O’Neill wants to reward attacking play at breakdown
By Adrian Warren, 3 Feb 2010 Adrian Warren is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Australian Rugby Union, John ONeill, Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super Rugby, Tri Nations
Australian Rugby Union boss John O’Neill believes the northern hemisphere nations could step into line with their southern rivals and reward attacking teams at the breakdown, even if the rules can’t be changed before next year’s World Cup.
Australian Super coaches were largely supportive of the SANZAR decision to look more favourably upon the attacking side at the breakdown hot spot in this year’s Super 14 and Tri-Nations tournaments.
While the experimental law variations were dismissed by the northern hemisphere O’Neill believed they might philosophically fall into line with the south after enduring some wretched rugby late last year.
“There was a lot of criticism in the northern hemisphere in November about how negative and boring some of the rugby was,” O’Neill said at the Super 14 season launch in Sydney on Tuesday.
“I think some of the messages are getting through in the north on a slightly delayed basis.
“When England played Argentina the week after we played them, at half-time England was booed off the park, if that starts happening, you know something is wrong.
“I think we could all end up on the same hymn sheet philosophically.
“The laws aren’t going to change between now and the World Cup, it doesn’t mean your approach to the style of rugby you want to play won’t change.”
Bolstered by star Wallabies Rocky Elsom and Matt Giteau, the Brumbies were the popular tip to be Australia’s chief standard bearer in the 2010 Super tournament.
Brumbies coach Andy Friend believed SANZAR’s directive to referees about the breakdown would help his powerful side.
“The new laws and the desire to have entertaining rugby definitely fits with the Brumbies style,” Friend said.
Waratahs coach Chris Hickey felt the directive could tilt the balance back towards attacking rugby, though he thought it could take a while before there was a consistent interpretation from the referees.
“I think under the interpretations we played last year, the pendulum was 60-40 towards the defensive team,” Hickey said.
“If the new interpretations bring the contest back to 50-50, that should hopefully supply all teams with an opportunity to try and get continuity in their play.”
New Queensland coach Ewen McKenzie felt while the game wouldn’t be as loose as last year, the attacking team would still be rewarded.
“It will tighten up a little bit, but if you’re got good attacking players, you will get more reward,” McKenzie said.
His Western Force counterpart John Mitchell thought his new look side had enough backline versatility and forward depth to prosper under the SANZAR directive.
“We will play to our strengths and I’m a great believer you’ve to earn the right to play entertaining rugby and certainly we will be wanting to get the balance between attack and a kicking game,” Mitchell said.
The tournament, which will be expanded to 15 teams next year with the introduction of the Melbourne Rebels, commences in just over a week, with the Reds hosting the Waratahs and Force entertaining the Brumbies in two all-Australian matchups.
O’Neill said there was ongoing dialogue between the ARU and Melbourne over the signing window for locally based players, but didn’t want to comment on whether there would be any changes to the end of May window which the Rebels would like brought forward.
© AAP 2012Enjoy 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:
- Australian Rugby Union, John ONeill, Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super Rugby, Tri Nations
mitzter said | February 3rd 2010 @ 7:21am | Report comment
60-40 to the defensive team – sorry Hickey it was no where near that, not even 50-50.
The attack still has the most advantages, it’s just been silly rules like that tackler can come from any direction that has advantaged the defence.
What we need is the advantage to be with the side that has the most players on their feet at the ruck. If it’s the attack, who it almost always is, they should recycle. When isolated it should be defence
Brett McKay said | February 3rd 2010 @ 8:04am | Report comment
JON quote in the SMH today:
”We’re challenging the four [Australian teams] to help rugby improve its standing … it’s not to throw caution to the wind and be cavalier, it’s about playing rugby that wins games, gets you into the semi-finals, but at the same time makes the best of the spectacle. It’s not our job to instruct coaches and players how to play the game. But it is to encourage people to produce an exciting and entertaining spectacle.”
How do you “not instruct”, but “encourage” at the same time??
