Brevity is wit: What Eddie's words and actions tell us about his World Cup game plan

Rugby is back in the headlines, but very little of the coverage has said anything about actual rugby. Strap yourself in as we speculate on how Eddie Jones will have the Wallabies playing at the World Cup.

In various snippets, Eddie has already spoken with surprising candor about how he thinks the Wallabies should be playing, seemingly with a strong emphasis on ‘power’ over ‘possession’. During a recent bout of covid I decided to compare Eddie’s statements to England’s Autumn internationals (his last 4 games in charge of England) in order to see if there was anything Eddie did with the English attack that he might also do with the Wallabies.

I went back and watched England against the All Blacks, Springboks, Argentina and Japan (recording some stats in the All Blacks game) in order to come up with some hopefully interesting insights, here goes.

Let’s start with what Eddie has actually said about the Wallabies.

“So, we’ve got to be junkies for winning, not junkies for possession. Possession rugby is dead,” he said.

“The game is about being fast now, you’ve got 75% of tries being scored in 3 phases. 75%, so why would you hold the ball for 10 phases? That’s just stupid to even think like that anymore.

“60% of our players are Pasifika, we’ve got to play power rugby.”

Feel free to interpret Eddie’s comments in your own way but for mine this leaves little to the imagination. Eddie wants fast brief periods of possession designed for maxim impact. Line breaks will come from explosive plays or counter attack as opposed to relentlessly grinding your opponents into submission. Kicking will be frequent and instrumental, set piece consequently will be critical. William Shakespeare famously wrote ‘brevity is wit’, and it appears Eddie will be looking to weaponise this wisdom come the world cup.

Eddie’s comments are all well and good but what about England? What did they do in their final Tests under Eddie? Well, pretty much exactly what he said.

The thing which struck me most was that England played with a low phase count, (that is they had limited periods of possession lasting 5 phases or more). In the NZ game, England had 30 instances of phase play, for 21 of those instances England held the ball for 5 phases or less, and for 11 of those 21 instances they held it for between 3 and 5 phases. When England gained possession they attacked with vigour, but if they didn’t quickly and seriously rattle the defence they kicked the leather off it.

The huge exception to this rule was when England were within the attacking 22. As soon as this happened England held possession, they bashed, crashed, prodded and probed, searching for a try or penalty. Of the 9 instances where England held the ball for 5 phases or more 8 of them were when England was within the attacking 22, the 9th was a stunning 7 phase, 80 meter play in which resulted in a Freddie Steward try.

Against the All Blacks, Eddie’s English were skillful and strong but they also played with cunning, something which has been lacking in the Wallabies’ recent Bledisloe strategy.

Another interesting observation from the English attack was that they played off 10 rather than 9, heavily utilising two playmakers. That is to say their attack and in particular their ball carriers were all positioned off the 10(s) not the 9.

Playing off 10 can be beautiful, it allows you to spread your players and the ball across a far greater area of the field, affording you many strategic options, whilst also creating a system that can exploit those options with speed and precision. The risk in this is that because your system is spread across the field your vulnerable to penalties and turnovers. In the autumn nations the English played creatively off their two 10s (Smith and Farrell) their attack was inventive and expansive but importantly also brief.

As soon as it was clear their expansive play didn’t yield results they instantly kicked, often when they were still on the front foot, ensuring that rather than being crushed under its own weight, their attacking system passed the pressure onto its opponents.

If Eddie is to broadly replicate England’s attacking principles with the Wallabies, what are the implications for the men in gold? Well potentially plenty but one of the biggest ones certainly will be a renewed emphasis on kicking.

If Eddie’s Wallabies are bound by the principle of brevity then they are likely to kick from almost all areas of the field and across a wider range of contexts. I don’t know if the Wallabies will necessarily kick more, but kicking will almost certainly shoulder a greater burden within the Wallabies attacking strategy.

For various reasons Australians have historically viewed kicking as primarily defensive, with some attacking utility. You can bet your bottom dollar the Wallabies will throw this thinking out the window – kicking will be foundational to the Wallabies’ attack, incrementally and relentlessly thieving metres from, and applying pressure to our opponents.

This throws up a couple of interesting consequences for selection. The combination of concise, expansive periods of attack and a heavy emphasis on kicking will likely see Eddie require multiple playmakers. He selected two 10s regularly at England, and before the RFU lost their minds, the English attack was coming together nicely.

While I doubt Eddie would pick two fly halves for Australia I do think he is likely to select a ball playing 15 to function in attack as a second distributor and as an attacking kicking option (particularly in the wider channels). I think its likely we will see Tom Wright, Reece Hodge or with injuries maybe even Ben Donaldson selected at 15 over Jock Campbell, Jordie Petaia, or Andrew Kellaway.

Andrew Kellaway (Photo by Graham Denholm/Getty Images)

By far the biggest consequence for selection however will be in the forwards. Under Dave Rennie the Australian forwards were selected with well intended but overvalued standards such as work rate or training ethic. Those days are well and truly gone. Under Eddie, power will be the name of the game, and rightly so.

Brief periods of attack will only be effective if the Wallabies bend (or shatter) the defensive line, there is no time to waste a hit up with a slow, immobile forward, no need to have a flanker who clears out 4 times in a sequence.

What the Wallabies’ attacking strategy requires is ball runners, players who throw their opponents into the earth, who bury themselves into shoulders and consistently make the gain line. The Wallabies’ attack will demand power and skill, work rate will be a periphery consideration.

This is true in the loose, and true come set piece. Plenty of kicking equals plenty of set piece, compromising on set piece prowess in favour of hard-working well-rounded players will be a thing of the past.

Eddie will likely look to a huge forward pack, particularly in the back 5. I think he will probably pick 2 overseas locks (Skelton and Arnold) and the recently eligible Lukhan Salakaia-Loto. You might see that Langi Gleeson, is preferred to Harry Wilson, Salakaia-Loto or Rob Leota selected over Jed Holloway and Ned Hanigan or even Pete Samu used at 7 instead of Fraser McReight, or possibly even Michael Hooper. Whatever the final selections it think it’s safe to say the balance of the forwards will shift under Eddie.

After the devastation of 2019, Eddie spent countless hours honing a strategy which would conquer the rugby world. He settled on his English attacking strategy because he believed it was the best strategy available in world rugby.

For better or worse I don’t think there is much doubt that he will be employing its principles with the Wallabies. Rugby desperately needs the Wallabies to go deep in this World Cup, close enough is nowhere near good enough.

In terms of attack it seems the fate of the Wallabies looks like it will all come down to how well an old PE teacher grapples with a Shakespearean phrase, let’s all take a breath, cross our fingers and hope to god, that brevity really is wit.