In rugby, rock-like defence isn't always enough to win

I had a friend who was the world’s worst player of ‘Paper, rock and scissors’. This was great for me, as he just so happened to be my flatmate for a couple of years.

The rubbish needs taking out but it’s raining? Let’s play Paper, rock and scissors.

The landlord is coming round to check the house and needs one of us to be here? 1 – 2 – 3, go!

There are nine different outcomes when playing this game with two people: both rock, both paper, both scissors, rock-paper, rock-scissors, scissors-rock, scissors-paper, paper-scissors, paper-rock.

Unfortunately for him, there was only one thing I needed to do on the count of three: open out my hand to make paper.

For no matter how many times he tried to persuade me otherwise, I knew he would go with his trusted friend the rock.

Rock was his sanctuary. The more times he lost with it, the more treasured it became for him.

He begged me to change my ways: “I know you’re going with paper. I’m going to take great satisfaction beating you with scissors.”

Other times he would try the goading approach: “I’m going to shake things up and go with paper. I know you’re dying to beat me with scissors. But you’re too weak and spineless to choose anything other than paper.”

When does a double bluff become stubborn stupidity? Never in the case of my friend, and who was I to argue with him? Co-habiting can prove stressful at times, but not when the cohabiter does everything for you.

You could be forgiven for thinking that I would’ve grown tired of taking candy from a baby. Or at least my conscience would’ve compelled me to humour him from time to time. My feeling, however, was that his limited tactical game needed to be punished until he brought something new to the table.

Sadly, for him, I got the impression he so desperately wanted a win playing his rock in order to justify all the previous failed attempts, I saw it as my duty to point out the error of his obstinate ways.

Recently, Steve Hansen has come out and claimed that world rugby is becoming “boring”. On the eve of rugby’s great showpiece, he contends that we stand to lose the hearts and minds of many if rugby remains as defence-dominated as it is.

Now, of course, Steve Hansen is more cunning than a stoat on steroids. He knows his All Blacks team would stand a greater chance of winning a World Cup on foreign soil if the game were to open up a little more.

Furthermore, it just so happens the All Blacks’ last loss came against a Springbok side that dared to dream and took the game to them, playing them at their own game in the first half. In the following game, the Wallabies had arguably an even bigger field day at the breakdown and exposed the defensive frailties of the retreating All Black defensive line.

Taking New Zealand out of the equation, however, there does seem to be growing evidence that doing more with less is preferred to trying to do as much as possible.

One team on the rise in world rugby is Ireland. Traditionally, they have struggled when playing away and so it proved against Wales. Yet it was a compelling contest between two coaches renowned for doing more with less.

Before meeting Wales, Joe Schmidt had done a very good job of getting the best out of the players he chose to perform specific tasks. It was clear that they were instructed to play in a certain way that would inhibit the opposition the most. Not so much taking the game to the opposition but, rather, taking it away.

They didn’t try to force passes, they didn’t show much in the way of adventure for the simple reason that getting caught with your pants down behind the advantage line is a sure way of conceding points.

In that way the Irish game plan is not dissimilar from those of the vilified Jake White and Warren Gatland. Against England, Schmidt had a clear plan. An England team without a Mike Brown at fullback is not as adept at running the ball back with interest. Therefore, Conor Murray and Johnny Sexton played a territory game that kept England pinned down in their own half.

The breakdown was the other key area Schmidt targeted. Win that battle and force England into errors and kick the points on offer. Obviously it’s not so easy to execute it in a game, but by ensuring England were offered nothing they could feed off, Ireland were allowed to dictate play.

Schmidt’s Ireland inflicted a humiliating loss on Wales in last year’s Six Nations, one that rankled Gatland. Ireland’s scalps in the autumn internationals probably only served to rile Gatland even more. His team came out and played the match as if it were personal.

Wales are about as predictable as my friend playing Paper, rock and scissors. They have tasted Six Nations success, but up until their victory over South Africa, they kept playing the defensive rock for 60 minutes only to be smothered and suffocated by paper in the final quarter.

One thing they do very well, however, is defend. Wales can stifle sides like New Zealand for much of the match by shutting down the space in which they operate. The task was made easier by Schmidt’s side clearly under instructions not to offload in the tackle. Big men like Jamie Roberts eat up the straight runners until they can no more. Enter Wayne Barnes, who decided to be strict on offside play at the rucks, and cometh the man, Leigh Halfpenny, to bang over the greater share of the points.

Halfpenny under Gatland is a bit like owning a Ferrari and never getting out of second gear. He showed what he can do entering the line in the third Lions test against Australia, but Gatland prefers to have him sit back to receive kicks and defend, rather than use him as an attacking weapon.

Sexton was under an injury cloud and played accordingly. Uncharacteristic errors such as missed restarts saw Ireland’s kicking game severely blunted. Playing catch-up when your team doesn’t train to play in that manner is like filming Gatland host a dinner party for Brian O’Driscoll. We all want to see it, but it’s not going to happen.

Schmidt won’t be too fazed by the loss. His tactics need a few tweaks, but he knows how to identify a team’s strengths and knows what his side’s best chances are of securing a victory. Scotland will be hoping that they too can build a lead and force Ireland into a game they for which they are not prepared.

When a team starts to dominate, people sit up and take notice. Rival coaches plot ways to negate the strengths of the dominant team and maximise their chances. This is no guarantee of success. Execution can put pay to the best-conceived plans. But the longer a winning stretch goes on for, the more coaches can pick and choose from mounting video analysis on what works well and what does not.

Coming into a match armed with just a rock can get you quite far with the mentally weak and tactically inept. Knowing your opponent and anticipating the game they will bring is enough to win.

I wonder, though, in this age of technology whether we place too much faith in knowing how a game will pan out. Do coaches prepare enough for contingencies? Should teams prepare for more rather than trying to do fewer things better?