The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Bad to worse for Cheika's Wallabies

18th November, 2014
Advertisement
Michael Hooper must perform as he has McMahon breathing down his neck. (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
Expert
18th November, 2014
292
7488 Reads

I didn’t think the Wallabies could take any further steps backwards – but against France they somehow managed to do so.

One of the complaints about my article last week was that I only focussed on negatives and didn’t write about any of the positives against Wales to balance my views.

So, here are the three positives I got from that match against Wales – the Wallabies won; their lineout performed well; and the short passing and offloading game was an improvement on recent performances.

That’s it – I saw no other positives, hence my article last week wasn’t very rosy.

Since writing that article, I’ve found the time to go back and analyse that match even more closely. I don’t back away from any of the criticisms I made last week. A more detailed examination of that match confirmed to me that the performance was just as bad as I thought.

Before I get into the negatives from the match against France, let me start with the positives to balance out my criticisms. I saw two this week – well, one and a half really.

First, there was some improvement with the scrum and I’ll go into more detail on that shortly. Second, while the defence was poor, I didn’t think it was any worse than it was against Wales, so I’ve called that half a positive.

Although, with an 84 per cent tackle completion rate against France compared to 90 per cent against Wales, maybe I’ve been too generous in this area.

Advertisement

On the negative side, the lineout wasn’t as good as against Wales and the attack was significantly worse.

Yes there were also a lot of dropped balls and turnovers – 17 for the match and we’d all like to see a lower number in this area. But that level compares to 14 in the match against Wales and 19 in the third Bledisloe Cup match last month, so the number of turnovers was not as extraordinary as some people have suggested.

With a number of negatives each week, it’s alarming to consider that the Wallabies only have six more matches to get their act together before the Rugby World Cup commences next year. No matter how much time they dedicate to these issues in training, the intensity of matches can’t be replicated there, so the next two weeks are critical for the Wallabies to end the year.

Unfortunately, the detail of why I think it was such a poor performance in attack has me very concerned that we may see worse to come in the next two weeks.

Once again my concern is not the result against France, it’s the detail behind the result. Whether we won or lost is largely irrelevant at the moment.

The scrum
I’ll start by looking in a bit more detail at the scrum. There has obviously been some extra work done with the middle row this week and until James Horwill was replaced by Will Skelton the scrum was reasonably good.

Unfortunately once Skelton came on, Sekope Kepu suddenly started going backwards despite having been on top most of the match!

Advertisement

The improvement in the scrum came from the combination of the two best scrummaging locks the Wallabies have starting this week and better application from the flankers.

The following image shows Michael Hooper in a good position in this scrum. When you look at the overhead of any good scrum you’ll see that locks and flankers don’t necessarily drive straight. This article I wrote last year explains more on that subject.

Look at the complimentary angles Hooper and Horwill are driving on behind James Slipper – all three on them are working together with Horwill angling slightly out and Hooper slightly in. When the lock and the flanker drive on these complimentary angles the force they generate helps the prop to drive forward, not across the scrum.

Wallabies v France 1

However, the same can’t be said for Sean McMahon in behind Sekope Kepu – he’s not driving on a complimentary angle to Rob Simmons at all. His angle of drive is actually driving Kepu’s hips out, rather than forward.

In addition, even though it’s an overhead shot you can still see that his shoulder is down on Kepu’s hamstring, which doesn’t help Kepu – in fact it makes it much harder for him. As a result there are only two of the three in the tight head pod working together in this scrum.

If you read that article I’ve provided a link to you’ll see that most of the issues facing the Wallaby scrum today are exactly what they were in 2013. If you read other articles I’ve published since 2010, you’ll see that the same problems existed back then too.

Advertisement

There’s also still room for further improvement on this tour with how the flankers stay connected to the props as you can see in the following example where Hooper has completely lost any shoulder connection with Kepu and McMahon only has contact with his bicep to Benn Robinson. The angle of both locks is also poor in this scrum.

By contrast, notice how the French flankers are still in full contact with their props even though they’ve changed angles from where they started.

Not surprisingly the Wallaby scrum went backwards in this example and France won a penalty.

Wallabies v France 2

Defence
In defence the Wallabies looked just as poor as they did against Wales. The narrow defensive alignment, the straight up, wide rushing defensive system now being used by the Wallabies is so easily countered by international teams that these issues may not get better with the passage of time.

