After watching the first full round of Super Rugby this past weekend, it became clear the Australian teams have now adopted the 1-3-3-1 attacking structure, as used by the Wallabies.
This master plan will be put under a severe spotlight come June and it is frustrating to see the robotic way in which the teams are currently executing it.
I am concerned that two Super Rugby minnows have managed to upstage it and show a better alternative.
Directive from the top
Queensland Country, in the space of one off season, managed to ride the 2-4-2 attacking structure from perennial cellar dwellers to NRC champions last year. There is no doubt in my mind that Brad Thorn was responsible for instilling this structure.
Having had such a successful All Blacks career, he would have an intimate understanding of it because he played under it for so long. I dare say it is almost all he knows.
So I was excited to see the Reds in action this year, hoping they would produce the same rugby that Queensland Country did in the 2017 NRC. My hope was short lived.
Instead, the Reds used the Wallabies’ brains-trust master plan and I am almost certain that a directive to abandon the 2-4-2 came from the top. Why else would a former All Black abandon the structure he best knows – the one that brought his NRC team so much success?
Stern green test
It is good to see some uniformity in attack across the Australian teams, as has been the case in New Zealand for a long time now. It also means that they will be training in similar ways to utilise the attack, which is another positive.
We can only hope that with this newfound solidarity, better performances will be on show by the Wallabies come the June Test series against Ireland.
The Irish series will be of particular importance in light of the new attacking master plan. Ireland hvave used the same structure for a while now, and they are the best international team in the world at utilising it.
[latest_videos_strip category=”rugby” name=”Rugby”]
Robotic uniformity
One thing that really annoyed me over the weekend was the robotic way the Aussie teams executed the 1-3-3-1. There is almost always a hit up by the first pod of three forwards, which kills off speed and creativity, and gives the opposition time to set in defence.
Impatience was also an annoying feature. Instead of waiting patiently for the structure to do its job, a miracle play was almost always attempted prematurely, which stuffed up the momentum built or gave away possession.
They also refused to think outside the box and veer away from the structure – such as to miss a pod, to split a pod, to change direction or simply throw away the playbook and go off instinct (they can learn a lot from the Lions on how to do this and the Wallabies will meet an Irish team in June who have a lot of variations up its sleeve).
Despite this, it was good to see some isolated moments of quick opportunity-taking, but these were isolated, were mostly quick throw-ins or taps, and it doesn’t really address the issue of being creative for longer periods in general play.
We can only hope that this new tenacity is the first small glimpse of more variation and daring.
On a side note, it is frustrating to see how long it takes Australian scrumhalves to clear the ruck, because it is a major contributor to the 1-3-3-1 not working for them.
AAP Image/Craig Golding
The minnows
The Sunwolves and Bulls have been whipping boys in recent years – the Japanese team lacking the player quality and coaching, while the South Africans were stuck in a mode of play that bordered on extinct.
Enter two Kiwi coaches and these teams have turned around.
Jamie Joseph has installed the 2-4-2 attacking structure with the Sunwolves and their performance against the Brumbies, arguably Australia’s best team, showed the benefits.
Their wide and daring attack is the biggest revelation and the Brumbies struggled to cope with it. The 2-4-2 showcased its superiority by almost allowing a team of nobodies to beat the star-laden ACT team.
It was also good to see the Sunwolves adapt the 2-4-2 a bit by splitting the middle pod of four – having a pod of three either hit up or play the ball and leaving the extra man in the line to be another receiver or a dummy runner. This tactic was used by the All Blacks last year and Joseph obviously took note.
John Mitchell’s job was more difficult. To try to get the Bulls, a team steeped in their traditions and style of play, to use the wide and daring 2-4-2 is a minor miracle.
The results showed and they beat the Hurricanes, arguably the second best of the New Zealand teams. The Bulls did this without the star-laden forward pack they had the advantage of in years past and, apart from Handre Pollard at flyhalf and Jesse Kriel at outside centre, their backline were also relative unknowns.
