NRL strategies in need of an upgrade

Some strategic innovations in Rugby League don’t quite work out.

Remember in the mid 1990’s when Matthew Ridge from Manly decided he would use a place kick when kicking for touch from a penalty?

He tried to rekindle interest in the old tactic, but the amount of time wasted meant it was quickly put back in the historical rugby league dust-bin.

Ten years earlier there was the human wall that teams in the 1980s used to confuse opponents, which would now surely constitute an obstruction by today’s standards.

So while not all strategic innovations work out, we should never stop looking for ways to improve the way we play the game. Here are two strategic innovations that I think are worth considering:

1) Take your time playing the ball off kick returns

It usually makes perfect sense to fight to your feet to play the ball. This allows your team to build momentum and take on a back-peddling defence. As a result, quick play-the-balls are now one of the key aspects of our game. But do they always make sense?

I think that on the zero tackle there are occasions where a quick play the ball is not necessarily the best option.

For example, say a winger has fielded a kick in the in-goal area and has managed to just get the ball back into the field of play.

The defence is now ready to move up quickly and bash the dummy half into the in-goal area.

In that instance, why do players still fight for a quick play the ball?

Half the time there is no one from the attacking team left to help out, so when the defence absolutely smashes the ball carrier, there is big chance the scooting player will not make a single metre with his run.

We sometimes see a few of these wasted plays until the forwards get back on side and by then, half the tackles of the set have been wasted.

The better approach would be for the ball carrier to get up as slowly as possible and wait for his team mates to get back on side.

If this approach was taken, they would produce higher quality hit ups and there would be players there to help out if the ball carrier was getting driven back.

The defence is already set and ready to pounce, so making them wait 3 seconds longer won’t provide them with a significant advantage.

To me it’s simply a matter of time before a switched-on coach suggests this approach and it becomes common place.

Watch out for this weekend. See if there are occasions where a player rushed to play the ball when he probably should have just taken his time and allowed his teammates the time needed to regroup.

Although this is not a massive strategic adjustment, there are occasions where a silly play swings the momentum of the game, and you never want to give your opponent an edge in the NRL!

2) The short drop out is not a ‘desperate measure’

With so many teams grubbering the ball into the in-goal area and looking for the refund, teams are now being forced to make back-to-back-to-back drop outs!

Defending 18 tackles in a row is very hard, and even if you don’t concede a try the defensive team will often be forced to chew through a lot of petrol defending their line in these circumstances.

If you have a player that can consistently kick 50m drop outs, then taking the conservative approach and nailing the ball as far as you can is usually the best play.

But there are occasions (when you are behind by more than six points) where I think a short drop out should be attempted a lot more often than what is currently the case:

– When a team is down by 12 or more with less than 20 minutes left, you need something to turn the game in your favour. Defending on your line for another set of six will simply not do, and taking a short drop out in these circumstances is a risk worth taking.

– If the wind is blowing against you or it is raining heavily then making 50m on the fly is not going to happen.

In these circumstances, taking the short drop-out is the right play a lot of the time. The difference in field position is not significant enough to warrant kicking long.

Often the attacking team will return the ball from a decent drop-out to the 30m line anyway, whereas a failed short drop-out will usually see the attacking team regather the ball on the 20m line, only costing your team 10 metres!

I just don’t see the downside as being that significant, whereas regaining the ball here could be enough to swing the game in your favour.

– If you have great leapers in your team, then a short drop-out makes a lot of sense. The team I support – the Raiders – have Blake Ferguson, Sandor Earl, Jack Wighton and Edrick Lee to aim at.

I think the Raiders would nearly be a 50/50 chance of regathering our short drop-outs if Campese practised the kick. The short drop-out is not that hard a kick to perfect. Rugby Union players have been doing it from kick offs for decades!

Although innovation is usually met with derision and criticism, some of the best plays only came about because some brave soul was willing to give something a go.

The bomb tactic was not around until the 1970s, when Parramatta’s John ‘Bomber’ Peard started utilising the ‘up and under kick’ as it was referred to back then.

This tactic was so effective it forced rule changes (a player that catches the ball on the full in the in-goal is a now awarded a 20 metre tap), but yet the bomb remains a key part of our game today.

The short drop out and taking your time on early play the balls may seem silly now, but I think these are innovations that teams will look to use when someone sits back and rationally weighs up the pros and cons.