A pin drop could be heard in the jam-packed Canberra pub. Lukhan Tui was tussling with a fan on the big screen, Rod Kafer was asking stock-standard questions to a distraught Reece Hodge and my mate Morgo was frantically ordering several schooners to numb the pain of this most recent Wallabies debacle.
Suddenly, and predictably, a bloke on a table just within earshot of us decided he would cast the first blow in anger, pointing to the problem seemingly everyone in the Australian rugby community agrees with.
“Mate, they’re just over coached,” he said.
“Too many structures, mate, we’ve just got to go out there and play footy.”
The familiarity of that phrasing is becoming like a trigger to me. I ask you, sincerely, what does that actually mean?
“Too much structure” – it’s called organisation.
Sure, there’s a certain beauty to 14 blokes showing up for battle in fourth grade on a Saturday afternoon, but this is professional footy.
The game has moved on from all-out action. I respect the greats of Australian Rugby, but they played a different sport to the one being played now. The way forward is not backwards. The best in the world play structured footy and we have to as well.
From grass-roots to the Wallabies, there seems to be an inherent fear and distrust of having a set game-plan in this country, the perceived knowledge being that if we play to a set of ideals, when the situation doesn’t match our plan, what then?
Simple – if plan A doesn’t work, go to plan B, then C.
The other one I hear is that structure stifles creativity in attack.
You know who plays to a structure – the All Blacks. Do you think the Kiwis rock up to Eden Park, pick a side then go out and free-wheel it for 80 minutes? No!
They play to shape, a structure. Everybody knows what everyone is doing at every time and place on the field for the entire game.
Most importantly, they coach the details. Catch-pass, ruck tech, the fundamentals of rugby, and then once the shape produces an overlap, the players have he skills to execute.
If Israel Folau wore black instead of gold, he wouldn’t last if he couldn’t pass the ball. Insanely talented or not, if you can’t move the pill to space you have no use for them
Props and wingers, backrows and halfbacks, they can all pass and I refute any claim that it’s simply a talent thing. It’s coaching.
Rugby is a game of controlled chaos, you have to put set structures in place to have a cohesive unit, then coach acute details so the structure works.
It’s time Australian Rugby embraced this modern approach to rugby and stopped being afraid of complex ideas, scared of giving players too much information.
It’s starts from juniors. There are U15 sides in the UK who run a lineout better than the Wallabies are at the moment, and that’s not hyperbole.
The Wallabies run almost exclusively, pre-called tempo lineouts. No read of the defence, no nuance.
Fear of the name increases fear of the thing itself. We can’t be the magical world refusing to say “Voldemort”. Structure is not rugby’s “he who should not be named”.
It’s okay to learn. Just because you aren’t good at something, doesn’t mean it has to be thrown out. The All Blacks are in a different stratosphere at the moment and the likes of Ireland, Argentina and even Scotland, are leaving the Wallabies behind.
We are a reluctant Ostrich with its head in the sand, choosing nostalgia over progress.
Like it or not, the game has moved on from 1998. We’re not even playing the same sport and other countries recognise this.
We can stay where we are, watching YouTube videos of Tim Horan and Joe Roff as we slip further down the rankings.
Or, we can adopt rugby’s new ideas and move forward.
Tuc Du Nard
Guest
An Integrated framework based on a set of principles is the way forwards which involves a restructure...this flows down to the game/structure, as you suggest. Great stuff.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Yeah, agree with this. All of it. There is no doubt in my mind we have the cattle. They just aren't being selected and coached well enough.
Hoy
Roar Guru
I agree Rugby League is too structured as well... you listen to the commentators for what they are worth, and they are right... "there was space on the outside, but X was just running through the play book"... Creative players these days seem to have it coached out of them in Australia in both games... It must make coaches nervous or something... can't control what is going on...