It was also good to see the Bulls adapt their attack by having their individual runners coming hard and close ‘around the corner’ of the player with the ball in hand to take advantage of the space the Hurricanes defence allows itself between defenders. Smart work by Mitchell and a good lesson for teams who will be coming up against a possible All Blacks rush-spread defence.
The main take away from this is that it casts serious doubts on the Australian attacking plan. Two coaches, in two different countries, have instilled an attacking structure on two minnow teams and come out on top (I regard the Sunwolves’ result as coming out on top in their context) and they have done so in the space of one off-season.
This also puts to rest arguments about Australian players not being skilful enough to play the 2-4-2 attacking structure – if the Bulls and Sunwolves can do it…
It also ends arguments that it will take too long or be too complex to implement – if the Bulls and Sunwolves can do it in the space of one off season…
Why not?
Despite my misgivings about the 1-3-3-1, it has become obvious that the Wallabies brains trust will not abandon their attacking master plan. Australian supporters can settle in and watch it used right into the 2019 World Cup and maybe even beyond.
There has been a stubborn and arrogant refusal to implement the 2-4-2, citing the ‘Australian way of doing things’ – as illustrated by Brad Thorn being told to abandon the 2-4-2.
Some of the blame does fall on the provincial coaches, but the biggest factor preventing Australian teams from achieving the results of Jamie Joseph and John Mitchell is the chosen attacking structure.
Promises have been made about the potential of the master plan and many excuses have been made about it misfiring over the last few years, yet we are still stuck in the same rut (and us fans are still suffering).
Why can this rut not expeditiously be broken with daring, wide, skilful and exciting rugby – if the Bulls and Sunwolves can do it in the space of one off season…
jeznez
Roar Guru
The majority of Tipsy's articles are on this so he assumes quite a bit of knowledge. He's talking about forward pod structures in attack. 1-3-3-1 describes a forward on each edge of the field usually the two quickest flankers and two pods of three forwards splitting the middle part of the pitch between them. 2-4-2 describes two forwards on each edge, the backrow and usually the hooker, if he is quick enough to operate out wider. With the props and locks controlling the middle of the pitch as a group of four. I don't think the structures are as rigidly adhered to he describes as I point out in my reply to the first comment on the article. Didn't catch any games this weekend but certainly saw a change in tactics by the Brumbies during the Sunwolves game.
Nabley
Guest
What the hell is he talking about! He is using terms that may be OK for insiders, but go straight past me.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
A great message, Pick players with overall talent, not players because they know and can play to the coaches plan
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
It took a while but when the oppositions realized what the attacking strategy was and that there was no kick coming, they shortened the backfield and started the rush defense which, as England proved, cripples the strategy, well, the wallabies version of it anyway.
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
So 2-4-2 is a platform to launch a variety of different attacks from, 1-3-3-1 is a specific attacking pattern, it can only be used in a limited number of ways, and has to be executed perfectly to work. It explains why the kick-chase isn't used, a 1 pod isn't much use, but a couple of forwards running down a box kick has a genuine chance of turning the ball over.
jeznez
Roar Guru
The Wallabies have used it longer than that England tour. Hooper and Fardy used to split the edges between them back on that November tour when we still had Toomua - how long ago was that? We played some good rugby on that trip.
waxhead
Guest
Is that right Tipsy cause after 4 games with Aussie teams I can't see any coherent method of attack on show.
Harry Jones
Expert
Yes, Tipsy, that's the real core that it's built on, and it's what NZ and IRE are doing better than anyone at the moment
ethan
Guest
Hopefully we get more than a 9 minute sample size this week!
ethan
Guest
I'm by no means an expert. Just meant to say it was a shame he couldn't bring his winning tactics from QCountry to the Reds.
