The 'aimless kicking' underpinning modern rugby success

In the early hours of Sunday watching the France-Wallabies game I was struck by the number of times the French side, seemingly without rhyme or reason, kicked the ball back to Australia with little or no direct pressure on the ball.

Les Bleus kicked the ball 36 times on Saturday with total confidence that their defensive line would do the job. On multiple occasions they turned the ball over at the ruck, as the Wallabies could not protect their own ball.

I knew this was a repeat of something I had seen recently, but there was something missing. It was the commentary –or, to be more accurate, the lack of observation from the commentary team – on the aimless kicking the French were employing over and over.

A week earlier the All Blacks visited Japan, and the three-man commentary homed in on the All Blacks’ “aimless kicking” as the reason for their struggles in the match despite all evidence to the contrary.

Let’s quickly deal with a couple of high-level facts from the Japan-New Zealand game before looking into the numbers more deeply.

When the score was 21-3, the All Blacks had kicked the ball 17 times – but it was often in error, it must be said. So for the remainder of the game, as they kicked the ball only 10 times, Japan outscored them 28 to 17.

It was about this time that New Zealand television commentary team, Justin Marshall and Mils Muliaina, were expounding on the need to run the ball more, which was a recipe for just hitting yourself more with the same stick.

Japan’s Tony Brown-inspired back line full of invention and ball movement must surely have been paying dividends then, right?

Wrong. Over the course of this game Japan outkicked New Zealand 28 to 27. Incidentally, the only time New Zealand have been outkicked during their current run of five wins in a row is now that they have abandoned the falsely claimed DNA-based run-at-all-costs game plan.

Whether we like it or not, kicking is a critical part of matchday strategy. New Zealand have long had the reputation of being this wonderful ball-in-hand side, but dig a little deeper and you will find that very few sides have kicked the ball less than the All Blacks, at least until recent seasons.

(Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)

France have adopted this strategy of playing the game at the opponent’s end to serious extremes. They have charged up the ranking to the point that they’re favourites for next year’s World Cup. If we are looking for the tipping point, we can go to the Six Nations of 2021, when France blew the trophy with a loss to Scotland, who outkicked them 26 to 20 on the day.

Only once since then have France not won the kicking numbers, and that was by a small margin. Never again have they kicked the ball only 20 times in a match, and in their last six matches – all of them victories – they kicked the ball less than 30 times only once, and even then they racked up 26 games at their lowest count.

I’m not sure I can recall anyone calling this current French side boring or for it to keep the ball in hand more, but there is a whole generation of New Zealanders who seem to expect something different from their national team when defences and rulings of the breakdown (especially up north) have made such tactics simply unsustainable.

This raises two questions for me.

The first is: what is ‘aimless kicking’?

Does New Zealand now have some national psyche that is still rooted in the running rugby style of 2016-21 that is actually doing the sport a disservice and building an expectation of running rugby from the current side that just won’t be delivered?

I posed the question in the comments section of an article this week and received the following response: “An aimless kick is one that goes directly to an opponent”.

I would suggest that in the modern game that is incorrect.

A poor kick can be judged by its secondary outcome – if your own team is put back under pressure, if you have conceded possession for a serious passage of time, if you end up conceding territory or if you concede points. All these outcomes would fit the description.

But how do you judge a similar-looking kick that hits the opposition fullback or winger on the chest but is of sufficient depth that they are forced to kick the ball out in their own half? They choose to run the ball back and get turned over or penalised or, as is often likely, they kick the ball back to you on your terms, allowing a ball-in-hand attack. Surely each one of these is win for the side that begins with what looks like an ‘aimless’ kick.

A perfect example of ‘aimless’ happened in the money minutes of last week’s France-Australia game.

From a defensive ruck Australia clear the ball with a kick up the middle of the park but make two mistakes. Reece Hodge is really deep in the pocket, which means it takes longer to put his team back onside, and the kick is way too short, which brings French fullback Matthieu Jalibert forward onto the ball, giving him immediate momentum. Jalibert isn’t stopped until 30 metres out from the Wallabies line, and three phases later France steal the game.

