How the Wallabies can secure attack ball

There has been some excellent analysis of the Wallaby/Springbok game during the week from Scott Allen, Brett McKay and other Roarers.

Two particular issues commonly identified include the attitude/mental toughness of the team, and the inability to commit enough support players to secure our attacking ruck ball.

I completely concur with both of these trains of thought.

I found myself unable to add anything of substance to those excellent analyses, so in this piece, I would like to concentrate on how the Wallabies can immediately improve their ball retention in attack.

Some of the problems with Wallaby breakdown turnovers stem from a lack of mongrel and desperation.

In particular, ruck turnovers that happen immediately after fielding a kick or getting the ball from unstructured play.

That’s harder to fix, as it comes down to instinct, habit, and desire.

The six inches between the ears.

What the coaches can address immediately is the structural issues that lead to breakdown turnovers.

In the Wallabies’ case, the attacking pattern that they have attempted to play is beyond the skills of this team to execute against Test match opposition.

In game one of the Bledisloe, and again last Saturday night, the Wallabies game plan involved running the ball between the 22m lines.

They used a formation that broke the forwards into three attacking pods to advance and secure the ball.

This meant that two of the pods had three players in it, and the other had two. They were positioned in each 15m to sideline vertical channel, and the middle 20m of the field.

This meant that a forward runner only ever had one or two dedicated support players in the vicinity to secure ruck ball.

A three-pod system is complicated because it forces the backs, and also forwards from the other two pods, to make decisions on the run as to whether they should also commit to the ruck to help secure possession against a threat.

This decision making process leads to indecision and hesitation. As a result, the support players arrive either a split second too late, or don’t commit at all.

Over and over again the analysts have pointed to Wallaby forwards lining up to receive the next pass rather than commit to the breakdown, and then watch as the ball is turned over due to a lack of numbers at the tackle contest.

In many cases, I believe this is due to the three-pod attacking system they are using.

So, how can they organise themselves to commit more support players as a matter of routine?

A two-pod attacking system, comprising four players in each pod, would give three dedicated supporters for every ball carrier.

Here is an analysis of the two most likely systems that the Wallabies could employ that utilise two pods of four forwards to cart the ball up.

Flow/Waves/Round-the-Corner

The two pods take turns looping around behind the breakdown and taking the ball up off the number nine.

The pattern is to run the same way from one side of the field to the other, stopping either on the 15m channel, or the 5m channel (depending on whether the coach likes to exhaust the defence right to the edge, or leave a big blindside open that requires defenders to stay posted there), and bouncing back the other way.

Who uses it?

• Wales
• Lions
• Wallabies have used it in the past
• Reds used it a lot in recent seasons

Advantages

• Two pods of four means you can commit three supports to the ball runner to either receive short passes and offloads in the tackle, or clean the breakdown effectively for quick ball.
• It requires the defence to work hard to get around the corner to match the attacking numbers, thereby pulling the defence out of shape, and catching lazy defences short.
• It’s not complicated to understand

Disadvantages

It’s physically demanding on the attacking side to keep it going
Unfit sides cannot sustain it, and when you don’t have all four players in the pod getting off the ground and around the corner, the ball runner gets isolated and turnovers happen.

Otherwise, the halfback is forced to wait until the runners do get there, by which time the momentum is lost and the defence is set and on their toes.

This happened to the Wallabies a lot under Deans, with Genia wearing the criticism. It was not Dean’s plan that was at fault, the players simply didn’t work hard enough, or were not fit enough, to execute it properly.

Defences have adapted to it
Previously, the first principle of ruck defence was that the first defender to arrive would go for the ball, and the second would either support him if a turnover was a possibility, or go into the ‘Pillar’ position (first defender) on the far side of the ruck.

The Pillar, as the name suggests, would not move. That forced subsequent defenders to run further around the ruck to get into the defensive line at ‘Post’ (Second defender), and then third defender and so on.

The flow pattern, if played quickly, could have the attacking pod of four getting around the corner quicker than the defenders could fold around, thereby creating the overlap or space to run at.

In the past year, most defences have changed to a ‘Mirror’ pattern. Here, when the first defender sets up at Pillar, he only waits there until the next defender arrives, and then he shuffles across into Post, and the process is repeated as each additional defender arrives.

This allows the most recently arrived defender to slot into the nearest defensive position each time, meaning they have less distance to run and can “number up” much quicker on that far side of the ruck.

Channel System

Again, your forwards are broken into two pods of four. In this pattern, the field is divided vertically into three channels – sideline to 15m line, 15m to 15m, and 15m to sideline.

You position your tight forwards pod in one of the outside channels, and your loose forward pod in the middle channel.

The bulk of your backs have responsibility for securing the breakdown in the other outside channel.

The forwards pods take the ball off the ten, getting them two passes wide of the ruck, and moving them away from running into the teeth of the ruck defence.

They stay roughly in their two channels taking turns moving the ball up the field, and when the defence is sucked in or pulled out of shape, the ball can be sent out to the backs in the far channel, or the winger can be used on the short side.

Advantages

• Moves the ball two passes away from the tightly packed ruck defence area
• Less physically demanding because the forwards stay roughly within a defined channel rather than continually wrapping around.
• Allows you to commit more support players to get behind the ball carrier by playing four-man pods.
• Simple to comprehend

Disadvantages

• Backs have to be particularly strong to secure the ball in their channel without the help of forwards, elevating the risk of turnover in their channel.
• Very predictable and not physically demanding for the defence.

What will the Wallabies do?

On the whole, the two-pod patterns are more basic than a three-pod pattern because they require less decision making from players on the go.

Perhaps this is what Ewen McKenzie meant when he referred to “dumbing it down”.

However, given the turnovers conceded at the ruck in games one and three of the Rugby Championship, there is no doubt that we need a pattern that allows us to commit additional bodies to secure our own ball.

My guess is that they might go with the second option, playing in three channels using two pods of four.

The reason I say this is that the team has not proved fit enough, or mentally tough enough, to execute the ‘flow’ pattern of attacking around the corner.

The second option also keeps changing the point of attack and uses more width, which Ewen is a fan of.

I hope they couple this with clearing kicks to exit the 22m, and high balls between the 22m and halfway to make use of White’s excellent kicking game from halfback.

This is simply showing respect to a Test match opponent, and our lineout was good again on the weekend so we should not be shy to get the ball out.

If the All Blacks, the most potent attacking side in the world, pay Australia the respect of not attempting to run in their own half, what makes Ewen think that the Wallabies are going to build a game plan around it?

Ten tries conceded in game one and game three by playing that naive game plan will hopefully see a more sensible approach to ball in our own half this weekend.

In addition we must see some attacking cross kicks from Quade Cooper to Israel Folau.

I would be happy to see this anywhere outside of our 22m, and I reckon the Pumas’ blitz defence will open up the opportunities for this to occur.

We simply have to walk before we can run, unfortunately, and be better at exploiting the few advantages that we still possess.

And, whatever pattern we employ, we must carry it out with violence and enthusiasm.