Better Rugby Coaching / Better Rugby Coaching / The Huddle / Defensive Systems, what are you using? / Latest Posts

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

Nipper — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:05:03 GMT

No worries, Didds -- thanks, it was helpful and reminded me of some basic principles that I was neglecting! I can also work up some variations on this as well.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

didds — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:27:52 GMT

nipper... sorry, yes. The whole point is to demonstrate through use that inferior numbers can strill defende successfully, and that the far touchline is your friend. Apologies, I rather rushed my last post and left this info out :-)

The rule to not pass back inside is merely to allow the defense to succeed, as otherwise 3 v 2 should ALWAYS score in anything other than a very narrow space once the drift in this manner has been started.

In fact, with a good closure of space between the two backlines two could probably defend successfully against four even with little problem.

cheers

didds

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

Nipper — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:00:15 GMT

Thanks, Didds. I guess the D working against superior numbers would be the best way to train it, wouldn't it!

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

didds — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:07:20 GMT

wrt training the drift.

saw this done by Paul Hull once...

in a channel, set 1 v 2, 2 v 3 etc. only rule is attackers cannot pass back inside.

This really illustrates how closing space (up) and drifting (over) can be effective at defending an overload.

didds

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

Nipper — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:12:01 GMT

What activities are folks using to train the Drift?

I've typically just used a full backline attack vs. defense (or 4 v 4), and have the attack players spin the ball wide. The defense just work on form (not over-pursuing, not getting the hips squared with the touchline), and their defensive keys (i.e., when the attacker passes).

Any other suggestions/ideas?

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

cjp — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:44:31 GMT

Sound advice.

Add to that, keep pressing forwards! Lot's of players tend to stop and set themselves or just don't press forwards much. Closing down the space and pressuring the attack can really disrupt what they are doing - messes with their timings and everything.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

spainandy — Sun, 17 May 2009 11:18:27 GMT

thanks for all the great input

so what seems key here also is that 10 channel, if we are following ball this needs filling also.

seems then if we want D9 tracking inside and able to hit A15 breaking through....we need to use BSW to hold channel, OR we allocate a forward from scrum/sameside second row, to get out and hold channel, or from Lineout the backman...this leaves D-BSW helping D9 take A15 bursting through and also watching his A-BSW coming through..

it seems complicated for this level but of course we are now beginning to face ever more sophisticated attacks...

its been amazing this season seeing the lads develop and start to play quite a mature game, and also witness dramatic changes in the opposition development...learning is rapid and it is necessary to introduce more complex scenarios for them to use/cope with on a regular basis, ..there is no rest for a coach!

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

didds — Sun, 17 May 2009 10:16:05 GMT

assuming a 5 man pack and a 7 man (full) backline...

scenario 1:

this is a classic exploitation of the man on man (eg blitz) type defence... to create the extra man to finesse a defender somewhere by leaving him defending two players. IMO you will struggle to create a 2 on 1 tackle situation for a wrap around here unless the attack have a small hiccough and buy you time. That said...

Depending on how you structure your defensive systems, defenders could be following the ball once their immediate opponent has passed OUTSIDE himself. ie A10 passes to A12, so D10 follows towards A12 with a view to creating 2 on 1 with D12 on A12.

So, yes - IF D10 and D12 can "handle it" then indeed you can create a small "drift" scenario in effect... D10 must be aware that POSSIBLY when A10 passes then IF A10 starts to wrap then he calls a 1-out, such that D10 take A12, and D12 takes A10. That covers the man on man defense. 2 on 1 is still possible after the wrap but TBH I suspect A10 is now so deep that D10 will struggle to make the potential tackle area in time (and D12 possibly too!).
However, there are inherent dangers with any "follow the ball" strategy, because it doesn't close the gate on the inside. In the structure I outline above (D10 follows the ball and defends A12 whilst D12 takes D10) who is defending (say) A15 coming back the other way? . In a straight blitz and hold the channel D10 is still covering that place of course. D15 should be following the line of the ball on the OUTSIDE. D9 could be following the line of the ball on the INSIDE ... so this defender could be D9. But if he then holds that channel he is no longer covering the inside of the ball (in effect playing open side flank!). An option may be to use the blind side wing (D11) to follow the ball anyway, with a view to taking D10's channel whatever happens - this is probably fine all the time the breakdown is at a pitch extremity... a central ruck/maul/scrum would leave the blind side very exposed with this however of course - in a split field scenario this is probably not feasible and maybe a blitz/man on man defense isn't the best choice here (not that helps you particularly!). You may have to sacrifice D9's roving role until one of the forwards can cover for him and he can move from guarding the 10 channel against cut backs.

scenario 2:

I'd say that D12 in the scenario you describe will have a weak shoulder ie his focus is on A13, and he is lining up his approach with his outside shoulder. Unless the pass to A15 is made too early giving D12 time to readjust then leaving D12 with this responsibility will leave him exposed with a weak tackle potentially for any reasonably well timed run and pass.
I'd be looking for D9 to be following the ball on the inside and D9 would be the tackler on A15. D15 as you say will likely be hanging back to cover the kick, and provides another line of defense here - leaving D15 with this responsibility pf the tackle exposes the space behind. The blind side wing (BSW) could also be tracking inside the ball depending on initial field position (see split field above), or taking D10s channel such that D10 is tracking. In short though D9 following INSIDE the ball (an open side flank's normal running line say).

scenario 3:

Of course the latter now begs the question of ... what if the attackers dummy the wrap and use the inside ball from A13 to A15? ie A10-A12-(dummy wrap by A10)-A13-A15? You should be just about OK here, unless its split field and they have stacked one side with the danger of exposing the blind side later if you pull the BSW over. The danger is if you have to use D9 to cover 10 channel which then denies you D9 to defend against the inside ball, so D15 may have to now track just inside the ball but you are of course sacrificing space somewhere... either for the breakthrough or the kick deep. However... this is U14, 12 a side rugby. If the oppo can work that out, and make it work, then fair goes to them - and it can be a positive for you as you then address it in your next training session as some chalk and talk. This scenario is only likely IMO to work on occasion unless their forwards have total domination over yours (ie total quality ball, going forward etc etc etc)... in which case they are probably exposing you in other areas too. Given equality of pack, some decent pressure exerted anyway then the double whammy is unlikely to come off that often. If the oppo show no concept of being able to use a blind side wing effectively in attack you could take the risk and pull your BSW over to protect the 10 channel and cross your fingers.

