Space is the Wallabies’ final frontier
By Brett McKay, 13 Jul 2010 Brett McKay is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, Rugby Union, Tri Nations, wallabies
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- Tri Nations Tournament news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- 2011 Wallabies squad news
After watching the first Tri-Nations game on Saturday night from Auckland, it became apparent to me that the key to winning the hardest rugby tournament in the world is something of which we’ve all been craving to see more: Space.
In fact, it wasn’t even after the game that this became obvious.
Within the first ten or fifteen minutes, it was noticeable that both the All Blacks and Springboks were looking to play with space as often as they could.
It felt like there was more long and wide passing in those first fifteen minutes than the Wallabies showed in their last two games.
Both flyhalves were throwing the wide pass from the outset, and the All Blacks certainly seemed intent on running the big South African defenders around the ground.
The big difference, though, was that while Morne Steyn would link with whichever Springbok player was in the space he aimed for, Dan Carter was almost exclusively playing for centres Ma’a Nonu and Conrad Smith.
Width, length, height, angles run from depth. Space was there wherever you looked.
Before too long, New Zealand had turned this space into attacking dominance, and that’s pretty much how the game played out.
Even before their first try, it was abundantly clear that the All Blacks were making and breaking the advantage line almost at will, while the Springboks were still content to make their ground through the slow pick-and-drive and from Steyn’s rather large boot.
But the kick didn’t always go to plan. From a poor Ricky Januarie box-kick, fullback Mils Muliaina found himself in copious space, and with winger Cory Jane in support, he cut a swathe through the South African midfield, found captain Richie McCaw who headed wide, and in doing so was able to hold the Springbok cover up for long enough to send Smith to the corner.
It seemed that whatever the All Blacks tried there was space available, though admittedly, they did have a numbers advantage at one point during the first half with Bakkies Botha given a yellow card and ten minutes to consider the consequences of his cynical actions.
After halftime, it was more of the same too, with the All Blacks able to string the phases together quite regularly, and their back three of Muliaina, Jane, and Joe Rokocoko providing excellent service in both counter-attack and general kick returns.
No.8 Kieran Read’s try was another notable use of space, but of a different variety. With scrumhalf Piri Weepu now on, and with New Zealand pressing the South African try line, Weepu rather than handing off for the pick-and-drive from the base of the ruck, instead drifted wider, while Read came from a wider “outside-in” angle as the commentators described it.
It was perfect execution, and the use of space made it all the better.
With Weepu getting outside the defensive channel at the ruck, and Read able to run at a wider gap, it just became a matter of momentum versus technique, with the result being a converted try.
New Zealand used similar tactics throughout the game too, where rather than just driving the ball back into the ruck defenders, they ran the one-off runners wider, which also had the effect of engaging new defenders. And with new defenders drawn in, the space was there out wide. Rugby really can be a simple game sometimes.
So what does this mean for the Wallabies?
Well, for starters, by the time they play their first game, they could be taking on a Springbok side hell-bent on redemption in the Tri-Nations.
That’s a worry. Not nearly as worrying, though, as how red-hot the All Blacks might be by then.
What the Wallabies have to do is use space to their advantage. In some respects, it will just mean going back to the same attacking mindset from the first Test against England, but generally it’s going to mean playing a whole lot wider than they did in the June Tests.
For Luke Burgess and Will Genia, it’s going to mean taking a leaf out of the All Black No.9’s book, and play the pick-and-drive runner one defender wider.
Likewise, the forward runners can’t just lope at the back of the ruck and charge into the defence off flat feet. Use the space; find the width and depth, and trust the pass.
And on that topic, trusting the pass is something Matt Giteau needs to do if he manages to hold his inside centre spot. Whether it’s Giteau, Berrick Barnes, or even Wallaby squad newbie Anthony Faingaa at inside, they all need to find the space out wider and let flyhalf Quade Cooper hit them with his outstanding long pass.
And once Cooper does find them, do the right thing by the pass and stay straight, rather than running laterally.
If Kurtley Beale is reading this (and I can’t think why he wouldn’t be) ‘use the space’ does not give you licence to fluff through pointless little kicks, like the one you bombed a certain try against Ireland with.
For you, it means finding yourself in the correct position at fullback (assuming that’s where you play), running at gaps, and utilising the space with your wingers on counter-attack and kick return.
I wrote some months back about the Australian Super 14 teams needing “a dose of the Reds”, and this could easily apply to the Wallabies now too, as they start developing their Tri-Nations game plans. This is actually a point many Roarers – especially the Queenslanders amongst us – have been quick to make since watching the All Blacks’ impressive Springbok-demolition on Saturday night.
