Hands up those of you who sat through all eighty minutes of the top-of-the-table Sharks-Brumbies match on Saturday night. Now hands up those of you who enjoyed the spectacle.
Not too many hands, I see.
If you head on over to the Sydney Morning Herald, you will see Steve Samuelson’s rather vitriolic critique of the participants in the weekend Canberra clash.
A championship victory for the Brumbies and Sharks, he reasons, would be an injustice. The two conference leaders are supposedly undermining the sport with their ‘pragmatic’ focus on winning at the expense of providing entertainment.
The thrust of the argument (as I understand it) is that the style of rugby – the so-called ‘Jakeball’ – is the problem.
It is unlikely to attract new fans to the game and puts at risk the support of existing fans who prefer to watch a more aggressive, high-risk, and preferably high-scoring approach to the sport.
It follows then that the Brumbies and Sharks are being selfish by failing to adapt themselves to the kind of rugby that supporters and marketers want to see.
I suppose this line of thought leads me to my question: is ‘Jake-ball’ not a legitimate form of rugby?
I would argue that it is perfectly legitimate. It is a strategy built on defence, pressure, and territory. On the face of it, it would seem to favour a team with a talented place-kicker, but teams with quick outside backs are well-served too.
Indeed, the Brumbies back three of Joe Tomane, Henry Speight, and Jesse Mogg were one of the competition’s most prolific try-scoring combinations last season.
Where the strategy comes in for criticism among its detractors is in its perceived lack of risk.
This seems to have become a tacitly accepted premise – playing for territory is a strategy that runs minimal risk. The insinuation is that by kicking the ball out of your own half instead of running with it, a team can make valuable metres and put the opposition’s kicker out of range of the posts, which effectively minimises the risk of conceding easy points.
That is for most opposition kickers, anyway.
But this remarks only upon the objectives of the strategy, not the substance. I hardly imagine that any team content to advance the ball up the field without kicking would ever intend to throw passes likely to be intercepted or to run into tackles from which they are unlikely to be strongly supported.
But as a risk inherent to that strategy, it is something that those teams have to just accept and be mindful of.
But Jakeball teams have risks as well. What happens if you centres are not totally defensively sound? What happens if your players entrusted with the task of hoofing the ball upfield are struggling to find their accuracy?
Look at the match on the weekend. The tactical kicking by the Brumbies was for the most part woeful. Twice Nic White failed to put out long-arm kicks to touch, Jesse Mogg’s boot seemed to have lost about 30 metres of power, and Deans-esque up-and-unders that had little chance of being regained seemed to be the order of the day.
The Brumbies should absolutely have lost if not for Francois Steyn’s utterly abominable performance for the Sharks. By my reckoning Steyn’s woeful kicking – both from in hand and off the tee – singlehandedly lost his team the match.
But that was a risk that the Sharks were running too. Its occurrence should put a big question mark next to the suggestion that Jakeball is risk-free, if not striking it through completely.
The reality is that there is no such thing as risk-free strategy. Not in rugby, not in anything. Every strategy boils down to the ability of the fifteen players on the field to execute their skills effectively.
If they cannot, then there is really very little that can be planned at all.
The thing that really concerns me about Samuelson’s view – which I suspect he shares with many others – is the idea that there is a formula for Australian rugby that abhors any variety to the mantra of run, run, run.
This formula supposedly embodies ‘the Australian way’ of rugby which has been credited with our successes on the field and off it, and whose validity seems to have escaped scrutiny over its lack of results in the post-Eales era.
I’m just saying, the last time Australia held the Bledisloe Cup, Lleyton Hewitt was World Number One.
Similarly, the last time the Brumbies drew a crowd that threatened Bruce Stadium’s capacity was when they last won a grand final.
Jake White’s influence at the Brumbies did not predate the period of malaise for the franchise that set in shortly afterward. Rugby in Canberra – like in the rest of the country – has been on a downhill slide ever since the glorious days of the early 00s.