Summary:

scenario 1: "full width field" : D10 follows ball after pass, D11 covers 10 channel. D10 takes A12, D12 takes A10. D9 tracks inside line of ball, D15 tracks outside (albeit at depth).
"split field" : D9 takes 10 channel as D10 follows ball. D15 tracks _just_ outside line of ball.
D9 moves once a forward can cover, then tracks inside line of ball. Possibly with genuinely split
field attack, you (over time) introduce drift/in to out

scenario 2: D9 tracks inside line of ball and takes A15.

scenario 3 (my scenario): non-split field. Progress as in scenario 2. D9 takes A15
split field: D15 tracks ball on the inside. And congrats to the oppo if they make it
work. use BSW in 10 channel and revert to scenario 2 if oppo are not
using BSW in attack (and cross your fingers ;-)

didds

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

spainandy — Sun, 17 May 2009 00:56:08 GMT

We really got caught by two moves today (14 years old age group).

Have been using man on man defence (without a rabbit)..we only play 12 a side.

Want to start out to in system of defence, and also create two on one tackle situations.

Two moves that caught us today, and I seek input in dealing with them with Out to In defence....or an Up and Out defence too..

1.Wrap...A10 with A12. The A10 is very hard to reach, isnt crossing conventionally. With either system, is he now for D12? With D10 targetting A12 ? Am wanting to get defenders up fast and intimidating and defenders thinking of their man first, does D10 need to communicate re wrap to divert D12 from his traget?

1. A15 entering line inside A13, taking inside pass. With Out to In, D12 is now targetting A13 as is D13, How/when does he adjust his thinking to take A15.Is it based on his heads up, a call , say from D15 or should D15 be coming into line to take him, bearing in mind that he is back for kick and destined to take last man if opposition get it down the line..

Got to deal with this in next training session...in two days. Any help appreciated

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

cjp — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:39:16 GMT

The structured play thing was a thought that came from reading a report on the Anzac RL test back in April. Gary Roberts wrote" "Stuart put together a well structured game plan of attacking plays that had the young Kiwis flummoxed.

These simple plays was not repetitious and were well disguised as to which one was coming next.

They moved to either 70% for 'a play and stay' on plays two, three and possibly four before sweeping back to the opposite 70%, either using, [a] Lockyer's long and accurate left side pass to create space for his left side runners or, [b] linking back to Hodges for his right side step or Tate for his speed in attack.

The other part of the plan involved dummy half scoots coming out of their end. Instead of using Smith and Berrigan constantly, they also used Tate, Hodges and Hunt with outstanding success. This ploy gained them many yards and, just as importantly, it achieved quick PTBs.

It was a game plan well thought out and well executed by the Australians.

Attacking from the back field, if executed correctly, will give far better results over 80 minutes than the single forward hit up. More teams today are revisiting this style of play.

The rules are simple if a team has effective left and right players:

A. Stay on the side where you receive the ball on play one.
B. Play and stay there for plays one, two, three, and possibly four.
C. Each play, when possible, targets the tackling players, lazy markers, space behind single markers, lazy or tired players.
D. Look for attacking spread from the 70%, giving width to your 'go to' players on plays possibly three, four or five.

This play can be used on both sides of the field utilizing your effective left and right players. Do not waste a play by running laterally/cross field in your own half.

These plays are not to be used on every set in coming out of your own end. Mix it up with dummy half scoots, plus ones, pre line passing and, like Australian coach, Ricky Stuart, have a plan, and practice scenario plays and sets in coming out of your own end."

For a representative side it is hard for a coach to do anything too complex even with top level players - the players do not have the familiarity with each other that they have at club level. I guess that is what Ricky Stuart was trying to do with this plan. A relatively simple game plan, probing at certain areas and looking to create space. It just made me think about such things in an RU context. Does one target certain areas of the field - get play to 60/40 points or 70/30, attack the blind side, back to 70/30 and go wide...? Interesting also how the Australians looked to engineer situations to suit the attributes of their best attacking runners.

I suppose the attraction of such things is that the players all know where the ball is going to end up - just with that knowledge they are a step ahead of the defence, and in an RU context would be more therefore likely to get more players to the tackle area faster.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

didds — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:46:11 GMT

>He also mentioned how they would normally have the first 3 or 4 plays of a set planned in advance. I am not sure to >what extent the same occurs in RU. Does anyone plan sets of plays like that?

Allegedly this is what Henry attempted to do with the 2001 Lions, and received criticism of the idea from some of the players.

I'd be wary of such a proscriptive approach as I fear players at our level (7) won;t have the ability to carry it out effectively enough (cf the Lions who made similar remarks about what was happeming when a player wasn;t where he needed to be for whatever reason). I'd still be wary of it anyway UNLESS I had supreme faith that the players ALSO had the ability to recognise immediately any alternative superior opportunities that became available.

It COULD be a way to get a really struggling side working - but wouldn;t IMO be any sort of long term DEVELOPMENT strategy.

YMMV!

didds

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

cjp — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:21:32 GMT

Up and out in RL -

I was speaking the other day to a former player with Salford Reds (Superleague side). When he was there, they used the up and out defence. Packing their defence tight together and showing the attack the outside. They key was not to let the attack back on the inside. He made the interesting point that in RL the touch line really is an extra defender - attackers really avoid it as if they get driven out they lose posession for certain. There is less fear of the touch line in RU for reasons we all understand. It is worth bearing this in mind when considering these matters. I understand that quite a few RL teams use Up and Out, esp. if they are a fast light team.

With any system, part of what one is doing is deciding where you want the tackle to happen. The rationale for using up and out (with defenders close together as described) in RU seems to be to isolate the ball carrier, get numbers there faster and have a better chance of a turn over. This will work if your forwards and esp back row are faster than theirs. If they are getting more numbers to the tackle then you and you are not getting the turnovers - well all the tactic is achieving is flogging your not so speedy forwards from one side of the pitch to the other!

He began to expain how players use different tackles in different positions and areas of the field and game situations but time was against us. I hope to be able to speak to him further on the subject.

He also mentioned how they would normally have the first 3 or 4 plays of a set planned in advance. I am not sure to what extent the same occurs in RU. Does anyone plan sets of plays like that?

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

cjp — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:29:08 GMT

Interesting what you say re the half breaks and getting scragged Dan. Reminds me of another nice little detail picked up from gridiron. Ever wondered why the BC high steps after coming through the hole? Follow this link = How to Break Free from Defenders and Run the Football

Another example of the detail they go into with that game. There is some very interesting stuff on that site. All of the clips are well worth watching.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

DanC — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:27:41 GMT

A tip from watching a trial match last night. A bit obvious really.

Most of the players were in outsized shirts. Half breaks were made, but I counted at least a dozen times when the player was grabbed by the back of the shirt and pulled back.

A real advert for keeping the shirt tucked in and wearing skin tight gear to play rugby in.

