Ask Rocko about Rugby tactics thread

Sport
1

I met the bhoy at lunch and we discussed a try scored by New Zealand against Ireland at Lansdowne Road last season.

Basically what happened was the Kiwi 8 picked the ball, Weepu, the scrum half, went charging out into open space and the ball was switched back to Sivivatu standing behind the scrum who went untouched under the posts.

I can’t remember the Irish back row but Leamy probably went to the 8 when he picked. SEasterby went charging after Weepu into open space leaving the fringes unguarded for Sivivatu to stroll home. Most of the media, and myself, blamed Easterby for leaving his post but the bhoy maintained that it was just the accuracy of the move that was Ireland’s undoing and Easterby had no option but to follow Weepu.

I told him I’d put a diagram of the move up here so he could discuss the try again. Click on the image below to make it larger.

[URL=http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scrumdyz5.png]http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7904/scrumdyz5.th.png

2

having played much of my rugby career in the back row i will firstly state that lines of running in defence change from team to team. my own personal preference when packing down on the blind side at flanker was to take the wide man, in many cases the scrum half. the plus of this was that you had the faster and closer player (the flanker) racing off to catch the scrum half leaving the oppositions 8 with the option to pop to the scrumhalf or go himself, usually on seeing the flanker tear off the 8 would go himself and be enveloped by our 8. the 8/9 pick is a tough move to defend against. heading off home now but i’ll continue this from my home computer.

3

But surely you have to have faith in the defending scrum half going man for man in the 22 or at least funnelling the attacking scrum half out wide where the backs can deal with him?

In the NZ move (and it was well executed) they didn’t even need Sivivatu. Leamy has to take the 8 who picks. Easterby has gone tearing off after Weepu. The openside kiwi flanker could simply have taken a pop ball and he’d go off unopposed. Once the scrum breaks this side the blind side flanker shouldn’t leave the area until the ball does. In my opinion.

4

If Stringer had followed Weepu around the scrum to put pressure on the pass, as per the diagram, he couldn’t be expected to follow him around (i.e. behind the NZ scrum) and catch him from behind. One option was to not follow Weepu but once he had done that, someone else had to follow Weepu.

Really though, who was Sivivatu’s opposing man? Surely he should have been tracking the move?

Can’t remember the try in question but did the move go down the openside or blindside?

5

The diagram is a mess, please draw it again

6

Stringer could have gone round the Irish side of the scrum to go for Weepu. What he does is fine when we’re in their 22 and trying to put pressure on the kicker but in our own 22 Stringer needs to look after the scrum half.

The try came on the blind side though the scrum was central so it was a big blind side. Sivivatu’s marker had no chance because he went through a gap in the back row that our backs couldn’t have expected to be there.

As I said before forget the fact that it went to Sivivatu. It could have gone to the Kiwi 7 and we were still fucked because Easterby had gone out wide.

7

it does actually matter that it went to siv, because by popping to the openside he wouldn’t have had the pace to break through our lines of defence.

if the move was a simple 8, 9 15, 14 then easterby’s man is the nine.( If stringer doesn’t follow the ball around, as is traditional for 9s to do, well then the opposing 8 is left with the option of wheeling the scrum either way and picking and making some serious inroads, so i’m happy with where stringer is positioned. he nullifies the kiwi opportunity for picking and going left). As soon as he sees 8 picking his line of running is out wide, thereby giving himself every opportunity to catch the quicker scrumhalf and also enticing the 8 to go through the gap and go himself. What makes the try is the line that siv ran. he was coming from other side of the scrum from easterby, so he wouldn’t have seen him coming, being focused that he was on catching the 9. the pass and the timing of the run were crucial to the try. in theory , their defensive strategy is probably that easterby takes the second man from the scrum, (the no 8 being the first) and thus technically siv was his man, but at the pace at which the move was done at , and the fact that as a flanker if the 9 is quick no matter what line you run you’re always struggling to catch him, he was entitled to fly off and cover the 9. the fact that siv’s run was so perfectly timed, and the pass so perfectly weighted and the move so perfectly executed all done at pace means , for me, that easterby hadn’t a chance and shouldn’t be guilty.

8

I find it too easy to blame nobody and accept that they can score untouched from a move in our 22 with nobody being to blame.

