As professionalism has spread its influence across the world, we have seen the rugby battles change from the free-flowing cavalry charges of the past.
There was a time when defence was merely something you jumped over with your horse. Now, it is a war of attrition where the less intelligent and more expendable resources – the forwards – are sent to bludgeon the opposition line into submission.
However, Rugby World Cup 2015 has uncovered something of a renaissance movement in the art of attacking, and luckily for the fans there seems to be a change in the air sparked by the best attacking teams returning to the free-flowing game.
As it turns out, it is once again the furthest corners of the Old Empire that are bringing with them the spirit, youthfulness and cheeky attitude to test the status quo.
New Zealand and Argentina have set alight this tournament with a free-flowing style of rugby created in the spirit of the game itself. All members of the team are involved, short and tall, fast and not so fast. The forwards are allowed, no actually encouraged, to join in the attack and when opportunity permits there are more players behind the ball than in front.
The result is a support game that allows a continuity of play, a blitzkrieg of running ruby that even the strongest defensive line cannot withhold.
Just like Wayne Bennett did with the Broncos this year, they have seen past the rhetoric and physical arms race which tells the rest of the rugby world that defence and size is an inevitable result of professionalism, and have focused on speed and skill.
It is my understanding that in their review of 2011 and how they could stay ahead of the game, New Zealand deliberately identified catch-pass skills and decision making as the focus of their next four-year crusade.
They have a standard training rule that any scheduled team session has to have 25% of time allocated to general catch pass skills in decision-making scenarios.
This has been developed on top of a fantastic foundation of skill already created by a nationally implemented ‘Game Sense’ philosophy, pioneered and developed by Wayne Smith.
Game Sense is a coaching philosophy whereby no skill is practised without a contextual element of competition and opposition, and within this an intended result. As such;
• Catch pass is not practised in single flat lines against nobody, but against varying defensive numbers
• Defensive technique and breakdown are not unique skills, but practised in scenarios that challenge defenders and support players alike to make decisions upon the outcome of the tackle.
• Backline attack is decided upon and executed based upon the shape and numbers of the opposition defence, not just what was discussed from a 22m right hand scrum in the sheds beforehand.
Across the Pacific, to the best of my knowledge the Argentines adopt a similar coaching model but with some small distinctions.
Similar to the French and the Italians they work on a ‘General Movement’ principle, which develops off the idea that rugby is a game built on your ability to move and adapt to the flow of the game, not to be broken down in to a series of static moments.
In this system, coaches may start with two 15-man teams, and initiate the drill/game by throwing or kicking the ball in any direction. Each team then needs to make their decisions based on the situation they find themselves in and choose the required skills and execute accordingly.
Both of these approaches require brave coaching and management. As liberal democracy in general has taught us, freedom of choice and expression can create some messy and confusing situations that test the vision of leaders and community alike.
But it is always the vision of what it can become that drives people forward, and the New Zealand and Argentine wins last week are a great example of the greater good they are striving for.
Australia are striving for this as well, though are hampered by the skill development of forwards and a general culture we have created whereby the strength of our game is often articulated by the ability of our backs. Within this, forwards are generally the cause of poor performances, though never the foundation of success.
South Africa are the opposite. Put bluntly (and slightly tongue in cheek) I think they just love forwards and the backs are invited to the Braai only if they finished off a few tries after the forwards were tired of using the ball.
I am oversimplifying of course, but there is one interesting distinction between the All Blacks and the Pumas and other World Cup teams, and that is how and when they choose to use this approach.
They have not thrown the baby out with the bathwater and recklessly adopted an attack-at-all-costs approach. They still use similar structures to both Australia and South Africa at times, but they use them wisely and for the purpose for which they were designed.
All teams use a forward pod in front of a backline attack at some point to forge ahead or to hold defence and shift the point of attack. Against a well-organised defence this prevents them from rushing forwards, and short passes close to the gain line allow the attack to get over the advantage line quickly.
The difference lies in a team’s decisions around what to do when the attack is in ascendency.