Also it was good to see a referee who understood the tackler's rights. Several times a player was tackled, both players went to ground and the tackler found himself a metre or so on the "wrong" side. However the tackler was able to get up and "jackle" the ball with impunity without having to come through "the gate". Perhaps we should be reminding some referees before games.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

iolo — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 18:54:48 GMT

Two-on-one tackles are, of course, a way of creating turnovers. This is becoming more popular because tacklers (rather than those joining the ruck) have the best chance of taking the ball if they can either stay on their feet in the tackle (which is possible 2-on-1), or get to their feet immediately. O'Driscoll does this very well, as does McCaw, to name a couple of the best known. We, as players, were told either at the start of last season or the season before, that there was a new directive, stating that tackling players must let the tackled player play the ball, even if they (the tackling player) were on their feet. However this does not seem to have taken effect at any level of rugby.

Two-on-one tackles are more a feature of the up-and-out (drift) defence, because this defence allows the spaces between players to be smaller. To make a football comparison, this defence is zonal, with man-to-man marking within the zones, whilst up-and-in is more man-to-man. Unlike football, the fact the ball cannot be passed forward in rugby allows this marking to be very tight, and therefore intimidating, for the ball carrier.

However, as Shaun Edwards points out, the potential problems occur when the opposition use their moves to prevent any simple man marking, and here it is vital that each defender makes the right decision - i.e. a decision which leaves each player covered. This is very much a training ground thing - you must discuss which player to take in a given situation. This is also the reason that the Lions, for example, adopted a up-and-out defence against New Zealand - they felt they did not have the time to adopt a complicated system (also Phil Larder was the coach!) However as that tour shows, the system allows the attacking side to dictate the play - little chance of interception, moderate pressure on the ball, tacklers easily visible. A well organised side will also make sure that the support is there to prevent 2-on-1 tackles leading to turnovers. If you're going to play up-and-out it's also important that players have the confidence to leave the space out wide. A couple of times in the series Julian White was exposed having to cover a larger area than he was capable of. As a first approximation, playing up-and-out you should not concede through the middle: there should be no missed tackles. However the problem with this is that players:

1) get sucked in by dummy runners leaving space out wide; and more importantly players,

2) get front on to the touchline in the effort to get out wide and cover the ground. With your hips in this position its very difficult to tackle on your inside shoulder.

With up-and-in it's more difficult to get two-on-one tackles, except when close to the ruck situation. The absolutely vital part of this system is, as already mentioned, that you have strong one-on-one tacklers, but as noted, this is also a lot about decision making. However a point that has been somewhat overlooked, to my knowledge, is that the tacklers must slow the ball down. With up-and-out you focus mainly on your defensive alignment, but with up-and-in you have to focus on both your own team but also the other team, to a much greater extent. It also takes time, as well as getting into position, simply to get back to the offside line.

You have to have a good ref with up-and-in. Some referees, especially at lower levels simply cannot imagine that there could be that much pressure on the inside-centre. Another issue is when the ball's out: some referees will play acting scrum-half's hands, others just like a nice game!

The main way of attacking up-and-in defences is using kicks. The fact that the winger is up so quickly can leave a large space behind. The usual way of defending this is by having your scrum half track the ball and your full back perhaps a little closer than usual. Newport-Gwent Dragons (when Mike Ruddock was Director of Rugby) used to have their full back cover the openside winger and their blindside winger cover the usual full back space as soon as it was clear the play was happening. Obviously this was quite tiring for the wingers.

The other thing to mention is that your wingers musn't get to tight to play: as this is an in defence they've got to stand wide enough to discourage the cross-kick.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

cjp — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:28:29 GMT

Hi All,

First up, Didds, techniques - I am trying to find this out at the moment. In the meantime have a look at the ARL web site - they have a skills section with some video clips on. Also they sell a DVD thing called Catch Pass Kick or something with the same stuff and more on. Also see http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/skills/default.stm - where there are some useful demos, again video clips. These things repay repeated viewing. I don't think it is a secret, they just spend a lot of time on it. One difference is that they tend to hit a bit higher. I was chatting with the editor of Rugby League Coaching Manuals about it. He remarked on this change, noting that if you went low, as we were taught in the past, today's players would run at you all day. Brisbane use the gap above the belt and below where the ball is carried as the target area for the one on one tackle. Part of the rationale is that it moves less. Go low and you are vulnerable to a hip swerve and fend.

To give you an example of how league regards defence, how young they start and how integral it is to their thinking, here is an answer given to a guy asking about coaching U11s on a league coaching forum"

"Under 11`s is one of the most enjoyable ages to teach,or it
is /was for me.
I became great mates with Bob Wood from this forum,and he made
me very aware of the importance of teaching defensive pattern at this
age group,or any other for that matter.
You can add set plays designed to the strengths of your
team, on top of your basic team shape, such as the triangle type shapes...

Up to the ages of u/16`s i havn`t taught more than 3 good set
attacking plays,as it confuses them.
I have always found that a team with a "defensive
attitude" and a good basic shape taught to it, and allowed to play whats
in front of it will win more than it loses,-(a lot more)."

Jonesy, there is a saying in Aussie RL, "Defence wins matches". They have not lost an Ashes series to GB since '74 (or around there.) They may be onto something. Winning is sexy.

Dan, looking at your points:

1. Let's split out gym and track work from this. Conditioning can be achieved ball in hand as well (see Denis Betts below).
2. When learning a new skill, technique is the initial focus and the emphasis will be on that. Drills will be narrowly focused. As the technique is mastered it can be incorporated into broader activities. If technique slips or needs a brush up, one can focus in again. Otherwise attack and defence can be combined in all areas. If you are working on a line out move, work out how to defend it. That's defence. Once the players are know what they are doing, run them against each other, ditto scrums, rucks, mauls. They all have an attacking and a defending side. Back moves are an easy example - if you are teaching your backs a move, say a scissors, then teach them how to defend it. Once they have got the hang of things enough to run it opposed one can kill two birds with one stone.
3. That percentage will depend on what stage you are at with the skills you are working on.
4. Denis Betts puts it better than I can - "You have to realise that the game of rugby is built on basics. If you drift away from the core principles of catching, passing, running lines and tackle technique then you're in trouble. Once you stop practising these things - even for the most talented players - like most things in life, the skills falls away very quickly. We [Gloucester] try to keep the ball in hand as much as possible in training and just drill the founding principles home. It's all really simple stuff but fundamental to what you want at the end of it. Without these blocks in place, you have no chance of developing a free-flowing game. It's no good wanting to play a particular game plan if the players don't have the skills to execute it. So you have to start from scratch and look at the individual."
I think Denis correctly identifies the basic individual core skills, although I might add kicking. Defence is a team skill, tackling is an individual skill. Footwork comes into all of it and cannot always be separated from the situation/skill it is needed to support. Tackling needs just as much attention as one gives the other core skills, but it is just a part of defense. As can be seen from 2 above, it is possible to coach "both sides of the ball" together. Even a game of touch used to work on something or other is 50% defence.
5. All players need to be able to tackle. The winger may not make as many as the openside but the winger is often the last man out there - if he misses they score. Same with the full back. It's not a numbers thing. All need great technique, for the winger to pull off that try saving open field tackle, or the tight head to get into a good hitting position to make a dominant tackle, to stop the opposition momentum in the close quarters exchanges that are his domain.

