Thanks to all who contributed a question, or helped refine one in the debate at the call-out stage.
Who are your starting no.6 and no.8 for game one against New Zealand, given this series? All candidates put in big shifts but there was potentially some missing ruck presence in Games 1 and 2.
– Numpty.Would love if you could compare the involvements of [Lachie] Swinton and [Rob] Valetini in Tests 3 and 2, in terms of the breakdown. I thought they were both very strong in different ways, but wanted to see if there was a noticeable difference in this area.
– Oblonsky’s Other PunI would widen the question to cover which Wallaby forwards were doing the most in cleaning out, quantity and quality. It seems to me AAA, and Philip have fallen down in this area from what they previously did, and did not pick up if LSL has improved or declined.
– PeterK
There are some valid comparisons to be made in the contributions of Lachie Swinton and Rob Valetini within the last Test, with Valetini coming off the pine for the last 26 minutes and Swinton playing the first 54.
Firstly, let’s point out that France had significantly weakened their presence at the defensive breakdown. They selected an outside centre, Pierre-Louis Barassi, ahead of Jonathan Danty, and Danty had dominated the ruck exchanges in the first two Tests. His absence made Australia’s task in contact a lot easier.
At the same time, the selection of Isi Naisarani at number 8 and Lachie Swinton at number 6, running off short arcs by scrum-half Tate McDermott, did make Australia look a lot more comfortable in possession than at any other time in the series.
Here is a basic comparison of the activity from the blindside flanker position.
| Player | Min. | Interval between cleanouts |
Interval between carries |
Cleanout rating |
Dominant carries |
Neutral | Negative carries |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lachie Swinton | 54 | 6 | 4.2 | 65 | 3 | 10 | 0 |
| Rob Valetini | 26 | 3.7 | 2.9 | 61 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
Work rate was above average from both Swinton and Valetini. You would expect the finisher to pack more impact into his shorter time on the field.
Swinton does edge out Valetini, at cleanout and on the carry. Both he and Naisarani worked well off the prompts by McDermott around the ruck.
This in turn enabled Australia to ‘juice’ the perks of moving forward into contact situations on their own terms.
Swinton drives, and Allan Alaalatoa stays on his block long enough to create a path for the pick-and-go by Michael Hooper. The guy they are muscling out is the mountainous Romain Taofinfenua.
This last item is something of a specialty on the Dave Rennie menu. He wants support players to stay on their blocks, or take out defenders who are often only loosely connected to the ruck itself.
It’s on the outer edge of legality, but I suspect that the Wallaby head coach likes what he sees in this area from both Swinton and second rower Darcy Swain.
The problem for Valetini is that he has been unable to reproduce the same impact on the carry that he enjoyed in Super Rugby. He has been good when entering contact in a low, dynamic position.
He has been much less effective when trying to take on an opponent high:
Valetini engages France second rower Taofifenua in an upper body wrestle, and there is only ever going to be one winner of that contest.
The [Cameron] Woki try reaching over the ruck – was it legitimate? It’s not clear if he makes contact with the ruck, but doesn’t that bring his own players still in the ruck to accidental offside?
– Simon ColmanInterestingly the French prop is positioned in the middle of the Wallabies defensive line; so, in front of the ball. He is looking back at Cameron Woki, the #7, who is about to play the ball. They appear to meet eyes. The French #1 moves away from his position across to his right behind the Wallaby line and as he does so the #7 launches over the ruck into the space left by the #1 to score. Both touch judges and the ref are right there watching. It looked like a set play to me; but it also looked illegal but perhaps I’m wrong about that.
– Nakanaka
I don’t see anything wrong at all with the try. If you look at the actions of the France loose-head prop Enzo Forletta, he is well away from the scene of the action before Cameron Woki ever goes to pick the ball up.
The Wallaby forwards on the goal-line however, may be offside, with their hands well in front of the whitewash at the moment Woki picks up.
Nothing wrong with that, from an attacking point of view.
