Every rugby team has a plan and a style. Usually that plan comes from the coach and is represented on the field by the leadership of the team.
On Saturday night the Reds spent over 12 minutes inside the Brumbies’ 22m area, but were too predictable in attack and couldn’t punch through the desperate defence enough.
One of the Reds’ 10 campaigns into the 22m area lasted a full eight minutes and saw them receive six penalties.
They also had 63 percent possession and 61 percent territorial advantage – all huge numbers.
We now know it’s not the size that counts; it’s what you do with it.
I don’t want to focus on the possibility of another card being issued or a penalty try. Here I want to look at the game theory at play. While less controversial, I think it is more interesting.
Broadly speaking, Jake White’s rugby teams play aggressive, physical rugby. They rely on the percentages falling their way if they stay on the right side of field position, handling errors and penalty kicks.
His Brumbies have been lauded for playing expansive rugby. I would temper that and say his teams are more ruthless than purposefully expansive.
For the most part they do the foundation parts of rugby relentlessly well and when the opposition finally flinches, they pounce.
There’s nothing wrong with that and it’s been effective in international rugby and now Super Rugby for Jake White.
Ewen McKenzie as a coach is hard to pin down.
I would suggest he employs a degree of Amoeba philosophy. The New England Patriots in America have been famous for this philosophy of constantly changing and adapting week-to-week based on what the opposition can do.
This has been McKenzie’s tactical approach at the Reds and as a coach he employs this philosophy more than most.
One week, such as against the Rebels earlier this year, the Reds will play to pin the opposition inside their 22 through field reversing kicks.
Other times they plan to keep the ball in hand at all costs and drive it through the middle of the forwards.
Other weeks the Reds will employ an almost exclusive inside-outside game, where the ball is either in pick and drive or being flung to the far reaches of the pitch – such as against the Chiefs at Suncorp last year.
He is also usually adept at adjusting that plan, especially after half time. The Chiefs game last year is a perfect example. A side to side game in the first half morphed into a pointed narrow ruck edged attack in the second stanza.
The Reds amoeba this week was a determination to play the ball through the forwards and keep the ball to score tries rather than kicking goals.
Some people derided the Reds for not taking the points on offer. That is a good point. Some of those people also said that 16 penalties kicked would be worth 48 points. That doesn’t stack up as correct.
It’s not true the Reds would have received so many penalties back to back if they had have kicked their first one. That would have stopped the run of play and the Brumbies would have kicked them back into their half off the restart.
We could see how hard it was to gain ascendancy throughout the match and particularly at the end, when both sides were trying to find a way into enemy territory again but couldn’t manage to flip the field position decisively.
Ultimately the Reds paid the penalty for not keeping to the overall philosophy of adapting their shape to the opposition when their plan isn’t working well during the game.
The way the Reds set up Rod Davies’ try by using the forwards to suck in defenders on one side of the field and swing it quickly the other way to find the open wing was brilliant. It also appears to be an anomaly – outside what was planned for the match.
Every other campaign inside the Reds 22m area resulted in them keeping it tight to the detriment of the space created out wide by driving forwards.
We heard audio on the field of Genia saying, “We go again.”
James Horwill was also urging his forwards to drive through the Brumbies.
An intelligent decision, in keeping with McKenzie’s penchant for changing his plan to suit the occasion, would have been to instruct the team to replicate the Davies try while they had the man advantage.
They would have capitalised sooner and given themselves time to score again.
The Brumbies, on the other hand, stuck to their plan of defending like men possessed, playing the percentage of field position when they could and the percentage of a penalty being less costly than a try.
On game-day this was enough to ensure the Brumbies a draw even though they were clearly beaten in most aspects of rugby.
This game also showed that while the Reds might have marginally better playing stock, a small failing in game theory can nullify that difference.
A small thought for free
It seems like there is trouble at the Reds in terms of contracts not being fully paid by third parties. The principal concern is Wallabies winger Digby Ioane not being there next year.
I have many thoughts about the overall state of contractual negotiations and arrangements in Australian rugby. I won’t go into this all here.
I wrote a while ago that Michael Cheika of the Waratahs might look to the Reds as a source of quality Super Rugby talent while he renews his squad this off season.
The Reds losing Digby Ioane may ultimately be a blessing in disguise. He is a quality player but was surely taking up a large chunk of the payroll at the club.
It might mean the newly available cap space would be put to good use keeping the likes of Liam Gill, Ben Tapuai and Rob Simmons at the club longer.