Hoy
Roar Guru
Completely agree with this 100%. There is a difference between "Structure" and "Organisation" as the author sees it, and how in a rugby sense "Structure" is used... Or I might be putting words in the Author's article? Maybe I am just confusing myself. Either way, the structure that is killing us is our rigid game plans. "We do this, then this, then this..." Only the issue is by doing this, you DO take creativity away from players... so if the first 5 phases do not work, what then? You can't plan that far ahead, and so we end up like headless chooks, because they are trained to play such a rigid structure. The talk about the All Blacks doesn't really add up either, because their skills allow them to play unstructured... Sure they have a game plan they want to use, and they use certain plays to create space etc, but look how fast they re-load. Look how fast they react to situations like turnovers... it is lethal how quick they get downfield after a turnover. That is unstructured! But great skill and ability to do it.
Ozkiwi
Guest
I agree with a lot in this article. But there are some undeniable differences in the way NZ and Australian teams play at all levels. Growing up in NZ we were always encouraged to play what was in front of us and have a go. If it’s on it’s on no matter where on the field you are. In fact some of the best attacking opportunities come when the back three are back expecting a kick. In Australia temas seem obsessed with phase play where in NZ we would attack from set piece when both forward packs were tied up. In NZ broken play was always an opportunity to counter attack, where here at precisely the moment when the opposition defence is stretched forwards would sit over the ball waiting for their backs to organise the next phase play. I know these are generalisations. But it’s what I’ve observed. It’s a difference in attitude and expectation.
Jacko
Guest
Well Ive never played in canterbury or Melbourne but I've been Jacko on here for 3 years
Paulo
Roar Rookie
The ones that probably still have to keep their normal jobs?
Rebel334
Roar Rookie
I incorporated the structured style most of the way through my playing days, I never questioned it but always thought it was a little unnatural. Many people over time have tried to describe what the Australian way is and I believe this is fundamentally what it is. It has nothing to do with the running game, but everything to do with the set play game. Personally I believe the massive influence rugby league has on the game in this country is having a massive influence on the structured mentality. League is an incredibly structured game, so much so that it’s actually championed due to the nature of the game, where territory and completions mean everything. But the massive difference is that players have 10m to execute and there is little to no challenge for the ball. It means execution is simpler and easier.
Harry Jones
Expert
The French probably have the best
Harry Jones
Expert
Part-time models are best
RobC
Roar Guru
So these models are guests, rookies or pros? Or maybe gurus
ethan
Guest
But do you want the same model as the ABs?
Harry Jones
Expert
I like using models
RobC
Roar Guru
Thanks for the article RGM Wallabies play using a structure All Blacks play using a model
Anto
Guest
Schoolboys (in Qld, at least) only play one term of rugby. That's 8 games a season. Is it any surprise that we're producing players with substandard skillsets? Ridiculous!
Jacko
Guest
Sorry it was the Victorian Axemen. Yep a long time ago and memory fades!
Jacko
Guest
I played representivie rugby up to U19 in Canterbury before taking a year off and coming to Melbourne to play for what was called the Vikings in the newly created national competition. This was quite a long time ago early 2000s. But even then the difference between the coaching at represeative level was staggering. In Canterbury we were taught as you say a framework to operate in which gave us multiple options at each phase. In Australia we were taught foot patterns of how to run off first phase tuck ball! Foot patterns, like how to place our feet to run off the ruck! There were a couple of kiwis in the side and we would confide with each other after training and shake our heads. Not sure if it’s changed but I doubt it from what I see at Super and International level.
KiwiHaydn
Roar Rookie
You need to login. Anyone not logged in is a ‘guest’.
stillmissit
Roar Guru
Sheek: Welcome to the roar! You were here when I first joined and I have maintained my dubious status. So a clean sheet for you, no more support for 2nd tier rugby, or suggestions about new structures in the ARU, oh! and the Australian coaches have all been fantastic.
ethan
Guest
Spot on mate. After all, Larkham is the attack coach, who was there through the golden era, and what methods do we think he's teaching them? It's clearly an outdated plan. It was very intelligent and effective for that time period, but the games moved on. Watching old Youtube games of rugby is chalk and cheese. Beale and Quade would carve up those defences just as Horan did.