We could talk about structural problems in Australian rugby, mongrel among the forwards, lack of depth, or the fact that Australia’s best athletes are usually not drawn to rugby union.
But on the surface the real reason the New Zealand teams are dominating the Australian teams is really quite simple: the New Zealand teams are playing a different style of rugby.
It’s not a completely new style, though it has become their main focus like never before. It’s a focus that may have started with the Crusaders a number of years ago. But the All Blacks appear to have been focusing on it over the last decade or so, and now it has spread to all their Super Rugby teams.
This is what it entails.
1. Every player with the ball is almost always looking to offload.
This is a priority for every ball carrier, but these are not risky passes simply to keep the ball alive. If the pass is not on, then a player will take the tackle. But their first thought is to look for the offload to a teammate in support.
2. Strategic creation of offload chances
To create the opportunity for the offload, the player with the ball runs to the line, draws in a defender or two and then offloads. This creates space and opportunity for teammates in support.
3. Players without the ball are supporting and expecting a pass
Every player without the ball is looking to be in support, expecting the pass from their teammate with the ball.
It’s so simple, but so effective. It looks easy to do, but it’s an art to be mastered. And while every team would try and do this to some extent, the New Zealand teams have focused on it as the key to winning.
They do this among the forwards when playing a tight game. They do it among the backs when playing an expansive game. This is what makes New Zealand teams so potent in counter-attack.
Now consider Australian teams by way of contrast:
1. Most players with the ball are not looking to offload.
It’s not their focus. Sometimes even when there is a real opportunity to offload, they don’t. It’s like they are committed to a different game-plan where they have to try and barge their way through the defence and take the tackle. This is especially so among the forwards.
2. If there is a pass…
Very often players pass way too early, or too deep, and before drawing in any defenders. This happens especially among the backs. This does not create space or opportunity for support players.
3. Teammates don’t really run in support very well.
Supporting players have no expectation of receiving an offload in general play.
There are occasional exceptions to this, but generally speaking, this is how the two countries play rugby.
And not only is the style of the New Zealand teams the most effective way to win rugby, it’s also the most attractive way to play. This is why New Zealand derbies are so thrilling to watch.
It’s not simply about playing an uptempo game, or providing quick ball. And it’s not about the amount of offloads.
An Australian team might complete plenty of offloads, but without much to show for it. It’s all about the ‘draw and pass’. And when this is a team’s main focus, sure enough, it is also a very dangerous, and very thrilling style of rugby.
Next time you see a New Zealand team play, take note of this and you’ll be surprised how obvious it is.
Lord Windermere
Guest
Humans are copy-cats in the main. If the Wallabies are to win the Championship this season, they must copy both the winning English and the winning New Zealand Super Team strategies. That's what the South Africans try to do. They are most honest about it. It is of importance to note that the top four teams in the last World Cup, all played in the Southern Hemisphere Championship... The current Australian approach is spectator friendly, but then so is the Argentinian and Japanese current style. The NZ approach is wonderfully spectator friendly. It is also winning friendly! The difference is control at the breakdown. NZ players are much fitter in terms of endurance and stamina. They distinguish between training [personal] and practice [collective] preparation - at all levels. Also NZ rugby players study levers/moment theory; which explains their superiority at the breakdown with their body angle excellence. Possession is their 1st priority. Review the last 10 mins of the Brumbies/Highlanders clash. Just as in the World Cup final. Our men are in singular mode, watching each other, waiting for someone to spark the winning thrust. The NZ players on the other hand, are in tandem, even threesomes, given a similar opportunity. In low profile body angle, making the winning yards.... Copy, copy, copy boys!
Timbo
Guest
'And theres not many better broken play runners than Cullen, Robinson, who seemed to play half tanked all the time, not a patch on him.' What a load of rubbish. First of all if by 'half-tanked' you mean drunk, Robinson was an alcoholic, but became a born again Christian in 1995 and has never touched a drop since, 5 years before he switched to rugby union, so you've certainly never seen him 'half-tanked' on the union field. In the 2000-2004 period before injuries began to seriously affect him, he was, in my opinion, comfortably the best 'open-field' runner in the world, and one of the best the game has ever seen. He had to work on deficiencies in his defence and particularly kicking game, given that he had played all his life in League, so there's a strong case to say that Cullen was the better all-round fullback, but if I had to put my life on someone getting it to the try-line for me by beating defenders, it would be Robinson all day long.
Joe King
Guest
Yes, good points. Once the focus becomes the offload game, other areas of the game, such as the breakdown and defence you mentioned, also develop a particular way.
taylorman
Roar Guru
And theres not many better broken play runners than Cullen, Robinson, who seemed to play half tanked all the time, not a patch on him.
CHRACOL
Guest
This stylistic contrast will be on show in Canberra. Added to the NZ offload game is the new approach to the breakdown where numbers are no longer committed in the same quantity. Once the ball stops moving forward the opposition defense focuses on the line being intact rather than contest if the contest has no reward. When the opposition is defending close to their line they do increase numbers at the breakdown to slow the ball and gamble against penalties and cards otherwise they keep the line intact and force a kick. It seems to me that the Australians suffer from stylistic confusion. The Brumbies, for example place high value on their line out drive and their phase play which attempts to exploit weakness by repeating the same play phase after phase from side to side. The influence of Larkham is all over this style of attack. It seems to me that both styles are retrogressive. They are useful set plays in certain situations but they cannot be succesful game plans in the modern - make that postmodern - game. Where the Brumbies could get some traction on Friday night, and it's no secret, is exploiting the area behind the non-attended breakdown in mid- field and beyond and forcing foul play at the attended breakdown in their attacking 25 m. Then they take the points on offer and if they get momentum go for the drive. The problem for the Brumbies is that this won't scare the Highlanders at all. Like most NZ teams they think attack, and as you mention, offload whenever and wherever they get the ball.