I agree with you that Easterby was focussing on the 9 and needed to hare off after him if had a chance of catching him. But that’s an error of judgement on his part as an individual or on the part of the defensive system employed. Whatever about allowing NZ to outflank us by putting the ball through the whole back line and trying to scramble across it’s unforgivable that a simple switch from the base of the scrum would allow them in unopposed. It’s the very fact that we didn’t lay a hand on him when he passed no more than 2 yards from the scrum that leads me to think we messed up defensively. When Leamy was taken out by their 8 Easterby had to be guarding the next man, not chasing after the scrum half because he had 9 on his back.

9

but he didn’t see siv coming, because his run was quite late and perfectly timed. as far as easterby could see, the next man wider than their 8 was 9. it was just an excellently well executed move. think back to simon geoghegan’s try v england in twick circa 1994, a fantastic try, originating in their 22 and he went over untouched.

10

That was indeed perfectly executed but at least England forced Ireland to put it through the hands and work it to the winger to beat his man one v one in the 22. In this instance NZ just opened up a hole in our defence about a yard from our scrum.

I don’t buy your line about the openside not being quick enough either. Our defensive system shouldn’t be based around only one man prepared to tackle on the blind side around the scrum because it’s too easy for a second guy on a wraparound to take the second ball and he’s clean through. It was a systematic or individual failure. The least we should be doing is forcing them to beat us out wide.

11

that’s the point you are missing, my god this is frustrating. if easterby were not to get his man (to confirm, in the conventional sense his man was the 9 going wide) there’d be a simple 3 on 2 on our hands and an easy try.

12

But at least we force them to convert a 3v2 instead of a 1v0. They didn’t even need to pass the ball.

Also by forcing them wide we at least give ourselves an opportunity to scramble the defence wide. If we allow the gaps to appear on the inside then they’re just gone clean through.

13

Thoughts on the Leicester v Munster Match yesterday

  • Excellent win first and foremost for Munster. Obviously it’s not an easy place to win, and given their stuttering form and tendency for slow starts in this competition, Munster will be delighted to win.

  • Didn’t think much of the refereeing performance. Leicester feel aggrieved at the last penalty I presume but it wasn’t the only error. At the start of the second half when Munster were on the Leicester line they were blatantly offside at a couple of rucks, slowed the ball down with hands, and had Moody (I think) lying miles on the wrong side for the eventual turnover. It was shocking that the referee didn’t give anything, though I was surprised Munster didn’t use the boot to highlight the point to the referee.

  • The penalty try seemed an odd decision as well. He hadn’t singled out any player for wrongdoing and didn’t seem to point to any particular offence, other than “deliberate wheeling of the scrum” which is exactly what Leicester were doing on every single put in. Munster’s scrum was in serious trouble at times yesterday but for the penalty try they more than held their own. The scrum hadn’t gone to ground on the last three put-ins (which was good going in the conditions). I know my father was screaming at the tv for O’Connell to talk to the ref, but he wasn’t much of a listener, and he did punish them for about 40 yards in total.

  • The last penalty was very harsh on Leicester, but most decisions had gone their way I felt. Everyone said the 10 yards must have been for backchat but I think it’s because Jennings flicked the ball away with his right hand after the decision was given. He had a pretty costly cameo yesterday.

14

I watched the game in my local and I was truly appalled by what was going on around me. The problem - MUNSTER FUCKING FANS. It got so bad that part of me was actually willing O’Gara’s penalty wide at the end.

15

Agree on Jennings, thought that was what the 10 yards was given for too. Unnecessary as well, the rest of the Leicester team were ready for the quick tap anyway.

On the penalty try, deliberate wheeling would be more of a collective Munster effort anyway, so wouldn’t be relevant for the ref to pick one man out. You could see at the scrum that followed the penalty try how much trouble the Munster pack were in, when they were shunted back eight yards. The penalty try may have been borderline as regards the letter of the law but I thought it was deserved.

Excellent win for Munster though. Thought a 4-1 defeat would be enough for them to take back to Thomond but the win really leaves them in a strong position. Bourgoin at home in the next game is a great draw too, being the same team that Leinster put 92 points on 2 years ago and 50 points on last year; they really don’t seem to care about Europe, and Cardiff should apparently have beaten them by a lot more than 8 points last week. So 5 points to Munster from that one and they’re well into the driving seat with the two games against Cardiff to come.

Great result (if not performance) for Leinster too - compare it to this time last year - but Ulster will be disappointed in retrospect not to have picked up the 4th try with the whole second half to do it in.

As regards Farmer’s point, I think it applies to many Leinster fans too. Less so Ulster & Connacht fans, there being less of a bandwagon of casual support, but for Munster & Leinster fans there are many who don’t know the (admittedly complicated) rules, but don’t let that prevent them from complaining about every decision the referee makes.