What White managed to achieve in his two years in Canberra was therefore remarkable. A rise of eleven places in two seasons, the first grand-final appearance for the Brumbies in nearly ten years, and a victory over the British and Irish Lions.
Whatever the aesthetics, it can’t be denied that on the field, at least, Jakeball has been getting results where only mediocrity existed before. And crucially, it has put another string in Australian rugby’s bow.
So like it or not, Jakeball and any other strategy that challenges the conventional approach will have a place in Australian rugby. At least until we can work out an alternative that actually works.
Roy
Guest
Totally agree Markus. The Force v Bulls game was a kick feast because of really wet conditons, but the kicking was good and the Force won because they kicked better. The only way you could have played that night.
Roy
Guest
Totally agree Markus. The Force v Bulls game was a kick feast because of really wet conditons, but the kicking was good and the Force won because they kicked better. The only way you could have played that night.
Roy
Guest
RDG... agree entirely, the Brums can play exciting running rugby when they want, The first half of the Brums Tahs game was another example.Plus of course the coach decides the tactics and the players execute...clearly Larkin thought this was the best way to win, and he was right...I am sure if Stein had kicked better, the Brums would have changed tactics mid game, but why change a winning formula?
Sportym
Guest
Owwww your the credibility police eh????? It's called Humour, you either have it or you don't . Sorry can't help you !
RDG
Guest
I'm a big rugby fan and I can understand why People found this game boring but there are boring games in every code.. This was two teams that knew each other well due to the coaching of jake white so it was never going to be an exciting game to watch both teams wanted to win and move on. The brumbies are a team that can play both the boring style low risk rugby and the high risk running style and win (note Brumbies vs Chiefs).
Justin3
Guest
What about running from the half way line? :-)
LukeR
Guest
What is balance? I would agree with both your suggestions above, but add one more, which is game plan that seeks to mix and match it up from the outset. If we can do that well then we'll be putting ourselves in the position to challenge top sides more often. I agree with you about the Chief's match. And yes, this is exactly the kind of thing we're going to need as a rugby nation if we're to start winning more against NZ. This tells me that under Larkham the Brumbies are at least heading in the right direction. But this conversation is about Jakeball, which they were blatantly playing the other night.
Pau
Guest
What a bloody boring game and Jake White predicts that they will contest the final. For the sake of rugby I hope it does not happen cause it would not attract a good crowd. Both teams were intent on just kicking the ball to each other.. They may as well be playing AFL and then Jesse Mogg would be suited to this game. Compared to the Chiefs and Crusaders game it did not compare'
Warren Adamson
Roar Pro
You cannot judge the whole sport on one lousy game of rugby. When the Reds click, they are beautiful to watch. Izzy has shown what magic can do with a rugby ball and Cummins has more personality on and off the field than the entire Collingwood club. The Super Rugby expanded with the hope to grow the game globally and get some financial windfall. Rugby Union is bigger on the world stage than AFL (only Australia) and League (Small selection of countries). The only titan that rugby cannot really dethrone on the world stage is soccer/football. Rugby has a world view of itself and the unfortunate thing is that sometimes local competitions and unions have to compromise for the bigger picture.
Stray Gator
Roar Rookie
And let's not discount too much the contribution to both coaches' thinking that the greasy conditions doubtless played; had the Brumbies tried an expansive ball-in-hand, run-from-everywhere game and lost, right now there would be numerous articles about Larkham's refusal/inability to adapt to the dictates of circumstances beyond his control. I was at the Stockade when the Rebels beat the Brumbies. A fair bit of kicking took place that night, too, which the Rebels did badly, and the Brumbies did well. We just outplayed them in other areas. And the conditions were much more conducive to ball in hand rugger. And to those comparing the game to AFL - give me a break. I'm an ex-Aussie Rules player, and a late-ish comer to Rugby. Part of the joy this game gives me is seeing how many variations on a strategic theme it throws up. How much it is played between the ears, as well as with the heart. If you want a softish, mono-dimensional, tactically limited game, rugby is not for you.
