Better Rugby Coaching / Better Rugby Coaching / The Huddle / Tri Nations - 2007 - Your thoughts / Latest Posts

RE: Tri Nations - 2007 - Your thoughts

ANFY B — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:47:49 GMT

I always think that these sides play each other and know each other too well to be able to put tier results into a global context.

Firstly they play each other twice a year then when you look at the super 14s and the teams (when AB are allowed to play) while at full strength have so many internationals in them that in some instances you get international combinations against other international combinations. I know that this isn't at top level, but I can guarantee that you will learn a great deal about your opposite man.

How many times a year will Al Baxter play against Tony Woodcock - or Carter against Latham.

I know that the argument against this would be 6 Nations and Heiniken Cup, but with international teams playing each other only once a season. In addition, a greater number of teams in the club competition is more interesting as a occasionl because of the rarity of the the clashes.......

Give me Sheriden against Haymen - Wilkinson (or Hodgeson) against Carter - How about Regan against Oliver.

RE: Tri Nations - 2007 - Your thoughts

Matt Staples — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:19:32 GMT

Very fascinating to watch these three teams. One win apiece at this point and a lot of people surprised that the All Blacks aren't dominating. A quick comment on Canada (I'm Canadian) my club teamate Scottie Franklin got the start at Tighthead prop and held his own!! Better than the Aussies in the scrum!! Good job Scottie! What I have noticed:

Scrums- The All Blacks dominate scrums, especially against Australia, teams need to figure out how to deal with this. The All Blacks play a risky offload buggars type of game that leads to a lot of handling errors and thus a lot of scrums. Why not make a risky pass? If the recipient knocks it on they win the scrum anyway.

Lineouts- I agree the All Blacks are vulnerable at the Lineout.

Kicking- It seems the All Blacks aren't kicking well and are also vulnerable to kicks, especially if they are loosing their own lineout! That young scrum half from South Africa can kick!!

Breakdowns- South Africa in paticular competed against the All Blacks at the breakdown, very physical, nearly stole that game. The All Blacks are amazing at creating turnovers at the breakdown, but again they play risky. They take to many penalties. The yellow card really cost them against Australia.

Fitness- I agree the All Blacks fitness and bench depth won the game for them against South Africa. Imagine Sivivatu and Maulamu on the bench!?

Athletes- The All Blacks loose forward trio are clearly dominant, and their wingers are elite athletes clearly ahead of the rest. The other position athletes are comparable with Australias half backs and centres having an edge in my opinion (with the exception of Dan Carter).

In conclusion to compete against the All Blacks you must:
1) Improve your scrum
2) Take advantage of their weaker lineout
3) Use the kick (see number two)
4) Compete at the breakdown
5) Be prepared for the last 20 minutes (fitness, subs, game plan)

RE: Tri Nations - 2007 - Your thoughts

philipdc — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:10:03 GMT

The World Cup is starting to take on the predictability of a Michael Schumacher F1 race. Sure the All Blacks could stumble and there is always a chance that they have a really bad experience in one of the playoff games, but these options are in the realm of possible not probable. Only France and South Africa came into this year with the genuine prospect of being able to win a game off the All Blacks. South Africa seem to have folded. Sure I know its not over till the fat lady sings, but in watching Jake White whining away to the NZ press as to why he was sending a second string team to play a Tri Nations game, I am sure I could discern the sound of C Minor in the background.

Besides that fact that I seem to be the only one that feels the Tri Nations fiasco is an embarassment to us (South Africa) as a rugby nation, there seems to be a solidarity here, that "resting" our players is the good that is going come of this. This is not only incorrect coaching strategy, it is also closing the door on the opportunity to fix the only thing that can possibly be done to beat the All Blacks.

The All Blacks beat the Springboks in Durban, not because we were fatigued, but because we were completely outplayed technically. The solution is to fix the technical problem. No amount of rest or conditioning is going to do this. Focus now - its a difficult concept to follow. If Jake White and the rest of the Springbok advisory panel don't get it, you can easily miss it if you don't concerntrate.

I am going to use the analogy of boxing to explain it. The Springboks have a great hook but no jab. The All Blacks have the best jab in the business. The difference in rugby is that you have to knock out the whole 15, and this is not possible, the game always results in a points decision. Now there are two parrallel games going on. There is the scoreboard, which we all watch and there is the score of the gain line, which very few people watch, but which ultimately determines the outcome of the game.

