Finding space on the field is rugby’s final frontier
By Sam Taulelei, 15 Sep 2009 Sam Taulelei is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- Tri Nations Tournament news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- South Africa Springboks news
It is sports’ most sought after luxury, time and space. It’s routinely used as indicators to identify the quality separating great sportsmen from the very good; the appearance that they have more time and space to operate in compared to their peers.
One of rugby’s oldest adages is that 14 players work hard to create space for the 15th. This theory has been severely tested in recent years as space has been harder to come by, with changing laws, improved defensive screens and a breed of fitter, faster, stronger players in the professional era.
We’ve seen a rise in similarly themed articles about a yearn to return to the good old days (which varies depending upon your vintage), to bring back rucking, change the laws (again), increase/decrease value of tries and goalkicks, have more stringent refereeing, have more accurate, consistent refereeing – well, okay, I admit that last one is in its own category as another of sports’ sought after luxuries.
In rugby, we hear a lot about open space, wasted space, finding space, tight space, closing down space and the vacant space between two ears.
As a youngster, when you first learn to pick up the ball and run, your first instinct is to find space, even if it means turning around and running backwards.
Perhaps some of this unconventional thinking is what’s required from coaches to break down modern defensive systems. It’s ironic that teams who lose nowadays are roundly criticised for taking risks in an effort to create space, and yet we also castigate them for not taking any risks when they lose.
Confused, frustrated? So, it appears, would be some players.
A recent interview with Joe Rocokoko, who at the tender age of 26 should be at the peak of his powers as a winger and finisher, revealed an insight into the fundamental change that he and his wing colleagues have had to undergo.
Previously what they call their work ons – additional skill-based work done after training – would concentrate on speed and agility work.
Now they devote more time to catching the high ball (which in itself is a necessary skill for any player) as wings and fullbacks expect to receive 6 to 10 kicks each a game where previously it would average between 2 to 3 kicks each.
They don’t sprint for as long as they used to for training. It’s a short 20 to 30 metre sprint they practice now, as open space has reduced so much, particularly against a rush defence.
It’s all about working in tight spaces now and possessing that quick acceleration and power to get clear of clutching defenders.
Wingers are expected, and probably coached now, to play as auxillary fullbacks. This is a sensible approach given the modern fixation with kicking, but there is no doubt that the likes of Habana, Shane Williams, Rocokoko, Sivivatu, Lachie Turner and others would prefer to receive the ball with space to move and provide one of rugby’s most spectacular images: a fleet-footed winger sprinting down the touchline to score a try in the corner.
That is at the heart and soul of rugby.
So come on Messrs Deans, Henry and de Villiers. Use your powers for good and find a way to unlock opposition defences and score more tries.
Following the Lions series this year, nobody would have considered that the Southern Hemisphere would have to take lessons and clues from them on how to play expansive, attacking rugby.
The cynics would probably kick that notion deep into outer space.
Recommend this story.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Reds back in contention, but Waratahs need a cleanout (287)
- What Hansen’s first squad means for the Wallabies (191)
- Will Cooper and Mitchell be back in time for Wallaby selection? (156)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (155)
- ALAN JONES: We have the players, it’s the coaches that are to blame (153)
- CAMPO: Will Deans change the style of the Wallabies play? (128)
- Tahs out. Brumbies win ugly. And Quade’s back! (124)
- Irish coaches looking to head Western Force (1)
- Dull Super Rugby coaches equal dull rugby (2)
- Coaching, not lack of depth, the issue for Australian rugby (14)
- Road to the 2015 World Cup starts in June (18)
- Six lessons Robbie Deans must learn (Part 2) (75)
- Who will be the Wallabies’ centres? (110)
- Are Roarers picking the Wallabies for the wrong reasons? (21)
- Explore:
- All Blacks, Rugby Union, Springboks, Tri Nations, wallabies

September 15th 2009 @ 8:06am
LeftArmSpinner said | September 15th 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Sam, its not the final frontier. Just the essence of the game. Every game is different and long may it be the case
September 15th 2009 @ 8:33am
Vented Relief said | September 15th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
The act of kicking is actually producing more space than before because it forces the defences into three dimensional arrays instead of a two dimensional spread across the width of the park. What the Springboks are currently exploiting is firstly the high chance of an error from the opposition wingers/fullback and secondly the inability of a team to realign rearwards with meaningful speed. It is the same concept as having a break through the middle of the ruck, a quick offload and finding broken play to exploit. Kicking to unskilled wingers just allows it to happen more often.
