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.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- ELVs, Rugby Union, Tri Nations, wallabies
August 15th 2009 @ 10:45am
Grandpabhaile said | August 15th 2009 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Funnily enough I was talking to Chris Jack’s cousin yesterday and was of the virew thst his play now was changed substnatislly to what had been done in his stint in European/Nh rugby/British rugby.
August 16th 2009 @ 9:07am
LeftArmSpinner said | August 16th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
I can only agree. dumb. Horwill has gone missing this season in the tight and the open.
August 17th 2009 @ 10:17pm
Johann said | August 17th 2009 @ 10:17pm | Report comment
Putting two pods up against Matfield wont help the cause at line out time. It would consist of a pod slighlty infornt and at the side of Matfield. This opens up a ball more to the front, and this is also not a bad thing, cause now the defending side has the problem om being exposed for a driving maul about 8m’s infield. Going over Matfield you have Spies and Smith, who both are excellent jumpers. Yes, the extra pressure could expose 1 or 2 skew throw, but then you just regroup.
I think the reasoning behind the Wallabies not going for short line outs isn’t such an absurd idea. They have a backline that can create space, thus you try and keep the amount of forwards closing down space at the back to a minimum. Remember that channel 1&2 will then be covered by Spies and Brussouw in a 5 man, thus the flyhalf either has to take the ball out wider or run the risk of running into those 2. If he takes it out wider, then he loses space, and they can be pushed towards the opposite touchline.
What I havn’t seen the Wallabies do as of late, is MOVE in the lineout. Without Vickerman you have to create ‘space’ or at least get the opposition to commit to a set defence. At the moment it’s too easy, by just marking space, the Boks are turning over a lot of possession (and yes, as a Saffa, I love it). What seems to be happening, is that both the AB’s and Wallabies wait for the line to form, see where Matfield is and then adjust their call accordingly. What now happens, is that the rest of the Bok line out has the time to adjust as well, and Spies can just as easily get up in to the air as Matfield does.
Quicker calls will already be an improvement. But it all also boils down to how your hooker get’s ‘over’ a lost line out. And it seems the boys just don’t recover.