NRL strategy and tactics continue to evolve

It wasn’t long ago that the most complex NRL tactics simply consisted of run-arounds, chip kicks and bombs. Besides that, you got the odd offload and the occasional short ball.

But as the NRL has become more professional and coaches got technically savvier, we have seen the introduction of a whole host of tactical innovations.

Some of these tactics have damaged the product of the NRL (such as grappling and wresting), but most tactical changes have made the game a lot more exciting.

Today I want to talk about a future tactical innovation that I believe is just over the horizon. I don’t expect people to agree with these, but the discussion should be interesting.

The Roosters vs Knights game last Sunday was unremarkable in nearly every regard. The attack of both teams was pretty unstructured and it was only the brilliance of Mullen and Pearce that provided the tries. However something remarkable did happen in this game and it occurred in the first two seconds of the match…

For those of you that missed it, the Roosters started the game with a short kickoff!

Now short kickoffs are not terribly unusual when a team is behind and there is not much time on the clock, but to start a game with this tactic is something I have never seen in my many years of watching rugby league. I think this is one thing we can learn from the rugby set!

The Roosters retained the ball after their short kick off and went straight on the attack. But regardless of the outcome, it is a tactic I have been waiting nearly a decade to see used! My prediction – we will see this used more and more. Before you all start claiming I have lost the plot, hear me out.

The short kick off is underused for the following reasons:

1) The chance of you retaining the ball has increased in recent years as the skills of kickers have improved dramatically. The modern NRL kicker, with a bit of practise, should be able to pin-point most of these kicks to land exactly where he wants.

2) Also increasing the likely success of the short kick off is the amazing leaping and catching ability of the modern NRL players. We all see how hard it is to defuse a kick in the in-goal area, where the attacking player has the momentum.

This same principle applies to short kickoffs.

3) Finally, the cost of getting it wrong is often nowhere near as bad as people seem to think. If you do a short kickoff and you do not retain the ball, then the other team is likely to take their first tackle about 30-35 metres out from their try line. On average, a traditional kick off is returned to about 10-15 metres from the try line. So on average, if the short kickoff doesn’t work out, you have only cost your team about 20 metres in field position.

When you consider the above three points, applying a basic cost-benefit analysis, the short kick off is a play that is worth using more often. It shouldn’t be employed only when you are behind and need to score quick points. I don’t think it should be used all the time as in union, but if you are behind in the second half, then I think it is a play that makes a lot of sense.

Going even further, I actually think short dropouts are also underused. Now, this will really have you conservative traditionalist up in arms…but once again, hear me out.

One of the tactical innovations of the modern game was been the use of the grubber into the in-goal. The purpose of this play is to score a try, but at worst, force a drop out – or what coaches call ‘getting a refund’. This tactic is a very effective way of building pressure and when used time and time again, the defensive team can be worn into the ground having to defend set after set on their try line.

The reason I think a short drop-out should be used is similar to the three reasons stated above. The same logic applies to dropouts (ie. a team is a good chance of getting it back and the cost of not getting it back is not that bad).

But I actually think the case for a short dropout is even stronger than a short kick off when you consider the damaging effects that back to back sets can have on a team. When a team is trapped in their in-goal time after time, they are sometimes asked to complete 18 tackles in a row. Although they may defend this and not concede a try, they often have to use a lot of energy to make such a defensive effort. This can come at a cost later in the game when fatigue sets in.

Furthermore, by letting your opponents know that they will face short drop out if they continue to look for refunds, you may actually take away from the attractiveness of the refund tactic. This will force them to reconsider their tactics and potentially not pursue refunds as often.

Like I said at the beginning, I don’t expect people to agree with the use of this tactic as I am sure there are sound counter-arguments I have not considered. But most tactical innovations in the NRL are often frowned upon when first introduced. It’s the natural inertia people have to change.

But I believe that we will see the use of short kickoffs and dropouts used with increasingly regularity in the future.

The evolution of NRL tactics will continue. Let’s see if this is something of a watershed moment in rugby league strategy.