September 15th 2009 @ 9:35am
spiro zavos said | September 15th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
I would like referees and assistant referees to be much harder on offside play. Nothing tightens the field more than sides playing offside. The assistant referees, as they do in the NRL, should be adjudicating on the off-side lines and marching back to a spot where the defending side has to line up.
Clive Woodward used the pass/kick to open up the field by forcing more width in the defensive line. Dan Carter did this well on Saturday for Richie McCaw’s try and then almost for a try on the final play of the Test.
September 15th 2009 @ 10:26am
Invictus said | September 15th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Agreed, the offside line must be rigorously policed. Referee’s are struggling to do this effectifvely and manage the ruck at the same time. The TMO should be used to help the refs in this instance.
September 15th 2009 @ 2:35pm
Greg said | September 15th 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Yeah, those finishers need the chance to finish something. Illegal rush up defence and blatant offside in the line is too common — we’re paying the penalty for the ref having too much to do.
Dare I mention the word ‘league’ but it’s not a dissimilar problem to the issues that game had in the late 60s, 70s and 80s with the defensive line standing too close to the ruck. (Ever tried to play touch footy with ruggers who don’t have any clue abt retiring after the tackle?)
Actually the awful practice of mechanically going to the first receiver for smash and set it up ball in rugby (done so predictably and woefully by the Wallabies) is akin to the “two big blokes to take it up” call that echoed through the rugby league fields of Australia, Northern England, PNG and NZ for the first two tackles of every tackle set in league for a couple of decades.
However, unlike league, union’s breakdown battle is at the core of the game. So hauling the forwards (breakdown) apart is counterproductive, but there absolutely should be a campaign to punish, illegal, rush-up backline play in the same way as ball-killing in the ruck is condemned.
I’d suggest people want to see non-cynical play. We all understand how important it is to make the most of what the laws allow you to do — and if you master that process, good on you – but I’m just not sure that is something to be breathlessly proud of.
The game is about momentum. The challenge (for the team being whooped) is to reverse that, preferably with feats of great athletic ability, rather than any short cut available to them.
September 15th 2009 @ 1:20pm
Jock M said | September 15th 2009 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
STOP THE TACKLED PLAYER PLAYING THE BALL ON THE GROUND.
BRING BACK THE COMPETITION AT THE BREAKDOWN BY BEING LESS PROSCRIPTIVE IN THE LAW BOOK-ALLOW RUCKING,DRIVING AND REWARD THE TEAM GOING FORWARD AT THE BREAKDOWN.
DO NOT ALLOW KICKING OR PUNCHING AND WATCH HOW THE GAME AND PLAYERS GET ON WITH THE JOB.
RUGBY IS LOSING ITS SUPPORT BASE INCLUDING THE INVISIBLE AUDIENCE THAT WATCHED TESTS BUT NOW ASK WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE GAME FOR THE FLAIR AND EXCITEMENT TO HAVE DISAPPEARED.>
September 15th 2009 @ 1:25pm
Brett McKay said | September 15th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
great piece Sam, very true in the modern game..
September 15th 2009 @ 4:23pm
Jock M said | September 15th 2009 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
Greg,
Of course we have Rugby forwards doing repeat hit ups because the laws have made Rugby almost identical to League.Players run up,go to ground,place the ball and on it goes.
And we will have trouble with off sides and backlines rushing up because the breakdown contest is virtually non existent and resembles a play the ball-it is extremely predictable.
I do not remember off side even being an issue at the breakdown-that was because the move was basically dynamic and urgent-if you were to enter a ruck on the wrong side you were quite likely to get dealt with,but basically it was not an issue.
The game has moved so far away from where it was pre professional that commentators have no basic reference point.
The game lost out when the International Rugby Board threw in the towel and allowed the corporates to have their way with the law book.It is this fact that more than any other makes me think that we may never see Rugby again in its true glory.
September 15th 2009 @ 8:37pm
Rob said | September 15th 2009 @ 8:37pm | Report comment
Jock M,
I got bagged by some for writing that my mates and I aren’t enjoying our rugby that much any more and that we missed rucking. Rucking aside I forgot to mention in that piece that a former work colleague of mine played soccer for Aust. in the 70′s, is one of those blokes who can turn their hand at almost any sport they played and loved watching rugby. He doesn’t watch it any more. He is part of your invisible audience. Methinks our sorts of comments will fall on deaf ears. Maybe there are those who are prepared to sacrifice my rugby generation in the hope of picking up a new one.
