In my analysis of Wallabies coach Michael Cheika’s style – Cheika Ball – I’ll start off with a few clear statements.
I believe that Quade Cooper is a better five-eighth. He has a higher skill cap, better game awareness and offers more on attack.
Bernard Foley has a worse passing game. He is not demonstrably better in defence, but runs straight. He doesn’t cramp the space of the outside backs and suits Cheika’s game plan.
Forwards structure
Cheika Ball is based on getting over the gain line and providing fast ball to the next phase. Big men are used to beat the gain line and get the opposition back peddling, opening room for the next phase.
Generally the forwards pod sets up about five metres away from the previous ruck and rumble forward over the gain line. However, as seen in the USA game, it is very possible for defenders to meet the attackers behind the gain line and by targeting the legs restrict the ball carrier to the gain line or just behind.
The game play does not favour pick and gos or work closer to the ruck, which allows the defence to commit only one or two players to the tackle area. If the gain line is not achieved then this style is contained. This was particularly evident in the USA game where the quick defence pegged Australia behind the gain line for multiple phases at a time.
This is compared to the 2013 Spring Tour where the forwards wrapped around the ruck and hit up close to the prior tackle. Neither tactic is better, but the 2013 version appeared to draw in more defenders to the ruck area, but with a slightly higher risk of disorder.
Backs structure
Coached by Steve Larkham and based on the Brumbies and Waratahs’ play books, this is built around gaining front foot ball from the forwards, then running straight to preserve space for the outside men. The attacking backs appear to be lined up to achieve one on one contests with the defenders.
Except for the occasional set piece play, this style does not utilise the inside ball and decoy runner. Cut out passes are also limited. Generally the defensive side can number up and slide.
It is also particularly limited against umbrella or rushing defence due to the passing game of Bernard Foley and Matt Giteau, both of whom favour shorter passes. Again, the limitations of this were shown against the US team and to a lesser extent against the Fijians.
Contrast this to the 2013 EOYT where a runner on the five-eighth’s inside shoulder was used to hold the defence while Israel Folau in the second line and outside channel enjoyed the space. In this set up the inside centre was chosen to be a viable ball carrier and straightener. Cooper’s passing options made the defence choose between multiple threatening attackers.
The selections
From the games played and selections made so far, a pattern is emerging. Cheika is aiming to play 20 minutes of high tempo rugby in the final quarter of the game.
The starters pressure, contain and tire the opposition. The bench then seals the deal. Bledisloe 1 is the prime example of this game plan.
His bench selections are high energy, direct and full of impact, characterised by Kurt Beale and Matt Toomua.
And here is the crux of the selection between Cooper and Foley. For Cooper to work, Toomua runs at the inside centre and Drew Mitchell would be a winger.
Cheika’s style and plan calls for Toomua and Beale on the bench as the best impact players. Giteau then starts as an 80-minute player as he is smart and defensively strong.
Will his selections pay off against England?
Dave_S
Guest
Yes I get that but it seems to yield such low returns I wonder why it is used so often when the execution is so lumbering and telegraphed. It's as if they do it just to mark time until a better idea comes along.
Daws
Guest
I think the idea is to get away from the previous bunch of forwards so as to speed the ball up/reduce the chance of disruption in the ruck. That means you need a bunch of big runners instead of just 1 or 2.
Dave_S
Guest
Nice succinct analisys thanks Keith. I have never understood the attraction of the forward setup you describe - the pod 5m or so from the previous ruck taking the ball up into the teeth of more defence. The ball seems inevitably delivered to a flat footed runner who rarely if ever makes more than a metre beyond the adv line unless the defender has a bad miss, and it's very predictable to defend against because every man and his dog can see it coming. It also rarely seems to drag in a lot of defenders because it's usually a 2 on 2 scenario. The options for an offload are limited and so it seems reliant on a penalty from the defence to achieve any result. Often enough we give away a penalty because we don't release or some dill dives over. I don't pretend to be a strategy genius so I must be missing something ...