And with good reason too. All the best games of rugby this season have been those where teams have used the space available. We’ve seen glimpses of it from the Wallabies, but of late, they’ve reverted to the same play of finding the inside runner.
Use the space, look to the outside too.
Space may well be the final frontier for the Wallabies, but it is already playing a major role in the Tri-Nations. If the Wallabies are to be a chance, let’s just hope it doesn’t take a lifetime to find it.
Follow Brett McKay on Twitter: @BMcSport
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
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A (2)
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (7)
- 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:
- All Blacks, Rugby Union, Tri Nations, wallabies

Seiran said | July 13th 2010 @ 4:23am | Report comment
The other positive of running the attacking forwards wider of the ruck defenders is that it forces the springbok pack to become much more mobile. This in turn tires them out much quicker, which is the result we saw in the second half of the match. Once they are tired they slow down and have difficulties holding the defensive line.
Unfortunately I don’t think for a second that this tactic will work against the AB’s. Everyone seems to be talking about how to beat the Boks but I’m still to read some recomendations of how the Wobblies are going to take on the AB’s.
After seeing such a great display by the AB’s last weekend I’m scratching my head on that one.
katzilla said | July 13th 2010 @ 6:31am | Report comment
Kick into the corners but instead of running an umbrella type defence herding them to the middle run a flying V with a point in the middle forcing them to the sideline you favour most.
The Boks were allowing the back 3 to get back to the middle of the field where all 3 were engaging the entire defensive line with cutting angle runs. You give half your defensive line a little bit of rest if you force the play away from them.
Seiran said | July 13th 2010 @ 7:42am | Report comment
A ‘flying V’ if done badly can leave huge holes in the defensive line. I do agree with kicking for corners though, as long as the Wobblies can force the AB’s into returning defensive kicks. The Wallaby lineout has been better than the AB’s of late and this could be one area that they could dominate.
ohtani's jacket said | July 13th 2010 @ 7:53am | Report comment
The All Blacks dominated the Wallabies in the lineouts in Wellington and Tokyo last season. The trick to beating the All Blacks is to starve them of possession.
M.O.C. said | July 13th 2010 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Agree, I still can’t beleive that oppositions are planning on kicking the ball back to the ABs – surely they have shown that they want to attack with ball-in-hand from anywhere on the field. As an AB supporter I am thrilled to hear this type of game plan – It’s always easier to score tries when you have the ball!
inkosi said | July 13th 2010 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Good piece as usual Brett.
M.O.C have to agree with you there, credit the style of play to whoever you want Reds, AB’s French kicking the ball back isn’t the answer. They’ll just attack from their 22 and you’ll just end up tackling the whole game!
sheek said | July 13th 2010 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Brilliant OJ,
I would have thought the trick to beating any opponent is to starve them of the ball – can’t score points if you don’t have possession, etc, etc.
For the past 100 years the Boks might have been onto something you think, with their behemoth packs….. ?
ohtani's jacket said | July 13th 2010 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
Am I to believe that the Wallaby forwards aren’t good enough to beat the All Blacks? If that’s the case, then why don’t the Wallabies forfeit the rest of their games this season?
darwin stubby said | July 13th 2010 @ 6:52am | Report comment
The AB’s didn’t use a Reds gameplan on Saturday – they’ve been working on this type of play for some time – last season they just didn’t execute it so well (until their last test in france) and the law change have also helped … the Blues also adopted this style in the S14.
Should the Wallabies do something similar ? maybe, but what they really need is some sort of direction and focus – Deans really hasn’t provide a consistent pattern, other than the famous “play what’s in front of you” call – which really is more babble than anything concrete.
What I find interesting though, while reading a number of these blogs, is that on the whole NZ and SA contributors generally discuss the forward make up of their teams, the tight 5 and the necessity to dominate the breakdown as being the imperative – aussie posters on the whole spend countless hours discussing their preferred backline
Tragic said | July 13th 2010 @ 9:23am | Report comment
I’d have to agree with your assessment of Deans’ lack of game strategy. The ‘play what’s in front of you’ mantra is an adequate phrase to encapsulate his style (a phrase that is probably over-used), but the Wallabies are not Kiwis, and have thrived in the past by having precise and measured game strategy to compensate for their weaknesses in other ways.