Usually the winner of the gain line wins the match. It is possible that the losing team may be ahead on the score board if something exceptional happens to reverse this. Its a very uncomfortable feeling when it happens. Examples of this this year were the Sharks outplaying the Bulls and still losing, or the Wallabies outplaying the Springboks and losing. When the gmae is over you have the feeling that somethign is wrong. Generally the gain line winner is the game winner. Even in cases like England-South Africa 2 and All Blacks-South Africa in Durban, while the side losing the gain line was ahead on points at half time, you had the feeling that this was temporary. Shortly into the second half the jab starts to take effect an the winner comes through in the second half.

"So what do you mean by "winning the gain line"?" Good question. I see rugby games as a series of bumps. Two people bump into each other and one goes backwards. These bumps vary in quality and character, but every losing bump takes more out of the loser than the winner. This is very similar to boxing, its better to give a punch than receive one. A professional boxer explained boxing to me as two guys moving around the ring until one if them is too tired to keep his hands up and the other comes in to finish him. I mean, thats also about it in rugby right?

This is the reason that so many games are decided at the 60 minute mark. This is about how long it takes for two closely matched sides to decide who is the winner. Games would be a lot easier to predict if not for the substitution rules that gives the loser a second chance. But unless his impact players have a marked effect, the games still goes the way of the gain line winner.

Now the simplest stat to use to pick this up, is the turnovers stats. Turnovers show that you are winning the gainline, but they are not all. There is also a more subtle, more incidious side to it.

This is how I watch it. I keep a running counter. Everytime two players meet, if the offense move forward through the encounter I add one point, if the ball carrier is stopped or pushed backwards I take 1 point off. Break the game into micro periods, but you seldom need more than a few minutes to determine who is winning the gain line. After a while it becomes second nature and you can watch a game with this as a background process.

This winning the gain line is dominated by forward play. Often it takes multiple players at impact to determine the outcome. If your lose forwards are not getting to the ball, or worse if their tight forwards get there first and start roughing up your loose forwards and backs, the result becomes inevitable.

This does not mean that fixed pieces are not important, its just that there are not as many of them as there are loose encounters. It is the shear volume of the slaps in the face that mount up to the "60 minute lapse of concentration"

"So why cant we beat the All Blacks?" Because the Springboks have a hook and no jab. We play great plays - interceptions and power push over plays. Facing up to the fact that we have no jab and deciding what to do about it is going to stab right at the heart of what we have come to regard as precious. If you have no jab, the primary problem is going to be found in your loose forwards and your props.

So unlike boxing, in rugby a hook does not hurt as much as a jab. When Butch James runs in an intercept try, it may make the fans scream, and it does add 7 points, but to those of us watching the "gainline game" this is nothing. When the All Blacks grind out 50 phases like they did in the latter part of the first half in Durban, it matters not that The Sprongboks put on great defense or that the score does not change, what matters is that they have taken away our legs and we are starting to notice how heavy our hands are to hold up.

The harsh reality is that Burger and Roussouw simply do not win the gain line. "But Os Scrums like hell and Schalk is the best loose forward in the world?" I said it goes to the heart of what we regard as precious. The simple reality is that in Durban, NZ won the turnover and pushed us in the scrums. I don't deny that Burger and Os get out there and take a lot of punishment (hits in the face). But remember, that is not what wins games. What wins games is letting the other guy get hit in the face. Gary Botha, BJ did little better. Locks we excuse if they win the lineout, but Bakkies and Matfield got completly over shadowed by Rawlinson in the fighting loose. The NZ players and press will keep talking up Os, Burger and Roussouw, because with them there, doing what they did in Durban, All Black victory is certain.

So what can we do about it? Resting players is not going to do it. When they get back they are still not going to have the techniques to be able to win the gain line. Take a look at the game tape. Hayman, all the AB loosies, even Rawlinson. That are "moving" differently to the Boks. They are coming into the contact, back arched, head up and they are looking to play the man. Go back to the boxers - The All Blacks literally have their hands up going into contact, the Boks have their hands in their knees!

Our players, epitomized by Burger are coming in out of balance, backs bent and looking to play the ball. This body position does not help to land the blow. Its is these 'blows" that the All Blacks strike - 1000 times a game - that count. Readers of ironrugby.com will know that I have for years advocated this style of gainline play - now the New Zealanders are actually doing it.