Encouraging talk, from all parties, so let’s hope they can come through with the goods..
AndyS said | February 3rd 2010 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
How do you “not instruct”, but “encourage” at the same time?
Easy, Management 101 – this is what we want, we don’t know what it will take or how to make it happen, that’s your problem.
Sam Taulelei said | February 3rd 2010 @ 8:08am | Report comment
A great puff piece.
JON is fantastic at positioning himself to be portrayed as an advocate for all that is good about the game of rugby. The Wallabies and Australian rugby teams in general over the past two years under his reign have been largely as conservative or more so than NH teams that he loves to criticise.
I agree with Mitzer comments about who the advantage should be with so the onus is on the supporting players to get quickly behind the tackled player to maintain possession and win quick ruck ball. If the tackled player is isolated then the ball should be won in a turnover by the defending team.
Enforcing the tackler to release the tackled player instead of holding onto him while regaining his feet to win the ball or prevent the ball from being released should see the ball being won quicker from rucks than previous years, I still watch the All Blacks opening test against Italy at the 2007 world cup and marvel at the speed they were able to recycle the ball that day.
Wavell Wakefield said | February 3rd 2010 @ 8:20am | Report comment
‘JON is fantastic at positioning himself to be portrayed as an advocate for all that is good about the game of rugby. The Wallabies and Australian rugby teams in general over the past two years under his reign have been largely as conservative or more so than NH teams that he loves to criticise.’
It’s getting beyond boredom to the point of caricature.
Hammer said | February 3rd 2010 @ 8:31am | Report comment
“Australian Rugby Union boss John O’Neill believes the northern hemisphere nations could step into line with their southern rivals and reward attacking teams at the breakdown, even if the rules can’t be changed before next year’s World Cup” … yeah great O’Neill speaks and the worlds supposed to listen ….
we’ve all seen enough W/cups now to know that this won’t win you the trophy and will most certainly be shelved by teams with designs on winning the thing …
Justin said | February 3rd 2010 @ 8:31am | Report comment
From todays Australian – “Meanwhile, O’Neill suggested Super rugby, shown exclusively on Fox Sports, would receive some form of exposure on free-to-air television when the new broadcast agreement was announced in the next few weeks.”
I predict One.
Brett McKay said | February 3rd 2010 @ 8:37am | Report comment
now this news is truly worth getting excited about, hooray when and if it happens!!
Sam said | February 3rd 2010 @ 9:54am | Report comment
I hope ONE does take up some rugby. They struggle a little trying to have a 24/7 sports channel. I’ve seen enough poker and paintball on there, how about some sport people in Australia actually want to watch!
Brett McKay said | February 3rd 2010 @ 9:57am | Report comment
but Sam, Slamball is the sport taking over the world!!
Sam Taulelei said | February 3rd 2010 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Thanks for that update Justin
I’m getting more and more disillusioned with Foxtel as a service provider. If ONE does obtain rights I hope it isn’t restricted to only broadcasting games that feature Australian teams although from a business perspective that’s a more attractive proposition for a local free to air broadcaster.
I can already stream all Super 14 games that involve Aussie teams via my ISP iiNet through their Freezone, the games are available online 8 hours after they finish and remain onsite until the next round. If ONE includes games not involving Aussie teams as well then I’d happily cancel Foxtel.
There is a website that offers all domestic and international games for a $100 annual subscription but only runs on Windows and there’s only Macs in my home and I’d prefer not to have to buy Windows 7 to run in boot camp or using VMWare.
Justin said | February 3rd 2010 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Sam – sounds like you have a good net plan. Have you checked out justin.tv (no nothing to do with me). You can stream anything from movies to sports from all around the world. A very impressive site and I am sure S14 would be on there. And its all live!
I will be checking it out for the 6N as it doesnt look like I can see it live without ESPN HD…
Dogs Of War said | February 3rd 2010 @ 11:51am | Report comment
The quality of justin.tv is just too poor to be honest.
Brett McKay said | February 3rd 2010 @ 11:15am | Report comment
and Sam and Justin, if you can find a feed that comes from Setanta Sports in the States, it’s often really good quality.
Or so I’ve been told
Sam Taulelei said | February 3rd 2010 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Hey thanks for that tip Justin, I had a quick look at the site and it’s similar to other sites based on the same community concept.
The site I was referring to is called RugbyZone http://www.rugbyzone.com/ and I’ve just re-read their FAQ and happy days they’re finally supporting Macs albeit running Firefox and not Safari.
Here are a few other sites that provide live rugby to your PC, I can’t vouch for any of them as I’ve not used them myself or the quality of the video stream.
http://www.creekrugby.com/
http://www.getsport.tv/rugby-union
But there are alternatives to getting your rugby fix than subscribing to Foxtel. If you want to watch the games on your TV and own a media player you can connect to your computer on your home network via the media player and stream it to your TV instead.
Hammer said | February 3rd 2010 @ 11:12am | Report comment
.. would it be too much to hope for that if it happens they get a half decent commentary team in …. I’m sick of watching games with the sound down – surely Austar / Foxtel have had plenty of complaints by now to realise that at the very least they should offer the punter the option to listen to the ref and crowd only
pothale said | February 3rd 2010 @ 9:13am | Report comment
““There was a lot of criticism in the northern hemisphere in November about how negative and boring some of the rugby was,” O’Neill said at the Super 14 season launch in Sydney on Tuesday.”
There was? There might have been the odd piece in English newspapers, but that was about it.
I love how this piece has been paraded around vaious SH media and different headlines put on it.
In the NZ Herald, they pull no partisan punches with: “Northern Hemisphere must follow Sanzar’s lead, says O’Neill.”
Already the ‘new laws’ are beginning to take root in the SH lexicon, despite O’Neill’s disingenuous assertion that “The laws aren’t going to change between now and the World Cup.”
And they wonder why they get up NH unions’ noses?
PastHisBest said | February 3rd 2010 @ 9:47am | Report comment
“I love how this piece has been paraded around vaious SH media and different headlines put on it.”
Ain’t that their job Pothale? My expectations of print journos in both hemispheres is pretty low (present company and a few others excepted), so nothing really surprises. I swear sub-eds are paid by the exclamation point.
pothale said | February 3rd 2010 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Too true, PHB.
Presume he’s playing to the home crowd.
The funny thing is, there hasn’t been one single word printed on these new laws/regulations/interpretations/ decisions and refs charter in NH media that I have seen. Nor on the IRB site.
And yet something tells me that following this S14 season, we’re going to get a lecture from O’Neill & Co about how the NH better catch up/stop being obstructive/etc, etc, etc. Fill in your own rant.
Assuming that the new laws work of course. Will his measurement be on whether crowd attendances/TV audiences are up?
A more general question to all and sundry – how come gate attendances are so difficult to get for S14 games – you rarely find them at the end of match reports as we do here in good old’ NH, nor can you find them in stats sections either. Have I missed an obvious site?
Brett McKay said | February 3rd 2010 @ 10:05am | Report comment
probably Pots because the figures are so rubbery they won’t stay on the pages they’re recorded on….
pothale said | February 3rd 2010 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Rubbery – I like that.
So does the stadium not do an official announcement at end of game stating the attendance or nothing?
And how come journalists don’t pick up on this? Collective conspiracy?
Brett McKay said | February 3rd 2010 @ 11:13am | Report comment
The stadiums (or stadii) do put up “official attendances”, but if I had a beverage for the number of times we’ve seen a number on the screen and react with “yeah, sure…”, well you, me and plenty of others would have a fairly decent hangover the next morning. Those numbers have seemed both too high and too low, it should be said.
We’ve got a pretty fair idea of what Brumbies crowds have been like over the years just by glancing at which areas are full or sparse, and just as sometimes we think they’ve missed a heap, other times we think they’ve counted bar staff, bench players and touchies – sorry, assistant referees – as well.
