Why just winning lineout ball isn't enough

By Greg Mumm / Expert

With only two hookers announced in the Wallabies World Cup squad, there has been plenty of discussion about whether we will be capable of winning our own ball.

While the debate on this has been fierce, there are two points not discussed so far:

1. Where can we win our own ball – front, middle or back.
2. Where are the opposition able to win their ball?

Where can we win our own ball
In Sydney, the All Blacks won seven out of their nine lineouts at the front, compared to Eden Park where they won eight of their 11 at the back. This is important because it is another reason why the lineout is a vitally important weapon in controlling the game.

Front ball has some inherent problems in terms of how it limits attack;

Firstly, it lengthens the halfback’s pass. This may not seem that important, but the pass from 9 to 10 is the one constant in first phase attack, and a longer pass creates two opportunities for the defence:

Secondly, it places pressure on the delivery options.

Front ball has limits – off the top is dangerous as it lets the end of the lineout and the backs fly off in defence. Mauling is an option, but the defence can rip in, knowing the sideline can be used as a defender, and unless you maul past the 10m defensive line, all you have done is bring the backline defence up and then have to play off a sideline.

Some teams bring it down and play to the back of the lineout, but essentially you are just recycling the ball close to the 15m and bringing the defence up, negating the attacking space.

With back ball you have free choice of delivery – off the top, drive or down and pop, including hitting back to the blind. All of this uncertainty makes the defence sit on its heels and watch, increasing the chance of making the gain line.

Even mauling off the back is easier, as at least some forward defenders have to cover the blind, meaning fewer to stop the rampaging hoards.

Combined, this can make a huge difference between the attack making the gain line or not – in the vicinity of two to three metres in the 10 channel and up to 10 metres when you get outside the 13 channel. This is vital in the bigger scheme.

Essentially the race from set-piece is whether the attack can organise themselves faster than the defence. Whoever wins the gain line has the upper hand in this race.

By the third phase most defensive systems have made the transition from set-piece defence – a game of chess aimed at attacking defensive weakness – to phase defence, which is more like a war of attrition relying on an opponent’s mistake.

If you win the gain line, you place the defence under immense pressure to scramble and regain control. This takes physical and mental energy and often leads to mistakes.

ANZ Stadium lineouts

In Sydney, as well as the field position strategy mentioned last week, the Wallabies were able to restrict the All Blacks to front ball (the first 3m of the lineout) eight times.

This pressured Dan Carter and allowed our outside back to tear in to the New Zealand attack, catching them on their side of the gain line, forcing mistakes and turnovers.

Key to this was the ability to bring David Pocock and Michael Hooper into the game and let them attack the ball, with the All Black support having to run back to try to nullify the threat.

Eden Park lineouts

Fast forward to Eden Park and New Zealand’s kicking game gave them field position which they capitalised on by getting gain-line advantage through easily dominating the back of the lineout.

The result was a disorganised Australian defence, minimal pressure on the ball and recycle, and All Black forwards rampaging in to the contact zone.

Where you win the ball alone is not going to win you a game, but when you add up field position, position of the jumper, and options in terms of delivery choices, you start to build real pressure.

In Sydney the Wallabies had five lineouts thrown to the middle or back in attacking areas. We lost one, but the other four the results were:

1. 45m out, back ball which was mauled. Eight phases later we made a mistake inside the opposition 22m.
2. 40m out, middle ball off the top. Four phases later Australian penalty.
3. 15m out, middle ball which was mauled. Penalty advantage – then Sekope Kepu’s try.
4. 30m out, middle ball which was mauled. Nine phases later, Adam Ashley-Cooper’s try.

So as we continue to debate the Australian lineout heading in to the World Cup, there is more to think about than just whether there is a W or an L on the scoresheet.

Where we are able to win our own ball, and how we are able to forcibly dictate where the opposition win their ball, also plays a huge part.

The Crowd Says:

2015-08-28T06:50:24+00:00

Bob

Guest


Here is the problem, coaches over complicate the game with game plans and set plays. Nulifiying the ability of the player to make a decision the play whats in front of him.

AUTHOR

2015-08-28T00:29:18+00:00

Greg Mumm

Expert


That you need to be able to win the ball where it gives you options to attack, and conversely, you need to be able to prevent the opposition from doing the same thing. A straight win v loss analysis isn't enough to work out if your lineout is effective or not.

2015-08-28T00:07:15+00:00

Playmaker

Guest


You mean when you want to try to win your own lineout.

