Sun Tzu Strategising for the 6N

Sun Tzu discussed another critical category derived from classical Chinese military theory: “weakness” and “strength”. Here, he expounded the essence of his thinking on waging war.

“Weakness” in military terms implies fragility, or areas of unpreparedness, and weak points. “Strength” in military terms means might or preparedness, as well as strong points.

Let's face it, rugby is as close to warfare as you can get without someone being killed. The modern professional era has tightened up defences and bulked up players across the field. So for this coming 6N and the opening games of Wales vs Ireland, England vs Scotland and France vs Italy, where do you envisage your side´s strengths lie and what weaknesses you can attack in the other team?

Sun Tzu advocated that in warfare one must “avoid what is strong and strike at what is weak” to the greatest extent possible, thus avoiding the enemy’s strong points and well- prepared areas, and attacking his weak points and unprepared areas.

The basis of this idea is to avoid meeting force with force, to compare strength and dissipate your resources. Instead, he emphasized discovering and accurately selecting your enemy’s weakest points in order to most accurately strike at them for the greatest effect and victory with the smallest cost. As has already been discussed, in military strategising Sun Tzu believed in “conquering an enemy easily conquered”. The primary method of achieving this is to “avoid what is strong and strike at what is weak”.

Sun Tzu said: “That you are certain to take what you attack is because you attack a place the enemy does not or cannot protect.” He also said: “Your offensive will be irresistible if you plunge into the enemy’s weak points,” as well as: “Troops thrown against the enemy as a grindstone against eggs is an example of the strong beating the weak.”

“In any war, you will be rebuffed if you strike at strong points; striking at weak points will meet with great success. If you attack the strong points, even a weak enemy will become formidable. If you attack the weak points, even a strong enemy will become defeatable.” That is to say, if you attack its strengths or prepared points, a weak enemy will seem to be strong; if you attack its weaknesses or unprepared points, a strong enemy will become weak.

Case in point, the last time Ireland faced Wales in the World Cup. Ireland were greatly encouraged by their efforts against Australia but against Wales, they chose the wrong tactics. They kept trying to batter their way across the line and the Welsh backrow had ample opportunity to scavenge for the ball.

So where do you think your best chances lie in exploiting your strengths against your opponent´s weakness. For example, if I were Gatland, I'd be aiming my point of attack against the centre pairing of Ireland who are not going to be used to playing with one another at test level. For Ireland, I´d be keeping those pesky Warburtons and Faletaus at the bottom of the ruck and looking to move the point of attack away from the rucks as quick as possible and go for territory and pin Wales down in their own half.

Clauswitz argued that

The political object is the goal, rugby is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes.

If Alex Salmond is a reader of Clauswitz, then expect the Calcutta Cup to be laboured with all sorts of fatuous, overly emotional, and needlessly divisive significance.

(I may have misread that Clauswitz quote...)

The Calcutta is normally a war of attrition. England have a horror injury rate with 10, 11, 12, 13 most likely to be either new caps or players with very few caps.

If I were AR, I'd be looking to test those new defensive partnerships. Regrettably, Scotland has its own problems with the right balance at 10, 12 and 13 so this is in fact a stalemate, which in a way is quite apt as most battles at Murrayfield end this way.

Kia, bit 80's, no? Still try to apply The Art of War principles in my day to day business life, so agree with your thoughts. Not going to respond to your initial query atm though.
"All warfare is based on deception." Sun Tzu (trans & prob misquoted by me)

Ireland's best chance of beating Wales is in their heads, on this forum.

I think Sun Tzu wrote before the 80s Sinner. May be as early as the 50s.

Gatts wrote:Ireland's best chance of beating Wales is in their heads, on this forum.

Perhaps you had better have a wee look in the mirror?

Sun Tzu enjoyed a brief renaissance early this century when The Art of War featured in exchanges between Tony Soprano and his psychiatrist (Dr Melfi?) in a couple of early episodes of The Sopranos.
I admit I read through this book in Waterstones ( as a teenager) with a view to a purchase ( it's a short and humourless) only to find it had zero practical value.
Does anyone have an actual example of where Sun Tzu has enriched their lives? And I mean beyond quoting Sun Tzu in the vain attempt that it might make you look deep or clever?

Ouch! Tell us what you really think!

The Art of War isn't a self-help book aimed at enriching your life like Who Moved my Cheese. Whether you need those books to enrich your life depends on your life and your life experiences. It is a book on warfare and has practical value in business. Look at what Wii did to Xbox and Playstation. It striked them where they were weak. Many businesses are starting to use the pirates in Somalia as a business model. They take the least possible risk for the most amount of gain. They don't take on the warships where they have no hope of victory but the fishing vessels that have no protection and whose fishermen can be used to obtain money. So successful has this been that there is in fact localised ´sharemarkets´ betting on the pirates' exploits. Those pirate principles are based on Sun Tzu's principles.

Rugby is a complex game but with all the coaching support staff, I think sometimes it´s overcomplicated unnecessarily. We all speak of the clichés the game was won up front and we won the breakdown battle but all too often we look beyond those clichés and don't find their true meaning.

Too often, teams get drawn into a battle that doesn't suit them. Why does England always play well against Scotland at Twickenham but get drawn into a close-pitched battle at Murrayfield? Home advantage doesn't make that much of a difference? All too often England get drawn into a forward battle of attrition. Instead of starting rolling mauls and sucking in Scottish defenders and then peeling away to start wider out the same thing, they resort to one up runners from the ruck who are picked off too easily. The backs are where England have their best chance of success against Scotland, yet the way they approach the game.

The good sides work out where their strengths are and make sure they attack at the side's weak points. NZ play a different game against SA and Australia. You want to drive up the middle against Australia and not get too loose but against SA you want to move those big forwards around and look to attack space wherever it might be. If your side loses in this 6N opening round, have a look at the game plan of your team. If it doesn't hold up, it can always be enriched by a good read.