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
Not sure of the nature of the game you're watching, but when I watch NRL I see foiur or five plays where there is one pass off the play the ball, a big guy charges forward 5-10 metres and is stopped by two or three other big guys. After four or five of these charges it goes out to a bloke who who may pass or kick. There may be a backline move of some sort, but usually only if a big charge actually breaks a tackle. Of the big guys charging it ahead, there may be one or two who will pass or even seem capable of a pass. I already cited Sam Burgess who was blown away by the passing he was expected to do in rugby. Most teams seem to have a guy who is known as an off loader, such as Corey Parker, Bromwich, Fafita or Matulino but the rest are simply there to charge it up. In Super Rugby there are a number of forwards who are there simply to charge it ahead but these days many of the tight forwards are linking ball players. Consider Brodie Retallick or Will Skelton, often used by their teams as links between backs and forwards. Hookers like Dane Coles, Nathan Harris and Codie Taylor are running and passing like outside backs. Any ball running back pitching up in English rugby many years ago would have showed running and attacking like nothing you'd seen before. This says more about English rugby in the early 2000s than about the skills of these players. But Henry Paul would never have made the All Blacks ahead of his contemporaries like Tana Umaga, Aaron Mauger, Christian Cullen, Andrew Mehrtens or Carlos Spencer. I'm not defending a patch. Soccer was the game I played most when I was young and active. But I watch every sport out there. In terms of boredom alone, soccer is first and i'll barely watch it these days. In terms of boredom and predictability, league is next. There has to be nothing else on for me to watch it. Just as well SOO is on a Wednesday. AFL is not great watching on TV. NFL can be good as long as a team is passing the ball. But in terms of interesting watching, rugby is up there with Gaelic football in first place.
Joe King
Guest
Yep. I hope my article didn't come across like I was denying that.
Ralph
Roar Guru
I am pretty sure it was part of a slightly wider plan than, 'hire Mick Byrne'.
Ralph
Roar Guru
"..as far as Ive seen and heard .." Ah, the philosophical limits of the existentialist.
taylorman
Guest
doubly so!
Rocko
Roar Guru
Having a kicking game also important.
Rocko
Roar Guru
Having a kicking game also important.
Internal Fixation
Guest
Hi James. I agree that many Oz forwards are good players with redeeming features but I'm not sure how "coachable" some of these advanced skills are once players are mature. If Simmons and Skelton could be morphed into one player you get close to the sort of lock we need. Same with Moore and TPN. I do agree prop stocks are reasonable but Sio is out of form - I was hoping he would dominate this year following a strong 2015 but some injury concerns and technique issues have let him down
taylorman
Roar Guru
I think SBW definitely 'sparked' the interest in terms of the actual offloading but that's supplementary I think to the tights all running, passing and tackling...as individuals. About five years ago offloading in NZ got more and more common as variations of SBWs version came to light. It suited the tights with their more skilful and athletic roles. A lot of it is simply about keeping the ball alive. Players were going to ground and looking to others to pass to even off the ground if players were in good positions to take the ball forward. I mentioned earlier that it's not just about breaking defences, it's also about continuity and building pressure, keeping the go forward momentum alive, forcing opposition mistakes in going backwards, not allowing them to go back to their default defensive structure. Offloading simply allows forward movement where there otherwise wouldn't be any.
Daz
Guest
Fair enough James. It's hard to put a coherent argument in just one or two paragraphs but I totally agree with the thrust of this piece. More than anything it's about attitude. Like in tennis when you relax and free your mind and just go for your shots more often than not they come off. I think Cheika brought that to the Waratahs and initially to the Wallabies as McKenzie brought it to the Reds, as Deans brought it initially in his first few games in charge as well. They instilled confidence and they gave players permission to enjoy themselves and shuck off the fear of losing. Then something happened.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Ha ha, I know which I'd go with there Akari?
Myleftboot
Guest
The problem there is that Guscott is a tool. An awful pundit, it's widely acknowledged in the UK Guspratt tipping your team is the kiss of death. Ask your grandad, if this idiot didn't beat him....
Akari
Roar Rookie
As jameswm asked above, any idea when this started to take shape in NZ rugby, Tman? It must have started before the ABs started using the off-loads as every Kiwi rugby man seems to know that they must and when to off-load.
Akari
Roar Rookie
Did Joe Schmidt ban the risky off-loads before his stint in Europe or did he adopt this position after he realised that the Europeans are crap at this type of play and banned his team from ever using it, Lindsay?
jameswm
Roar Guru
Few? Yes. Let's look at props. Right now we have two good LHs and two good THs. I reckon Slipper certainly has those skills, Kepu and Sio have them but to a lesser extent, and Holmes doesn't really have them but certainly could if coached correctly. From the hookers TPN does, not Moore so much. Of the locks, Simmons not really, Douglas no and is too slow anyway, Coleman yes, Arnold a bit, Skelton yes but is a bit slow to put them into effect most of the time. Even our loosies - they run a lot and don't pass much. Pocock and Hooper are good, but Fardy and Palu not a lot (if you still count Palu - he does offload a bit). Lopeti Timani has a good offload, ditto Leroy Houston. Mumm isn't too bad. But overall way short of their NZ counterparts.