Presumably, the figure would just be the number of turnstile revolutions, but as I keep saying, this is SANZAR we’re talking about, and these things are rarely that simple…
King of the Gorganites said | February 3rd 2010 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
gate attendances are always shown in australian papers. some of the s14 crowds last year were disappointing, but they are still larger then GP crowds.
what are you suggesting?
pothale said | February 3rd 2010 @ 5:22pm | Report comment
For all S14 games, or just ones involving Australian teams, or just games played in Australia stadia?
I’m not making a comparison with GP crowds so no need to be defensive.
Sam said | February 3rd 2010 @ 10:00am | Report comment
The RFU proposed changing some of the tackle-area laws after the November internationals last year. There certainly was criticism, thankfully because of the internet I can read articles in the Guardian and Times and I certainly thought they were quite negative about England. The Irish press might be slightly different, but its easy to be like that when you’re winning!
pothale said | February 3rd 2010 @ 10:57am | Report comment
Slightly different, Sam.
You’re right – it was limited largely to English press about England’s performance – and they didn’t stay the horses. Of course, this probably equates to the whole of the Northern Hemisphere in Mr O’Neill’s mind. I had forgotten this odd antipodean tendency.
Sam said | February 3rd 2010 @ 11:23am | Report comment
It was largely the English press, but that is a large proportion of the NH rugby media (if not the majority). I certainly thought much of the rugby was pretty dull – not just the England games. Certainly the amount of kicking was over the top, and tries didn’t exactly flow. Can’t blame the press down here for thinking the balance between attack and defense was not close as it could be.
AndyS said | February 3rd 2010 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
I have a general rule, where I just read the actual quotes before re-reading the whole to determine the journalistic spin. Do that and it is interesting that what he said got morphed into “Northern Hemisphere must follow Sanzar’s lead, says O’Neill.”
by the kiwi press. Like most things associated with O’Neill, there are multiple agendas all round.
preciouspress said | February 3rd 2010 @ 9:25am | Report comment
O’Neill is way out of touch. He wants a 20/20 style rugby game as he considers only spectators with short attention spans. He forgets that Rugby is a game to play and be enjoyed by players. Let him address Australia’s shortcomings before he once again attacks the Northern hemisphere game.
The Wallabies have the world’s best defence but on attack rely too much on opposition error and not enough on instigating defence splitting moves.
Brett McKay said | February 3rd 2010 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Precious, I don’t know it’s a T20 thing at all, it’s more that O’Neill is very aware that top level rugby – like all professional sport – is competing for people’s entertainment dollars. So of course he wants a better spectacle on the field, because it’s so much easier to promote running rugby than it is the ten-man game. And that’s proven by the number of people in these forums who admit they used to be a Tahs/Reds/Brumbies/Force season ticket holder but aren’t any more. Rugby fans, be they current or ex-players or not, just want to see good rugby. You can’t blame John O’Neill for wanting that too, in the end he just wants what we’ve all been crying out for.
What I will say is that he’s just rasing the NH game for sake of being argumentative now. There was almost universal agreement that that the Spring Tests were all pretty decent games (despite some frustrating scores), and the last time I checked, the SH teams played the Spring Tests in the North. Plenty of us have commented on the quality of the Heinekken Cup this northern season too.
A way better example of what we don’t want to see was the first 6 or 8 weeks of Super Rugby last year…
sheek said | February 3rd 2010 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Amazing how these blokes can change their tune when they see thousands of fans heading for the exit gates, or not even bothering to turn up!
It reamins to be seen if they’re fair dinkum though. I get the impression they’re (players & coaches) being dragged kicking & screaming to a place they don’t really believe in….. yet!
It seems mostly everyone understands rugby union since it became professional, is in the entertainment industry, except until now it seems, the players & coaches.
Lee said | February 3rd 2010 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Thats probably because coaches don’t get to keep their job if their team is scoring tries, they keep it if they are winning.
I still wonder where this emphasis on runnning rugby came, at least in regards to the Super 14. Last year, had some huge games, with lots of tires that were very entertaining. I think teh only problem was that these didn’t normally involve Australian teams.
