affluent. This plus the pragmatism South Africa has brought to many aspects of national life, historically, and we have a nation in which results are everything. So we saw on Saturday night just what a deliberate, simple pattern can do. This pattern is well within the teams skill set and it is so fundamental that the basic pattern is the start and finish of how they can play successfully against anyone. It is so uncomplicated that all the players can be committed to it, they all know their jobs and the margin of error is very low. Should a team be able to dominate possession, to force them into a default option and they are in trouble. However they will be no worse off because they are playing to a game plan that optimizes their talent.   In recognition of this opponents need to show respect and not think they can play to a pattern that neglects South Africa’s defence and attack. Possession is essential, cherishing the ball is important.  Passes cannot be made to a lateral supporting player if the ball carrier is being shepherded by defenders to left and right.  Support has to be from behind so a higher percentage pass can be made. This scramble defence is deliberate and patterned and isolates the ball carrier if the attack doesn’t appreciate where the space is.   Teams must also appreciate field position and show patience to achieve this. It may lead to aerial ping-pong but if the opposition decides to carry the ball into contact for no good reason other than being tired of the kicking dual they will fall into a trap. Even more so with Brousseau, their first genuine out and out loosey in recent years. Teams are no longer able to get away with playing a tight loosey there against South Africa. Teams that go into the RWC without back up in this most vulnerable position weaken themselves at the numerable post tackles and lay themselves open to turnovers.

How long does it take for teams to adjust to outside-in defence against South Africa? The defenders who rush in from the outside leave space the ball can be passed or kicked to but it also creates the opportunity to intercept a pass or tackle the ball carrier from his blindside making the ball contestable. This creates a chance to counter ruck.   The gap that is created is the channel close to the source of possession and those at the first and second receiver. If you are able to get over the gain line here and create momentum those defending outside in are taken out of play especially if support saturates down these channels.   The obvious cautionary tale is to avoid penalties within kicking range, a range that is considerable. Given the confusion that appears to exist at and following the post tackle, the maul and the scrum this is difficult. It is fair to say that games including the final will be decided by penalties awarded at these situations. South Africa will not be the only team who plays for the penalty here. No matter how you may see it as a blot on the game the only solution is to be good enough to limit giving penalties. This is difficult as there are many that are confusing especially those that have no bearing on play. The ones that are of real concern are those awarded when the opposition is showing no interest in competing for the ball anyway.

In addition the defence is helped by an attack pattern that is so flat that the second or third receiver should not get the ball if the passer is not to pass to a player in a worse position. But they do as they seek contact and try and barge their way over the gain line. The defence can rush as soon as the ball sees the light of day with great surety as the time and space the attack has limits the time to make any decision. The standard of play may be different but the depth that teams are coming from in the ITM Cup means that the defence has to be cautious as the attack receives the ball with enough time to react to defence.

So how do teams cope with this game plan? South Africa hasn’t had to spend a lot of time planning the game plan as it has been used for years; it is a way that optimizes their performance. Because of this opponents, while respecting the need to get hold of the ball to dictate terms, cannot duplicate the same game plan, as few will be better at it. What they must do is analyse the team, produce a team profile that may be based on playing position or the principles of attack and defence. The analysis must be accurate as, if you start with inaccuracies, the problem will be compounded with each step of the process. Now that you have a team profile you can decide what you are able to achieve in attack and defence. This may be based on field position, the positioning of the opposition or a combination of both.   Now that you know what can optimally be achieved you can work out how you are going to achieve this. This gives you the team’s patterns of play. Once again, so long as this is based on the accurate team profile, the patterns will be as good as you can do.   Finally we can alter the emphasis based on a similar analysis of the opposition comparing their attack with our defence and our defence with their attack. The majority of patterns will not change but a few significant ones will as you avoid their strengths and exploit their weaknesses. You now have a game plan to be played against a specific opponent. The changes that South Africa seems to make in these situations are few, as their pattern requires few modifications. Maybe it is the same for others especially if it is based on the ability to win your own possession.   What seemed to be missing at Port Elizabeth is an appreciation of the South African pattern and a counter pattern that led to results based on retained possession and field position, a pattern that is less speculative.   What teams can’t afford is to play to a pattern that doesn’t take account of the opposition. All opponents deserve respect.   Finally, in the professional game no attack is going to run the opposition off their feet when the defence just has to shuffle with the movement of the ball and not ball chase. The ball may move a lot but the spread defence pattern means the players don’t have to.

• «Previous Post
• Next Post »