In these scenarios Australia and South Africa continue to use their forwards to hold defence in the front of the attack and pass behind them, but they end up with large numbers of players in front the ball. Smart defences are able to rush on the outside and shut down this attack catching the team short of support.
New Zealand and Argentina differ in that they have the ability to identify the opportunity, and they allow all players to join in to the ‘team’ attack, including standing between backs and joining in.
The result is an attacking line that has large numbers of options constantly in play and constantly in support of both the pass and the breakdown. This allows continuity of play and prevents the defence from gaining the organisation it needs to be able to apply pressure through line speed.
This weekend’s games will be a great test of this theory, the purists vs the pragmatists, but whichever camp you are in I think you will agree it will make for some extremely entertaining rugby.
Dan
Guest
Seems to me the same side went out and rolled Argentina 4 tries to nil. If anything this article and yourself are too narrowly focused and the Wallabies are capable of changing to suit the opposition.
the french
Roar Rookie
Greg, great analysis onne more time. Do you believe that if this style play further develop and dominates games arw we looking at players being more and more all rounders and the game storring towards rugby league?
fletch
Guest
No wallabies supporter is discounting the Pumas. They are good side, and have come along way since joining the Rugby Championship. However, Any team missing their captain, first choice fly half, and first choice flankers would struggle to win a game in the RWC. Imagine if the all blacks lost Richie,kaino, Whitelock , and Carter. I feel sorry for the Irish as they still played well despite being very crippled.
ethan
Guest
Ireland were without three of their biggest names - O'Connel, O'Brien and Sexton. I just wonder if Argentina have had the same level of tests (ABs aside) as Australia this WC. Aussie had a quality Fiji, Wales and Scotland, and a sub-par England. It has been a much more difficult route.Meaning, I wonder if WC form guides can be trusted, or if RC is still more like it. We will find out this week, anyway.
richard
Guest
Great post.
Deez
Roar Rookie
Taylorman - was thinking exactly the same thing! Am glad to have some more technical analysis and discussion back on the menu. Thanks Greg!
dru
Roar Rookie
Odd. No. Full blooded Aussie.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Guest
Good post Homer. Well put
Dublin Dave
Guest
You know, when those of us in Europe suffer the purgatory of sucking up all the advice currently coming from the southern hemisphere about how we dig ourselves out of the hole marked "Quarter final (or earlier) exit" it behoves us to extract the fertiliser from the massive amounts of bullshit on offer. I think you've got some nuggets of wisdom there Gregg. Despite determined efforts by short-sighted administrators to alter the game by changing the rules every so often rugby remains what it has always been: a game of strategy where one side has to trade off its own strengths and weaknesses against those of the opposition so that their own strengths come out on top. As a result, developments tend to be cyclical in nature trending from success based on size and power and elimination of error-based risk to rewards accruing to more daring play and then back again. You're so right to say that much of the attacking play seen at this world cup is "Old School"; it's all been done before in essence. So what European teams have to do is go back to what they have traditionally been good at, learning how to do it again, assembling the necessary skills and deploying them intelligently. That's it. The notion that we should slavishly copy what the Southern Hemisphere teams are doing (as if they were all playing the same way in the first case which they are not) is a load of dung. We CAN copy what the Southern Hemisphere do and learn to do it better than they. We've done it before. All they did was change their way of playing and beat us at what we'd forgotten to do in our rush to be just like New Zealand and South Africa. Those who say that traditional Southern Hemisphere rugby is based on ball in hand while the North prefers no-risk wet-weather hoof and chase are unaware of their rugby history. For decades the Lions were recognised as the purveyors of classic back play; the French as the true inventors of 15-man rugby. But times have changed. For a start, having the most dazzling backs in the game rarely served the Lions well on their tours south. The farmer forwards of South Africa and New Zealand, led by men who took things seriously and dealt exclusively in pragmatism, regularly crushed the Lions with their superior organisation, specialisation and power. The great Colin Meads contemptuously told the 1966 