1 second ruck - squidge
-
He’s no doubt a full time rugby geek, but this is an online rugby forum so we’re all a bit guilty of that too .
Is it good take that the pop pass / offload high continuity game used to be the way the game was played down here (NZ) but isn’t so much now and the preference is for a quick ruck?
Is it deemed too risky / inaccurate?
-
I'd say the risk return isn't there to make it a plinth of your attacking strategy. There's a big difference in a n attacking player who has been brought to ground andd is unencumbered by the defence so can pop it to a supporting player. We do see this in rugby, especially SR.
It's much more difficult to do so in structured play. Here you have to attempt to isolate the defender and dominate the tackle so you are in a position to pop the ball. Get it wrong and your support has now overrun you and you're isolated on the ground which is easy pickings.
-
-
@Nepia said in 1 second ruck - squidge:
@Smuts said in 1 second ruck - squidge:
But this video is why they ignore him: it’s no devastating insight to say run off shoulders, pop off the deck and look to maintain continuity.
So the Blues 2003.
Can't be. Squidge says it's new.
-
You lot can smirk all you like, but he has a very valid point.
It's not a bout popping the ball off the ground -- it's about doing that when on attack regardless of what the situation is -- accepting that you win some, you lose some, but it tends to lead to a turnover if it goes wrong, but a try if it goes right. In the past you did it if you could see someone steaming up, but it wasn't pre-programmed.
It has been clear for a while that making a line break does not generate tries like it used to. The Chiefs have learned that the hard way at the pointy end in the last three seasons. You pretty much have to score or get a penalty immediately from a break or you might as well not bother having made it. Once the ball is in a ruck for 3 seconds it is basically static.
-
@Chester-Draws said in 1 second ruck - squidge:
You lot can smirk all you like, but he has a very valid point.
His point being an Englishman turned the dour Fijians into an offloading 7s team? Or that Galthié coached Penaud into running across field and isolating himself and as a result popping it to a team mate who wouldn't have been able to secure the ball?
Pointing out players sometimes pop the ball to avoid being isolated isn't insight. Nor is the revelation that quick rucks eventually fracture defences.
-
I think the point that even a really quick ruck reduces the likelihood of scoring dramatically is a really interesting one.
Perhaps it’s like the ‘stale domination’ in football that plagued Arsene Wenger.
.
-
@yeahbutnah said in 1 second ruck - squidge:
I think the point that even a really quick ruck reduces the likelihood of scoring dramatically is a really interesting one.
But even that principle has been relatively well-known for quite a while, no? Wayne Smith has basically built his career on this insight, using the concept of 'click attack'. This is from a 2018 Sydney Morning Herald article by Brendan Venter on this concept:
The concept of click attack is where they wait for opportunities to counter from broken play and pounce to devastating effect. A poor kick-chase, an up-and-under, which they field, and a turnover are all clicks for them on offence.
[...]
Everybody tries to perfect click attack, but few teams actually manage to implement it successfully. Click attack is akin to a door closing, and the defence is theoretically at its most vulnerable for the next two phases. At a high level, the defence would realign and then it basically morphs into multi-phase rugby. The ability to try to break down the defence within the first couple of phases post the situation is critical, and the All Blacks are the best at that out of everybody in the game.The idea that the Ireland team used multi-phase as an effective way of scoring is, I think, wrong. They played a possession game where the goal wasn't necessarily to score through multi-phase but to build pressure and momentum. Their principles for winning were more built on their defence as well as their strike plays, which they used to score at crucial points.
And like any effective attack, those Schmidt strike plays were constructed around pace and not possession (think the Stockdale switch to the blind try in 2018 against the ABs or Jordan's try off the Mo'unga dummy in the 2023 RWC quarter-final).
Modern rugby is basically a contest between attack and defence to the available space. And while certain tools will change (ruck speed, offloading, jackalling), it's very hard for any principle to fundamentally change the nature of this contest.
Plus ça change, etc., etc.
-
Again caveated by me not really knowing what I’m talking about but the offloads in that second test felt more squidge aligned than the first.
-
@yeahbutnah said in 1 second ruck - squidge:
Again caveated by me not really knowing what I’m talking about but the offloads in that second test felt more squidge aligned than the first.
Bit of a late (and long..) reply but I was reminded of your remark when watching the NPC.
While there’s certainly a trend in World Rugby these past few years in terms of the attacking offload, in my own view the AB offload plan is more (1) a response to a trend that has been endemic within NZ Rugby itself, and (2) something that deeply originates from within Canterbury rugby, rather than representing an outside influence.
I think, first of all, what Robertson wants to move away from – and which they did reasonably well against the French – is the tendency within NZ Rugby (Super, NPC, AB 7s) to throw blind, speculative offloads.
Watching the Wellington-Canterbury game, there were two very good examples of what, I think, the AB coaches don’t want to see in terms of offloading, where the team does the hard work to create the line break, only for players to throw an offload which isn’t on, effectively wasting the possession and the line break.
Two line breaks made inside the opposition half but zero points scored
First, Love, after making the break from a nicely set up scrum attack, throws the blind offload to his right with the try line in his sight, which is duly intercepted by Punivai. Then, in the second half, Proctor bursts through the line off a rather chaotic but well-timed move, only for him to throw an offload from a compromised position (out of balance, falling to the ground), leading to another turnover. The timing of these turnovers is indicative as well – at the 35th and 45th minutes, respectively – which are typically momentum-shifting points in the game.
While the mindset from Love and Proctor seems like the right one for a fluid attack – KBA, keeping the ball alive, the buzzword from a few years ago – the application, in these instances, is the wrong one. With the Canterbury players consistently trying to get into the passing lanes, the Wellington backs need to have eyes on their support and their hands free to make sure they can efficiently transfer the ball and keep the attack going. If there’s no support visible or the opposition player has you wrapped up, it’s better to take contact and attack the fractured defensive line in a new phase.
It is this kind of wrong application that, I think, the AB coaches are trying to eradicate from their attack, as the ABs simply produced too many turnovers after line breaks in the 2024 season, which cost them a lot of points and more than a few results as well. But looking at some of the decision-making around the offload in the NPC – from All Blacks and experienced campaigners – that won’t be easy as those are some ingrained habits.
Secondly, I believe this kind of emphasis on ‘communicative offloading’ (that’s not a real term but it makes sense to me) isn’t so much something that comes from outside but is rather a foundational premise from Robertson’s coaching background. A central principle of Canterbury and Crusaders rugby – again, mostly stemming from the mind of Wayne Smith – is to finish line breaks with a try. There was only one category that the Crusader attack was ranked first in this season in Super Rugby (Opta Stats), and that was the % of line breaks leading to a try (44.1%). Globally, this ranked only behind the Bulls from South Africa and the two current French powerhouses, Toulouse and Bordeaux Bègles.
But that’s not the Crusaders trying to replicate French or South African trends (as I think someone like Squidge is implying); that is Crusaders’ DNA being recreated around the world (it’s not a coincidence that Ronan O’Gara started talking about KBA after coaching in Christchurch for a few years).
But for this to work at AB-level, the speculative offload needs to be replaced by a smarter offloading game (low-risk, high-reward offloads) to visible support, which I think is what we’ve been seeing more of during the French Test series. But the real test will come against the Boks, who are masters at breaking up support play after line breaks (both legally and illegally).