Can you please explain why the Wallabies keep persisting with the “box-kick”? I have rarely seen it ever yield an advantage for them. It is so hard at Test level for the forwards to win and retain possession, for it to then be “box kicked” away. Love to understand why you think they keep doing this.
– Bobcat
The idea behind the box-kick is to give the kicking side a chance at winning back possession at the point of receipt. If they can cause an error by the opponent, or regather the ball themselves, there is an opportunity to attack an unstructured defence on the next play.
This example comes from the recent game between South Africa ‘A’ and the touring British & Irish Lions.
The Lions scrum-half Conor Murray chases his own kick to win back the ball, and the tourists immediately spin it wide. They are better organized in the outside channels, with three outside backs and a running number 8 versus a second row, and an inside centre who have both covered all the way across from the other side of the field!
You do not even have to win the ball back cleanly from the box-kick.
Tom Banks fumbles, and France are able to match up their full-back with two Australian forwards on the next play.
G’day Nick, a lot of my generation watch rugby and can’t follow the defensive patterns that, invariably, leave a winger unmarked. In the old days of drift defence outside your 22 and man-on-man inside the 22, the winger stayed on his winger so there were no kick-pass tries etc, but perhaps a lot more scored a channel or two closer in. Can you enlighten us enthusiastic old(er) timers as to what they are doing at different parts of the field?
– Banjo Kelly
The game has changed radically Banjo – even since the start of professionalism in 1995! In terms of defensive attitudes, they have become a lot harder and more aggressive.
Defence in the outside channels by the last two defenders (typically backs) reflects the change in attitude. As a wide defender you can do one of two things: track the attacker opposite you, or track the passer. With the speed of the modern game, you cannot do both effectively.
If you track the attacker, sooner or later you end up in a drift out towards touch. If you track the passer, you are preparing to make a big tackle or interception.
The best defensive coaches don’t like the idea of drifting, play-in and play-out. It doesn’t bring any pressure on the ball, and the opposition can keep it for long periods in peace and quiet. They prefer to condense the defence and actively look to create passing errors, fumbles and interceptions.
Australia’s approach to getting the ball beyond Damian Penaud on the France right wing was of interest from start to finish in the recent series. Let’s take a look at the positives and negatives of the modern way.
Penaud does not care about the two attackers beyond him (Rob Valetini and Marika Koroibete). At the moment Tom Banks looks to deliver, he is square to the passer and looking to attack the space between the distributor and the receiver.
Now compare that with one of Australia’s successes in the next Test.
Penaud’s attitude is exactly the same, but this time the pass beats the man and space is created for Hunter Paisami down the left. About 25 years ago, this move would probably have been converted into a try – but that is not the case in 2021.
The French centre Arthur Vincent gets back in cover to knock down Paisami on the 22, and France are back in shape soon afterwards. In fact, the sequence ended with a French turnover win at the breakdown two phases later.
The top defence coaches, like Shaun Edwards, will happily trade that line-break for the pressure they can bring on the ball, every day of the week.
Make sure to look in again for the next Coach’s Corner in two weeks’ time!
RobC
Roar Guru
Thanks Nick. Nicely done, unlike the WBs haha
PeterK
Roar Guru
First of all we are not talking about great speed but sufficient to be dangerous. I would get rid of the flying wedge with the new law of pre latching and add a line that no player is allowed to latch off a free kick or penalty otherwise 1 player can latch. On the cavalry charge. Charging the ruck is different and not what I am talking about. I am say your suggestion would mean the halfback could not pass the ball from the base of the ruck to a player running at pace to receive the ball, that player could be 5 - 10 metres away from the ruck. That is just wrong. You would get a lot of unintended consequences for zero gain, what is the benefit of changing the cavalry charge law, none. The pre latching is being exploited and abused and dangerous so yes that is why it being changed , and yes the flying wedge with a minor change could be incorporated.
