Winning Rugby

The recent controversy over Graham Henry`s Book and allegations of match fixing in 2007 France Match set me thinking.There has been comments before about the best gameplan etc and the need to be able to modify it.BUT there has in certain sides strangely the top 2 sides that there is only one way to play the game.The Boks during there most successful periods used the Forward orientated game indeed it was seen as Winning Rugby.RWCs and most knockout games use that formula with a few exceptions,when the Boks started playing a looser game they fell prey to sides taking them on at there own game[yes I know ancient history].But is it since 2002 with the Carlos Spencer driven Mitchell era until fairly recently.The Nz game plan was defence,and the Counter attacking game at test Level the Humble dropped goal went out with Andrew Merthens.Dan Carter hardly ever tried them pre 2008 Aron Mauger alone dropped 2 in the period the game plan and Mind set did`nt allow for it.In the 2007 French match if England had been playing with the possession the AB`s had they would have set up drop goal oppertunities.For Luke McAlister or someone in kicking range of Goal the in flexible belief that constant attacking would lead to a try or penalty was naive at best.That things have changed is that Dan Carter won the Ireland game with a drop and that McCaw as Skipper has the nous now to set one up.Many fans seem to think it is beneath them not to win by scoring tries fact is there are more ways of skinning a cat etc.

Maybe dividing it into paragraphs may make it easier to decipher the meaning of this?

Emack2

Understnd what you are saying, and do agree with you a (DROP) goal from NZ no. it was usaly we score more trys that is how we win.

How a team wins is not the point of the game. Wining is the point of the game, winning.

majesticimperialman wrote:How a team wins is not the point of the game. Wining is the point of the game, winning.

This is it in a nutshell.
And to win, teams must be able and willing to score in any manner possible. To feel a team is above scoring a certain way (within the laws) is silly. Silly and bizarre. If a match is tight and scoring opportunitites are sparse, who in their right mind would pass over a drop goal or penalty kick? Just to possibly score in a prettier, more tv friendly manner? This, I suppose, is the difference between and losing.

A gameplan works if it is executed. Simples.

A gameplan can be stopped by a team that has the intensity and physicality to put the opponent on the back foot.

I think we have a misconception of which gameplan is the most successful. It all boils down to a willingness to play with ball in hand, even if one team does it 80% of the time and another team does it 40% of the time, at the end of the day the effectiveness of attack to outwit defence is the deciding factor.

You can play straight up direct rugby against teams that you are physically stronger, but need some more nous and guile when you play against teams with better defences.

Intent and execution is everything.

And to add one more bit here to Biltong's point about gameplan. All gameplans take into consideration your strengths/weaknesses and the other team's strengths/weaknesses. Teams have different strengths. Teams have to play to their strengths and try to mismatch on other team's weaknesses. And this can change somewhat from season to season. If you have a bunch of big guys, you won't be running outside all day. Doesn't mean you can't win.

Always comes back to Herm Edwards the old NY Jets (American Football) coach:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

emack2 wrote:Many fans seem to think it is beneath them not to win by scoring tries fact is there are more ways of skinning a cat etc.

I don't agree with that. I don't think there are many (if any) fans who see it like that.

There are so many different aspects to rugby. A well-constructed and implemented driving maul can be as beautiful as any backs move.

Setting up a drop-goal chance (for example) can be a tricky thing to do and often requires a lot of patience, nerves (and then good technique). Often sides get impatient or nervous and then mess it up.

It's when kicks are missed that it's seen as a bad idea!

Also, good forward play is not one-dimensional and if it wins a number of kickable penalties from your opponent you end up leavingn them chasing the game (which opens up more chances for the backs etc).

That isn`t the point there may come a chance in the match that decides the match.You are in the red zone the other sides defence is smothering your try scoring efforts.you arn`t getting the penalties .What do you do set up a drop,in the past that was a no brainer Mark Nichols,Don Clarke,Grant Fox,Merthens would and did try them with or without success.You can analyse teams to death a few years ago England v Scotland.England was expecting Scotland playing it tight instead they ran at them.The Match ended in a Drawer only because Scotland lost the key player to injury.The Boks in the first minute of the match v Wales scored a brilliant try running.Wales had prepared for trench warfare and played a game alien to there own they lost the match.It was a brave effort even a moral victory for Wales there best game in the RWC.A Game Plan is a rigid mindset and when you think it is THE only way to win you are in trouble.
That is where the Captain comes in he needs to be able to activate plan B if required.You can say a Team any team will play in a certain way IF they change it comes as a hell of a surprise.Over the last 10 years the AllBlacks have run nearly every thing.Versus Australia in the RWC Semi was there best display in 10 years it was good old fashioned Power rugby.My point is there should be flexibility in planning too and include the Bench.IF a Plan is patently not working you try something else.Biltong you of all people who has been preaching a change of course for the Boks should realise this.