We should not be resting 10 weeks before meltdown, we should be focusing on fixing this gainline imbalance. Every bit of practice in facing this from the All Blacks, is a opportunity to learn what it means. The solution is to understand this blocking process and implement it in the tackles, rucks and mauls- Sorry I dreaming again - OK maybe for 2011.

RE: Tri Nations - 2007 - Your thoughts

Gareth — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:17:52 GMT

I found it interesting in the Tri-nations so far, with each time playing to their strengths:
South Africa are playing physical rugby, with the focus on the breakdown area and set pieces (lineouts and scrums)
Australia have put effort into improving their forward play before the series, while changing back to their more established running game now that the Tri-nations has started.
NZ have their traditional physical play coupled with excellent ball retention and good structures.

Overall, it is what I expected from all three teams.

I am not reading too much into the results right now.

RE: Tri Nations - 2007 - Your thoughts

cjp — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:44:38 GMT

I am wary of reading too much into these encounters with a couple of months left to go. All good talking points for the fans though. For the coaches a good chance to assess their own team's strengths and weaknesses as well as those of the opposition.

The team that lifts the trophy needs to have got a result in 7 matches over 6 or so weeks. That's the challenge. All the coaching staff can hope to do is bring their best players to the tournament physically and mentally fit and prepared for the challenge. The ABs have some very talented players at their disposal with good skills. This alone makes them formidable opponents. Couple that to some astute planning and tactics from the coaching staff and they will be hard to beat. Henry and his staff are good. No team is unbeatable though. Luck will play its part. As will referees. RU is repleat with rules and situations that leave refs with 50/50 calls to make - failing to release/preventing fair release etc. On such calls could tight games turn.

No team can turn it on 7 games on the trot and play great each time. There will be days when things do not come off quite right. However, a team with a good plan (or plans) and the skills to execute the plan will have a better chance of coming through. Even if the plan is to go back to basics - it's a plan and needs to be executed. Technique + Pressure = Skill. A technique is not a Skill for these international players until they can execute it in front of 80,000 fans with some huge opponent about to drill them into the turf. Without the Skills, no plan can be carried out.

I am sure the coaches will want the players to concentrate on what they have to do and not worry about the big picture, the 20 years of failure or whatever. The players need to develop skills that the coaches can have confidence in, the coaches need to develop plans that the players can have confidence in. With all that in place there is a better chance of executing the plan correctly. For it is certainly arguable that it is better to execute a flawed plan/move perfectly, than to fail to execute a great plan/move!

For my money, the ABs look, man for man, to be the most Skilled team. But they are not way out in front. They can look that way when it all comes together but, as recent results prove, they can be beaten. However, if I were to be given the choice of squad to take to the World Cup, I would take the AB squad (not that anyone would be mad enough to trust me with them!) What does everyone else reckon?

RE: Tri Nations - 2007 - Your thoughts

Tony Allen — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:19:08 GMT

The most well-prepared team in history isn't as good as it thinks it is?

It's a cliche, but there's always the danger of being over prepared, peaking too early, and being over confident.

The ABs looked vulnerable at times against the South Africans, and couldn't kill-off the Aussies yesterday. Even (and no offence) the Canucks hung around for 60 minutes a few weeks ago.

If you've trained so hard and practised so long for a single, huge objective - to win the world cup after "20 years of hurt" - how do you stop the players starting to doubt themselves if it starts to look as if it [u]might[/u] go wrong?

RE: Tri Nations - 2007 - Your thoughts

Toby — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:33:39 GMT

Hi Jonesy,

I don't really have much to add... A one horse race so far. Speed-and-skill beats huff-and-puff. The ABs are fit (they should be). White seems to be a little tactically naive.

Two other points, neither of which is that original:

1. The ABs are vulnerable at the lineout. Their wingers don't like to run back to collect the ball (who does?). Should teams adopt an almost wholly kicking dominated game against them and risk possession for territory?

2. Interesting to see South Africa still scoring interception tries. I think this exposes them in defensive situations against the Tri Nat teams, but the tactic almost paid off against the ABs.

Tri Nations - 2007 - Your thoughts

Jonesy — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:20:44 GMT

Having sampled 2 games of this years series it what are your thoughts on the quality of rugby played, the systems employed, any new ground breaking attacking/defensive moves utilised.

Personally I have been impressed by the physicality, the continuity skills and the strength in depth of the All Blacks. Furthermore the new scrum laws are still causing a big problem and lineout are being keenly contested by the defending side.

Just a starter for ten!

Regards

Jonesy