Who
Roar Rookie
The name hints at pace, but doesn't define it in law. It's also not simple to form a wedge and truly reach speed. I did consider your point on the cavalry charge, however, given it's already an illegal act to 'charge the ruck' (rarely penalized, though famously penalized last SA/Lions series when Bakkies Botha broke Adam Jones arm/shoulder, and copped a huge suspension for something he'd done at literally 50% of the rucks he'd hit through his life), it's arguable that it may not have a huge impact. You weren't clear on re-wording the Flying Wedge law, though... Do you think it'd be simpler to work that redefinition? It would mean no extra laws on the books, which keeps the game simpler.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Doesn't the name flying wedge give it away? It is deemed dangerous at speed and the 10 m gap gives that. If it is stationary or slow then all it is , is a maul waiting to happen. If it is slow then it isn't at any power and then it isn't a threat. Disagree re cavalry charge, the change you mention then would make players running onto the ball from a ruck or scrum illegal.
Who
Roar Rookie
Peter, just took the time to have a look... For the Wedge, I can see reference to the penalty or FK, but I can't see any reference to speed. It says that the players are latched on each side - nothing more. It's worth noting that the laws have been in place well before the 10m gap. And it can be very hard to run 10m latched with two other guys at speed. To me, it's still simpler to slightly recalibrate the definition of a flying wedge than add new laws. Remove the reference to when it might occur (penalty or FK), and clarify (broaden) latching if required. And I'd do the same for the cavalry charge - remove the references to penalties and FK's.
Phil
Roar Rookie
He looks great Fin! How is his defence and kicking? Highlights didn’t show much passing?
Phil
Roar Rookie
Fair enough Nick. I take your points but when it results in tries being conceded you got to ask the questions. So in the French try 2nd test, To’omua is last (widest) defender, but leaves last attacker free and comes in to take the (second last) attacker with the ball, even though Phillip was inside him. The French guy gets the ball to the winger Pernaud who is unmarked, easily gets away from Phillip and has time and space to work with his inside attackers to draw and pass and beat Koro and Banks and score. How do you account for that? By the way I like line speed too. I have 10,12,13 all rushing up but 15 and open wing hold depending on a few things like field position.
PeterK
Roar Guru
I see no need for the lower limb law since it will make it more dangerous for the jackal. A lower limb injury is never life threatening. Really it is mainly the lower limb tackle with no arms that is dangerous and that is outlawed. The flying wedge law does not cover the current method of latching. The pre latching is breaking the spirit but not letter of the existing flying wedge. By definition the flying wedge is at speed, from a penalty or free kick, the defence is back 10 metres and 3 players get a good speed up and are pre bound. The law change prevents the pre latching wedge that Blues constantly used all over the field this year. It is mainly used though in pick and drives near the line. It is unfair and should be banned. SA, Ireland and England use it a lot too. The cavalry charge is quite different and doesn't involve latching.
Fox
Roar Guru
Yes I agree Nick that RA may have to rein in their original decision and especially when the depth of world class players is not as strong as some other nations in Tier one. I don’t mind Havili at 12 and i think he surprised a few in that position and how quickly he has adapted there. Ioane is pretty strong now overall and he gets a few steals in contact like Sevu Reece does out wide. Of the 3, Ioane is the best player to come off the bench for impact with that gas he has on tired legs and he of course can play wing but I still prefer him at centre these days as he almost always gets over the gain line and if gets in space as we all know he can be devastating as has has already shown in the internationals he has played this year with some brilliant breaks at 13. But at the end of the day, the centres was a bit of an up and down issue for the AB’s after Smith and Nonu were no longer there, but I think they are well served there now with depth. I thought Fiji were pretty good and especially in the 1st half of both games in the breakdown but they couldn’t play at the pace of AB’s in top gear and got found out pretty badly in the end. I mean the AB’s did put nearly 120 points on them over two games, and when you consider the AB’s biggest totals against Fiji have been 60 or more in every game before these two tests, you have to ask just how much have they gone forward. I think Japan have moved forward faster than any of the Pacific Island sides unfortunately, and yes, sure there are mitigating circumstances like their players being poached by everyone else including rugby league in Australia in particular but still. Mind you many are born in Australia and NZ these days or moved when very young so its one of those things of divided allegiance and the bigger bucks on offer. Will having Pacific sides in the Super rugby really help or just open up the door to more global poaching and bigger bucks or a chance to play for an international side with more pedigree be to much to turn down as it seems to be now for many?