Tipsy McStagger
Guest
Hi Tooly, I'm with you, something must be changed. As much as I hate criticising the team/s I support, I can't allow myself to just join the "yes men" and pretend everything is alright or hope that things will get better. By all means, use the 1-3-3-1 but vary it, and at least only use it to exit your own half - then at least use the 2-4-2 to mount a decent attack
Tipsy McStagger
Guest
Hi Ralph, the structures can be a pain to pick up but they do show themselves after the attacking team strings together a few phases. When the camera switches to a wide screen view, just look at how many forwards are standing on the edges of the field - if it is one forward then its the 1-3-3-1, if its 2 forwards, then its the 2-4-4-2. It is further complicated though when they start switching things up e.g. the Sunwolves (in their 2-4-2) started splitting their middle pod of 4 into a 3 and a 1. It is fun and it does add an extra dimension to watching a game - it also makes you appreciate some of the tries the NZ teams score that bit more.
John R
Roar Guru
Hah! Indeed. Indeed. He's a good lad, good sense of humour.
Tipsy McStagger
Guest
Hi Jacko, All the NZ teams use the 2-4-2, with a bit of the 1-3-3-1 thrown in depending on their position on the field. The way in which they use the variations to it, and their kicking games, makes it look like they are playing different styles of game. They are generally also smart enough to know when to abandon the structures for certain periods within the game. The structures also only come to the fore when the attacking team strings together a few phases so they can set it up. Short periods of possession still rely on good old fashioned "play what's in front of you" or "hit it up". The Reds started with the 1-3-3-1 and tried to continue to do so without Higginbotham & Tui. You are right, the numbers do change but they are still attempting to play the same structure. As to the structures the AB's teams use, I am certain of this. As to what Cheika is doing, it is only my opinion and I can only draw conclusions. But it seems to me that if every single Australian Super Rugby team is attempting to attack in the same way, and Brad Thorn changes his method of attack overnight, there must be a common link somewhere - especially after the coaches meeting they all had earlier this year
Tipsy McStagger
Guest
Hi Akari, I am also looking for answers on Cheika's plan. If you are going to use the 1-3-3-1, at least vary it. And use it to get out of your own half, like the All Blacks do, then revert to something more exciting when you are in the opposition half. As to why it is taking to long for the Wallabies to "perfect" it, I am lost for asnwers
Tipsy McStagger
Guest
Hi Timbo (L), I will join you on the Cheika, Hooper & Folau bashing... and on the dual 7's option. The Kiwi sides all run the 2-4-2 but their familiarity with it allows them to utilise the variations to it, including their kicking game. It makes them able to adapt it to what they want to do or play to their strengths. The structure is capable of so much variation that when you look at Chiefs and a Highlanders game you wouldn't think they are using the same basic structure
Mapu
Guest
Haha I enjoyed the nail on the head
Tipsy McStagger
Guest
Hi Ethan, I watched the Reds game very closely before Higginbotham was sent off and by the way they set up early on, it was apparent they were using the 1-3-3-1. After he was sent off, and then Tui, it was harder to pick up but they were still doing it without those 2. I am also disappointed, I had hopes that Brad Thorn would be running AB's rugby up in QLD. Looking forward their game vs the Brumbies this weekend and to see if anything changes.
Akari
Guest
Thank you, Tipsy, for taking us in a new realm, which incidentally helps one better understand the attacking and defensive strategies of teams, even if your the focus is on the WBs and Australian super franchises on this occasion. We have asked and also wondered what is Cheika's Australian way of playing rugby. To this day, I don't recall Cheika explaining what it was. If he has, I've definitely missed it. I am now wondering whether the 1331 structure is what he was alluding to as the Australian way so as to distinguish the WBs way from the ABs 242 structure. As I understand it, Cheika introduced the 1331 structure during England's June tour of 2016 and the outcome wasn't a pleasant one for the WBs. In fact the outcome for persisting with such a structure has not been good at all for the WBs. The question is why persist with 1331 for a 3rd season as the Australian way? And why does it take more than a season to learn and perfect it on this side of the ditch?
Ralph
Roar Guru
Excellent thought provoking article that makes me look closer at what is going on in front of my eyes.