For the first 60 minutes of their Six Nations match, England were flummoxed by Italy’s brilliant defensive strategy, to the point where the Italians led at halftime.
As an Englishman it was frustrating to watch, but Conor O’Shea’s spoiler tactics were genius.
The tactics were designed not to let England release their players and play the wide game Eddie Jones has implemented.
O’Shea knew they needed to take out England’s 10-12 axis. All the width in England’s game comes from the twin playmaking and distributing influence that George Ford and Owen Farrell bring.
Italy could’ve charged down Ford, knowing he stands flat, and therefore put him under increased pressure. Instead, they took the smarter option, and negated him altogether.
It totally cut Ford off from the back line, negating one of England’s most potent weapons, the ball in hand.
This was pure genius, not cynicism, and while maybe not in the spirit of the game, it was totally legal, and stopped England. It has been done before, though never to the scale O’Shea implemented against England, and Jones’ fury at the Italians was unjustified.
Over the past year, England have been able to think on their feet, notably in the June series against the Wallabies, but this was so out of the bag, I’m not certain any of them expected it. The fact that it took so long to counter, is where I feel Jones’s real fury will be aimed at.
It is not hard to envision that if you can’t move the ball wide, drive straight through the middle, maul it and pick and go. Traditionally, we English are great at that! The defence there will be far less constricted, so our pack can make metres.
Yet the coach needed to tell them to do what should be second nature. That will not have been lost on Jones, and highlights the need for more leaders in the team.
However, once England became aware of how to combat the tactic they were much more like the team we know.
Scotland will have not been able to gather as much information from this game as they would like, as England’s attacking verve only shone through in the last 20 minutes. However, one big area exposed to target was the scrum.
Italy shoved England off their own ball in the scrums. Scotland will hit hard in the scrums, focus on Dan Cole and try and draw penalties.
Where the Scots also have an edge is in the backrow and breakdown, as England don’t have an out-and-out fetcher and Scotland have some very good ones.
The Scots may have also gained knowledge of England’s wide attacking patterns, particularly within the 15m line.
After going wide, England spend a phase or two moving across the field.
The first phase sees a hard running backrower within five metres of the ruck, the second has a front row or lock run at the midfield. These are usually one-off runners while Ford organises the wide attacking pattern that will be used in the third phase.
There are four options that I have seen where Ford and Farrell combine to move the ball to exploit open space. Three of them are used after the two-phase crossfield play, one is used after one phase instead.
Switchback
Ford stands behind the ruck on the first phase, indicating where the next forward will hit. Usually opposition teams know that England’s runners are coming in these positions, and as they are heavy runners, numbers have been known to move over from the blind side to the open side prematurely.
Ben Youngs can also hit the first or second runner, so numbers must move across to cover both options, which is where having a dual playmaker axis is so effective.
Ford is able to move around on a switch from Youngs to the blind, and with a heavy runner and wing, is able to make metres, exploiting the lack of numbers caused by moving over to the open in preparation for England’s hard runners.
This pattern is arguably the flattest England play, due to the limited space on the blind (10-15 metres), and why Ford usually runs it, as he is more comfortable playing flat than Farrell.
This leads to defenders moving over to cover the shortside, creating space on the other side of the 15-metre line, where Youngs can then repeat the process with England’s heavy runners, originally planned for phase one or two, given more space.
Alternately, due to Farrell being on the open, he can circumvent the two-phase play and slot in at first receiver to generate width and hit up space created on the open wide channels.
This is where the 10-12 axis really comes into its own. Decisions can be made quicker as Farrell can slot in on the other side of ruck if it’s on, instead of going through pre-programmed plays.
Flat play
This is where 10-12-13-14 and 15 line up after said phases, and move it wide. Best used after the switch-back pattern, it allows faster runners in the backs to target the spaces created in the centre of the pitch, and shift it wide if necessary.
Te’o
From the second phase runner, this usually involves Ben Te’o.
Ford will take the ball flat, and pass behind a hard running forward to Farrell, who will then have a short pass option in Te’o, or can use him as a decoy to let loose the wings.
This move was seen against Wales, with Teo’s break in the second half, getting two heavy runners in the forward and Te’o sucking in defenders, freeing up space for the wings, who if nothing else can speed into space nicely.
Two line
This is the most clever option, due to positional allocations that England make in its implementation.
After the second phase, if a clear overlap has been formed, Ford will have two lines, the front line comprising locks, and a hard-running power runner prop at the end, who’ll reach up to the 15m line.
Farrell is usually two metres behind the prop, and approximately the same distance inside. He is the start of the second line, which runs from the 15m line to the touchline. It mostly comprises three-quarter players, the openside winger, and a loosie for ball retention. These lines are very flat to each other, which reduces the space the defending team has to drift.
Ford will run the ball flat and throw a miss pass, with the inside defenders preventing the defence drifting early.
This not only means the defence are less likely to rush hard, but also that opposition wingers can be brought up flat to help their colleagues when the tackle inevitably comes. Which it doesn’t.