That's just what I reckon.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

Jonesy — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:55:59 GMT

I coach a Youth side and a County Under 16 side and would love to dedicate 20% of the coaching session time to defence, however the reality of the situation is that most of the allocated time is spent on basic continuity skills and attacking/game patterns of play.

I reckon that 10 to 15% is closer to the mark.

Defence and tackling just ain't sexy!

Jonesy

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

didds — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:37:33 GMT

[quote][b]cjp (21/06/2007)[/b][hr]We must reflect on why tackling is so bad in RU and so good in RL.... It's in the coaching.

...

How does RL teach tackling? We must study this bacause it gets results. As I understand it, there is a strong emphasis on technique, in fine, fine detail.[/quote]

CJP - all understood and agreed upon. So - the simple question is then... what IS it that RL coaches do that we in RU do not? And where can we (espcecially those of us in the deppest darkest south miles from an RL club to borrow a coach from :-) find out what is done so we can study it as coaches.

I can;t believe its some sup[er RL secret that is locked away from all others t find etc :-)

cheers

didds

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

DanC — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:08:49 GMT

Let us assume that 50% of training time should be dedicated to defence and 50% to attack.

A couple of issues arise:

1. 50% of what training time - does that include conditioning time? Use defence conditioning therefore

2. Can we combine attack and defence in the same drills? Certainly for some sessions, but as Chris (cjp) says, technique must be isolated, so we cannot combine it all the time.

3. How much of the 50% is dedicated to technique and how much to organisation?

4. There are 5 core skills: handling, kicking, contact, defence and footwork. That suggests that we should spend 20% of our core skills time on defence.

5. In a game, there is an enormous inequity in tackling, with the onus falling on back row, inside backs and ironically props (at certain levels). Do we need to split up the training like we do with handling, set piece and kicking, to reflect these needs?

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

cjp — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:38:26 GMT

Guys,

I know what you are saying re differing abilities - this a fact and is what confronts all coaches. The main point is that tackling is to the rugby player what a backhand is to a tennis player. An integral and vital skill. Sure some tennis players will prefer the forehand but their coach will need to work hard on the backhand to get it good if they are going to play any sort of competitive tennis at any level.

We must reflect on why tackling is so bad in RU and so good in RL. Players are not born, they are made. There is not some weird genetic thing going on where good tacklers are mystriously drawn to RL and not RU. It's in the coaching.

It is also a myth to imagine that there are not dramitic size differences on the RL field. Tiny Rob Burrow (5'5", 10st 3lb) will have to tackle all 20st of Paul Anderson if he comes his way (and Anderson will try to), just as Andy Gregory (5'4") had to tackle all 6'8" of Paul Sironen back in the 80s test matches. Sure, physics dictates they will not smash them back but stop them they must. Think of the impact a recently RL hardened Scott Gibbs had on Oz Durant back on that Lions tour, a man considerably bigger than him.

How does RL teach tackling? We must study this bacause it gets results. As I understand it, there is a strong emphasis on technique, in fine, fine detail. Tackling is a mix of technique and desire. Desire for some is natural but for most, putting yourself in harms way is not natural - tackling looks and can be painful. Desire can be greatly assisted by confidence. Confidence needs building slowly and carefully with players learning technique first in low contact situations. Through this they can learn good technique but also realise that they can do this thing and not get hurt. As competence and confidence build so can the contact. If this work is done well when players first start on contact, good foundations have been laid. Tackling and defense in general needs lots of practice, every session, very week. There is an argument that as one spends 50% of a game without the ball on average, one should spend 50% of ones practice time on defense. This argument has force and was realised in RL back in the '70s.

The devil, with all these things, is in the detail. It has to be got right in detail, foot positions for the different tackles, hand positions, footwork on the approach, body positions throughout the tackle phases, contact points, what happens during the tackle phase, what the desired outcomes are, the finish phase. From what I can see, this does not often happen in RU - and worse there is a lot of just plain bad technique out there. Just as batsmen work on the fine details of footwork, hand movement and body position in their shots so it should be for the tackle - batsmen and their coaches do it because it really matters.

Tackling, as with all skills, will not come easily to all. However, good coaching, good technique and hard work can produce a really good tackler. It is no different from any other skill in the game. Steve Waugh was not as naturally gifted a player has his brother Mark, he could not play those effortless, beautiful cover drives Mark did. However Steve's immense hard work, dedication and great technique made a very, very successful player.

Of course not all players have the ability to reach the very top, nor may they have the desire to do so given the sacrifices involved. However, I would argue that the coach's job is to equip each player with the skills and the best available techniques and to nurture each player in such a way to enable him or her to reach their maximum potential in the sport should they wish to. And all within a fun and caring environment.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

Tight 5 — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:09:48 GMT

Chris & Dan

Whilst I agree with both your points regarding the importance of the tackle, we as coaches must also remember that we are dealing human beings, & we are all different.

We all have different learning abilities, outlooks, wants, needs, aspirations etc etc & sometimes we forget these things in the heat of the moment.

I try to get my players to want to learn, to want to improve, to want to play, but above enjoy what they are doing.

Some players will not be good tacklers, no matter what drills you use, how ever much you encourage them, motivate them, coach them, they reach a level & stop. But they may be your best kicker. So do you drop them because they do not fit into your defensive system, no , you coach them to improve as a player faults & all.

If we could all tackle/run/pass/scrum/ruck/maul to international standard then we would have been there seen it & done & I for one have not. But I have enjoyed playing & now enjoy coaching, but will never ;) be england coach. But I will try to be the best that my ability will allow.

Be realistic in an unrealistic world.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

DanC — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:19:44 GMT

If were true that all players were equal, then it would be a boring game. The moments of brilliance are there because there is some many opportunities to fail.

I am not saying we should accept bad or poor play. Every coach should always look to improve their team. But as CJP points out, you never have the finished article at your disposal. In which case you need to work to your limitations at the moment your team enters the playing arena. That is why a defensive system has to accept that there may be weak link and you have to protect that weaker link.

In the long run train players to become stronger in the tackle, but the game is still piano shifters and piano players. RL is different in some senses because it requires a more homogeneous player. Piano shifter and players are more closely aligned. However put a RU big man against a RU small man then it is likely that the good big un will prosper.

The debate will continue!