This is what other captains mean when they say we are a clever team (a backhanded compliment, in my opinion), which to some extent is true. I’m not sure if Robbie has woken up to this. I often feel we lack a purpose with the ball in hand, and in attack in the midfield. The proof of this is when we turn ball over at the contact area due to lack of support. I think this is a sure sign that the players have poorly positioned themselves and because they a: don’t know where it’s going, and b:have players like Cooper who eject themselves from the contact area (or are inaffective there), and we turn ball over. Ball retention is key, and I think that this might typify the difference, as you point out Darwin, that the talk is the wrong way around re forwards selections v backs selections. Our backs need to play more like our forwards, not the other way around.
sheek said | July 13th 2010 @ 10:19am | Report comment
DS,
Which is why Kiwis & Saffies are much, much better at rugby than us Aussies.
Everything in rugby starts with a strong scrum, something Aussies are struggling to understand & accept….. even after more than 100 years of international rugby!
Hoy said | July 13th 2010 @ 11:55am | Report comment
In our defence on this one, we have previously had very good scrums. It was fast Eddie who depowered our scrum over several years. We are seeing now a small resurgance with our top three front rowers equal to any other front rowers in the world, but after them, we are still in trouble, but we are improving there is no doubt.
Another thing I think, once players move on, we will have a breath of fresh air. We seem stuck on Mumm for some reason I can’t fathom at all. If we look past him, we have Simmons showing promise, and several other young rowers going about their business. Two of the front rowers from the June tests were quite promising, and Slipper coming on strong as well, so the development is there, or should that be the potential for development?
sheek said | July 13th 2010 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
Hoy,
Unfortunately, historically, we’ve been weak at the scrum. A strong Wallaby scrum has usually been the exception rather than the rule.
Australian rugby needs a massive cultural shift. Sad but true…..
mother teresa said | July 13th 2010 @ 10:27am | Report comment
working on it for some time but couldnt execute” yeah sure;or how bad was the coaching.3 zip
lets hope the other guru deans doesnt take so long to get it right.
the “i knew it all along phenomena” is alive and well it seems.
Red Rooster said | July 13th 2010 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
Darwin – I smiled when i read this – Other people keep saying it and you are determined to not give anyone any credit, unless they are kiwis of course
darwin stubby said | July 15th 2010 @ 6:24am | Report comment
Not at all RR – merely trying to point out the facts – this is wHat Wayne Smith (AB coach, not the one in the Australian) has said:
“No-one had taken their eye off Saturday’s test against South Africa, but Smith said the side’s performance in the Tri-Nations opener had not been conjured up in a week.
“We had a vision of how we want to play and we held true to that all of last year and it didn’t come off all of the time,” he said. “I remember we were branded reckless and irresponsible over in South Africa.
“We knew what we wanted to do, but we didn’t come up to the levels. The laws weren’t helping us, but we had a feeling about where the game needed to go.
“It was never going to survive as it was and we didn’t think it would motivate our players anyway, so we swam against the current to an extent.”
ohtani's jacket said | July 13th 2010 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Quality stuff as usual Brett, but if there’s one thing that gets better the more it’s talked about on this site it’s the Queensland Reds, and if there’s one thing that gets even better than that it’s the Queensland Reds’ victory over the Bulls. It’s a nice reference point for Australians, I guess, but if you’re looking for a template at the Test match level then I think the French provided the most recent example of how to beat the Boks.
I’ve seen enough of Cooper this season to finally be convinced that he can make a difference to the Wallaby back play (provided GIteau is nowhere to be found), but if you think back to Brisbane last year, the Wallaby forwards made some big hits that day and they’ll need to do more of the same under the new interpretations.
ohtani's jacket said | July 13th 2010 @ 7:44am | Report comment
Also, the reaction out of Australia has been somewhat amusing. One imagines that if the Springboks had won, it would’ve given the Aussies a template on how to beat the All Blacks with a different Super 14 match being referred to. I’ve just read Growden suggest that the Wallabies have a chance to beat both teams. I tell you what, you Aussies never give up believing, do you?
reds fan said | July 13th 2010 @ 8:56am | Report comment
its all we have OJ.
BennO said | July 13th 2010 @ 9:21am | Report comment
“One imagines that if the Springboks had won, it would’ve given the Aussies a template on how to beat the All Blacks with a different Super 14 match being referred to.”
THat may be so, but the comparison in this case is a valid one so I can’t see what the problem is. And yes I know perhaps it wasn’t just the reds who played that way against the Bulls (as I saw some kiwi’s whingeing in another thread), but the reds did it very well to great success against the big SA teams and the Aust media is writing for an Aust audience.