2015-08-27T14:34:54+00:00

Gerald

Guest


Has Cheik seen this?!

2015-08-27T09:57:11+00:00

Crash Ball2

Guest


Love the analysis Greg. Thanks.

2015-08-27T08:41:58+00:00

PeterK

Roar Guru


Skeleton lifting should not work since Hooper has shorter arms so despite being lifted high he is still at a disadvantage contesting the ball. Agree shorter lineouts on your own ball is one way.

2015-08-27T08:40:13+00:00

PeterK

Roar Guru


only impacts lineouts. It is the opensiders who is at the back job to get to breakdowns from lineouts, as it is from scrums. General play is where he will have his impact.

2015-08-27T08:30:11+00:00

Existentialist

Guest


Thanks Greg. so remove Skelton from the line out or have him lifting! makes sense in attack we shall see eh!

2015-08-27T08:13:26+00:00

Mike

Guest


So what's the moral, Greg?

2015-08-27T07:27:34+00:00

Akari

Roar Rookie


Thank you for the insights on line-out play, Greg. I've learned something new from your articles thus far.

2015-08-27T07:15:17+00:00

Digby

Roar Guru


Thanks Greg. Have really enjoyed your last two pieces and look forward to more insightful analysis.

2015-08-27T07:12:39+00:00

riddler

Guest


great stuff greg.. many thanks and please keep them coming..

2015-08-27T07:04:21+00:00

Graeme

Guest


Excellent article thanks Greg and well articulated. Enhances my understanding and appreciation of the game

2015-08-27T04:05:27+00:00

chasmac

Guest


Hi Greg, The AB's mainly used the front of the lineout in Bled 1. Why ? Was it because the Wallabies gave them the front by stacking the defense at the back ? Was it due to the lack of Whitelock ? Was it bad calling ? It doesn't seem normal as they have previously used Kieran Read quite extensively. Any thoughts?

2015-08-27T03:37:43+00:00

Dave_S

Guest


Greg, any chance you can give us an article on the dark arts of the scrum next? I have next to no idea what's going on in there (and with a bit of luck some referees will read it too ...)

2015-08-27T03:15:45+00:00

Playmaker

Guest


If Skelton is standing at no 1 in the lineout , he is not going to get to many breakdowns during the game and by the time he does get there the ball will be gone.The poor guy will be chasing the ball all day and will not be of much use at the contact area where he is suppose to be cleaning out. Skelton is not noted for speed or stamina.

AUTHOR

2015-08-27T03:06:14+00:00

Greg Mumm

Expert


I'd personally use more short lineouts when Skelton was on the field because I think he attracts so much defence as a running option and with the 12's we have we have we can set up attack on both sides of the field off a centre field crash OR use Skelton as a decoy and go out the back. We did this with big Sisa Koyamaibole at Fiji and it took the pressure off our lineouts and didn't hurt our attack too much. Alternatively as someone mentioned on here the other day, use Pocock and Hooper as jumpers, best set-up would be a 7 man spread, quick calls and tall lifters...Pocock lifting Skelton v Skelton lifting Pocock = the same height and I can tell you who I would prefer to be lifting - under 10's footy do it all the time.

2015-08-27T02:56:55+00:00

Andrew Logan

Expert


Greg.....nailed it once again and interesting to see the huge value of back ball vs front ball. Even with my coaching hat on, I hadn't given a lot of thought to the fullback positioning, for instance. Will take much more notice in future!

2015-08-27T02:51:21+00:00

D Socks

Roar Rookie


Surely it depends on the bigger picture game plan ... a lineout at front, with maybe a prop at the back to take the 9s pass into the oppo back row ties them in and allows a pop to carriers into the half or midfield, if that's where you want to attack the opposition. Back ball can go straight to the midifeld to tie up the centres & leave foward carrying options back from where it came ... NZ would have a different plan against Aus due to the venue as well Chieka's vast changes the following week but the restart options should always be aligned to the game plan. NZ at Eden Park where the wind can swirl a bit will always be different to other grounds. Intl teams should always bank on winning their own ball whereever the line out and should always employ a line out caller of that specialisation. Parling's selection in the Lions of 2013 was based on his line out dominance and astute knowledge of the skillset. Gone are days of having a 2 and 4 jumper with so many options available and the fact that it's a fundamental restart play that can be worked on ad nauseum Pocock is an option for both Brumbies and Australia, but Hooper at two could take a line out beneath the front jumper ...

2015-08-27T02:34:42+00:00

Nick

Guest


Fantastic read Thank you very much for this.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar