- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Welcome to Issue 13 of Coach’s Corner!
Exit strategy: what is ‘best practice’, who did it well over the weekend, and who has to have a change?
– Exile in OzExiting was a major issue for the AU teams.
– OllyHow do the Reds generally go about exiting? Why do they struggle in this area? How should they look to improve their exits?
– Numpty
There are two major aspects to these questions. First, the effectiveness of the kicking games and exit strategies of the Super Rugby AU sides and; secondly, the effectiveness of their Super Rugby Aotearoa opponents on the kick return counter.
It quickly became obvious that the relationship between the two is very different in the Trans-Tasman competition than it was in Super Rugby AU! Take a look at the following table.
| Teams | Av.PG Carries |
Av.PG Passes |
Av.PG Rucks |
Av.PG Kicks |
Time of Possession |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reds | 101 | 134 | 73 | 24 | 15:08 |
| Brumbies | 102 | 137 | 75 | 22 | 15:37 |
| Force | 115 | 157 | 95 | 24 | 17:01 |
| Rebels | 108 | 145 | 82 | 23 | 15:10 |
| Waratahs | 119 | 154 | 90 | 20 | 15:31 |
The team that is most dependent on its kicking/exit strategy also happens to be the club that won the tournament – the Queensland Reds. The Reds kicked the ball more, built fewer rucks, and passed and ran less than the other four teams. They spent the least amount of time with the ball in their hands.
The teams that performed most creditably, and conceded the fewest number of points against their New Zealand opponents in round one of the Trans-Tasman were the Force and the Brumbies. They also happen to be two sides with the highest time of possession in Super Rugby AU. The ability to control the ball for longer periods helps limit the number of scoring opportunities for New Zealand teams.
As I observed in Wednesday’s article, only two of the Reds’ ten attempts to exit from their own last third field were successful. They gave up four tries, five clean breaks and 26 points from kick returns, either directly or indirectly.
Their number 9’s are not top-drawer box kickers, so the Reds generally need to go back to their number 10 and clear with high contestable exits. Here is a typical result towards the end of the game against the Highlanders.
The Reds may have liked the seven-inch advantage in height between diminutive Jona Nareki and Suliasi Vunivalu out on the right – Vunivalu did, after all, convert two spectacular tries from cross-kicks in the second half.
Here, they are kicking from deep – very deep – off 10, and Vunivalu runs straight past the point of receipt on chase. Nareki makes sure he gets the ball away in the first tackle, and suddenly the Highlanders are back in business deep in the Reds’ 22. Two plays later, the outcome was inevitable.
New Zealand teams are the best in the world at running the ball back from kicks. They practice them as much as they train for set-piece attack, and the unstructured nature of the scenario suits their high-level handling skills. Shorter exits can be asking for trouble.
One ruck, three passes and 20 seconds is all it takes the Crusaders to return the kick for a score.
A more complex and revealing example occurred much earlier in the match between the Super Rugby Aotearoa champions and the Brumbies:
After Manasa Mataele initially brings the ball back into midfield off the exit, the Crusaders do everything in their power to avoid stopping points (rucks), and preserve attacking momentum with passes and offloads. There are 12 passes made – five of them by forwards – but only two rucks built in the course of the sequence.
Over the course of the two Crusaders kick returns taken together, the ratio of passes to rucks is five-to-one, and therein lies the secret of Kiwi success in this area. They can keep the ball alive for far longer without having to take refuge in a breakdown, and that means the defence has no chance to regroup.
(Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images)
Tom Banks’ try on the weekend was probably the single best piece of brilliance I have seen from him thus far. How can he and his team get him to have more involvements like this where his pace can really be used to full effect?
– NumptyThere is currently is no other 15 anywhere near Banks in Australia.
– PattoAs a big fan of Banks, he needs to improve on his kick returns. He tends to hesitate and stutter-step a lot coming up to the defensive line before committing, I don’t know whether out of concern or lack of vision.
Markus.I personally believe his hesitation on kick return is to give his team more of a chance to get back and help out.
-David.
The question about Tom Banks frames the query about kick returns in a wider picture.
Here is his terrific individual try against the Crusaders came from a midfield scrum, on first phase.
Australian kick returns historically tend to be more conservative than they are in New Zealand. One of the very best was Chris Latham in the first decade of the new millennium. In this long career highlight selection, only three of the tries derive from kick returns, and they are all individual rather than collective efforts.
Tom Banks tends to use one of Latham’s favourite patterns on kick returns: even if he starts by running in towards midfield, he will finish by working back to the original touchline.
Tom Banks is a near-side kick returner, which means that the opportunities for wide-to-wide attack will be slightly more limited than they are for Kiwi teams.
In the first example, both Banks as the ball-carrier, and wingman Tom Wright as cleanout support, are consumed in the ruck; in the second it is Banks and right wing Solomone Kata; in the third, Wright takes the ball in with Banks remaindered on the short-side of the ruck.
Where New Zealand sides tend to use kick returns as a way to maintain a high tempo, keep width on attack and stay out of structure, the Brumbies tend to get back to their patterns fairly quickly.
After Banks’ initial near-side return, there are two more forward phases into midfield before the Brumbies run another of their favourite set plays, an in-pass from Noah Lolesio to a regenerated Banks.
That play was also a Chris Latham favourite!
(Photo by Tracey Nearmy/Getty Images)
When the Waratahs go 0-13 for the season, does Dave Rennie have a justifiable reason to pick any in the Wallabies?
– Antony Henrie.A team’s performance doesn’t necessarily reflect the performance of an individual. Now find a different tune
– Numpty.
First of all, there is still a (slim) chance the Waratahs may win a game before the Trans-Tasman competition ends.
Secondly, the problems the New South Wales outfit have had as a team will not affect the selection of individuals who have obvious merit as Wallabies.
Presence in an under-performing side mainly impacts the fringe, or 50-50 picks. An international coach like Dave Rennie will be more likely to be swayed by a player who has learned winning habits in a successful culture, and who is playing with confidence because of it.
More concretely, I would not think too many Wallaby supporters would argue strongly against the selection of Jake Gordon at number 9, Angus Bell at prop and Lachie Swinton in the back row in Dave Rennie’s wider squad for the July series against France.
Fringe picks like Jack Maddocks, Izaia Perese and Dave Porecki are however much more likely to find themselves the victims of the Waratahs lack of success.
Once again, many thanks to all those who answered the call-out, or responded by developing the discussion further!