One-dimensional rugby: are set pieces to blame?
Roar Guru All of the recent talk here on The Roar regarding the performance of the Australian Super Rugby teams has revolved around a couple of key points.
The continual discussion has presented me with a nagging question: Do the teams in the Australian conference rely too heavily on set-piece moves?
There has been a lot of commentary on the coaching staff and their various abilities (or more correctly their lack of abilities), the slow service from rucks, the one dimensional plays…oh and the kicking, the endless kicking.
Could all of these factors be connected?
The realisation for me is that all of the Australian teams, especially the Waratahs, are overly concentrating on set-piece plays, to the almost total exclusion of open, unpredictable, expansive and innovative play.
How many times have we seen this season at the ruck, the halves stand around waiting for the players to all get into position, and then telegraph their next move which breaks down? The waiting until everyone is set is really the beginning of a set-piece n’est-ce pas?
The one dimensional play falls into this scenario as the play makers are merely looking to set up a set-piece, so when it doesn’t come together they fall back into the same pattern waiting for the “right time”.
The kicking. The endless, pointless, boring kicking to nowhere. Yet another symptom of the set-piece malaise. Can’t get everyone into the right place? The opposition won’t co-operate and let you form up the set-piece? Run out of ideas? Kick it. Doesn’t matter where, just kick the damn thing and let someone else have to think about what to do next.
The coaches are as much to blame as the players for this.
Do they over-practise set-piece plays? Has this strangled the natural flair and “rugby brains”?
Do the coaches work on innovative, unpredictable play? Or do they just run the set-piece drills over and over until the players can no longer think for themselves?
I wonder how the Ellas and Campo would have fared under such a tightly controlled regime?
The Crowd Says (22) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- David Campese, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
July 13th 2012 @ 2:38am
The Werewolf said | July 13th 2012 @ 2:38am | Report comment
Interesting article
With all the statistical data that coaches now make it a priority to study, it is a fact that the statistically proven way to win games is to score tries from phase play. 73% of tries come from phase play and most of these tries come from the 2nd or 3rd phase. one could argue if you haven’t scored by the 4th or 5th phase you may aswell kick for territory or tactical gain.
And despite the myth that penalties win matches it is still a fact that over 80% of matches are won by the team that has scored the most tries because tries and conversions still make up the majority of points. 75% of points from last years world cup came from tries and conversions. it is also interesting that a recent study showed that 50% of penalties come from ruck infringements. again the set piece is not as important as phase play/ruck and mauls.
Coaches know not to rely on set piece play to be the full focus of play because only 27% of tries come from 0 phases. Now that is a quarter of tries so it is still important. But it is important to note that 0 phases includes tries from the set piece, turnover counter attack, kick returns, charge downs, intercepts and any other means of gaining possession for a first phase. so any advantage a team has from one of these facets pales in significance to being able to score from the phases that come after gaining possession and the first breakdown.
So although a first phase is important, the most important thing to be able to do in attack is to score from the 2nd or 3rd phase. its statisticlaly 3 times as important.
Another interesting stat that coaches know is that at 2011 RWC 36% of the tries scored by teams can be tracked back to a win of lineout possession. I would say that this is because the backlines are so far apart it gives a huge advantage to the attacking team to manipulate the defence in order to score from the 2nd or 3rd phase from the lineout and a lineout is also a great time to drive at the line from not so far out.
Its all about manipulating the modern professional defences into coming up short somewhere. That is what the Waratahs are not doing with all their possession.
July 13th 2012 @ 4:53am
Shungmao said | July 13th 2012 @ 4:53am | Report comment
WW insightful data, where do you find the ! My only build is I think we would see so many more tries if we got consistency across the ref’s. Week in week out you physically see teams gun shy because ruling are so different depending on the official , now let’s not bash the current crop of refs but the reality is you have a bad game there is no accountability or punishment. We have professional players but with amateur officials and never the 2 shall meet successfully .
July 13th 2012 @ 5:49am
The Werewolf said | July 13th 2012 @ 5:49am | Report comment
IRB releases these stats after world cups and 6 nations etc
July 13th 2012 @ 8:36am
Rabbitz said | July 13th 2012 @ 8:36am | Report comment
You have sort of proved my point Wolfy.
The over analysis and statistcal reworking coupled with the concentration on set piece and even the “back line moves” (which are still a set piece) as a unbreakable game plan is stifling creative, exciting, crowd building play.
In the software business it is referred to as “analysis paralysis”. So much time is spent thinking about “what if?” and “what is my next move” that the time for action passes and hurried last ditch efforts are made.
Maybe the issue isn’t the franchise coaches, maybe it is the junior coaches as well? Do the players have the ability to think on their feet and play free flowing rugby?
Or is it just the cattle aren’t up to it as the have been cloistered and directed and managed all of their rep careers so they no longer have a ‘rugby brain’?