The system leaves a team vulnerable to the attack playing behind a decoy to move the ball outside the wide rushers or to teams targeting the gaps exposed inside the wide rushers.

Attack
In attack, the Wallabies were significantly worse against France than they were against Wales.

Advertisement

Against Wales they had the ball for 23 attacking sequences, which doesn’t include the sequences where they kicked or lost the ball immediately. In only six of those sequences did the Wallabies have consecutive phases where they got the ball over the gain line – a rate of 26 per cent.

In those 23 sequences they had the ball for 123 phases. On only 43 of these phases did the Wallabies get the ball over the gain line (35 per cent).

Despite some people’s impressions the effectiveness of the attack in the second half against Wales was actually worse than in the first half with only 2 of 10 sequences including consecutive phases over the gain line (20 per cent), and only 17 of 70 phases where the ball was carried over the gain line (25 per cent).

With numbers like that, it’s impossible to build any momentum and therefore to put the opposition under any pressure.

When your ball carriers aren’t reaching the gain line it also makes it easier for the opposition to slow down ball at the ruck and get their defence re-aligned to shut down the next phase.

Against France, the Wallabies again had the ball for 23 attacking sequences. In only 3 of those sequences did the Wallabies have consecutive phases where they got the ball over the gain line (13 per cent) – that’s a 50 per cent decrease in effectiveness from the match against Wales!

In those 23 sequences they had the ball for 105 phases. On only 27 of these phases did the Wallabies get the ball over the gain line (26 per cent) – a 26 per cent decrease in effectiveness from the match against Wales.

Advertisement

By comparison, in the third Bledisloe Cup match in Brisbane last month the Wallabies had the ball for 25 attacking sequences. In 18 of those sequences the Wallabies had consecutive phases where they got the ball over the gain line (72 per cent).

In those 25 sequences they had the ball for 112 phases. On 87 of those phases the Wallabies got the ball over the gain line (78 per cent).

The performance against France was a 67 per cent decrease in effectiveness in attack from the third Bledisloe Cup match when you look at the percentage of times the Wallabies were able to get the ball over the gain line!

It’s an even worse result if you look at the lack of consecutive phases over the gain line.

I’m certainly not suggesting that the Wallabies have always maintained such a high percentage of ball being carried over the gain line as they did in the third Bledisloe Cup match – they clearly haven’t. But that’s the level the Wallabies need to get to consistently.

We couldn’t beat the best team in the world with nearly 80 per cent of ball carries over the gain line. How are we going to go against the best teams in the world when we can’t get beyond an average of 25 per cent against Wales and France?

I think even the Wallaby apologists who don’t like to hear criticism of the team or players will be alarmed by these numbers.

Advertisement

Why are the Wallabies now struggling to get the ball over the gain line? Is it a lack of players who have the capability to make an impact in attack?

The only real difference in personnel between the third Bledisloe Cup match and the current team is the absence of Scott Fardy and Scott Higginbotham. They may have added something in attack but I don’t think their involvement in the match against France would have made that much of a difference to the Wallabies attack.

Instead I look at Michael Cheika’s attack structures and patterns rather than saying we don’t have the right players. After all the same players were capable of getting the ball over the gain line against the All Blacks – so what else is there to look at?

The Wallabies have gone from using fairly repetitive attack structures (how the players line up) and patterns (where the ball goes across the field) to using what I’ll call a ‘chaos-style’ attack under Cheika. There, the central philosophy is to move the ball as quickly as possible, whether it’s moved side to side, in different directions or just well wide of the ruck to try and unsettle the defence and catch them out.

There seems to be little regard from the Wallabies for going wide only once the ball has been carried over the gain line by the forwards. In fact, it appears that if the forwards can’t get over the gain line, the default solution is to fling the ball wide to see whether Israel Folau or Tevita Kuridrani can get the ball over instead.

That style can work at Super Rugby level, but international defences are so much better that it will rarely expose an international defence.

Unfortunately the ‘chaos’ style also doesn’t allow the attack to settle into any rhythm. The difference between a repetitive attack style and a ‘chaos’ attack style is that the players all know where the ball is going.

Advertisement

With a ‘chaos’ style, players are often unsure of what’s coming next which leads to ball carriers getting isolated without supporters close to them. Following is an example against Wales where none of the players seemed to know who was getting the ball next.

Nick Phipps passed it to Kepu who was like a shag on a rock with no other forwards anywhere near him in support and he certainly didn’t look like he expected to get the ball. Of course this isn’t Phipps’ fault – he’s under instructions to move the ball away from the ruck as quickly as possible.