The prop role in this move involves taking the ball to the line, drawing the back-three defenders flat, and preventing the rush up defence that will cut off the next phase.
The next phase involves the prop passing inside to Farrell in a loop play, where he can – due to the flatness of his line – distribute the ball down the second line, who have little space to get past the last defender, who has been brought up flat due to the run of the prop.
These structures may come across as strict, and they are, but only in terms of their execution. Jones has given his players a framework, but within that framework the options are fluid, and it is not a rugby by numbers approach, but uses the decision-making of 9, 10 and 12.
As such, they use these options in coordination with what they see in front of them to maximise chances when in space.
That is where the old Jones has changed to the new Jones. He’s still evil, but he gives his players the tools and they have their own discretion as to how they’re used based on what’s in front of them.
The way to stop these structures is at the source. Scotland must restrict England’s speed of ball in the first and second phases with the power runners. Scotland’s defence need to be very organised and, like Wales, aim for turnovers and to be physical at the gainline.
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
I won't argue the English scrum has been less than as dominant as I'd like to see it but it does naff me off when there's almost a knee jerk reaction by its detractors. Take another look at the first scrum on 3.15. The Italian tighthead actually starts at 90 degrees and at the engage his mate on Cole's side moves to the same. Of the front rows it's England's that as a unit is far squarer. You have to see that right? Even the second scrum where Cole is penalised for collapsing could just as easilly have been ruled as the Italian slipping underneath him. Hence Cole's reaction. Third scrum, fair enough, England put the nudge on and Cole lost his footing but fourth scrum the Italian tighthead popped out under the pressure. Italy took the fifth in good style, England returned the compliment in the next. Following scrum only remarkable in that the Italian tighthead is still packing facing the touchline and then as I remember it Mako joined the party and England dominated the scrums from there, including shoving them off their own ball. Still, refreshing that we're not complaining about Marler .... I guess
Bushranger
Guest
They were clever tactics but the sort of thing that can be used only once or twice now as all teams will have simple strategies to counteract it. In this case it was mostly used later in the first half and this is when England were so confused and started complaining to the ref. As it was England still managed to score at the end of a play that featured a number of these uncontested tackles. The more important issue was that England were done like a dinner in the scrum. From the first scrum the overhead camera clearly showed Dan Cole packing at an angle. Do it if you can get away with it but it didn't work and he was penalised at least twice for losing his grip and collapsing. Lots for Scotland to work with I think.
AndyS
Guest
That is indeed the definition, and there is no more accepted standard than a codified law. That is exactly what I am saying - teams that are concerned only with retaining the ball, and are prepared to completely disregard the laws in order to achieve that. That certainly outweighs ignoring a general feeling of "rightness" that is completely unsupported by the laws of the game. It is the difference between consciously ignoring the speed limit in a built up area, and my nan thinking that everyone should slow down.
Hello Everybody.
Guest
No. Thats not what cynical is. You may want to look that up. Cynical is by definition "concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted standards in order to achieve them." So there you go. Pretty much describes what Italy did doesnt it? But I really hope that our 2 universes split and in yours you guys are treated to rugby games where either team does this all match whilst in mine both teams condem cynical tactics and conduct a sporting contest.
Jibba Jabba
Roar Guru
Which ever way you look at it - it ruined what we know as a good rugby contest - shame on Italy - and i hope laws are introduced asap to make it illegal.
AndyS
Guest
No, cynical is knowingly breaking the laws because you think you'll get away with it...all those players going off their feet at the breakdown, all those surreptitious hands on the ball, players not rolling away and diving clean-cut. All those things that strong forward based teams have relied on to ensure there is no contest for the ball, often even before there is the possibility of a contest for the ball. The sort of things that force teams to look to clever legal alternatives.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
'If England can win the next two games, then I will doff my hat to them as true NH champs and serious contenders for the world title.' Come on, don't be silly. There's a pretty big difference between beating Scotland and Ireland and beating the All Blacks.
Hello Everybody.
Guest
It wasnt genius, just extremely cynical. It doesnt take a genius to figure out standing offside is unsettling. Thats why they put a law in against it. It takes a very cynical person to come up with the idea of doing what they did because nobody else would consider it. You are confusing genius with something else.
Hello Everybody.
Guest
The maul at the start of the first half was used when Italy were not using the tactic and so were many of the other examples you name. To form a maul and earn a penalty from it has nothing to do with combating the offside tactic they were using...because Italy were not using it in that instance or any of the other examples you list. Yes England scored, thats not in question. What is in question is how they responded when the tactic was used not how they went well when the tactic wasnt used. As I said, England struggled against the tactic when it was used throughout the match and, as you have pointed out, it was other factors that allowed England to score heavily, not England solving the tactic because whenever Italy used the tactic England struggled.
