|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/12/2009 18:08:23
Posts: 190,
Visits: 482
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 09/06/2008 06:48:10
Posts: 4,
Visits: 7
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/12/2009 18:08:23
Posts: 190,
Visits: 482
|
|
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 U11 side 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
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 12/06/2008 16:09:53
Posts: 17,
Visits: 28
|
|
| 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.
Ruck, Ruck, & Ruck again.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/12/2009 18:08:23
Posts: 190,
Visits: 482
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 12/06/2008 16:09:53
Posts: 17,
Visits: 28
|
|
| 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.
Ruck, Ruck, & Ruck again.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/12/2009 18:08:23
Posts: 190,
Visits: 482
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 12/06/2008 16:09:53
Posts: 17,
Visits: 28
|
|
| 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.
Ruck, Ruck, & Ruck again.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/12/2009 18:08:23
Posts: 190,
Visits: 482
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 19/06/2007 07:05:04
Posts: 1,
Visits: 2
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|