As a very young coach at Souths in the 1980s, I remember listening closely at a press conference to a coach answering a question about his team being very focussed on defence.
His answer? “Well there is not much else you can do when you haven’t got the ball is there?”
This flashback came to mind following the very strong favourite for lowest-scoring game of the season so far, Tigers hosting Cowboys on Saturday night.
>>>Read more from Brian Smith on Smithy Speaks.
When Tigers coach Jason Taylor answered tough questions about his team failing to trouble the scorers, in his typically honest and frank method, he told us all that defence is king and “has been for a decade or so in the NRL”. Bells started ringing for me.
JT had made it clear his team’s focus on Saturday night was on defence and had been since he arrived this preseason.
More 2015 State of Origin:
» State of Origin news
» State of Origin fixtures
» State of Origin teams
» Where State of Origin Game 1 will be won and lost
» State of Origin 2015: Game 1 preview
» PRICHARD: Maroons to win Origin 1
Having forced myself to watch it through again on replay, it was obvious the team’s focus was solely based on defence. Unlike times preceding statistics and video when some players saved energy for attack by going missing in defence, this analysis of Saturday nights game showed two teams saving energy in attack!
I am not sure if there was a world record set for one-out plays in this match but it sure would have been in the playoffs. Not just for the losers either – the Cowboys played similarly.
But it wasn’t just the no-error attitude that made this match so horribly tough to watch. There was absolutely a lack of any subtlety or support when either team had possession.
The Tigers set their stall out with the selection of Dene Halatau as captain Robbie Farah’s replacement at dummy half. There was never going to be any requirement for creative attack from the ruck, reading the defence to find weakness or lack of numbers with a makeshift in that all-important attacking role. But to be fair, the live wire Jake Granville did not seem to have licence to set his team’s attack alight as he can do almost at will if encouraged.
It was hard to find a set of possession other than from a penalty in the other team’s end, where either team spread out off the ball, to offer some sort of threat to the defence. Instead it looked like mini footy much of the time. You could have thrown a blanket over them.
Almost no energy in attack or enterprise to create something for something else was apparent even in the opening minutes. They all seemed to be saving up for defence.
So if a team doesn’t focus on attacking their opponents when in possession, what can they expect? Firstly, not much in the way of points on the scoreboard or in premiership points. If you lose a match in which you have not played attack you should surely expect to finish on zero. The Tigers got that result, but don’t forget the Cowboys scored one lousy try in the last minute of the match off a fullback error.
I am not sure that some people involved in high places in the NRL get the most fundamental part of the game. If you want to score points you need to attempt to create something that will deplete the opposition of energy or mental capacity. If you don’t do that each time you get the ball, the opposition will be more than capable of dealing with whatever little attack you throw at them. And ditto if the other team does the same, and we the viewers and spectators go home wondering how they thought they could both get away with it.
Yes I know the Cowboys did – they got the break and the competition points. But in the longer term development of their team how are they set for next time they play without their Origin stars?
And the Tigers? Well it seems they have a philosophy set for the season which will make them easy meat for any team prepared to have a crack at attacking them and depleting them of energy. The Tigers seem to be set on holding the ball for six and kicking without asking serious questions of their opponent’s defence.
Unless your club has a team full of a blockbusting individual ball carriers this will not work. The Roosters of 2013 were good enough to get away with it due to the brilliance of their team when in the good end of the park – especially Sonny Bill Williams.
Without a plethora of physical specimens this theory of not attacking when in possession is doomed. And so it should be.
Failing to support the ball carrier, spreading out quickly after gaining possession to offer opportunity to move the ball, utilising creative halves and dummy halves, and combinations of all of these aspects of quality attacking play, play after play, set after set, is what half the game is all about.
Performing all of that without making heaps of errors takes skill and concentration and energy. But it results in points and a team more confident in its ability to play well.
It also takes way more energy out of those in the opposition trying to defend it, so as that D goes into attack how do they feel? Way, way less energised than dealing with that one-out, predictable stuff we saw on Saturday night.
