The concept of the sweeping fullback is not new; indeed, it remains the preeminent way to play the position, with the Waratahs and the Wallabies the glaring exception.
In short this entails the fullback being in perpetual motion, defending alone behind his own line but positioning himself to follow the oppositions movement of the ball across the full width of the field.
To play the position in this fashion there are a few prerequisites:
- a huge aerobic engine;
- the rugby nous to know where to be at all times, when to plug the defence, when to step into the line on attack and how to organise those in front of you;
- a sound multifaceted kicking game – for touch, midfield bombs, the chip, the grubber, all need to be part of the kitbag, but for touch under pressure is a must;
- a trusted one-on-one tackler, as he is the last man after all;
- bravery to the point of stupidity;
- safety under the high ball; and
- the ability to run the ball back effectively, which is a nice to have but not critical to this structure.
A great example of this was Ben Smith in the 2015 Super Rugby final againt the Hurricanes. There’s nothing like doing the good stuff on a big stage.
In the following video you will note Smith beginning to sweep to his left as the Canes ball is moved from the ruck. He sweeps back to make the required head-on tackle on forward Blade Thompson, gets to his feet quickly to recover the ball and presents it for clearance.
But the critical factor here is after the Canes take a quick lineout and goes the full width of the field – when the ball is taken into touch on the opposite touchline, there is Smith having made the required 50 metres to be behind his winger as the defensive cover.
A sweeping fullback provides the following benefits to the team:
- The ability to present a 14-man defensive line.
- The minimising of the moving parts of the defensive system.
- Provision for the ability to successfully attack from turnover ball – the current Wallaby defensive system destroys their ability to counter-attack from turnovers.
In this section I will use the SANZAAR video highlighting a specific 90 seconds of a 2016 Bledisloe match that sums these up.
View this video three times to view each of the above aspects in isolation. It ends in an excellent score, but watching the ball here is not the objective.
1. Presenting a 14 man defensive line
We have all seen Nicholas Bishop’s excellent work on the Nathan Grey’s defensive structure, which presents a 13-man defensive line to the opposition. I will stand on the shoulders of his work and proffer that in the Wallabies case this presents a 12-man defensive line due to the depth Genia at halfback is forced to defend at by this split backfield structure.
On first viewing look for the following: because Ben Smith is playing the sweeping defensive role and TKB is defending right behind the ruck (which is important for item three to come) and as close to the ball as possible, the ABs present a solid 14-man line with little shuffling of defenders.
It’s all quite simple and effective, but it’s simplicity born by the function of the sweeping fullback. Look for Smith’s positioning right of screen.
2. Minimise the moving parts of the defensive system.
There is no easy way to do this next bit, and young children should not view the following without a responsible adult attending.
Just watch the movement of Israel Folau. Don’t watch anything else, just the movement of the fullback, especially the position he looks to take up after the missed tackle on Smith. Just keep looking at the top of the frame to watch where he goes.
It’s not easy to watch. I have no idea what he was thinking, but it sure wasn’t, “Where is the danger and how to I contribute to stopping it?”.
Sadly he was the only guy in the stadium who didn’t see a really nice try as he jogged the 50 metres to the other side of the field with his back to play wondering why 45,000 Kiwis had started shouting, no doubt thinking this is acceptable as it fits ‘the structure’.
And before the fan club jump in claiming a one-off, this was the second time in just this match alone, and there are others.
So has Nathan Grey developed a defensive system he genuinely believes is best for competition at the top level or one that tries to cover for the deficiencies of his players?
Whatever the answer, and I think it’s the latter, this current system has too many flaws to be retained for any longer, has way too many moving parts, especially on transition to defence, and by default allows the abdication of responsibility by individuals.
3. Why the Wallabies can’t attack from turnover ball
The current split backfield defensive system has another significant and often unseen downside.
During the past rugby championship Will Genia was defending five to ten-metre behind the ruck, almost like a safety position. While he made several key tackles in the position, it meant that when Australia did turn over the ball, he was too far away from the ruck to be effective quickly.
Add to this the Australian 10 and 15 are usually miles away defending deep on the outside corners and it makes it almost impossible to counter-attack at any pace.
Of course with Genia not defending tight to the ruck and with the split backfield, Australia present a 12-man defensive line at best. The likes of Barrett and Smith will be quick enough to find the gaps as they did with ease last season, and maybe even a flat playing Finn Russell in the June test, we shall see.