I don't think it is as straightforward as having a plan A and then if it doesn't work and you go to plan B. It needs to be more fluid than that.

Not many sides are adaptable enough to make it work within a short space of time.

I am not disagreeing with you Alan, I have been advocating plan B for yonks now, my point is for a game plan to be effective it needs to be executed well. No matter which plan (A or B) you are using.

sugarNspikes wrote:

emack2 wrote:Many fans seem to think it is beneath them not to win by scoring tries fact is there are more ways of skinning a cat etc.

I don't agree with that. I don't think there are many (if any) fans who see it like that.

There are so many different aspects to rugby. A well-constructed and implemented driving maul can be as beautiful as any backs move.

Setting up a drop-goal chance (for example) can be a tricky thing to do and often requires a lot of patience, nerves (and then good technique). Often sides get impatient or nervous and then mess it up.

It's when kicks are missed that it's seen as a bad idea!

Also, good forward play is not one-dimensional and if it wins a number of kickable penalties from your opponent you end up leavingn them chasing the game (which opens up more chances for the backs etc).

I used to love watching David Humphreys play in the pre O'Gara era he would always get a DG. And wasn't Jonny's 2003 WC a thing of beauty. Pity Stephen Jones didnt think so against France in '11

Just on the point of gameplan. All teams use their forawrds and all teams use their backs.

The common way of looking at SA is that they use their forwards to hit the ball up into the defence, and even when they go to channel one, it is again forwards hitting it up. Effectively playing direct rugby.

When we use our backline (more than we are given credit for) it is usually also direct rugby, and not the running angles you might find with Australia as an example.

Often the running the angles are seen as a different gameplan, it isn't a different gameplan, it is only a different tactic.

Difference is the Ozzies in the last year has been playing similar rugby to us, go check. The difference is they have talented backs who are willing to change things up a bit, we don't.

The Sharks, Cheetahs and Lions have shown this year that there is a willingness but above all else a group of players coming through that changes the angle of their running, prepared to offload in the tackle instead of going to ground, unlike the Bulls and Stormers who run it up with the forward and then just run the ball wide with the hope of an overlap.

It is only players with vision and wllingness to "change things up" rather than go to ground with the tackle that brings the extra dimension, I don't see that as a different gameplan, I see that as tactical running.

Compare Jean de Villiers and JP Pietersen.

Everytime JP played centre this year, he would always look for the support runner, trying to get him into space and were prepared to find the gap or run around the defender by playing heads up rugby (assesssing the defence then acting) where as Jean de Villiers is looking to go to ground and not for the support runner, in other words just running directly at the defence hoping to break the line and prayng his support is there to clear the ruck.

Two different players, two different techniques. Not two different gameplans.

There is and never was A way to play the game,the best sides,the winning sides adapted .Off course it isn`t a case of plan A or plan B there needs to be flexibility too.A Smit, a Whineray latterly a McCaw would understand it and try to fix it.RWC 1995 Merthens tried a drop missed,Stransky tried one scored SA Cup.RWC 2003 Mortlock tried one missed Wilkinson tried one scored,if in 2007 RWC.IF England had lost injuries to Richard Hill,Wilkinson,first choice 9 plus second choice 10 injured,a player yellow carded when 10 points were scored.With the referee giving them nothing would they have beaten France?under those circumstances as the ABs did in 2007 unlikely.

emack2 wrote:There is and never was A way to play the game,the best sides,the winning sides adapted .Off course it isn`t a case of plan A or plan B there needs to be flexibility too.A Smit, a Whineray latterly a McCaw would understand it and try to fix it.RWC 1995 Merthens tried a drop missed,Stransky tried one scored SA Cup.RWC 2003 Mortlock tried one missed Wilkinson tried one scored,if in 2007 RWC. England had lost injuries to Richard Hill,Wilkinson,first choice 9 plus second choice 10 injured,a player yellow carded when 10 points were scored.With the referee giving them nothing would they have beaten France?2003 maybe 2007 on that occassion NO.