It may even help them retain the second tier players that are still vital to squad depth over a long season such as Jono Lance, Saia Faingaa and others.
frisky
Guest
I agree that Donald had been tried at international level, but he was dumped because he lost them a match against the WB. He did not perform in any of his short appearances. Well past his best. He was pulled out of pasture because the AB had lost their three top players in that position. Note that his last game in NZ was THAT game. A very nice way to finish, I must say. Imagine his stories to his grandkids ! How would teh Boks go if they lost their three top fly-halfs in quick succession, the last one in the middle of the WC final ? A boys own story. As for illegalities, well coming from a Bok, that is quite funny. We have 3 refs to judge that. Were they all blind?
dadiggle
Guest
Don't forget Stephen DOnald was no new comer to International rugby. The Fact that you took out the French dangerman with a knee to the head by that guy with the sore foot and that you created a try by holding defenders back again illegally. In 1995 we lost our hooker and wing and Andre Joubert played with a broken hand. In 1999 we played whole tournament without Honiball almost. CArter not there is not a excuse as they had if Carter should get injured plan.
Mike
Guest
I don't know that you are being entirely fair to single out Weepu. Or the duck ... But re your last sentence - definitely. An enthralling match, gripping, because it went down to the wire and neither team gave an inch in terms of grit and determination.
trotsky
Guest
The try-rate has improved after tonight. 28 tries in 10 games = almost 3 /match. Want to change your opinion?
trotsky
Guest
They had to just hang on because Piri Weepu missed all those kicks at goal, which would have given them breathing space to play their normal game. Weepu's gifting the French their try also made them rely on conservative rugby. This is not a rationalisation. If it was, I would have mentioned having to rely on their 4th choice fly-half (who has not played in NZ since) and their captain playing with a broken foot. It was a very very tough fight at the end. Trench warfare may be conservative, but definitely NOT dull.
Chivas
Guest
Geez Jez, how could you move from general rouseabout to a front row doughnut :-). One was more normal 7 to second five to half back to no. 6, finally to wing for a season (not for outright pace... Just a step both sides and defence... then out to pasture.
dadiggle
Guest
The Brumbies weren't great. Just that the Reds were stupid and didn't take the points on offer and went for the try which did not work really. They saw the Stormers scoring from a line out with a simple maul and thought they can surprise them and do the same. They did it more than once cause the Brumbies were hanging off side and loitering away. Brumbies played kick and chase and try and win the lineout like most South African teams play. Just their boot was bigger than Queenslands boot so they did not have to run it upfield as they can boot it upfield to make the yards. Same as the Bulls did vs the Kings. In South African rugby he who got the better boot will have the better territory and he who wins the lineouts will win the game. Pretty plain and simple
dadiggle
Guest
Well scraping through the final the only thing they did was play risk free rugby and won it like everyone else won it. Ugly and boring.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Except I'm stronger in my theory and those guys actually had ability.
Johnno
Guest
jeznez there is a lot of Richard Harry and Sekope Kepu in you, 2 men who made the move up front.
dahl
Guest
Clear red card for horwill Brumbies vwin 72 - 0. With expansive rugby against 14 players. Someone should write a blog about it.
Hernando
Guest
No talent from the ACT? Considering its population and overall player numbers relative to those of both NSW and Queensland I'd say the ACT is punching above its weight when you consider... David Campese, Rob Egerton, George Gregan, Joe Roff, Stephen Larkham, Faingaa x 3, Matt Giteau, Matt Henjack, Matthew Pini, Sam Norton-Knight, Marco Caputo, Peter Kimlin, Rod Kafer, Guy Shepherdson, Henry Vanderglas, Tyrone Smith, Robbie Coleman.... I'm certain there are more players to add to that list who played in Sydney or Brisbane prior to the emergence of the Brumbies franchise, but with 5 World Cup winners, 1 Wallaby Captain and a couple of the all time Wallaby greats it just goes to show how baseless that statement is. Colby Faingaa clearly wants to be in the run on 15 and while Pocock & Smith are at the Brumbies that ain't going to happen. Good on him. He's only emulating what his brothers did before him and I'm sure your more than happy to have the two of them up at the Reds.
ffs
Guest
The Horwill could have been sin binned argument is ridiculous mainly because palmer was in the middle of doing something illegal in the first place - try to pull down a maul and go underneath all the players in the maul, you are bound to get stomped by one of them.
jeznez
Roar Guru
I was the relatively unusual combination of a 7 who became a 3. Played 22 years all up, not counting school I had seven years and my highest grade footy as an openside breakaway later had eight years at tight head. In between I played every position in the pack.
dahl
Guest
Brumbies by 30. And until my throat is sore. Boo the force...
Chivas
Guest
If you ever read or listen to Colin Meads, he says it started eroding as players played less for their clubs. Every All Black was a captain of their club or provincial side so they all knew what to do and adapt.
Crazy Horse
Guest
Pocock is A Zim that spent a few years in QLD before being taken into the Force Academy as a youngster. He was developed in WA where he played all of his super rugby until moving to the Brumbies. A similar story for JOC. A Qld reject developed by the Force.
Jiggles
Roar Guru
"Expansive" rugby is almost as inane as "running" rugby
Mike
Guest
Convincingly and overwhelmingly! :)
Tissot Time
Guest
Yes it did work they won as I recall.