King of the Gorganites said | February 3rd 2010 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
were the 6k in paris entertained by that recent 4 nations game?
Lee said | February 3rd 2010 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
I don’t follow?
sheek said | February 3rd 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Let me add, playing entertaining rugby doesn’t mean basketball. But it doesn’t mean trench warfare either. We just want to see a decent contest, with both sides showing a willingness to get stuck in, & try different things.
Jock M said | February 3rd 2010 @ 10:58am | Report comment
The attacking side has most of the advantage now and has had since the game went professional-the defence is left no option but to defend and to not even bother contesting; therefore a defensive wall.Recycled ball and phase after phase of boring repetitive soul less rubbish.
Allow players to use their feet,stop the tackled player rolling over and placing the bal, and reward the team going forward if a scrum is called.This will promote more of a competition for the ball and create urgency and committment.
The backs will then have space and the game will return to its former glory.
What a mess we now have.
Most of the problem with the game has come from trying to turn the game into a spectator sport and undermining the principles.
Rugby was once on a par with Test Cricket-no more I am afraid.
Sam said | February 3rd 2010 @ 11:30am | Report comment
I don’t think this is true. The phase after phase game did exist for a period but rugby hasn’t really been like that for quite a number of years now. Don’t forget that if there is more competition for the ball then the attacking side has to commit players as well, which means less likelihood of a numerical advantage in attack, and also means the ball is probably slower. Attacking off slow ball is much tougher. So rather than run the ball teams kick it because their chances of winning it at the next breakdown isn’t bad, so instead of running rugby teams kick more often.
Bay35Pablo said | February 3rd 2010 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Agreed, the advantage has been with the defence for the past few years. 10 years ago teams wouldn’t kick much as they were fine to keep it. Recently they have kicked away for fear of getting caught with it.
Mike G said | February 3rd 2010 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
Disagree Jock, ever seen Brussow in defence??? That’s what I call top shelf offensive defence!! Smith & Waugh used to be able to do that too!
Sam Taulelei said | February 3rd 2010 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
I actually agree with Jock.
Forgetting the 2008-2009 seasons, Super rugby since its inception has always been about the entertainment value, scoring lots of tries and rewarding teams that do with bonus points. It was never a competition where you ground your way to a win or a competition of attrition.
The first two years of Super rugby that are nostalgically referred to as the golden years featured great attacking play but that was also due to the porous defence on display. Defensive lines tightened and were assisted by some law changes introduced in 1998 that benefited the Brumbies multi-phase play that featured multiple mini rucks and players sealing off the ball making it extremely difficult to contest possession when defending.
Rugby still features multiple phases, you only have to watch Fox Sports to see the stat featured prominently on the screen or hear the commentators mention ‘They’ve gone 8 phases now’
The only time that an attacking team will commit more players to the breakdown is if they’re in danger of turning over posession otherwise it’s only the bare minimum and the rest fan out ready to advance the ball another inch or so. The defensive team do the same so you have more congestion in the midfield.
Teams weren’t kicking the ball to enhance their chances of winning it at the next breakdown, it was purely to counter the threat of turning possession over in their own half as the tackler wouldn’t release the ball carrier when going to ground and then regaining their feet to legally contest the ball. That uncertainty made it very risky to counter attack from deep positions.
Brussow with his stature and low center of gravity was very adept at this technique, as well as the assistance provided by his tight five in blowing the opposition off the ball. Rugby used to be a game where the contest for possession concentrated a high number of players in a small space which meant there was more space for the backs to operate in with quickly recycled ball. Now we have a game where a smaller number of players contest possession and it was only the advent of counter rucking that saw the backs play with a bit more space and freedom because forwards actually had to push and not just rest in rucks.
The style of game and law interpretations preferred in Super rugby has always favoured the attacking sides, the last two seasons went too far to the other extreme and I hope that this interpretation allows for expansive attack, equal rights for contesting possession and resilient defence.