It's very difficult to understand your posts, emack but it sounds like you're changing the focus of the thread from methods of winning to reasons why NZ lost against France in World Cups.

However, I could be wrong. It could just be the rambling, jumble of words with no real structure that is confusing me

I think that the Allblacks are too vain to go for dropgoals

There's got to be a balance somewhere. I always remember GH talking prior to the 2007 WC about how the AB players didn't want to play a one-dimensional style but rather wanted to be able to 'express' themselves and run it. Sounds quite indulgent, in hindsight, but the coaches indulged them to keep them on the 'knife edge'. At the time, I was like, yeah, 'pass it don't kick it', we all jumped on the bandwagon. They even made ads in NZ selling products with the catchphrase, 'pass it, don't kick it', we all lapped it up and poked fun at the DG'ers. The foly of that 'beautiful game' ideal came unstuck in 07 and we see now a more balanced and pragmatic game plan. Forgive me if this sounds stupid, but the ABs are like the beatles, take it one step too far and all of a sudden you're bigger than Jesus. No, you're just a little bit talented, so take your hand off it.

This reminds of an interview with Rob Andrew i listened to. He was saying how in the build up for the 1991 WC final, the Aussie coach (McQueen?) was playing mind games and talking about how if England won the game would go back another 20 years etc...

Will Carling, the English captain says that they didn't change the game plan while Andrew disagrees and says that they definitely did, i agree with him. Instead of playing the traditional game plan that had got them into the final they went out attacking and ended up losing because of trying to prove a point.

I`m not rambling Sugar and Spikes trying to make a point the drop goal is a legitimate weapon.England2003 in the same situation as the ABs in 2007 even if they had lost those equivalent players.Probably would`nt have won either.
BUT there mindset was such that they would have tried to set up a drop for someone where all else failed.

It would be interesting to see how a Sir Fred Allen coached team would do in a world cup. He was a big supporter of 15 man running rugby, but would this work in the big matches? Would the Needle be willing to change his game plan?

Sir Freddie Allen was the ultimate orthodox Backs Coach,he knew little about
Forward play perse.BUT he had THE BEST Forwards Coach of his era[perhaps any era]Vince Cavanagh Jr to Consult and did.Like Otago of the great era,tries were created by THE EXTRA MAN.The Close,The Half Break,Blindside wing in,Fullback in.The Defence of the day was man to man marking plus the forward cover defence.Fergie McCormack was a great Counter Attacker from Full Back and had been made a dead eye Dick Goal kicker.Sir Fred also had the Luxury of the Best Pack in World Rugby for the brief period he was there 1966-8 ,Colin Meads.Lochore,Ken Gray,Kel Tremain.,Kirkpatrick.Also some very talented backs
this was the end of the Era of the age of reality 1956-65 .When Forwards ruled the game ,backs kept the ball in front of the forwards Don Clarke kicked the Goals.Kel Tremain with 9 tries scored as many as the great wing Bryan Williams with the same number of starts.For most of that Era 1956 on it was considered impossible under the then off side laws [changed 1964] to score direct from the set piece.NZ sides RUCKED a thing that has been outlawed in the Modern Game more to the point.How would he have coped with the next breed of Forwards who played a looser style,and the rise of NH Coaching which overtook SH methods for a while.The 1970`s was one of the worst in Nz history Bok tour losses 1970 and 1976.there only Lions loss 1971 should have lost 1977. 1972-3 the worst ever full tour by a NZ side to Europe.

emack2 wrote:there only Lions loss 1971 should have lost 1977. 1972-3 the worst ever full tour by a NZ side to Europe.

Can't agree with 77 Alan, even though you keep saying it.

3 tests were close, the 3rd being a drubbing that year even though there was an AB cleanout with batty out for Ford, Bevan Wilson in for the idiot Colin Farrell etc and I think siddy out for Lyn Davis who sat forever in the stands under going over the years.

Batty won the first with his intercept but we still scored 3 tries (Johnstone and a cheeky Going from memory). JJ Williams won the second with a lovely try and the Lions were outplayed in the third.

So after 3 tests the lions at best could draw. Lawrie Knights try at Eden park sealed the series so even though you could say the Lions should have won that test, but that would never had meant the series.

They didnt deserve to win more than 2.5 tests that year as they did in 71 which is the minimum. Agree with 72-73...even though we didnt lose to a Home union side- not bad for a worst ever...