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

cjp — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:22:50 GMT

Hi Dan,

I agree with your points 1-3 but must strongly disagree with your last points. Every player must be able to make able to make a one on one tackle well, dominantly if needs be. Tackling is a fundamental skill in the game. A poor tackler should be no more acceptable than a player who catches or passes poorly. There is no place on the field for them. It is the coach's job to ensure that all players can perform the basics of the game competently before allowing them to take the field.

Any player than needs to be hidden in defense is a liability. Any team with half a brain between them will spot him and run at him all day. Play smashmouth with the poor tackler as the constant target. The defense will need to help him and this will draw cover from elsewhere, leaving a weakness somewhere else. The guy may as well have been sin binned for all the good he does his team. In fact it is worse, a sin bin only last 10 mins, this guy will be useless all game.

No defensive system can operate on the basis that players cannot make good one on one tackles. Sure 2 on 1 is great but not if it leaves holes elsewhere. Yes try to drive ball carriers to a hitting zone where big gang tackles can be made but this will only work sometimes. If you play up and out you have to be able to make one on ones out wide - it's how the system works. Offenses should be taught to "fight the pressure". If defenses are trying to drive them inside, they must try to resist. Such resistance will need to be countered by good one on one tackles.

Tackling is a skill that can be taught, learned and mastered - and should be. There are no excuses.

On a more general note - the acceptance of poor standards within the game from top to bottom seems widespread. Tackling is just one area. Dan, I am afraid your comments are symptomatic of that malaise. I must admit to being very unsentimental about the game. This will irritate some readers but from where I sit, I see a game that thinks it is professional but is amateur in thought and deed, amateur to its boots - and I do not mean amateur in a good way. The game is pretty insular, prickly about criticism, bizarrely believes it has the answers (how would a century of real amateurism produce those?) and only really looks outside itself at the highest level (although there are a exceptions). I see woeful defense and handling even from top international teams and players all the time. Until all in the sport recognise just how low standards are nothing will change. It requires a long, hard and probably painful look at a thing one loves (and probably views through rose tinted specs.) Not easy, granted. But it won't get better until people realise how bad it is. Every aspect of the game and of how it is coached needs to be torn apart and analysed in the finest detail. Much will end up on the scrap heap. There must be no sacred cows, nothing done just because that's the way we have always done it.

For me the problems start right at the bottom - if a player gets to international level and still cannot tackle or does daft stuff like putting the ball under his right arm whilst running down the left wing (Ben Cohen is a master of that school boy error) it is too late. An international coach cannot fix that, nor should he have to. Only when excellent technique in all areas (arrived at by careful, almost scientific analysis - this stuff should all have been worked out already and be freely available on the RFU site IMO) is well taught throught the country from the youngest age will we have a chance of producing world beating internationals.

Rant over! I come to this as fan of both RU and RL. I see in RL a very hard, unsentimental, ruthlessly professional game. A game that does the basics very well. A game that demands perfection at all times and will not tolerate failure. I do not see that in RU.

Now I realise such a polemic is likely to evoke a strong negative knee jerk reaction from many who love the game, who watch and enjoy the Guiness Premiership, Internationals, Super 14s or whatever and do not see much wrong with it. Stop. Don't hit that "post reply" button. First look at the game you love with a harsh, critical eye. Look at it from a glass half empty viewpoint rather than glass half full. Could this or that be better, of course it can be! Set high benchmarks - not the All Blacks, they are good but not in any objective sense. Set their skill levels as a base - heck there are Aussie teen RL players who individually handle and tackle every bit as well. Look outside the sport. Aim high, higher than you imagined possible.

Chris

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

DanC — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:11:17 GMT

Whatever system you choose, having a system in the first place is sometimes as important because:

1. motivational

2. easier to dissect where problems are occuring and so fill in gaps

3. a focus in training

Also it is worth defining a defensive failure. For me, if the opposition ball carrier enters a contact situation and there is a one on one, then the system is weak. It relies a first up tackle which can be difficult because the ball carrier tends to have the upper hand. Therefore the system needs to manipulate a one v two.

It is easy to blame one player for poor tackling, but some are inevitably better than others, and so if you can have a system that protects weaker tacklers, it is possible to solve a potential problem. Few want to go down a ten channel if Butch James or Jonny Wilkinson is there. Daniel Carter, Ronan O'Gara are efficient but not so scary. Get the system help them make fewer one on one tackles.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

cjp — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:26:04 GMT

Very interesting what you say about the sevens Mike. That game does cruelly expose many things about a player. With such a large expanse of field to defend I suspect that using the touch line as an extra defender as one does with up and out is the way to go. Also interesting what you say about the FB not committing too early. I would imagine that his job would be to shepherd the ball carrier (BC) into an area where the cover defenders will be able to help - the tackle zone. Now if the FB can hold off committing until he is in the tackle zone he will have a lot more support arriving. It will be for the team to decide where they want that zone to be. I suspect that they would not want to BC to be able to escape up the side line but would want him pushed infield a bit towards the cover.

As regards 15-a-side, as Rick Campbell notes, up and out needs fast, fit forwards. The breakdown points will be out wide. Learning how to shade attackers is pretty important, ie keep the BC to one side of you. The vulnerability is to plays cutting back across the defense as noted by earlier correspondents. If defenders can avoid turning their hips to the sideline too much, that helps, basically not committing too much. If the attack does cut infield the defender(s) needs to open up with the foot going in the direction of the ball carrier and move on a path to intercept. If the defender crosses his feet rather than opening up he will probably miss the tackle and just end up chasing the attacker.

As also noted by earlier correspondents, one should not underestimate the effect of just getting over the gain line rapidly and closing on the attacking line. It can be very unsettling for a No.10 to see defenders getting into his line and will certainly disrupt any planned moves. This theme is picked up in Dan Cottrell's piece entitled "Unstoppable Tries" in issue 135 of "Better Rugby Coaching" where he looks at the rush defenses used by the Boks and some of the intercept tries that have resulted. (Not sure one can look at it as a try scoring tactic as it relies on some pretty brainless and naive play from the attackers, but still intercepts are great if you can get them.)

It seems to me that a lot of the rather more complex back moves out there are very vulnerable to a rushing defense - it just takes so long for the ball to get to the final ball carrier. A fast up defense will be all over it like a rash before it has unfolded. If the line drops deeper, all they do is some pretty passing before getting tackled way behind the gain line. If tackles are missed, sure the move can succeed but that should not happen.

Another thing to consider is varying the defense for left and right side. A lot of players pass better to the left, esp right handers who will be 80% of your opponents on average. They will probably attack your right side better than your left. I know that RL looks at right side and left side defense but have I have not studied it. In American Football parlance, the right side would be the "Strong Side" the left side, the "Weak Side". If nothing else using a varied defense will confuse your opponents no end!