Lions, who had been whitewashed 4-0 in the Test series that "You guys believe in fairy tales. There is no way with your haphazard disorganised approach that you will ever beat us" The Lions took him at his word. Throughout the 1970s Lions forwards first matched and then destroyed the packs of both New Zealand and South Africa in four tours between 1971 and 1980. But in the last two, the focus of Southern Hemisphere attack had shifted. Now that they were being matched in the tight, they shifted their effort to the backs, where the Lions were suddenly found to be deficient. Although the Lions of 1977 had reduced the All Blacks to the then legal, but still desperate, tactic of a three-man scrum on their own feed to get the ball out of there quickly before they were splintered, the All Blacks played to their backs and won the series 3-1. Something similar happened in South Africa in 1980 leading the acerbic commentator John Reason to lament "British forward play has now become the most efficient in the world. But it is time to realise that as the end of the see-saw containing the forwards has soared into the skies the end holding the backs has come down to earth with such a bang that they have all fallen off" That's what comes of slavishly copying your rivals. The French too have sold their birthright in recent years by opting for size and power instead of flair. The hugely entertaining Australian program Rugby HQ's Top Five slot recently showed the five best examples of classic French Flair. Apart from one relatively recent solo effort by Cedric Heymans, all were from the 1980s or 1990s. Bonneval, Charvet and Sella putting England to the sword in 1986; Blanco rounding off a relentless passing move in the last minutes of the WC semifinal of 1987; St Andre finishing off a move featuring Blanco, Sella and Camberabero which started behind the French line and ended up under the English posts in the winner take all Grand Slam decider of 1991 and best of all: "l'essai du bout du monde" in which a host of French backs and forwards dazzled their way over the New Zealand line to snatch a Test series victory away from home in the 1990s. None of these were exhibition matches: this was rugby played to win in the most competitive circumstances. Could France play like that now? With the likes of Bastareaud in the centre? Are you kidding!!! So we have got to revisit our past, realise that we have the ability to skill up, as the All Blacks did, to the point where running rugby is no longer high risk rugby. The more skilful you are, the fewer risks you take. Then we can think about how to deploy those skills in a tactical framework to put you bloody SH upstarts back in your boxes. But it's got to be our way, not yours. Change comes from within!
Council
Guest
That a Kiwi accent Dru?
Council
Guest
Of the ABs best three Captains, imo of course, Fitzpatrick was the only tight five. Umaga and King McCaw round the list.
dru
Roar Rookie
Greg's pieces always have that effect on me.
dru
Roar Rookie
It's basic stuff isn't it. Still his England game won't be forgotten in a long time.
Council
Guest
Reality check. Wales couldn't breach a 13 man defence. Didnt the Aussies only score penalties? The Poms were pish poor and weren't the team they were built up to be. Uruguay.. well yup.. Scots in the Q. Played poorly and you almost gifted them a Semi. Realistically Noodles reality is somewhat between your post and mine. Though I suspect you may be a tad over optimistic. The Pumas beat a good Irish side by 23. Discount them at your risk.
hopalong
Guest
And at the braai the best steaks in the world will be provided by our fellow finalists.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Guest
Iceland has a capital? I played wing.
Noodles
Guest
Kev, you are tiresome. Get a grip.
Noodles
Guest
Reality check. Who did Australia play in the initial rounds? England, Wales, Uruguay. Then Scotland. Do we think the Wallabies played the teams that run the ball at all? No. Did the Wallabies play some very hard, defensive old school sides? Yes. Did the Wallabies get a few tries? Yes Was their defence good? Aside from Scotland, yes. Summary: Wallabies have exited the "pool of death" with a good record. They look like they've got an attitude. They've got some momentum. And they've had a dud day out (Scotland). I'm thinking they will harden up for the run home. With or without the "key" players. Meanwhile, Argentina has had one tough outing in recent weeks. And NZ has to knock out a seriously tough SA team.
Shane D
Roar Rookie
He would follow the joke with an odd giggle & then punch me. Never understood props & tried to avoid them.
Groucho Jones
Roar Rookie
Steady on, Greg. The ABs and Pumas managed this in one game each, and the Pumas for about 20 minutes of their game. This world cup has been about defence, with sweeping backline tries very much the exception. No one is going to defend worse than France did against New Zealand.