How to target the All Blacks, Part 4: Baiting the over-rush

By Conor Wilson / Roar Pro

Traps exist in Rugby. Teams can lead a team into an area, or feign a weakness, to immediately rely on the opposition trying to take advantage.

This keenness by the opposition can reveal a weakness that your team can exploit in itself. One such weakness can be coaxed out of the All Blacks with the right know-how.

Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder and crush him. Cleverly done, this can be used to great effect.

Weakness: Over-rush off set piece
Tactics used for weakness: Brumby mode, dummy, shielding, inside pass

The All Blacks have a very strong set piece. Teams often say: “We have to be physical, we have to target and dominate the set piece, stop their platform for their back play”.

Whilst accurate, as the set pieces are the foundation stones from which you build and launch your whole game, the All Blacks often dominate.

New Zealand are technically very proficient in this area.

However, when they are overly dominant in the scrum or the maul, their inside defence can get cocky. They’ll rush off their set piece momentum and catch the opposition back line as far as possible, but this can cause issues for them.

We’ve all heard of the term two steps forward, one step back. If a clever team goad the All Blacks into their early rush, it’s more like two steps forward, ten steps back.

If the pack intentionally retreat in a maul and pick the ball out, they can plan options that exploit that early rush. We can see where this over-eagerness on behalf of the All Blacks gifted the opposition.

Australia 2017

via Gfycat

We see the AB inside defence rush past Michael Hooper focused on the next phase, which allows Hooper his break. All from dominance of the maul.

via Gfycat

Another example not five minutes later.

France 2018

This rush by Aaron Smith is near identical to the second Wallabies example. There were, however, a few key differences.

Matt Todd is not kept in the scrum. Kevin Gourdon (8) does not sell a dummy to Baptiste Serin (21) or Ant Belleau (10).

An offload to Serin would’ve been very dangerous for the All Blacks at 38:44. Smith being committed with the offload and Todd in the scrum would have cleared the channel right to the line, as McKenzie has pushed too far up.

Alternatively, a dummy at 38:43 from Gourdon could have forced Smith’s body position to the outside, clearing Gourdon’s path.

Countless moves can be developed around this principle with the fullback, outside centre, blindside winger, the dynamic between eight and nine. But what the Australians did that the French didn’t is the difference between break and no break.

England 2014
This was performed against a much more experienced team, with the likes of Richie McCaw, Tony Woodcock and other stalwarts still in the side. This was 2014, and shows that the teachings of the All Black defence – that Rush 10 Triangle – can again be worked against them.

via Gfycat

The margins are unbelievably small in Test rugby. Joe Marler placed his arm around Owen Franks for near half a second – this looked unintentional, but it opened the slight gap between him and Brodie Retallick that Ben Youngs exploited.

To get the advantage off a rush defence is normal, and of all the ways to attack the All Blacks, this one is the least likely to consistently get results, but it does get results.

If a team can pre-empt this rush and design plays to subtly block and exploit this gap on the back of a dominated set piece, it can lead to a huge gain over the advantage line if performed correctly.

Done too often, though, and it will be counter-productive.

The All Blacks, through analysis, are aware of this. The All Black Rush may hold in wariness of the threat, anticipating this as a ploy on the opposition’s part. This gives more time on the ball for the first receiver, but can nullify this point completely for the moment you need it most.

Clearing the channel
Clearing the channel in this weakness is the difference between a try and no try.

By feigning inferiority in the pack, you spike the natural competitive aggression of the opposition forwards to drive you back for the penalty, meaning their heads are down and they stay in. This in turn provides forward momentum, which encourages Smith forward to cut the first-phase move off at source.

The irony is that this aggression from both Aaron Smith and the forwards can take them out of the game, opening the gap. The emotional response to dominate leads themselves into the trap. However, you can’t leave it all to them. You have to do the little things to direct them into the position of weakness.

Hooper made sure his positioning stopped Ardie Savea getting close to Will Genia. He was assisted with this by the turn in the scrum. Kelian Galletier did not stop Todd. Genia’s dummy took Smith’s attention towards Foley, Gourdon did not dummy and kept Smith’s attention on him. One team scored the try, one didn’t.

Little things for a big effect.

The Champagne Box
This only has to work once.

In all the closely contested finals of the World Cup, the winners nearly always had a strategy up their sleeves that the opposition could either not deal with or not expect.

My old PE teacher used to call ours the Champagne Box. You have no idea what I’d give to see Joe Schmidt’s Champagne Box.

These were a collection of the most specialised plays and the best moves we had, practised regularly, and only uncorked at key moments in key games.

The Teabag move from the World Cup final in 2011 is a prime example.

That try gave the winning margin to the All Blacks. It was kept as a game-winner for the big games. So much so that it hadn’t been used since the 39-10 Tri-Nations win over Australia in August 2008, so the French analysis could not pick it up.