A further point being made that you seem to have missed is that there is no reason why the Wobblies shouldn’t be able to do the same given the reds executed the game plan competently. Of course, it’s unlikely the wobblies will because they seem to be a bunch of powder puffs this year, but there’s always hope if not belief.
mother teresa said | July 13th 2010 @ 10:31am | Report comment
oj;cant blame aussies if they dont choke in rwc mate;they believe they can prevail.
sixo_clock said | July 13th 2010 @ 11:58am | Report comment
OJ, whist the AB’s were good it was their willingness to play the game more technically correct that was the difference. I have written elsewhere about the ball-and-all tackles lead to linebreaks, the ‘Boks did not change their game plan at all (testers – why? Mils was a rock). Very few ruck penalties indicates the message has got through so the visitors had nothing to work on. In fact taking that penalty instead of going for the try was the end of the game – they had nothing – had conceded – and did not show pride in their guernsey. It takes a tremendous effort to reduce the ‘Boks to that kind of negativity. But more importantly it indicates that the team leaders do not have either the free hand or worse the Rugby vision to change the tactics on the fly. Also leaving Aplon out was a massive error, he feeding off Kirchner could change the game in a moment.
For the Wobblies there is always hope. We do not have the weight of expectation for a start. There were aspects of play from both sides that we could exploit.
Ps: Growden writes for the old guard, his analysis is hardly worth reading anymore.
Pss: Does anyone know where very detailed game stats are available on the net?
Rugbywits said | July 13th 2010 @ 3:19pm | Report comment
Yeah mate I agree about Growden. He rarely writes anything other than his rambling rumours.
His analysis is average at best.
http://www.rugbystats.com.au does decent rugby stats.
warrenexpatinnz said | July 13th 2010 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
Greg Growden, the only person cooler than him is his reflection. Just ask one off Greg’s friends and they will tell you, you know, the ones that give him all the good oil on things negative about the Aussie rugby scene.
sixo_clock said | July 14th 2010 @ 10:19am | Report comment
RW, Thanks
CraigB said | July 13th 2010 @ 7:59am | Report comment
Your quite right OJ – We will never stop believing. How else could a team that got 50 points put on them (NZ 03) come back to beat them 2 test later. In regard to the last test played, I thnk if the score had been close and the AB’s not as dominant the Aussie chatter may be a lot different. Maybe more like “how do we beat these two??” I think its a compliment to the AB’s that they made it look so easy that we think we could do that!
I also think the next test will be a lot tighter because I doubt the AB’s can do it that perfectly again. I find that watching the Wallabies of late we get a lot of average and then a solid game that refills the optimistic tanks. The AB’s however play solid all the time and then occasionally produce perfection. I think last week was this occasion, at least I hope so.
On the article in general, space means nothing really to the guy with the ball, unless he has breakneck speed or big stepping and acceleration. Space needs runners at angles either as decoys or hitting that space to make it count. Watch the Wallabies tests this year and they have had space and moved the ball into it, but the defense just shuffles across and shoves them into touch or makes the tackle. Without the brains, playing with width serves no purpose and you are better playing direct.
Vinay Verma said | July 13th 2010 @ 8:12am | Report comment
CraigB,good point. The most important space on the Rugby field is the one between your ears. I am sure Brett was also alluding to this.
Bay35Pablo said | July 13th 2010 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Hallelujah, free (space) at last, free (space) at last, free (space) at last!!!
A dose of the Reds, Brett? That sounds painful.
PdV will go back to the drawing board and come up with a new game plan. Whether it will be this 3N or in time for the RWC we will see. Deans and every other international coach will have watched the ABs, and be plotting how to counter it. because ytou sure as hell have trouble playing it better than them!!!
BennO said | July 13th 2010 @ 8:42am | Report comment
“For Luke Burgess and Will Genia, it’s going to mean taking a leaf out of the All Black No.9’s book, and play the pick-and-drive runner one defender wider.”
