Comments on: Thinking outside the box can mean outside positional norms

By: sheek

sheek — Sun, 31 May 2009 22:50:18 +0000

Another perspective.

New Zealand & South Africa have dominated world rugby between for over 100 years. it’s interesting that neither has drastically changed their structural style over time. Opponents know exactly what they’re going up against, but generally aren’t good enough to overcome either.

New Zealand – Traditional high pace, high activity game. Lots of movement. In the old days, ruthless rucking & forward mauling sucking in defenders, then freeing backline against few defenders remaining.

South Africa – Total opposite. Massive, brutal forward pack sucking life out of opponents like an anaconda. Dominating possession, kicking for field position, taking the points. Scoring lots of tries when opposition is totally buggered.

Looking at the record of the ABs & Boks, it seems the secret is to be very good at what you do, irrespective of whether your opponents know what’s coming or not. Basic skills.

The good doctor of South African rugby, used to hammer the ’7 pillars of rugby’ into his proteges.

1. Scrum (it begins & ends here).
2. Lineout.
3. Ruck.
4. Maul (note, ruck & maul are separate).
5. Handling (running & passing).
6. Tackling.
7. Kicking (all forms – kickoff, restarts, tactical, line, goal, drop).

Perhaps we Aussies should start concentrating on getting the 7 pillars absolutely right. Instead of looking for short-cuts!

By: sheek

sheek — Sun, 31 May 2009 22:37:23 +0000

You need to ask yourself when considering a move outside the square, whether it is cutting edge stuff, or the last refuge of desperation???

Usually a move outside the square is born of desperation, & might achieve short-term gain (which mostly is the intention), but not any long lasting satisfaction.

Back in 1968, new Wallaby coach Des Connor (both an ex-Wallaby & ex-AB) infuriated the All Blacks by introducing short lineouts. This threw the rhythm of the ABs out, but didn’t change the overall result o the series, with the ABs winning both tests.

Although it should be pointed out, the ABs won the 2nd test in the last minute due to a very controversial decision by an Aussie referee. Anyway, the moral to the story is that teams/nations should concentrate on their core structures & skills.

Left field decisions generally should be tactical, not structural. Those left field decisions that come under structural is the crazy idea of mass-changing playing positions for players.

Sometimes, we can try to be too cute!

By: Nick P-G

Nick P-G — Sun, 31 May 2009 14:07:40 +0000

mikem,
you dont play tight 5 do you? it doesnt work like that at all.

By: MikeM

MikeM — Sun, 31 May 2009 12:25:10 +0000

Well, you could pick an extra tall prop on Ben’s side of the scrum. That would push him back a few centimetres so that his bum would line up with Nathan’s.

By: Thommo

Thommo — Sun, 31 May 2009 12:00:48 +0000

Maybe this isn’t actually such a bad idea you know. Having played with Benny A at the time when he was 17, at district rep level, he often alternated between Loose Head and the Second Row, and in fact got picked to play in Sydney and NSW 17′s as a second rower. Of course the main reason he had to do that was because we had a front row including Benn Robinson (need i explain!!!) and Alex Walker (currently a hooker at saracens).
Alexander isn’t exactly short either, only just 10cm shorter that Sharpe, so you really wouldn’t be that unbalanced by playing him there. Getting him up in lineouts might be a push though…..

By: Working Class Rugger

Working Class Rugger — Sun, 31 May 2009 02:57:08 +0000

2020

I agree with you on Alexander being too good to be left on the bench but play him at lock. Have you ever played in the Tight 5. By putting the vastly shorter Alexander in the Locks would throw off any balance in the combinations. It just wouldn’t work. As for halfback. We already have 2 that are very capable in close and out wide. Burgess and Genia.

By: Sambobly

Sambobly — Sun, 31 May 2009 02:07:10 +0000

Dan is correct. Halfback is one of (if not the) most important position in the whole team. If you do not have a good halfback the team will not function properly. It often appears to the casual observer to be a simple position to play (just pass the ball most of the time, run if there is a gap) but is very difficult to master. An experienced and talented halfback is necessary for any team to be great.

By: Dan the Main Man

Dan the Main Man — Sun, 31 May 2009 01:26:15 +0000

Ben Alexander next to Sharpe in the second row? Are you kidding me? The No.8 will be pushing at a 45 degree angle with one shoulder half a foot further forward than the other! And you think Alexander will be better defensively than Horwill….. absolutely dreaming.
As for halfbacks only running across field and delivering hesitant and slow ball, what makes you think Smith/Pocock will be any better (noting that I don’t think our better halfbacks actually do this – burgess and genia are incisive runners able to pick up runners on both the inside and outside and have, of late, been good crisp deliverers of the ball to 5/8 when needed)? Sure they will be able to run with the ball and gain the advantage line more often than not but executing the special passes that are needed maybe two to three times in a game that shift the play unexpectedly and allow the 5/8 and his backs to run at an exposed backline – this pocock and smith will not do.