Best of luck with it!

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

Fenno — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:08:59 GMT

I use the up and out with my teams backline defence. I have found that Rugby league players switching to union have automatically presumed we use up and in. In a case a few years ago we went with up and in after half time and denied the 5/8 time and space to pass to the open therfore pushing him back into our pack and creating turnover opportunitys for our tight 5. However up and out is working for us now by isolating the ball carrier and teacing the tackler to "get up quick", after the tackle and playing the ball before it becomes a ruck.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

Mike Stewart — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:06:05 GMT

I love your comments and observations on the defensive patterns in RU. I am a keen student of the tactics you have exposed. If you want to see how it is done properly just watch the IRB 7 aside competitions. I was in Adelaide over Easter 2007 watching the international 7s. I was fascinated by the defensive patterns employed and unless I am very much mistaken, nearly all sides employed the "up and out" techniques that you talk about.

It seems to me that 7 aside RU can bring out the best and worst in players - it can expose players' techniques, individual skills and team play. From what I witnessed, the "up and out" tactic forced the ball carrier out wide. The backs stood close together in defence thus exposing huge gaps out wide. To get to those gaps, the attacking side has to catch and pass very quickly and have fast runners and sometimes move sideways to get to those gaps. If they succeeded in getting through out wide, the role of the defensive full back (who was standing very, very deep) was not to commit to a tackle but rather to get the attacker to slow down (through changing his line of attack, stepping, kicking etc). When the attacker slowed down, the cover defence came through to effect the tackle. Naturally, if the full back got committed to the tackle, the cover defence was completely unable to get to the attacker. It is a game of military battlefield strategy - once you have got the opponent to commit his reserve (ie the fullback in this case), then you then control the opportunity to score points as the attacking side.

Naturally, this defensive technique requires: intelligence, fitness, rucking and teamwork. For the attacking side against this technique, it requires: speed, catch and pass skills, intelligence, rucking.

So there you go, I have seen "up and out" defence done. Perhaps the person to speak to is Glenn? Ella who currently coaches the Aussie 7 aside. I am a personal fan of the up and out technique theory but I have not coached it. I would like to coach it next year in U15 rugby but first I will have to ensure the individual skills are up to scratch. I believe this technique in the end forces attackers to run sideways which only good sides can overcome. This technique also very quickly destroys a team's "will/on-field morale", which I happen to believe is the key to winning from a game plan perspective.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

cjp — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:15:24 GMT

Tight 5, You are absolutely right re American Football. You are right about phase play. A flexible approach is needed. RL has to deal with very fast phase play in which time they get back 10m and reset. Granted only 2 players will be tied up in marker defense duties but the rest of the team have to manage without whoever it is who is tied up. I guess this is the idea behind the idea of A, B, C and D defenders - if you are there you do that job within the system being used.

In an ideal world - or at least one where players can actually tackle - the second line - linebackers or whatever one wants to style them, are not there to pick up those who break the line, there should not be any, there are there either to occupy a hitting zone to where attackers are driven or add extra bulk to the first up tackles/be first to the breakdown. The back 3 are there for the kicks. It is sobering to note how RL uses just one line with a solitary FB behind - their tackling is so much better. In fact that game does not tolerate missed tackles. Miss a few and you will be carrying the drinks bottles next week! As a league fan, I find the poor tackling in RU at all levels, especially at first grade and international level, inexplicable. Different in the amateur days but inexcusable for professionals. It is a basic skill, like passing and catching. Now I think about it, the England backs struggle to catch and pass under pressure too...

Chris

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

Tight 5 — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:50:37 GMT

cjp

One big difference between American football & r.u. is the plays in AF are just that, set plays one after the other with set gaps between each play to re-set & organize both defence & offence. R.U. is more flowing & continuous, with the stoppages being much shorter than AF.

Having said that there is possibly enough time to organize a defensive system in 3 waves, although giving specific players very defined roles would only work in one phase of play, just as in AF. Once you get to 2nd 3rd or more phases of play, players are more likely to be out of position, caught in tackle/ruck/maul, so giving players set roles becomes increasingly difficult the more plays there are.

An effective back row unit, or back 3 (wings & fullback) can be used in a sweeper type system that can act to plug holes & pick-up players breaking the first line of defence. The All Blacks used this to great effect against France in last Saturdays test, in fact they use it all the time.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

cjp — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:14:36 GMT

I am quite interested in the 3 layered defensive systems used in American football. As I am sure you know, they use a 3, 4 or sometimes 5 man defensive line (whose aim is to shed their blockers and get to the QB or ball carrier), backed by 4, 3 or 2 linebackers respectively. The linebackers plug the holes in the line against the run, may drop into pass coverage or come up into the line to overload it, for the blitz. There is a 4 man secondary (2 cornerbacks and 2 safeties) whose main job is pass coverage but may also come forward to defend runs. Indeed some plays involve corners getting into the attackers backfield to make tackles or force runners to the inside.

I have been mulling over how one might create a similar 3 layered defense in RU - after all, there are 4 more players than on the American Football field. Philip Coleman has been working on this and must take credit for the idea. In broad terms it would be 3 or 4 players (depending on the situation, ruck, maul or scrum) pushing up very rapidly, crossing the gain line and moving as far into the attackers territory as possible. As you say, this in itself is highly disruptive. 2 or 3 "linebackers" - probably back row and scrum half, support them, plugging the holes. Wingers and full back back covering kicks, ready to move up to defend the run if needed.

American football plays happen amazingly fast. As I understand it, although it is all highly coordinated, each player has a specific job to do and does it without waiting for his team mates. The play therefore happens very rapidly, as fast as the quickest player. In rugby we tend to attack and defend in lines. Attacking back lines chug up to speed, defenses chug forwards, checking alignment and all going as quickly as the slowest player. To do otherwise destroys the line. It is just so normal that no one questions it. I wonder if there is a way of freeing things up and speeding things up? It could be as simple as giving players a specific task - I am thinking aloud here. For example from a defensive scrum, asking your 10, 12 and 13 to sprint forwards and get to their opposite number's outside shoulder - just get to him and if he has the ball, tackle him. They are not worried about lines, just getting to their man and so should move faster than if they were checking where each other was. It's a theory!

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

Tight 5 — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:21:12 GMT

cjp

The distance advanced is usually enough to change the minds of the attacker. It also depends if the 10/1st reciever takes the ball static or running. At our level this is usually static so we usually get over the gain line before contact.

We aim to keep the tackle line as near to the gain line as possible, the more you reduce the attackers space & time the more prone they are to mistakes, both physical & mental.