During Bledisloe 1 last year David Pocock won four turnovers either side of halftime. The half back recipients of his good work were, in order, Hooper, Aaron Smith (NZ scored), Kepu and Moore. Due to the position Genia has to take up when Australia don’t have the ball, he simply can’t get to the ruck quick enough when the ball is turned over.
What is the point of having the best turnover merchant on the planet in your side when his work is not only not a positive but can on occasions be a big negative? Pocock’s first turnover of that match was poorly cleared by Giteau, which led to Crotty scoring the first try too, but that wasn’t entirely structural – although he was closer to the ball than Foley.
Watch the video again, and this time follow TKB at halfback for NZ defending at the ruck, and how when the turnover comes, Ben Smith who is sweeping the ball position when the Wallabies have it, is not only in position to step immediately in the line to counter, but he has had the best view of the field of anyone for the prior 30 seconds and knows exactly where to attack.
Ben Smith does this over and over for both the Highlanders and New Zealand, and it is the reward for being able to do all the hard defensive work covering miles and miles of turf every game – often not seen on TV – and being behind the ball at all times, yet still having the fitness to still be able to explode forward when the opportunities present.
It’s simple.
So do the Wallabies have anyone that can fit the criteria of the fully functioning fullback so that the number of patchwork solutions being overlaid on the side currently can be eliminated?
For mine there are two options right now: Karmichael Hunt and Dane Haylett Petty. One day, when he puts on four to five kilograms, Andrew Kellaway seems to have all the right instincts but still a little short in the skill set.
With one simple change Australia can present a fuller defensive line, have less moving parts on transition to defence and maybe counterattack and play some of that running rugby the fans want to see.
RobL
Guest
Well written Highlander. Your analysis runs pretty true. Better late than never for me, but here's my 2c worth. I played fullback as a junior & found it a difficult role even then. I also spent many nights on the hill at Ballymore watching Chris Latham run non-stop covering the back while yelling at woeful Wendell until he was hoarse. As mentioned, the fullback is not seen much on TV and it is only when you go to the game that you get an appreciation of a good fullback's workload. Watching Izzy live is just painful. He wanders around like a lost sheep and; can't seem to read the game at all. The camera never sees it. Sadly, there are plenty of good FBs in Australia that are far better at it than Izzy. In no particular order: DHP, Hodge, Tom Banks, Kellaway, Debreczeni (with some skills coaching), Morahan & Hunt for starters. Tom Banks looks like a proper long term prospect. We should also acknowledge that along with a genuine 15 you also need one of your wings (normally 14) to have the additional #15 defensive skills. i.e. good under the high ball, decent boot, good tackler. Most successful international sides do including the ABs (Smith/Dagg). Having 2 non-kicking wings is asking for trouble. Speight's decent; Naivalu is better; the DHP/Moz partership for the Force had been working well before the injuries this year; Cam Clark seems to be showing the required skills. Everyone in the world except Coach Clown would argue that Izzy would be better off in the 14 slot. He could retain his energy for his explosive running lines and drop back occasionally to cover the genuine 15. It is glaringly obvious that Coach Clown has a very narrow understanding of Rugby Union outside the 'physicality' that he keeps harping on about. It seems more obvious when questioned about players picked out of position. Is Nathan Grey changing the defensive patterns to suit Izzy (and others)? Of course he is, but is it forced on him by the head coach and/or the management? We may never know but I think a number of young Waratahs and Wallabies are being unfairly blamed for the performance while the coaching staff take little responsibility. Something is broken for sure and fullback is just the tip of the tactical iceberg. Don't get me started on the back row.
Highlander
Guest
That is Folau again
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
I missed that point, Well Done, Mitchell chased down the runaway, instead of running away to hiding at the opposite wing. Was that Quade jogging through from the opposite wing?
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
NRL, Europe
Highlander
Guest
G'day KK, I would like to sit in the team video review session after one of these, see not only the coaches response but the teams as well.
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
Can't believe I missed this article, Highlander! Oh to be a fly on the wall and listen in on Grey's defensive systems. I can't help but feel the two 10s have a random shuffle effect on Grey's thinking and this has a ripple effect all the way back to 15. The butterfly defence effect as it were.
