- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Opinion
Attack and defence in rugby are inextricably linked, and they evolve in cycles.
As attacking structures evolve, so do the defensive structures to counter them. At the turn of the millennium, attacking structures started to turn professional and it took some time for the defensive systems to adequately respond.
As attacking structures continued to evolve, so did the defensive systems and this has led to the current stalemate, which many supporters are calling a boring kick fest, especially in the northern hemisphere.
The question is what will be the next big evolution in attack to break the current stalemate?
Attack at the turn of the millennium
Around the turn of the millennium, Rod Macqueen pioneered a new type of attack with both the Brumbies and Wallabies. It was based on pre-planned phases with ball retention and the building of ruck phases at its core.
At the time, it was evolutionary and very successful, and many came to see how it is done, even the New Zealanders. Defensive systems at this time were still amateur and failed to properly counter this type of attack.
(Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images)
Defensive response
The defensive response to this was based on the rush. As an example, South Africa under Jake White implemented a tactic that is now rudimentary: a narrow rush defence, especially through the back line.
This started putting teams under pressure and attempted to make rucks break down behind the gain line while also attempting to force handling errors. This type of defence had success and was a precursor to the next evolution in defensive systems.
Attacking structures
The next big evolution in attack came out of New Zealand, and in particular Canterbury. The 2-4-2, followed by the 1-3-3-1, and the now other variations, spread the forwards across the field in pods with the aim of spreading the defensive line across the width of the field.
The aim was to force wider spacings in the defensive line while having the ability to move the ball across the width of the field in order to find space or weak points in the defensive line.
Rush defence
In time, defensive systems responded by implementing a more intricate version of the rush defence. This was typified by the Springboks’ defence at the last World Cup.
A very narrow defensive line sets up, leaving the 15-metre channels unmanned, which presents fool’s gold to the attack out wide. Players such as the scrumhalf can play a joker role and can rush up at will and the outside centres or wingers rush automatically to cut off attempts to move the ball wide.
The wingers and fullback also partake in a constant swivel at the back to cover any kicks the attack is forced into. The point of it all is to push the attack back inside (or force them to kick) and then there are further intricacies involved in tackling techniques to force turnovers and handling errors.
Attacking kicking
The upgraded version of the rush defence made the attack rethink their approach as they could not move the ball side to side at will anymore. The result was an increase in contestable box kicks and cross field kicks.
(Photo by Craig Mercer/MB Media/Getty Images)
This is now a major attacking tactic used by all professional teams, even the All Blacks. Teams started playing to the statistics and used kicking as a percentage play to retain possession and/or put them into better positions on the field.
This kicking tactic has now become a blight on the game, according to many supporters, and one of the more complained-about points is the caterpillar ruck – a direct result of this attacking kicking tactic.
On a side note, it also led to teams scrumming for penalties (another blight on the game) instead of just trying to dominate the scrum and/or get quick front-foot ball. But this is a topic that requires a whole new article.
Next evolution
There is a current stalemate between attack and defence. Modern defences are too good and the attack must rely heavily on kicking to negate it. The questions is what will be the next big evolution in attack to break the stalemate? No team has come up with a proper alternative yet.
Over the last couple of years Argentina have reverted back to old-school narrow forward play to negate the rush defence. They only do this in patches though and they are capable of playing expansive pod-structure rugby. Their thinking seems to be that if we cannot go wide, and we do not want to make possession a percentage play by kicking, then we will just keep possession and take you on up front.
They have had some considerable success against teams like the All Blacks when they decide to take this route and the All Blacks even used this tactic during their last Lions tour. There is not too much a defensive system can do against this type of old-school attack – momentum keeps building and at some point, they have to bring numbers closer to the ruck to stop the momentum, which in turn turns the attack in the backs into an old-school one-on-one situation.
Conclusion
Will this old-school, narrow, forwards-based approach, despite its shortcomings, be the basis of the next evolution in attack to counter the modern rush defence? Or will some great thinker devise another method?
This is a good question to ponder as we enter the 2021 season with complaints about the current state of the game.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.