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
No systems are fool-proof Phil, they all give up something, but with the high line-speed D's there is much more chance of getting the ball back. Australia had two thirds of the territory and possession in the recent series v France but could only manage a tad over 2 tries per game against an understrength French team. That is due the quality of the D coached by Shaun Edwards. There are zero top international sides who defend in the way you think is optimal, and you won't ever be able to persuade a good D coach to go back to drifting and marking from the last man in.
Phil
Roar Rookie
But it does fail sometimes. It’s not full proof. It can be manipulated (and not just chucking it wide). And there have been plenty of examples of it failing e.g. Japan v Scotland and ABs v Ireland come to mind from last World Cup. Happens all the time in Super rugby. It does cause issues when the wide defenders get it wrong. Look at what happened when To’omua took the second last and left the French winger with time and space. They scored didn’t they?! Disagree on Marika he would’ve relished the space and exploited it!
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
I guess it is all relative :laughing:
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Wow - what fast-twitch fibres!
Fin
Guest
Nick, You are one that wants to see more indigenous players in the game. Here’s one for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5Fl-CKEKy8 He is currently in the Reds academy and has knocked back many offers from Rugby League clubs to stay in rugby. He wants to be like Kurtley Beale. Most people expect he will be on the radar of French and Japanese clubs pretty soon though.
Who
Roar Rookie
Nick, as crazy as it sounds... I'm not sure that 2 from 25 games is actually a step back from recent Australian performances against Kiwi teams in Super Rugby. :shocked:
Who
Roar Rookie
I've said elsewhere... Rennie messed up with Wilson and Valetini. He played his 6 wide and his 8 tight, and those are the opposite roles to where those two players are suited. In selecting Swinton and Naisarani, he selected a wider ranging 6 and a tighter 8, who then played in the same relative field positions as the jerseys the week before. Also, first test in Brisbane... Look at Valetini's breakdown work for Hooper's try. That was some quality work there - clearly created the space and thereby the try.
Who
Roar Rookie
The perfect example of why we use Box Kicks was the one that Hodge chased in the second half. Good kick, great chase, excellent tackle, immediate turnover, and led to points.
Who
Roar Rookie
Two things helped him get away with the illegal action. 1. Tate went to the other side. So, it was an illegal action that didn't have an immediate materiel impact on the game, as the game went the other direction from the illegal action. 2. O'Keeffe's used to that being part of the game, being a Kiwi. Along with the three other Kiwi officials. They've watched it all SR Ao.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
RA still has the power to make a choice about the selection of European or Japan-based players, and it is one they may have to make in order to remain competitive. There are strict rules about player release now, and even Fiji were able to field 13 Top 14-based players in the first Test v the ABs - which is why they gave the Kiwis problems they had not experienced before. I still think Ioane is the biggest threat at 13 in NZ as he plays now to set up the players outside him or draw players and Foster has been singing his praises of late I just think that's an outdated view of the position. Havili at 12 and ALB is a much better combo in my view, and it also frees you up to make a wider choice at 15.
Who
Roar Rookie
Peter, do you see any need for these laws? I like the concepts (though have concerns about how you ref the lower limb one and the typical unintended consequences that follow many half-baked WR law changes, such as those you and Nick have outlined below), but I don't see them as remotely necessary. Firstly, latching. It's simply the flying wedge, or the cavalry charge, and it just hasn't been a focus for referees. There's no need to add to the law book (I've seen people say that the wedge and charge only occur at the goal line - that's never been the definition, only an indication of where they were originally likely to occur) when there's an existing law that can be used. Secondly, the lower limb clean out. Dropping weight onto the lower limbs of a jackaller... Isn't that the same as deliberately collapsing the ruck? Which has also long been illegal. Never penalized, but, nevertheless, illegal. Am I wrong?