July 13th 2012 @ 5:35pm
The Werewolf said | July 13th 2012 @ 5:35pm | Report comment
not using statistical analysis would be irresponsible.
Trust me coaches use these stats to formulate game plans. Deans often says play whats in front of you but what he means is to attack from phase play, which any body in rugby knows is the way to play nowadays.
that is what australian sides do, we just don’t have the talent to do it at 5 franchises in super rugby very well.
the wallabies do it well. we just think they don’t because most recently Wales had as well a organised defence as any side in world rugby. most test sides have very well drilled defences.
juniors are coached with much more game skills than ever before. players have ‘rugby brains’ fella… its just in the professional age so do defences.
July 20th 2012 @ 2:43pm
Sluggy said | July 20th 2012 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
“ts all about manipulating the modern professional defences into coming up short somewhere. That is what the Waratahs are not doing with all their possession.”
Or creating mismatches – generally an outside back running on to a pass can beat a tight five forward one on one.
July 13th 2012 @ 3:18am
Aaron said | July 13th 2012 @ 3:18am | Report comment
I think it’s just a case of there being too many teams in this country relative to the talent pool. Watered down teams will lead to less skilled play. Even at Wallaby level this is sort of apparent – when the rock stars such as Bieber, Cooper and Beale are on, the attacking play is as good as most, but take a couple of these guys away and there is a big drop in the quality of the backline play.
July 13th 2012 @ 7:01am
Jerry said | July 13th 2012 @ 7:01am | Report comment
“Bieber”
I think this reference is no longer accurate. I petition that henceforth, he should be known as “Zack Morris”.
http://hellogiggles.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/02/1_zack_morris.jpeg
July 13th 2012 @ 8:27am
Markus said | July 13th 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
My initial reaction was Vanilla Ice, but Zack Morris is so much more appropriate. I second this motion.
Ahh Saved by the Bell, so awful, but so much nostalgia.
July 13th 2012 @ 5:33am
biltongbek said | July 13th 2012 @ 5:33am | Report comment
In the case of South Africa I have often thought and still do gameplans are too structured and the methodology behind them refrain or limit players from just playing on instinct and natural vision, maybe it has crept into OZ rugby as well
July 13th 2012 @ 8:00am
formeropenside said | July 13th 2012 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Jake White is doing his best.
July 13th 2012 @ 9:19am
sixo_clock said | July 13th 2012 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Spot on article Rabbitz. It requires an aptitude to play Rugby as it should. I bang on in this forum about the ‘Rugby brain’ which has been always the essential by-product of our sport. How many out there really expect there to be a cohesive workable ‘game plan’ and every now and again we get calls for play by play control demonstrate just how far the sport is misunderstood.
Rugby is the opportunists paradise. Our training attempts to join skills with glimmers of chances and the smarts to realise and exploit them. Furthermore broken field play is where the game provides most of those goosebump moments where the collective force of will by a powerful tribe will sweep down and scoop up others now willing maidens for a night of excess under the posts. Exploiting those chances requires developing a high level of teamwork and a willingness to play the game at a speed which bewilders the opposition. There’s the challenge to our youngsters. Do you have the ability to think quickly, accurately in cohesion with others whilst stressed, if so, why not.
So do the Wallabies or any other team place too much emphasis on the set piece? If they do then they are basically announcing to the world they are lighter in the brain department than they should be to win at this game. Which is what Genia is screaming to his wet nurse every time he stalls at the ruck, and he is saying it on behalf of his team mates who should be giving him the hurry up and providing opportunities with speed and torque. The real point of difference is between the ears, do they have the right to call you dumb or dumber or just retarded because that is what is on the line once a player crosses the sideline.
July 13th 2012 @ 2:01pm
Rabbitz said | July 13th 2012 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
The ABC recently ran a series called “Sporting Nation” it was a fairly cynical look at Australia’s obsession with sport, John Clarke (aka Fred Dagg) was the host. In the final episode they showed an interview with Glenn Ella. I am paraphrasing but Ella said that the joy of rugby was, for him and his team mates, that for 80 minutes once a week you could run around with your mates having the time of your life winning was a bonus not the be all and end all.
Has the obsession with “professionalism” and “the play book” killed off the enjoyment?
If they are not enjoying it, does that reduce their ability to ‘have a go’?
Would more opportunity for unstructured broken field play improve the enjoyment and inspire better options and more commitment?
July 14th 2012 @ 9:57am
sixo_clock said | July 14th 2012 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Congrats on the Roar promotion, now you will be a little bit of a target.
Your concern re the enjoyment is quite valid, however even having a romp as Glenn suggests isn’t entirely honest. His team worked very hard on fitness and preparation which is never that enjoyable. He had some pretty clever people around him, intense forwards and very skillful backs assisting his contributions.