Kicks require depth, even if you are going to hit players on the chest. They require chase, which requires organisation, which this one did not have. Any kick that looks or would be described as aimless in any historical context of our sport has an immediate purpose.

The French kicking game often targets length as its primary objective and looks innocuous as a challenge.

I dare you to have the patience to stay in a kicking duel for as long as we can, I dare you to run it back at the best jackling team in the world (how many times did the Wallabies get picked off on the ground last weekend?), I dare you to kick the ball out against the lineout we will bring, and I dare you to kick it back with the accuracy and chase required to make an aimless kick, one with purpose. If you miss, we will hurt you with ball in hand.

A quick note here. Argentina’s victories over England, New Zealand and Australia this year often featured exits up the middle of the park or into touch, gifting the ball to the opponent, but their tacking line is so well organised that those who think they can run it back with impunity get seriously sucker punched.

(Photo by Joe Allison/Getty Images)

Argentina totalled 84 kicks in these games, while New Zealand, England and Australia combined for 51.

This is genuine Muhammad Ali rope-a-dope stuff.

New Zealand changed up their exits (against the Rugby Championship) against Wales, kicking off nine, as they sometimes did in Tokyo. But similar kicks can have very different outcomes based on very small differences.

Finlay Christie, whose grasp on a black jersey seems to slip away by the week, had a horrible set of outcomes against Japan. He had six kicks, and possession was conceded from each one. Two were run back with a real threat by Japan, and of course one was gobbled up at the charge-down, and Japan were in beside the sticks. The charge down was a horror, a full three steps to the right with no post protection before kicking, so the outcome was hardly a surprise.

Compare that to Aaron Smith last weekend. Smith kicked five times in the opening stanza for very different outcomes: two penalties won, (one led to the opening score), one Japanese knock-on, one direct into touch and one that led to Wales having an extended period in attack.

At the time I thought it was an interesting decision by the coaches, but that’s not a bad set of outcomes.

That prompted a look into the Richie Mo’unga kicking game against Japan. At the time it looked innocuous, but the outcomes are well worth evaluating, especially as we know that the 21-3 first-half lead included 17 kicks from hand.

• First minute: line clearance; all good.
• Second minute: partially charged and recovered by Shannon Frizell. There was no damage, but it was more by good luck than good management.
• Fourth minute: midfield bomb. Japan knocks on. New Zealand ball.
• Fourth minute: a clearance kick direct to Japan backfield. Japan has a poor kick return, and the All Blacks attack with ball in hand.
• Eighth minute: a long clearance 15 metres out from the NZ goal line. Japan kick back without pressure, and NZ attack with ball in hand.
• 19th minute: a contested midfield bomb. Roger Tuivasa-Sheck knocks on.
• 20th minute: a clearance kick from 25 metres out from the All Blacks goal line bounces into touch 35 out from the Japan line, a great result.
• 20th minute: a midfield bomb is run back by Japanese winger Siosaia Fifita, who is dropped by Sam Cane, and Tupou Vaa’i wins the penalty on the jackal. NZ attacking lineout.
• 22nd minute: an attacking chip kick for Braydon Ennor, who collects but can’t get the ball down over the try line.
• 28th minute: a long midfield clearance kick is caught inside the Japanese 22 followed by a really nice return kick into touch in New Zealand territory.

That makes ten kicks with seven good outcomes.

So what we were told was a tranche of aimless kicks ended up delivering some seriously positive results, though I admit it really didn’t feel like it at the time.

As I wrote in the match review, with Tuivasa-Sheck playing at No. 12 being not being a kick option or a wide passing threat, Japan had no need to keep a full defensive line and often had three or even four players in the backfield, cutting off a whole lot of kicking options.

The only Mo’unga kick that would fit the New Zealand commentator’s ‘aimless’ description came in the second half when he chipped a kick down the right flank. It was very much a solo play, and Japan went open and caused the All Blacks issues down the defensive left-hand side.

Geoff Parkes made a great observation after the Wales match. The likes of Christian Cullen, with such an exceptional ability to run the ball back, have built something of a burden for those who follow them, especially as those telling us what is happening on our screens either played or commentated in those unstructured days and have not adjusted their outlook for a modern game in which defence coaches have changed the way is sport is played.