So it works in reverse for those teams who dare to attack. It makes defending easier for them.
This ‘no attack’ footy theory is demeaning to the guys playing it. It’s saying, “let’s take our chances on jagging a couple of tries off lucky bounces from kicks and broken play rather than team development of the skills and talents in the crew wearing your club colours.”
This is not a blast on Cowboys and Tigers – it’s rife in the NRL, particularly around Origin time.
It’s coaching down, not up, and it’s very short-term in focus.
scottyridge
Guest
Great article Smithy! Keep up the good work. As a Cowboys supporter I was happy with the win but they were lucky. A half and five eighth job is to set up the plays to score points and this didn't happen. No excuses for the Cowboys as their halves are first grade quality even though we are missing are 1st three frontline halves due to origin/injury. Glad we got the 2 points but if we play like that again before SOO 3 we will get thrashed. No creativity from the guys whose job it is to create.
Gaz
Roar Rookie
With all due respect, if you have supporters who don't care about the result it appears you have the right coach.
Chris Love
Guest
I'd like to hear Smithy answer that one too. Especially considering Parramatta broke nearly every attacking record there was to break while the prime offender of this article was the half back for the Parramatta side at the time.
Chris Love
Guest
I'll give Sandow one thing he is brave. One thing he is not and never will be is a full back. I spat at the screen when I read that Sandow was brought back in as a fullback. After the m.o.m. performance he put in for Wenty the week prior the coach should have said" yup learnt his lesson, he got more involved and thats exactly what I want from him" and he should have told him that and started him at 7. It showed how badly out of position he was for the first Rabbit try. The kid has heart and based on the game on the weekend he put in a big big effort for a little bloke. That much effort in the 7 could have seen a Parra win. As it was Souths ground it out and stole it late in spite of a huge effort from the Eels. Brad Arthur can chalk that loss up to himself.
Mitcher
Guest
Great to see a high profile contributor willing to engage so comprehensively with commenters. Big ups Mr Smith
Michael
Guest
Have you seen Parra? :(
Michael
Guest
As an Eels fan I think Robinson is solid under the high ball, certainly better than Hoppa
Concerned Observer
Guest
Actually, that's a pretty fair assessment, Granville is a player of excellent quality both attack and defense, he is also very loyal to Green. If he'd played a more expansive game (that grubber to Tedesco?) he might have been a nightmare to the Tiger's line. But, Green had decreed that the plan for the game was defense. I do see what you mean, this is short term, banking on luck to get you points is foolish and will undo several team's efforts. In the game it made sense for the Cowboys to shrink their usual game but if they rely on it, they will come undone, future origin affected games should see them slowly expand, becoming more attacking and seeking to build pressure and earn repeat sets, otherwise they're in trouble
Rod
Guest
I think there would be very few sydney fans that would be unhappy to see the Cowboys win. They are good team to watch as rule of thumb. They look the goods so far
Brad McNamara
Guest
john asiata is the definition of a ball playing forward.
Grand Armee
Guest
And the scary thing is, it looks like the Cows attack has not peaked or is being held back, or something. Maybe there is a greater emphasis on defence and playing physical football (which will be better in the long-term for the Cows come finals), but their attack looks like it is yet to even click (i.e. go up another gear or two). It will be scary for other teams when it does.
Jax
Guest
The Cowboys have scored more points this year than any team not named the Raiders. But in typical fashion Sydney League "identities" are out in force to bag them for having the temerity to play conservatively when missing 6 regular first graders (Bolton, Scott, Tamou,Morgan,JT,Moga) and their back up half in Lui. It's just typical lazy commentary with no real review of the actual games played. The agenda couldn't be more obvious. No one complained at all during the Roosters GF run.
GTW
Guest
It seemed like an opportunity for the young guys to put on an attacking clinic, but wow that didn't happen big time.