England had their own. The Zig-Zag pattern, designed to orchestrate field position for a drop goal in the centre of the field – the pattern from which Matt Dawson made his 10-metre break in 2003, the break that gave Jonny Wilkinson the opportunity to kick the drop goal.

The kick that won the World Cup.

That is how fine the margins are in international rugby in today’s day and age.

Any edge, any weakness, concrete or reaching against New Zealand must be taken. This particular flaw may seem over the top, but if one play designed to exploit it only ever works one time to create the opportunity to win a World Cup.

A team would be happy spending years practising it.

The Crowd Says:

AUTHOR

2019-07-22T12:21:19+00:00

Conor Wilson

Roar Pro


That's true that they won huge numbers of games. But a huge amount of that is due to their quite sensational attack. Rush defence in the last year or so has certainly assisted, but before then they were raking in tries. Last year is a key example. They lost against SA, Ireland and were very close to it against England and SA again amongst others. Argentina didn't score from 5m out. But England did last year, South Africa have, so have other teams, and quite a few of them used these areas to target. On top of that, fully exploiting all of these targets requires some dynamics that only good teams have. Devastating and explosive ball carriers combined with a fast, scooting 9 for Brumby mode, skill within the forwards for the shoot-drift gap via the pop pass, twin playmakers for the Blind switches, and tactical nous for the Inside whip exploit as we've seen here. I mentioned in a prior article that this articles weakness was quite untapped, but it does exist. Not many teams play them the way they would need to to beat them, as a lot of teams want to be them. With that fast wide flowing attacking play. The South Africans and Ireland since 2015, showed that with powerful, tight and accurate play targeting some of these weaknesses, can get you quite a bit of gainline and that was shown in the fact that they've beaten them more than just the one off.

2019-07-22T11:42:25+00:00

Fox

Roar Guru


And yet from memory they have the best defensive record of any international side since 2011 - they must do for a start as they have - and by some distance - lost the least amount of games. Is it perfect- no - but as Argentina found out - even five meters from the AB line and with back-to-back lineouts - they never looked ,like scoring against the AB D and they had all the possession against the AB's in the second half.

2019-07-21T23:16:56+00:00

Carlin

Roar Rookie


Brilliant Analysis Conor Mate. Really enjoyed this read. The 9/10 rush defence needs a loose forward to quickly connect with them to make sure the inside hole is covered and a midfield back to come up with them for the outside. Look forward to reading part 5.

AUTHOR

2019-07-21T10:30:29+00:00

Conor Wilson

Roar Pro


In Attack yes, but their defensive structures are usually unchanged. They maybe tweaked but the core principles remains the same. In this series i've shown the same AB defensive flaws shown over periods from 2013 through to 2018. This target was hit and shown as vulnerable in 2014 and still caused problems in 2017. They may tweak it, to stop this area as a target, but in doing so that will open up space elsewhere.

AUTHOR

2019-07-21T10:27:24+00:00

Conor Wilson

Roar Pro


It is indeed mate. For the best stuff to work, you have to have the best players who know their roles with clarity in the team. 4 articles down, only one more to go. Then i'll get back to writing about other things!

2019-07-21T04:53:20+00:00

chucked

Guest


A lot of luck involved in all those videos...each and every one the Aussies were getting pushed and pulverised...95% of the time they would have got ball or gotten penalties.

2019-07-21T04:05:36+00:00

Ralph

Roar Guru


Another congratulations on a very good technical analysis Conor. The point I took from between your lines was; that the chances of champagne moves is materially compromised by a lack or continuity in selection and inexperience.

2019-07-21T02:45:29+00:00

KiwiHaydn

Roar Rookie


This strategy works as the ABs trust their players to defend their own channels, the inside man makes a misread and the cover isn’t always there or quick enough to react.

2019-07-21T00:59:31+00:00

smoothy

Roar Rookie


I believe England spent a large amount of time planning for the All Blacks in a hypothetical RWC final as well... Unfortunately, it proved an effective way to be knocked out beforehand, since they were looking past the opponents they had to face beforehand!

2019-07-21T00:35:16+00:00

Fox

Roar Guru


Yeah agreed, too often every side is offside with at least one - if not two players - not behind the last man's feet or rushing up before the ball is actually out - it's is just another law that is never policed properly

2019-07-21T00:33:30+00:00

Fox

Roar Guru


The trouble with this analysis it that it is largely - if not totally based on last year and every year the AB's rethink their tactics

2019-07-20T20:50:52+00:00

Tooly

Roar Rookie


Better recharge the iPad.

2019-07-20T20:15:04+00:00

Phantom

Roar Rookie


Rush defence is offside defence. .

Read more at The Roar