Wallaby line-out tactics the definition of insanity

Putting two pods up against Matfield wont help the cause at line out time. It would consist of a pod slighlty infornt and at the side of Matfield. This opens up a ball more to the front, and this is also not a bad thing, cause now the defending side has the problem om being exposed for a driving maul about 8m's infield. Going over Matfield you have Spies and Smith, who both are excellent jumpers. Yes, the extra pressure could expose 1 or 2 skew throw, but then you just regroup. I think the reasoning behind the Wallabies not going for short line outs isn't such an absurd idea. They have a backline that can create space, thus you try and keep the amount of forwards closing down space at the back to a minimum. Remember that channel 1&2 will then be covered by Spies and Brussouw in a 5 man, thus the flyhalf either has to take the ball out wider or run the risk of running into those 2. If he takes it out wider, then he loses space, and they can be pushed towards the opposite touchline. What I havn't seen the Wallabies do as of late, is MOVE in the lineout. Without Vickerman you have to create 'space' or at least get the opposition to commit to a set defence. At the moment it's too easy, by just marking space, the Boks are turning over a lot of possession (and yes, as a Saffa, I love it). What seems to be happening, is that both the AB's and Wallabies wait for the line to form, see where Matfield is and then adjust their call accordingly. What now happens, is that the rest of the Bok line out has the time to adjust as well, and Spies can just as easily get up in to the air as Matfield does. Quicker calls will already be an improvement. But it all also boils down to how your hooker get's 'over' a lost line out. And it seems the boys just don't recover.

I can only agree. dumb. Horwill has gone missing this season in the tight and the open.

Funnily enough I was talking to Chris Jack's cousin yesterday and was of the virew thst his play now was changed substnatislly to what had been done in his stint in European/Nh rugby/British rugby.

Brilliant article, Craig B, couldn't agree more. Great stuff.

How much pressure would that genuinely put on du Plessis, Spiro? SA has four big men to hit, and Spies has been in outstanding aerial form recently jumping in the middle and then there is always Botha at the front. All Matfield would have to do is go long and take his markers with him, thereby freeing up the front. If the opposition manage to actually disrupt or at least threaten the SA line then that may well pressure du Plessis, but over the past two years he has had a pretty top notch percentage record (apart from a few wobbles during the 08 3N) and as the lineout is based upon mechanical routine I would assume that eventually Matfield, who as you state is so good at reading the play, would eventually right any wrongs. I just don't see the point, especially away from home against such a strong rolling maul. It's not like SA use quick ball off the top to launch their backs like the French do, so I think not contesting and defending the maul was completely the right move. Anyway, even if the Australians had managed to disrupt SA ball that doesn't mean that the SA jumpers would not have disrupted the Australian ball. If the Springboks found their lineout under pressure they still have an excellent kicking game which would have put Australia back into their half time and time again. I really think the debate about contesting the jump is a non-starter.

One reason for contesting the opposition's ball, especially against the terrific South African lineout, is that it puts some pressure on the thrower. I noticed, for instance,when the All blacks did not contest that the Springboks basically threw the ball down the Springboks line. As the jump was not contested, the referees allowed the throw. Victor Matfield is the go to man for the Springboks and he should be double-teamed at all time. This leaves open jumpers like Juan Smith. But these are longer throws and defending teams have time to adjust and try to make a catch at the end of the lineout. There is also more pressure on getting the throw straight. I watched a Currie Cup match on television last week and Chris Jack, the former All Black, playing for Western Province, won the first three lineouts at the front easily against a very good Free State lineout. One other point, teams playing against Matfield get freaked out and spend a long time trying to settle the jumpers and the call before the throw. Matfield is a genius at reading the signs coming from the throwing side in these situations. Settle on the call going to the lineout and throw it in before Matfield can read the play is an answer that teams could use. Having said that, Matfield is as good as Eales as a lineout dominator.

Sorry, craigb, I didn't mean to address that to you. Although, in response to your piece I think the point of making the same throws is 'trusting the systems', the basic theory being that if you try something successfully that you had previously failed then the thrower an jumper can re-establish confidence. Repetition is the key, much like goal kicking, plus you have to consider that Brown and Palu are far, far inferior jumpers to Smith and Spies so automatically the options are limited.

KO - I am talking about our own ball. Regardless of people having a 'bad day', if somethings not working then you need to be able to try something different. Otherwise how is it supposed to get better??

i agree KO, with more Wallabies attacking the lineout (a well constructed one at that) the defence of rolling maul or any other forward attack suffers. why waste defenders against a quality, well drilled lineout like SA who are more than likely will get the ball anyway. A simlar arguement can be said about the ruck, putting more men in the ruck takes away defenders.

CraigB, Q: Who has the best lineout in the world? A: South Africa Q: Who has one of the best rolling mauls in the world? A: South Africa Q: Who has the best kicking game in the world? A: South Africa Why people lambasted New Zealand for not contesting the lineout perplexed me, and now people are criticising the Australians for the same. What difference would contesting South Africa's throw have effected upon the game? It is easy to sit there and say that the lineout is a great psychological battle without considering the effects of losing that battle. What if the Australian lineout had contested the majority of the lineout and not managed to disrupt one? Surely that presents a crushing blow to the Australians and a huge victory to the South Africans. Further, what if South Africa had taken advantage of the Australian jumpers contesting the SA throw and had just casually grabbed the ball (as is Matfield's wont) and trundled down field through a maul? Would the naysayers have kept quiet, consoling themselves that at least the Australian jumpers had tried? I doubt it. As it stands Australia combated the rolling maul very well. Stephen Moore just had a bad day at the office. Shit happens. Test rugby is won by inches and with such a short back row I can't see any value in Australia having a man airborne when there is no necessity.

I couldn't said it any better. They better get things done.

It occurs to me then they lack a leader. Just not playing smart. Whoever has the calls these days escapes me, but it used to be Vicks didn't it? I see it at club level all the time. Teams keep losing lineouts, and when they get penalties, just keep going for the line. Just not smart enough. Surely at elite level, you have smarts enough to say 3 man, change up etc? Perhaps then our throwers aren't up to it?

Considering the time together this side has, what have they been doing? What make even more sad was the fact that the Boks gave them the front on most occassions. I sense they didn't take it as they haven't done any work on drive options or attack options from the front. The other disappointing thing was that the Wallabies didn't put any pressure on the Boks lineout. The lineout is a great opportunity to win the psychological battle

Henry asked the very same question.

the strange thing is that isn't that hard to get it organised. If you lose 9 lineouts and your trying something different each time then maybe the oppn is just too good. To just keep trying the same thing just looks silly. It seems Aus has lost the ability to adapt and think on there feet.

Good point - where was the bailout options, the plan B, the 2&3 man options - ask the coaches Logic says that if you kick alot against a team that has a good lineout then they will not be afraid to play to it. Kick it to them, they kick it out and presto you have your lineout under pressure - why kick the ball away?