Wallaby line-out tactics the definition of insanity
Roar Rookie
By CraigB, 14 Aug 2009 CraigB is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- ELVs, Rugby Union, Tri Nations, wallabies
Related coverage
One of the definitions of insanity is said to be repeating the same process but expecting different results. With that in mind, can someone please explain why the Wallabies, on their way to losing nine of their own line-outs did not try anything different?
Where were the two and three man line-outs?
Take the opposition out of their comfort zone and ensure all you have to do is get in front of them to win your own ball.
Having played a lot of rugby, albeit in a much lower standard, we always had several options available to us if our original line-out plans failed.
Now that the ELVs with unlimited numbers is dead, why hasn’t anyone brought back the short line-out?
They are useful, if for nothing else but to change things up.
Surely winning your own ball and giving it to a cluttered, forward filled backline is better than losing it all together.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Victory beat Mariners with Kewell winner
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- ELVs, Rugby Union, Tri Nations, wallabies
Jolly Jupes said | August 14th 2009 @ 5:53am | Report comment
Good point – where was the bailout options, the plan B, the 2&3 man options – ask the coaches
Logic says that if you kick alot against a team that has a good lineout then they will not be afraid to play to it. Kick it to them, they kick it out and presto you have your lineout under pressure – why kick the ball away?
van der Merwe said | August 14th 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Henry asked the very same question.
craigb said | August 14th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
the strange thing is that isn’t that hard to get it organised. If you lose 9 lineouts and your trying something different each time then maybe the oppn is just too good. To just keep trying the same thing just looks silly. It seems Aus has lost the ability to adapt and think on there feet.
couchnorm said | August 14th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Considering the time together this side has, what have they been doing?
What make even more sad was the fact that the Boks gave them the front on most occassions. I sense they didn’t take it as they haven’t done any work on drive options or attack options from the front.
The other disappointing thing was that the Wallabies didn’t put any pressure on the Boks lineout.
The lineout is a great opportunity to win the psychological battle
Hoy said | August 14th 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
It occurs to me then they lack a leader.
Just not playing smart. Whoever has the calls these days escapes me, but it used to be Vicks didn’t it? I see it at club level all the time.
Teams keep losing lineouts, and when they get penalties, just keep going for the line. Just not smart enough. Surely at elite level, you have smarts enough to say 3 man, change up etc? Perhaps then our throwers aren’t up to it?
Marty said | August 15th 2009 @ 1:22am | Report comment
I couldn’t said it any better. They better get things done.
Knives Out said | August 15th 2009 @ 3:40am | Report comment
CraigB,
Q: Who has the best lineout in the world?
A: South Africa
Q: Who has one of the best rolling mauls in the world?
A: South Africa
Q: Who has the best kicking game in the world?
A: South Africa
Why people lambasted New Zealand for not contesting the lineout perplexed me, and now people are criticising the Australians for the same. What difference would contesting South Africa’s throw have effected upon the game? It is easy to sit there and say that the lineout is a great psychological battle without considering the effects of losing that battle. What if the Australian lineout had contested the majority of the lineout and not managed to disrupt one? Surely that presents a crushing blow to the Australians and a huge victory to the South Africans. Further, what if South Africa had taken advantage of the Australian jumpers contesting the SA throw and had just casually grabbed the ball (as is Matfield’s wont) and trundled down field through a maul? Would the naysayers have kept quiet, consoling themselves that at least the Australian jumpers had tried? I doubt it. As it stands Australia combated the rolling maul very well. Stephen Moore just had a bad day at the office. Shit happens. Test rugby is won by inches and with such a short back row I can’t see any value in Australia having a man airborne when there is no necessity.
mcxd said | August 15th 2009 @ 6:58am | Report comment
i agree KO, with more Wallabies attacking the lineout (a well constructed one at that) the defence of rolling maul or any other forward attack suffers. why waste defenders against a quality, well drilled lineout like SA who are more than likely will get the ball anyway. A simlar arguement can be said about the ruck, putting more men in the ruck takes away defenders.
craigb said | August 15th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
KO – I am talking about our own ball. Regardless of people having a ‘bad day’, if somethings not working then you need to be able to try something different. Otherwise how is it supposed to get better??
Knives Out said | August 15th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Sorry, craigb, I didn’t mean to address that to you. Although, in response to your piece I think the point of making the same throws is ‘trusting the systems’, the basic theory being that if you try something successfully that you had previously failed then the thrower an jumper can re-establish confidence. Repetition is the key, much like goal kicking, plus you have to consider that Brown and Palu are far, far inferior jumpers to Smith and Spies so automatically the options are limited.
Spiro Zavos said | August 15th 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
One reason for contesting the opposition’s ball, especially against the terrific South African lineout, is that it puts some pressure on the thrower. I noticed, for instance,when the All blacks did not contest that the Springboks basically threw the ball down the Springboks line. As the jump was not contested, the referees allowed the throw.
Victor Matfield is the go to man for the Springboks and he should be double-teamed at all time. This leaves open jumpers like Juan Smith. But these are longer throws and defending teams have time to adjust and try to make a catch at the end of the lineout. There is also more pressure on getting the throw straight.
I watched a Currie Cup match on television last week and Chris Jack, the former All Black, playing for Western Province, won the first three lineouts at the front easily against a very good Free State lineout.
One other point, teams playing against Matfield get freaked out and spend a long time trying to settle the jumpers and the call before the throw. Matfield is a genius at reading the signs coming from the throwing side in these situations. Settle on the call going to the lineout and throw it in before Matfield can read the play is an answer that teams could use.
Having said that, Matfield is as good as Eales as a lineout dominator.
Knives Out said | August 15th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
How much pressure would that genuinely put on du Plessis, Spiro? SA has four big men to hit, and Spies has been in outstanding aerial form recently jumping in the middle and then there is always Botha at the front. All Matfield would have to do is go long and take his markers with him, thereby freeing up the front. If the opposition manage to actually disrupt or at least threaten the SA line then that may well pressure du Plessis, but over the past two years he has had a pretty top notch percentage record (apart from a few wobbles during the 08 3N) and as the lineout is based upon mechanical routine I would assume that eventually Matfield, who as you state is so good at reading the play, would eventually right any wrongs. I just don’t see the point, especially away from home against such a strong rolling maul. It’s not like SA use quick ball off the top to launch their backs like the French do, so I think not contesting and defending the maul was completely the right move. Anyway, even if the Australians had managed to disrupt SA ball that doesn’t mean that the SA jumpers would not have disrupted the Australian ball. If the Springboks found their lineout under pressure they still have an excellent kicking game which would have put Australia back into their half time and time again. I really think the debate about contesting the jump is a non-starter.
pothale said | August 15th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Brilliant article, Craig B, couldn’t agree more. Great stuff.