Wallabies v France 17

The All Blacks are the most repetitive team in world rugby when they attack. Here are two examples from their recent match against England which shows the typical pattern and structures they use.

On the first phase of this example the ball is received from a kick and is carried back to the left. On the second phase the forwards have re-aligned quickly and are ready to generate some momentum.

This structure – with forwards receiving the ball directly from the scrum-half – is not dissimilar to how the Wallabies are setting up, but it’s noticeable that the All Black forwards are not standing as wide as the Wallaby forwards are. Aaron Cruden, in behind the forwards, is much closer to the forwards than we see from Bernard Foley.

Wallabies v France 3

Advertisement

On the second phase the All Blacks use a little out the back play with Cruden receiving the ball and then passing to a forward in the middle of the field. The passes out the back to Cruden and then on to the forward runner are short and therefore don’t hang in the air too long giving the defence too much time to rush forward.

Wallabies v France 4

If you watch the All Blacks closely, you’ll see that the vast majority of their attack is built on trying to get the ball to the centre of the field with players re-aligned on either side of the ruck ready to attack.

From there, the playmakers can decide whether to keep moving the ball the same way or to reverse the direction and play back where the ball came from, which they do in this example. Look at how quickly all those All Blacks have got up off the ground and re-aligned to be part of the next phase.

Wallabies v France 5

Because the players are aligned on both sides of the ruck, the English defence is stretched across the field in this example.

It’s not by chance that these players end up re-aligned on either side of the ruck. Each player has a specific role to play and a position to get into. The re-alignment of players is practiced repeatedly at training so that it almost becomes second nature.

Advertisement

You very rarely see All Black players not knowing where the ball is going next or not being ready for it to come to them.

Another key point is that the All Blacks only reverse the direction of the attack if there’s an opportunity, such as the mismatch here in this example with five attackers on three defenders.

As a result of the mismatch and having supporters all around the ball carrier they got the ball well over the gain line on this phase.

On the next phase, rather than flinging the ball wide they again set up with the same structure as used to start this sequence of phases. This time the forwards carried the ball over the gain line before earning a penalty.

Wallabies v France 6

The All Blacks do fling the ball wide regularly from every turnover or kick they receive. Apart from that, they usually use their repetitive structures and patterns to go forward first.

In the second example, the ball from the lineout is scrappy and the first phase involves a recovery but on the second phase, Cruden used Sonny Bill Williams to carry the ball over the gain line into the centre of the field. Again, there were players re-aligned either side of the ruck for the next phase.

Advertisement

Wallabies v France 7

On the third phase Cruden kept the ball moving the same way. On the fourth phase the forwards took the ball the same way again and the All Blacks again got well over the gain line.

On the fifth phase, they used the same structure they use whenever they change direction after reaching the sideline. A pod of forwards set up not too far away from the scrum-half with the first receiver just in behind them. This was the second time in this sequence of five phases we saw exactly the same structure used.

Wallabies v France 8

None of the forwards were too wide or deep and as a result they got the ball over the gain line again. The momentum generated from wave after wave of attack getting over the gain line really tests any defence. Notice that Cruden was once again positioned just in behind his forwards.

With players knowing where the ball was going, numbers were available to support the ball carrier and on this occasion Owen Franks received a short offload from Kieran Read and made a good line break.

With the English defensive line in tatters the direction of the attack was then reversed to the near side of the field to take advantage of the opportunity as the English were short in defence.

Advertisement

Israel Dagg, acting as the playmaker on that side of the field, put Ritchie McCaw into space and he scored a crucial try on the end of this pretty simple but well executed attack sequence.

Wallabies v France 9

Yes, the All Blacks have better players than the Wallabies but that try wasn’t scored because of some outstanding play by any individual. It was achieved by a team working with a very clear structure and patterns where the forwards are used to get the ball over the gain line repeatedly which creates opportunities before there is any thought of flinging the ball wide.

I’m not suggesting the Wallabies should try and mimic the All Blacks, but doing almost the opposite of what the best team in the world does makes little sense to me.

The All Blacks certainly use reverses of direction but they’re used sparingly and only when there’s an opportunity, not to try and create an opportunity by simply bouncing play from one side of the ruck to the other.

When any team reaches the touch line they obviously need to change the direction of the attack but the Wallabies make more changes of direction in mid-field than most teams. They also did this under Ewen McKenzie, so it’s not a recent development.