I guess what I am saying is that when preparation meets opportunity (a definition of luck) and it pays off then that can be a lot of fun. That is the lesson of Rugby for our youngsters, ‘you only get out what you put in… etc’. If early coaches can inspire that kind of dedication to the harder yards than the difficult is made to look easy or others are made to look pedestrian.
I believe that is the core element of the Rugby brain, the willingness to ensure that everything is done to make life easier in the cauldron, that a player will be capable of doing his bit but have something in reserve to allow time/energy for his head to analyse the efficacy of current play and alter it to suit. That is most apparent when the structure has broken down and 15 minds can either separate or join to maximise the pressure. When players just go through the motions, ie schoolboy Rugby, then they don’t have any fun because they will be picked apart. Set pieces are comparatively easy, doing the job as one proton of 15 in broken play is much much harder and the measure of both the man and the team.
ps: imo John Clarke was merely putting things in perspective, quite an eye opener for sports nuts like myself.
July 13th 2012 @ 1:27pm
Sneaky Samurai said | July 13th 2012 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
Geez, the way the Aussie teams have been running their set plays this year, it’s almost as if they haven’t practiced them…
July 13th 2012 @ 2:20pm
jeznez said | July 13th 2012 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
Nice article Rabbz – in the Tahs case I just keep banging on about fitness, they made 7 linebreaks and have no one supporting the ball carrier when it happens. Barnes throws two passes into the grandstand which I’m certain fatigue was a contributing factor. Completely agree that the forward one off hit ups slow ball play is a factor of fitness.
I know that is how my team play and we are a bunch of old white blokes playing against fit young Asian guys. We can’t be as fit as these blokes and we are a heck of a lot slower – means we can’t spread it as wide and play off the cuff like they do. We utilise structure, pick and goes and driving mauls.
My team has an average age about 42 playing against teams that average around 24 – we have an excuse, what is the Aussie pro-rugby players excuse?
July 13th 2012 @ 5:06pm
Invictus said | July 13th 2012 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
I recall comments from both Beale and Mitchell (Drew) in seperate interviews regarding them looking fitter/faster (must have been last season) and how they had achieved this. Beale responded “Mate, I’m off the grog.” and Mitchells response was “I’ve stopped ordering take out.”
One can but hope they were joking….
July 13th 2012 @ 5:23pm
The Werewolf said | July 13th 2012 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
ahh and there it is.
I don’t think the waratahs are as un fit and you clearly think they are because of your experience with your club side which you are drawing parallels from and so the tahs being un fit would fit nicely into your theory as an explanation.
ie If they were all fat unfit amateurs that would explain why they can’t win. But it just isn’t so. lets not forget most of them spent the last month training with the wallabies. So do the wallabies do little fitness? doubtful. and you juts have to look at their workrates. palu and Deniis’ work rates have been massive this year.
July 13th 2012 @ 6:49pm
jeznez said | July 13th 2012 @ 6:49pm | Report comment
Werewolf this is the second time you’ve psychoanalysed me from afar to tell my why I’m drawing the conclusions that I am. This is truly wonderful that there is someone out there who understands me even better than I understand myself!
I rate Cliffy and Dennis enormously and I don’t put them in the unfit bucket. Robinson, Polota-Nau, Douglas and Timani I do put in an unfit bucket – that is half the pack and all but one of the tight five.
Have a look at how much time in a game TPN spends walking, look at Robinson’s gut, note that Timani spent a lot of time in the back line in the Wales third test, check that Douglas got sent home from camp while Pyle and Neville were retained with the Wallabies.
Those are four of my favourite players and all four of them can significantly improve just by lifting their fitness levels.
I draw my conclusion that the team aren’t fit enough due to:
1. the speed of play they employ
2. the lack of support in numbers when they make breaks
3. the fact that they invariably fade at the end of each half
4. the obvious fat on a few of the players.
Those are some of the reasons why I think the team is not fit enough rather than it being an unconcious parallel to the nature of my own side.
July 14th 2012 @ 12:05pm
mikeylives said | July 14th 2012 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
What about that the Tahs have only scored 13% of their tries in the final quarter of the match and let in 29%.
Compare this to a relatively fit team like the Brumbies who scored 28% of tries in the final quarter and let in 23%.
July 14th 2012 @ 12:24pm
jeznez said | July 14th 2012 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
nice one mikey – that is a good one. I’m sure ww is right though and I only think they are unfit because I am unfit myself!
July 16th 2012 @ 1:52pm
SamClench said | July 16th 2012 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Interesting piece. You often get the sense, watching aussie teams, that they just aren’t thinking on their feet. They lack vision. An emphasis on set plays may have something to do with this.
There is a broader attitudinal problem too of course. Kicking needs to be viewed as a last resort, when there are no viable attacking options on the table. Aussie teams have always been at their best when they run run run.