I reckon Genia did this very well during the games I watched the reds play (the bulls and stormers). At the time I remember yelling at him to pass shorter because the reds weren’t making much ground and it looked like we would lose the ball playing one that far off the ruck. But with the new law interps and reasonable support play that wasn’t a problem.
chrisa said | July 13th 2010 @ 9:16am | Report comment
After watching Brad Thorn’s outstanding game on Saturday (again) and Australian concerns about the strength, or lack of it, in our second row I checked the relative sizes of Elsom and Thorn. Rocky is 6ft 6in and 112kgs, Thorn is 6ft 5in and 115kgs. Surely that makes Rocky big enough to play the same sort of game. The added benefit would be to bring Higginbotham in on the blindside and with Palu back at 8 we would have a formidable scrum.
warrenexpatinnz said | July 13th 2010 @ 5:18pm | Report comment
Chrisa that is all that I feel is missing from this Wallaby side, which is big uncomprimising forwards. Take Horwill, Palu and Polata, these guys hurt when they tackle and certainly don’t take a backward step.
Combining those three with Elsom and Simmons or Samo the Wallabies would have have a dramatic turnaround and although we won’t see that until the NH tour you can be gauranteed they will make up the pack with Robinson and Alexander followed by the reserves of Slipper, Daley, Moore, Sharpe and either Van Humphries or the ghost, Vickerman.
The positive I take from these guys not being in presently is that they would have had a good six months off rugby more than their counterparts so expect them to be chomping come NH tour and 2011. You also have some young guys getting internationals way earlier than you expected but when is the right time to blood someone?
Rickety Knees said | July 13th 2010 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Great post mate!
I have never understood why the pick and drive runners tend to be ambling when they receive the ball, rather than hitting the ball up at pace and thus the potential to creat more space?
What does excite me, however, is that running Rugby is back and for good reason. The only way to beat the AB’s and Saffers is to be better at the running game. I would have ball players playing left (Giteau) and right (Cooper) of the ruck, with the fullback (Beale) supporting busts up the middle made by runners hitting the ball at pace.
mudskipper said | July 13th 2010 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Pick and drive plays are drawing more opposition players into the ruck… the theory is it opens up the back-line with less opposition in the defensive line… Ball runs outside the inside backs can work… just look at George Smith and Palu, 2 ball running loosies… the Wallabies miss these guys…
Tragic said | July 13th 2010 @ 9:33am | Report comment
I agree. Another good one Brett. I would like to throw my two-cents in though. I think that the key word is not space, but speed. Watch the All blacks take the ball back up in the counter attacking situation – they do it quickly before the defensive line has had time to settle. Watch them recycle ball – quickly. Compare that with the Wallabies – you can almost see the cogs turning over in their brain as they return the ball. If you are doing things at speed, including going into the tackle, then the ball is alot quicker in coming back, the backline is hitting the ball a lot quicker, and space presents itself. Before space, i reckon you need speed, which I might say we are not short of, in the backs or the forwards. We need to use it.
inkosi said | July 13th 2010 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Tragic, you’re right about the speed – but maybe that’s the difference between Genia & Burgess?
Where Genia gets the ball out quickly Burgess can often be seen standing around like a Seagull at a picnic!
Tragic said | July 13th 2010 @ 11:03am | Report comment
I actually think that Burgess has a natural game of clearing the ball quickly – a la his injection into the fray for the waratahs a couple of years ago. He is one of the most effective halfbacks at getting out of the ruck poorly presented ball. He stands around like a seagull when the ball has taken an eternity to come out, and the Wallabies have to re-start their attack. That’s the forward’s (and back’s) fault, not his. But I don’t like the seagull. Genia does it too.
Go_the_Wannabe's said | July 13th 2010 @ 10:09am | Report comment
20 years ago the AFLers had a thing called “running to space” i.e. you try to predict where a clear space is going to be 2 plays ahead of the game and run to that space in advance. Pretty simple but effective strategy really……but only if you get good at it!
As one of my old rugby coaches used to say……don’t run to where the ball is now, run to where it’s going to be by the time you get over there!
Anyway the recipe to beat the Boks seems to be:
1. Contest the line outs wholeheartedly (ie starve them of possession).
2. Have quick throw ins at lineouts to keep their forwards on the run.
3. Counter attack wherever possible. i.e. run to space.
4. Play mistake free rugby.
5. Be unpredicatable.
6. Be passionate about playing for your country.
7. Don’t give away stupid penalties.
8. Hit the ball up wide of the ruck instead of pick’n'drives.
Gee, sounds easy doesn’t it? I wonder why teams just don’t do these things all the time……..
And how do you counter attack all of the above? Easy, just do the same thing except better. Isn’t rugby simple?
sheek said | July 13th 2010 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
The great rugby league coach Jack Gibson used to instruct his players to go where the seagulls are.
This of course were the days of mid-late afternoon matches, & seagulls would gather on that part of the playing field presently unoccupied by humans.
Makes simple good sense, doesn’t it…..