GTW
Guest
Reece is a hopeless fullback, he is as reluctant to catch the ball as he is to tackle. He will back away from the ball in the air, and run beside the opposition guy with the ball until he scores. He's magical in attack, but it's not the 1970's anymore and coaches usually want more. Reece has played 100 games, mainly for the Raiders, but during that time we had Josh McCrone, who's played 150 games. McCrone and Sandow are as brave as, so you can't take that away from them. I feel sorry for both of them as they are players every team should die for, but in this day and age it seems that the game changes with every error, and these two make a few shockers (trying too hard, most likely). In regard to McCrone, I don't think it's a major embarrassment that he isn't a class half, his best asset was his running game but he stopped doing it some time ago. If effort was rewarded the same as it is in most fields of life, these two would be immortals, but RL is different, you need the effort and a bunch of skills (and height, weight, good hands, quick brain etc). Reece seems like the absolute nicest bloke, I wish he could win Powerball and go do something less stressful for him.
Roger Sterling
Guest
Hi Brian. Your 2001 Parramatta team was one of the great attacking sides to watch. Did you encourage movement of the ball whenever there an opportunity to doing so, even in your own 20m zone? Teams these days seen to just one off the ruck it inside their own 20m. Nothing more exciting in NRL to watch a team spin the ball from their own end!
Cowboys_86
Guest
This complete article and the opinions stated within are void because you failed to use the "dour" even once.
Desert Qlder
Roar Rookie
Let's talk Granville then. He is currently in his first year as a starting hooker and has been used during the first and last third of each game to great effect. For this game though he was to be replaced for the middle portion by a player who hasn't played first grade for over a year. Again a change that Green was forced to make four days out from the game. There was a possibility Granville was to play eighty minutes, something that would have taken a toll on his ability. As it was he played more minutes than normal anyway. Perhaps you need to be reminded that it was him who put the rubber in for the winning play. So I was satisfied with his contribution and he came up with the goods when it counts. You are up struggle street with this argument. Cowboys fans are laughing and tough titties to the Saturday night couch potatoes who sit there saying (in the immortal words of Cobain) "he we are now, entertain us".
Desert Qlder
Roar Rookie
Give it up. At no point did I say NQ should be playing this style of football for the remainder of the season. The game plan was warranted to get the job done this time so we bank the two points. Come the end of the season they will prove valuable. One would almost think you are deliberately missing this point. North Queensland currently have one of the best attacking records in the 2015 premiership, so I don't think they need to take any lessons in attack from you. Green has developed Morgan into one of the best young halves in the game and has been handsomely rewarded with Origin selection.
HarryT
Guest
I heard Jason Taylor on 2MMM last night and he was again very honest about his plans for the tigers. His analysis had shown that the Tigers had conceded more tries in the last three years than any other club. The fact that they have had some very good wins against top teams playing enterprising and attacking footy, only camouflaged their very poor record in defence. Taylor and Joey Johns had an interesting discussion on the percentages of energy devoted to attack and defence. Taylor was of the opinion that they had the mix pretty good earlier in the season, but recently had regressed to their old style of play, where attack was king. Taylor was emphatic that a more defensive style required a cultural change within the club and the team, and as such, he was very happy about the game last weekend. He was definitely in that '3 year plan' headspace. Smithy, it is a very interesting topic for discussion. A club like the Tigers has many supporters that don't care about their results, as they just love their brand of attacking football. Doggies supporters are the same. Yet for clubs like Melbourne a win is everything, even if you fall asleep half way through the game. Ultimately, in the ebb and flow of attack vs defence, attack has to be the victor as otherwise people will leave the game and watch something else. This is why our administrators are paid so much.
Desert Qlder
Roar Rookie
For starters, Green was forced to select players who aren't halves I.e Thompson and Kostjasyn, so all your advice on "how to play footy for halves" is quite useless for Paul Green. Is your plan implementable in the space of three days? Because that is how much time Green had to work with. As to the specific point about Thompson, any Cowboys supporter can tell you that he has stagnated for years and has not developed like we expected to. He was even shifted to hooker because of this where his defensive prowess can be utilised. And it is in defense that he specialises, so is it any wonder Green devises a game plan around his strength?