Just to add, I have also used a back 3 sweeper system which helps plug any gaps behind the rush defence.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

cjp — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:12:52 GMT

How far do you look for your defence to have advanced by the time the ball reaches the opposition No 10/1st receiver, and then 2nd receiver? From a scrum the distance from back foot to gain line can be not much more than 3m. This would be less at a ruck. Did you find you could normally make first contact in the opponents' backfield?

As you say, the vulnerability of the drift is to the play coming back at the angle. RL coaches are at pains to stress the need to go up before out or in. I think that is why they do not like even to refer to slide or drift defenses, emphasising the UP of the Up and Out. A defense that drifts straight away is easily beaten. If a defender gets square on to an opponent and the hips are turned one way or the other he is easily wrong footed. I would imagine that this is why these systems encourage shading either inside or outside and up before out or in.

The up and decide looks like a way of closing space and keeping opponents guessing - will they go in or out?

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

Tight 5 — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:56:50 GMT

I have used a combination of all types of defensive alignment, but always try to get the players to do the following.

Speed of closing down attackers space.

Control & balance when approaching the attacking line.

Communication.

Support the outside man`s inside shoulder.

Pressurize your man.

Adapt or change defensive patterns, to stop the opposition reading you.

And above all, if you commit to a tackle, make sure you commit the attacker to a decision.

This seems to work for backs & forwards & means you can counter most attacking styles.

Last season my side played the top 2 teams in our leauge who both used 10/12comingg back inside to the forwards support & driving through the middle.. In the first half of the season our team had used mostly drift defence, so were venerablee to this style of against the grain play, we lost both games.

For the second half of the season, we added a front 3 up & in blitz (10,12, & 13) on the first 3 opposition scrums, & then reverted back to drift defence. This simple change totally unsettled most teams we played as they expected standard drift defence. When we played the top 2 again we beat one & lost by one point to the other because it upset their rigid game plans.

Systems don`t have to be complicated, they just need to make to opposition worry about what you are going to do.

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

cjp — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:16:26 GMT

Hi TD,

As you say, secure tackling is the key to all defence. As John Dixon (Assistant coach at Brisbane Broncos) put it in an interview for RLCM (and reproduced in an article entitield "Let's Talk Tackling" in RLCM's "Junior Coaching Book Two" - "If a player cannot make a tackle "one-on-one" then I know he is in strife!" Nigel Goodings (Aus RL coach) writes in RLCM Junior Coaching Book One of the plan developed for the [b]U11 side[/b] he was coaching "No player would be sent onto the field to play a game of Rugby League without being able to perform Front, Side and Reverse tackles competently in training." It is concerning how many players in RU at all levels are found wanting in this department.

Looking at structures again, it occurs to me that in RU the defensive line is often so close to the gain line that up and in or even the umbrella defense that Rick Campbell describes could be deployed much more easily than in RL where the 10m rule makes it very tiring to dash up and back all afternoon. Fatigue should be less of an issue also because there are less plays often in a game of RU. A team who get off the line very quickly, looking to get into the oppositions territory fast should always be able to make the tackle behind the gain line. The umbrella looks very attractive on paper. The outside backs coming up fast and looking to get to the outside of their opposite number (to what the Americans call the "force point" or "tackle point") before or as the ball gets to them. The play will be driven inside as the attackers looks for space and they will be met by not only their opposite number but a "linebacker" who will have pushed up into the line. This should allow a two man "scissoring" tackle (a particularly uncomfortable experience) as the linebacker should be coming from the inside, the other player from the outside. Not only do we have a dominant tackle but a good opportunity to strip the ball, force a fumble etc. If they run further infield, the forwards await with glee the opportunity to give some 3Q a working over! With a defence like this, really only defensive error will allow the attacking team to cross the gain line.

Key skills will be tackling (as already mentioned), starting stance and "breaking down". The starting stance would be as Rick Campbell suggests, I would add that the upper body leans forward with the weight on the ball of the front foot, the toes of the back foot in line with the heel of the front foot. The first step is with the back foot with the body rolling over the front foot. There is no lean back and push forward from back foot. This wastes time. It is an instant move forwards. (This is a 2 point stance for a wide receiver - I'm not clever enough to make this up myself! Interestingly, the WR is coached also to use his periforal vision to see the snap. He will need to see it as he may be too far from the QB to hear the calls, but must focus on the defense in front of him.)

"Breaking down" is about avoiding getting to the tackle/force point with too much speed/momentum. One must cover the groud as fast as possible but as the tackle/force point approaches, lower the centre of gravity and get into the hitting position, keeping the foot speed, feet pummelling the ground shoulder width apart. From this low, balanced position the player is better able to react to the moves of his opponent and make the tackle. There are drills involving tackle bags and ducking under ropes to practice this. Approach fast, break down, get low under rope (head up), hit bag (upwards motion of course, lifting it off the ground feet remaining on the ground, not diving into it as if it were a swimming pool).

The situation from top of the lineout ball will be different as that is just about the only time there is a decent gap between the lines.

Where does this leave the attacking team? They could kick, but this will be under pressure and surrenders possession. If they lie deeper they will still be tackled for a loss even if the defense has had to slide out as per Up and Decide. If moving the ball away from the scrum or ruck results in a loss of yardage, aside from the kick there is really only the pick up and drive. Here good, aggressive close ruck defense, with players coming from low 3 point stances (think of American Football linemen - they do it excellently) looking to get under the ball carrier and drive him back and put him down could be effective. I will leave defending the maul as I no nothing about it!

What else should we add to this mix? The ability of all players to read and react correctly to a variety of attacking moves. There are plays that can be deployed against well known back moves. In the RLCM Drills Book 1 there are suggested defensive plays for defending against the run around, against the reverse pass, against the scissor and against the extra man as well as a drill for defending the last 15m (width) of the field among others. It makes sense when introducing a back move to work out a defense to it and coach the two together. Once players have seen a play a couple of hundred times from both sides of the ball it should be second nature.

Break patterns from scrums - do you have any you might suggest? Glenn Bayliss (ARL level 3 coach) writing in RLCM Junior Coaching Book 2 writes of scrum defense, "If the ball is lost, ensure your forwards have a good break pattern covering both sides of the scrum. When the players join the line at the next play-the-ball: two players (normally the half and the shortside second rower) cover the two spots inside the winger. This pushes the slower forwards towards the middle of the line so that they are not vulnerable to quicker players should your opponents attack back to where the scrum was packed."

A though occurs re break patterns, and that would be when defending an openside attacking play, to have the blind side flanker come forward and round the back of the opposition scrum to guard against the play reversing to the blind side.

Equalising the short side - Glenn Bayliss rightly points out the importance of this as it is much easier to defend the long side with less numbers than it is the shortside. A 2 on 3 often spells trouble, more so than a 5 on 4.

Your thoughts would be gratefully received on the above.