However, the difference with the Wallabies current attacking style is that they aren’t reversing the direction of the attack to take advantage of opportunities.

Advertisement

Often there is no opportunity to exploit by reversing direction which leads me to think that it’s something that the players have been asked to do regularly as opposed to something the playmakers are calling on the field based on what they see in front of them.

Here’s an example of a reverse of direction used by the Wallabies early in the match against France. On the previous phase, the direction of play was left to right. This was on the fourth phase of a sequence where the Wallabies hadn’t got over the gain line on any of the first three phases.

Wallabies v France 10

There are a number of issues here. The first is that with no players re-aligned on the near side of the ruck the French defence know the ball isn’t going to keep going the same way towards the touch line – so they have fanned out on the far side. That nullifies any potential element of surprise with the reverse of direction and makes the attack far too predictable.

The second is that with that defensive line set, there was no opportunity on the far side of the ruck anyway, so why move the ball back in that direction? Not surprisingly, the Wallabies didn’t make the gain line on the following phase with Ben McCalman tackled almost as soon as he caught the ball.

This was the first attack sequence for the Wallabies in the match and they held the ball for seven phases without making it over the gain line once before being penalised at the ruck and giving the ball back to the French.

In that sequence the Wallabies reversed the direction of the attack twice in seven phases without ever getting the ball beyond the 15-metre line either side of the field.

Advertisement

International defences are too good to get exposed too often using this style of play and that has been demonstrated very clearly in the last two matches, with the Wallabies making little or no headway over multiple phases despite lots of ball movement.

In addition, the attempt to play further away from the ruck involves long passes that are in the air for so long that the defence is able to move forward too quickly to engage the ball carrier almost as soon as they receive the ball. This is particularly so when the forwards receive the ball off the first receiver.

Because the Wallabies attack has been so predictable on the European tour, the French knew what to expect and came into the match with a rush defence plan to catch the Wallabies behind the gain line. They certainly defended well but the Wallabies made it much easier for them.

In this first example against France, Foley is set so deep and wide that the forwards are going to have to do something extraordinary to get the ball back to the gain line when they receive it, let alone get over the gain line.

Wallabies v France 11

When McCalman catches this ball the French defence is nearly on top of him and they make contact when he’s still seven metres short of the gain line. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the gain line and this gave the French momentum.

Wallabies v France 12

Advertisement

In this next example at least Foley is a little flatter but he’s also wider, meaning that the pass is again in the air for far too long.

Wallabies v France 13

Once again by the time the pass gets to Foley and he then makes his pass, the forwards receive the ball with the French defence on top of them – with Skelton brought down five metres short of the gain line.

Wallabies v France 14

With the Wallabies finding it so hard to get the ball over the gain line, players start losing confidence in the structures and patterns and start trying to make things happen. Then what they’ve practiced together as a team gets left behind and unfortunately when this happens, it often makes things even worse.

One example of that was Hooper’s appalling decision to instruct Will Genia to take a tap after a penalty in the 74th minute when a lineout was the only sensible option. I can’t imagine that the coaches have had the team practicing a quick tap in this situation.

Wallabies v France 16

Advertisement

You also have to wonder what Genia was thinking at this moment from the look on his face, because I’m sure he knew a major mistake was being made.

Another example came after a great break by Foley in the 78th minute, who then passed to Genia in support, who carried the ball to the French 22-metre line.

With the game there for the taking, the Wallabies had good numbers out wide on the far side of the field and the French defence was short. It was a great opportunity to score and win the match.

To take advantage of the opportunity the ball needed to go to Foley to distribute to the wide runners, but Skelton got in front of him and tried to do it all himself.

He carried the ball to the gain line but nothing more and by the time the ball was recycled for the next phase the opportunity out wide was lost.

Wallabies v France 15

Some may say that was a selfish act by an individual not thinking about the team but I suspect it’s just a player trying to help the team but making a massive mistake.

Advertisement

In 2013, Cheika introduced a similar attacking style to the Waratahs and it took them a full Super Rugby season to get used to it and to get it working against Super Rugby defences. The Waratahs’ style of play worked well last year at Super Rugby level, but is almost the opposite of the very structured style the All Blacks play.

With only six matches left before the Rugby World Cup next year, there’s very little time for Cheika to persist with an attacking style that may have worked at Super Rugby level but has never worked at international level where the defences are so much better – no matter which team has tried it.

close