Hoy
Roar Guru
I give them a free pass from smashing blokes, but that would be a bonus... but I don't excuse these professional players falling off lots of tackles... If they get to this level, they need to be able to make solid contact and bring a runner down confidently. These days for Australia, it is a bit of a wish list... Where are our complete players?
Highlander
Guest
That is a real interesting clip Timbo and I nearly used it to demonstrate the feeling required to defend at the back, while that was a poor attempt from Beale watch the difference in reaction from Mitchell and Folau who are defending on either flank, chalk and cheese
Ed
Guest
Peter, It would be good if a reporter or one of the Fox crew ask Cheika about whether the strucured atttacking benefits of having a Foley-Beale 10-12 combo more than offsets the defensive reshuffle and hindrance to turnover attack this formation creates. I doubt any of the mainstream media would be prepared to test the Wallabies coach on this.
PeterK
Roar Guru
agree my preference would be Beale at 15 and Folau wing, Hunt or Kerevi at 12. Whilst Beale is injured Hunt at 15. Wallabies need a second playmaker especially if Foley is the 10 since he has limited creativity. Beale is a very good second playmaker but his defence is too poor to play at 12, especially next to Foley. Either more moving parts in defence would be required (and a winger picked for his tackling at 12!) F/B has more time to pick and choose he to help in playmaking rather than 12. DHP has no playmaking ability and poor tackling and thus see little benefit of playing him at 15
Highlander
Guest
TonyH, I don't think the point is could DHP or Hunt match up to Smith or other fullbacks, more, if they play fullback for Australia what do I get back elsewhere in the rest of the team. Every side makes trade offs, question is, is this one worth it. I agree with you, and have on numerous occasions on this forum stated Folau could be a world class winger. Reduce his responsibilities and reap the benefits all round.
Highlander
Guest
Hi TImbo, thanks firstly Like you I think Banks looks a great prospect, he just seems to have the instincts to be in the right place at the right time, and you cant teach that, that's just pure feel for the game. I would argue that the defensive structure, not the game plan - yet - , is being altered to suit the short comings of players, and that's just wrong - but in a role like fullback if you make accomodations with structure then you have to give up so much else, now that a tradeoff Chieka Grey and Gibson have to make. For me the trade off is patently not worth it.
PeterK
Roar Guru
nothing excuses missing 30'% of tackles. Doesn't matter if you are in a poor side, that just means you get to practice tackles more. If you miss that many then you have some issue with technique.
TonyH
Roar Rookie
Whether DHP or Hunt would be a match for Ben Smith, Duncan McKenzie or any of the other Kiwi Super Rugby fullbacks is a moot point. Folau most definitely ain't. A great fullback has to: a) be able to read play, b) be a kicker par excellence with every trick in the book, and c) be a great tackler, as the last line of defence. Folau fails on all scores. DHP and Hunt tick a couple of those boxes, so why Michael Cheika persists with Folau at 15 is a mystery to me and many others I think. Izzy needs to go back to where he started in Union … on the bloody wing!
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
You could fund another SR franchise with what they are paying him. ,,, Too Soon?
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
I give 10's a bit of a free pass and set the bar lower for defense. If you want to tear up the field at pace and be a sniper goal kicker, you aren't usually going to have the build of a forward. Big guys are going to run through you, and that's OK. In defense it is common to see the 10's hanging out with the fullback waiting for the positional kick and following up with a return kick or a blitzcreig run up the center in broken play. The AB's use Dagg and Smith because they are blessed with a wing/fullback as well.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
World cup final, I am pretty sure he subbed on into the position or a least the role covering for Folau. I am not saying it was an easy job but it was an embarrassing attempt. https://youtu.be/RQ5R-0l7wdY?t=1m19s Benefit of the doubt, I hear he played well for Wasps and I haven't seen the games. Perhaps he has improved.
Fionn
Guest
Haha, yeah, at first I had no idea how to spell Duncan Paia'aua (did I get that right? I did it from memory...), and heard the boys on the Rugby Report Card podcast call him Duncan Paella, and now it has just stuck like an inside joke. If Duncan Paia'aua could be developed he would probably be my first choice fly-half. Between Foley and Cooper, I think everyone knows where my preference lies if they are both in form.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
It think it was the Irish Half Simon Geoghegan
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Context is important. If you are in a losing side, the back line is going to be peppered by rampaging difficult to stop attackers. If you are off hiding on the wing, you won't miss any tackles, Center field is where the omelette is made and eggs are broken.