Chris

RE: Defensive Systems, what are you using?

TDRugby — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:35:46 GMT

Hi Chris,

Yep have used up & decide out late. Sounds a bit of a mixture but I liken it to the Blitz/man on man close in then we go out once ball has passed one station.

Key is to cut down time & space for attackers - force them to make a decision.

All these patterns are dependant on good communication, 1 on 1 effective tackles (as it states in the piece) and most importantly they need to trust each other to make the tackle.

We also use 9 as a sweep with 7 on inside of 9 shoulder esp in the close channel stuff. Important to use wings on strings with fullback taking the last man out wide. My attidue is that if teams are good enough to move the ball onto the flanks than they will have done well.

Defensive Systems, what are you using?

cjp — Tue, 29 May 2007 19:26:05 GMT

Up and In, Up and Out, Up and Decide?

The following is culled from an answer given by Rick Campbell (an Australian RL coach) to a question about slide defenses on an RL coaching forum and may be of interest given that most defensive ideas seem to be coming from RL at the moment.

"Various defensive formations:
Slide - now called Up and Out --- the object is to mark up INSIDE your opponent and slide him towards the sideline ... used when you have a small pack of forwards and a very fast back line.
You show the opposition space on the outside and tempt them to use it ... when they do, you use your speed and the sideline ... you are trying to keep the opposition from coming down the centre ... and if they do you are packing your forwards closer together to allow them to help each other. Used very successfully by the Canberra Raiders in the late 1980's.
Up & In ... here you have a slower backline, but big strong forwards ... you mark up OUTSIDE your man and drive them back into your killing zone where your big forwards can pound the hell out of them ... the winger will actually mark up between his opposite centre and winger and get in between them to deny the ball going out wide. Used by Canterbury Bulldogs.
Umbrella ... a real throwback to when the defence was only 5 yards back from the Play The Ball ... not used these days ... people tend to think that Up & In is umbrella, but it isn't ... although there are similarities. Warren Ryan used umbrella with the Canterbury Bulldogs in the 1970's ... they would rush up on the outside and form a big U shape, channelling everything into the ruck area ... this caused the two Sydney Grand Finals where there were no tries scored and the results (from memory) between Canterbury and Parramatta were 4-2 & 6-2 ... all goals.
After that defences were moved back 10 yards ... and it becomes physically impossible to keep rushing up and back for 80 minutes.
Big gang tackles were a feature of this very hurtful defence ... it was designed to intimidate teams ... and it worked, in it's day.
Up & hold ... now you are starting to get into the late 1990's ... here the teams would perform the Up portion of the UP & In or Up and Out ... which is to advance the first 3-5 metres very fast ... and then to slow down and adjust to what the opposition is doing ... so if you are always running a slide defence, then the opposition can put on angles to beat a slide and same with Up & Out ... but Brian Smith when he was with St George developed the Up & Hold defence theory ... wait until the opposition had performed all their angles and then tackle the final ball carrier ... so sometimes you might Up & Out and other times you might Up & In. Canberra
I know toyed with this defence as well. It was good in theory, but I didn't like it in practice (personal opinion) ... when I saw it in operation I saw a flat footed defence line against a fast moving attack. But Brian Smith had developed the basis of the defensive pattern for the 21st Century ... his theory was the next great leap.
All defence measures should begin with the individual needs & then extend to the overall needs of the proposed team pattern.
Foot placement with the foot furtherest from the ball should always be forward, this will aid the individual to have his hips, head & shoulders directed toward where the ball is coming from so that correct steps can be taken to read & counter its movement.
Next the alignment of the player is important.
Namely where he is standing in relation to the attacker he is marking up on which is determined by defence pattern or if he is in the right corridor of the field if he is playing in a zone defence situation.
Subject: The Pattern
The pattern needs to be mapped out carefully so that all defensive players are acting in co-ordination with each other when defending.
The three basic types of defence patterns these days are Up & Out, Up & In, & Up & Decide.
Up & Out is a very re-active system that means that you go up then re-act to what the attack is doing with their direction in attack.
It also means that you need to give away metres on your flanks so that you can push your opponents toward the sideline. Up & Out is used effectively with your defensive line compressed so that you can get more numbers in each tackle to slow down the speed of the play-the-ball.
If the ball is shifted to an edge then you slide on the inside of the man carrying the ball thus forcing him to an edge where you can control their options.
Up & In is a very pro-active defence because you are dictating to the attack where you will allow them to play their attacking moves.
Also by moving from the blind-side of the attacking player you are placing extra psychological pressure on ball runners & receivers which can lead to more handling errors.
This type of defence is more physically demanding but is also a lot more aggressive - it is very good against free-flowing sides.
Up & Decide style incorporates the advantages of both Up & In as well as Up & Out. With this type of defence the first four defenders either side of the ruck (A, B, C, D defenders) use a zone style Up & In combined with a slight umbrella formation with the "D" defender.
This is done to force the close ruck plays back in to a "hitting zone" & dictating where you want the ruck to be. If the ball should get outside the "D" defender then the other players will play an Up & Out (Slide) style of defence - pushing them to the sideline.
Subject: Added Extras
The Up & Decide system is the one that is being hailed as the saviour of defensive connoisseurs due to the fine-tuning of added extras that are now being implemented.
Due to the defenders racing up off their line at such a great speed time is needed to re-set in defence; so numbers are needed in the tackle to give the defenders re-set & refresh time.
But attacking plays are aimed at getting on their fronts (elbows & knees) as soon as they get touched to gain the upper hand in the battle for the ground (the speed of the play-the-ball).
So the defenders now rush into the attacker with the purpose of getting under his upper body using his armpits as levers to keep him upright (remembering also that the tackle is made ineffective if the ball is allowed to be promoted).
Once this is achieved then the attacker is turned side-on so that assistant defenders can "dance" with the attacker for a short time (a second or two), is put to ground with all tacklers present, then a peeling motion is undertaken to secure more time for the defensive line to re-set.
Under this system seven-second play-the-ball times from initial contact are not unrealistic.
Hope the above helps.
Rick"

Given the extra players available on the RU pitch it might be possible to use a version of the Up and Decide with the A B C D defenders operating as above, shading the outside and driving play infield but have a 3 man "linebacker" core (probably back row players and scrum half, off a set peice) backing this line up but shading inside, ie keeping inside their opponent/the ball and tackling very destructively, as suggested by Philip Coleman. Coleman suggests a 3 man secondary who initially defend the lick but on running plays can push up to defend the run.

(Clearly all pie in the sky if your team 1-15 are not good tacklers! As John Dixon (assistant coach at Brisbane Broncos) point out, none of this much matters if every player cannot successfully perform one on one tackles.)

Has anyone had any experience either playing or coaching these systems?

Chris