16

True on most counts there law.

I see your point on the wheeling scrum, and on the pressure Munster were under on the scrums, but I thought the referee was penalising them for very little in the 3 or 4 scrums before the penalty try. I find it hard to believe that Munster were able to wheel the scrum deliberately: they didn’t have the power to do that. Instead they dug in and it turned, as scrums inevitably do.

Still they’ll be delighted to have come away with the win obviously.

I was at the Leinster game and by Christ there were some annoying fans at that and in the surrounding pubs afterwards. I was close to losing the head with an arrogant prick in Slattery’s afterwards who was making the barman’s life hell, because he couldn’t hear him properly.

17

Hardly worth posting on the Irish rugby squad for the autumn. Guess the most we can hope for is that Staunton gets a run at 10 in the Pacific Islanders game, so we can see whether or not we should be making King David an offer he can’t refuse as cover for the World Cup.

Would like to see Hickie getting on ahead of Trimble (a good player, but not a real winger) for at least one of the big games, but as Thornley in a rare moment of sense has pointed out, Trimble and Leamy are the only players that O’Sullivan has promoted and he’s not likely to go back on this without good reason. Apart from that the first XV picks itself.

And as a Leinster man would hope to see Heaslip featuring in the Pacific Islands game at least too; he destroyed Forrester, a big English hope, in Saturday’s game.

18

Yeah Heaslip was excellent on Saturday - as was Keogh I thought.

I was about to post the squad earlier but it was so boring I didn’t think it merited wasting my time on a copy and paste.

19

Bet the Beeb will love reporting this one, before South Africa play both countries next month; from planetrugby:

"“I think Ireland will be tougher than England. If not tougher, then certainly as difficult as England,” [South African forwards coach] Smal said.

“They’re a very well organised unit, have settled combinations in all departments and they have experience. It’s going to be a huge challenge.”

[South African backs coach] Coetzee echoed similar sentiments.

“Ireland are one helluva team,” Coetzee said. “They’ve got some fantastic backs who’ve been playing together for some time now and their second row in particular is very impressive.”"

20

Anyone else have an opinion on this, from the Beeb. I say let them in. Robinson’s point about the 6 Nations being unique is rubbish, we let Italy in on the back of less impressive results 6 years ago. England are just afraid the Pumas will beat them (& I’d love to see them do it this weekend for a start)

Cusworth backs Pumas’ ambitions; Pichot believes his country has been unfairly treated

Former England fly-half Les Cusworth has backed Argentina’s bid to be included in a major competition.
Cusworth, the Pumas director of rugby, says a professional league and a place in a high-profile tournament is vital for the game to develop in the country.

“It would be ideal to be involved in the Six Nations and to be based somewhere in Spain,” he said.
“Most of our boys play in Europe so basing the side in Spain would mean they could meet club commitments.”

Argentina have been involved in a lengthy campaign to try to play more international fixtures. And their bid has been helped by some impressive results of late, including a draw against the Lions last year, a 2-0 series win over Wales in June as well as victories over both Scotland and Italy last November. They have also beaten France in their last four contests. But repeated calls for place in either the Tri-Nations or the Six Nations have so far been rejected.

“We’re so desperate to join a major competition that it doesn’t really matter whether it’s the Tri-Nations or the Six Nations,” said Pumas and Stade Francais scrum-half Agustin Pichot. “We just want to play. I’m 32 now, so I probably won’t get to play in such a tournament but it is very important for the future of Pumas rugby that we get involved soon. We’ve lost this battle in the boardroom, not on the field. Why is it so unfair? The results are good, so why aren’t we given a chance? I simply don’t understand this. It’s so frustrating.”

Argentina face England at Twickenham on Saturday and Pichot believes his side are hindered by the lack of professionalism in Argentine rugby.

“We just don’t have the money to be truly professional,” he said. “If you look at all the other international sides all the structures are in place and when they tour everything runs smoothly. Look at us, we only trained on Tuesday for the first time and now have only a few days to prepare for a Test. We are still waiting for two of our players to arrive.”

However, England coach Andy Robinson is not keen for the Six Nations to be expanded just yet. “Argentina will only improve by having more games against New Zealand, England and South Africa and being challenged in a competition,” he said. “I think the Six Nations is a unique competition and it should remain that way. It’s not right they come into the Six Nations currently but it is right, in terms of planning over the next 20 years, that they are encouraged to enter a tournament.”