September 16th 2009 @ 7:16am
Jock M said | September 16th 2009 @ 7:16am | Report comment
Rob,
I pity your generation because you are having to play Rugby under these rediculous laws that are robbing the game of its soul and character.
Please do not give up-keep writing and talking-there are thousands of people who agree with you.
Eventually we will prevail because we are correct in what we say-the authorities can only ignore us for so long then they will be forced to make changes.
You have given me hope because you have made the effort to write down your thoughts.
I am extremely disappointed with ex Test players and administrators who allowing our great game to be destroyed with barely a whimper.
Surely they of all ex players have a duty of care to protect the basic fundamentals of the game.
I have a son who plays Rugby and I aim to have changes made to the game so that he can fully enjoy all that it has to give before he retires.
September 16th 2009 @ 8:04am
Jim Boyce said | September 16th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Sam – Good piece. Sivivatu is playing as a winger/centre not so much as a winger/fullback whereas Habana and Williams play more in the latter mould. The more vigilant policing of the off-side rule would open up the game. I would like to know in greater detail what the role of the Assistant Referee is. He seems he is covering all the bases in the same way as the referee whereas in soccer he appears to have a more defined role.
Tuqiri also seemed to be encouraged to play as a winger/centre but he also played winger/No 8 on occasions!! Leaving Tuqiri aside, it really depends on how the Outside Centre plays his game and with Mortlock that has become a very physical role. Other Outside Centres in recent times have also followed this policy. If that role has become predictable, then the winger will seldom have time or room.
Umbrella defences also limit the wingers opportunities. This also puts the stress on centres being more creative. Creative Outside Centres have not been numerous of late.
September 16th 2009 @ 9:42pm
ThelmaWrites said | September 16th 2009 @ 9:42pm | Report comment
Very thought provoking. Great article, Sam.
I’m almost embarrased to write something as obvious as this, but I’ll do it anyway:
The offense in most sports create space by keeping the defense guessing. As you seem to have been a follower of gridiron (which I have assumed, given your reference to Pat Summerall), I’m sure you’ll heartily agree. They have a hundred or more plays, which even in the 1980′s they’d began to computerise.
Because coaches profess to favor certain styles, sometimes the team becomes identified with that style. They are successful for some years, until the defence twigs on and devises a counterattact.
I would venture that if the Springboks persist with their kicking game (to oversimplfy it) for the next few years, their opponents will devise countermeasures that will kill off their game. Around the time of the next World Cup.
I was caught by surprise by Dan Carter’s chip kick to Richie McCaw in the corner at last Saturday’s game. I hadn’t seen it (the chip kick) since the 1990′s (Michael Lynagh/Paul Kahl/David Knox). So there are moves that have fallen to disuse that one might resurrect to add to a team’s repertoire.
The teams that vary their attact are the most successful year after year. Maybe that explains Sydney Uni’s dominance of the Shute Shield. Requies a great general and lots of drills.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts. Cheers.
September 17th 2009 @ 5:33pm
Jaredsbro said | September 17th 2009 @ 5:33pm | Report comment
Agreed…in part. American football is a difficult analogy here because essentially you have two teams (well actually you literally do have two-three different squads) and the nature of the game gives the coaches time to think/space to move anyway.
I love Amfoot but like RL it gives an engineered amount of space-time to offenses, meaning the defense is always playing catch-up, and that’s not to mention how defences in these games tend to always be the supposed bane of the rules committee (and there are legitimate gripes that gridiron has tampered with the rules too much to be as charitable to the offensive players as they can get away with)
Rugby is and cannot ever go down that route: attack and defence have to be as simultaneous as possible, otherwise the fluid nature of the positional play/ movement of the ball becomes overly-structured/formulaic and with the kind of disadvantages there are in playing creative attack with the ball already in Rugby, the game will become increasingly dependent on the set piece to keep the contest fair, which is the death knell to spontaneity
The kicking game is here to stay for a while, and maybe it’ll become unfeasible when teams like the Springboks come up against an All Blacks team which is clinical and makes as few mistakes as was the case not two-three years ago