|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 19/06/2007 11:19:44
Posts: 3,
Visits: 8
|
|
| Hi 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.
Go forward in everything you do!
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/12/2009 18:08:23
Posts: 190,
Visits: 482
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 05/03/2010 11:46:41
Posts: 229,
Visits: 1,561
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/12/2009 18:08:23
Posts: 190,
Visits: 482
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 05/03/2010 11:46:41
Posts: 229,
Visits: 1,561
|
|
| 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!
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 12/06/2008 16:09:53
Posts: 17,
Visits: 28
|
|
| 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.
Ruck, Ruck, & Ruck again.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/12/2009 18:08:23
Posts: 190,
Visits: 482
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 05/03/2010 11:46:41
Posts: 229,
Visits: 1,561
|
|
| 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?
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/03/2010 16:56:51
Posts: 270,
Visits: 309
|
|
cjp (21/06/2007)
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. 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
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/03/2010 12:09:27
Posts: 70,
Visits: 149
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|