Jack
Guest
I would like to comment on the ball work of both teams, but feel I simply don't have enough data to come to a conclusion... with 94 kicks in general play, and the ball being in play for about 40 mins all up, the ball was generally not in play for more than 30 seconds before either side kicked it for fear of the "ball work" failing them...
Jack
Guest
That's more perception than reality mate... Stats show about half the registered school boy union players come from public schools. I know first hand; I went to a public school and we played union. We used to play League too, but the school decided to focus on union and pool the talent so the boys could go on tours.
Jack
Guest
I like both codes, and I can tell you now that all but the most extreme league hating Union-only types would agree with that. There was a bloody big difference between the quality on display in the Manly-Storm game and Brumbies-Sharks game. Neither the Brumbies nor the Sharks had sufficient confidence in their ability to catch the ball to hold onto it for more than a pass to the flyhalf, whilst in the Manly-Storm game we saw precision attack and a self belief that has produced some of the best comebacks this year. The League game was a classic, whilst watching 94 kicks interspersed with collapsed scrums over in Canberra was the Rugby equivalent of a nil-all draw in the soccer where both teams are playing for that outcome.
PeterK
Guest
obviously I need to clarify, when I state that the reds have been the shining light, I actually mean off the field not on. They are the only rugby franchise that is in the black in australia. All others are in the red and the situation is worsening. The reds membership and crowd figures are fantastic. Why only the reds and no one else? I put it down to winning AND entertaining rugby that got them hooked in the first place. Compare this to off field for Brumbies and Tahs, crowd figures, membership.
Maxt
Guest
So you only skimmed the article but we have to read your drivel Dru. Did you watch the brumbies chiefs game just two weeks ago? If you want to tune out after one performance then you are not the sort of fan rugby needs.......perhaps you are still in shock from your reds teams abysmal showing
dru
Guest
Missing my point. I simply don't care. I turned it off. I'll be watching closely what happens now. The team I support is the Reds... Not yet "and whoever is playing the Brumbies" but they are definitely working on the title.
Maddog
Guest
Rob from Brumby land is ignoring the harsh reality that we are in the most crowded football market on the planet and to serve up a game as boring as Saturday night's rugby dirge pushes us further down the 4th place ladder [to the degree that is possible]. Still cant believe Oz and NZ agreed to the S18 format which shows all the dearth of imagination displayed by Steve Larcomb and Jake White. It is impossible to be sanguine about the future of our code as we look to the future.
Jono
Guest
Interestingly last year all the Aust Super teams were down in crowd numbers. The Tahs had a pretty big down turn with about 5,000 less people per game, the Rebels lost around 2,500 per game and the Force 700. Though given they weren't really in the finals race you could expect weaker numbers. However, the Reds who had a running battle with the Brumbies throughout the season for top spot in the conference also had figures around 2,500 less per game. The Brumbies as you point out didn't increase their crowd figures, in fact they were down around 200 per game. Looking at these figures, if even the "Entertainers" are going backwards you have to say there was something more significant at play than just play styles impacting crowd attendance in Australian Super Rugby home matches in 2013.
Garth
Guest
Bledisloe 1 in Wellington 1996 was awesome. AB's vs. Scotland Test, Auckland, 1975 was more a naval battle than a rugby game.
Gatesy
Guest
I thought it was a fantastic game - I watched it in a pub with no sound, and no one around me - didn't have to listen to Kearns or Martin or Kafe. To me it was two evenly matched teams going at one another hammer and tongs. Yes there was a lot of kicking, but why would you want to play close to your posts with Steyn around - even though he had an off night - don't know about you but he looked like he has been grazing on a good paddock, lately and put on a few extra kilos around the middle - that might be one explanation. The game was mostly played betweent the two quarterlines and in wet weather - I thought that the Brumbies ball work was slick, as was the Sharks. Prettty damn good in those conditions. The Brumbies lost Tomane early on, and given his beautifully balanced busting run up the middle from the first kick off, may have lost a potential game breaker. Anyone who says that that was boring Rugby doesn't understand Rugby. Full Stop!