ThugbyFan
Guest
The other thing of course is as Hello says, the Italians tired badly and England ran 3 tries past them in the last 10 minutes. If I remember, the score was 17-15 to England at the 69th minute so to be sure the Italy tactic kept them in the game. Up to then, England had to go to the dreaded rolling maul to get tries or depend on Care running quickly off a penalty as the Italians were moving back. In the end and right on cue, the Italians ran out of steam and were rolled.
ThugbyFan
Guest
Agreed with Connor on this one but dare I suggest that rather than giving the England players credit for "thinking on their feet and solving the non-rucks" I would think it was more due that the coaching staff drilled the tactics into their heads while in the sheds at half time. Yes the hb made one run just before halftime, but that's his forte as he sees space and has the wit and acceleration to run through it. As to the headline of this article, I would say that Scotland (and Ireland) has been devising in-your-face tactics since the Wales vs England game. Wales won the rucks but were belted in the lineouts and just held their scrums. Wales letdown was their useless backline. I think it will be harder for England against Scotland as the Scots have serious wide speed. Against that their injury toll is mounting and they just do not have the quality back-ups that England has. If England can win the next two games, then I will doff my hat to them as true NH champs and serious contenders for the world title.
Conor Wilson
Roar Pro
I fully hope for most of those eventualities Machooka! Except the last one. That one we can leave. Think 3/3 is asking too much of the Rugby Gods, but 2/3 sounds a right blessing to me!
Conor Wilson
Roar Pro
I will also disagree with you. England did adapt, in the second half, and whilst it caused problems. England did learn from it. The maul at the beginning of second half that earned us a penalty, plus the one from KO at 71:20. The pick and go from Itoje and Offload to Haskell for the break that led to the Daly try. The pick and going in the lead up to Jack Nowell's disallowed try, the pick and run by Youngs followed by the offload to Sinckler in build up to Te'os try. They all attacked the area within the Italian Pillar, and made metres and put them on the back foot. It was genius, as they recognised its application on a wide spread scale would be totally unexpected and exactly what they needed to keep them in the game. I take it as a compliment. They felt they couldn't beat us the standard way, like they tried with Wales and to a lesser degree Ireland,, and knew they had to flummox us differently. And for the first half they did. I won't begrudge Italy playing smart to try and win. If you can fight smarter over Harder i'd go for smarter every time. The Italians did and got their closer contest. Long term they will need to develop new structures and improve themselves. But thats for years down the line. It wouldn't work now.
Machooka
Roar Guru
Good read Conor... and there's some tasty match-ups for next w'end eh. All three games offer something of interest for we supporters. Neutral or otherwise. Will Wales hold the fort? Will Italy do a similar job against those marauding French types? And best of all... will Scotland bring it against the Twickers folk?!?
Hello Everybody.
Guest
I dont agree. England never adapted to the tactic and the problems, frustration and mistakes increased as the match went on when the tactic was used against them. England scored more and won easily but it was not due to them figuring out the tactic, it was due to poor one on one defence and other factors besides the tactic at the breakdown. I also dont agree that it was genius or that it wasnt cynical, unless you consider employing cynical tactics genius purely because nobody else would dare to stoop so low and thats the really brilliant thing about it? Rugby has laws and rules. The reason is that some tactics cant be counteted easily or at all. Using your hands in the ruck and lying all over the ball are extremely difficult things to combat, in fact you cant. You and your team are at a great disadvantage if these tactics are used and go unpenalized. I guess thats why we have laws against them, because they have such an impact and you cant combat it. Thats the same with offside players. We penalize them because it has such a huge impact and you cant combat it easily. So, like other tactics that ruin the flow of the game the laws are so you cant be offside without the punishment....or so it should be. Italy gave up one of the basic areas of the game, the comp for the ball at the breakdown, to cynically bypass the offside law and to ruin the game by stopping the normal contest of game of rugby happening simply because they felt that they could not compete well enough in normal sporting contest of rugby union. Thats not cynical? Jones compared the tactics to the underarm bowling, which was also within the laws. The Aus captain at the time gave up on the chance to get the NZ batsmen out in order to stop the contest between bat and ball or the normal comp of the game if cricket happening by rolling the ball along the ground. Now I dont think this was genius either but it was also a tactic that nobody else would stoop to, other Aus players included as I recall pleads of "no mate" from behind the wicket. Now the underarm bowl was worse, it completely killed the contest and made it impossible for NZ to do what they needed to do, Italys tactics did ruin the game and made it impossible for a normal rugby match to occur but as we saw, England could still win. However I understand why the comparison was made between the 2. So England did not run away with the game towards the end of the match because they adapted, thats simply untrue, they never adapted in a way in which it was not a huge disadvantage. They continued to struggle with Italys 'offside' ploy to the very end. Imo all teams would and thats why the offside law is there in the first place. However the tactic does allow the team with the ball to be unchallenged at the breakdown. So its not the perfect game killer. The tactic, which was not new, was not smart or "genius" simply because the Italians dared do what others would not reduce themselves to do. They didnt come up with the idea, they just went further and lower than any others have. I dont consider that "genius" and I do consider that very cynical. Hey Italy! Just get better instead of trying to find ways to stop the contest.