Does rugby still require the players with vision or simply 15 Autobots?

During the past few weeks I have been having a rather heated debate with some fellow South African bloggers on a local website about the upcoming Rugby Championship and the weaknesses of the Springbok gameplan over the past 4 years.

My stance.

I believe South Africa should play to their strengths, use their forwards as a platform to control possession, use it as a basis to attack from as set phases essentially takes the forwards out of the defense and produces gaps.

Line outs, kick offs, Scrums, defensive patterns etc. are all areas of the game that are pre rehearsed moves and execution is vital in their success.

The territory game by virtue of tactical kicking and up and unders, are all part of a game plan, however when to use grubbers, cross kicks or chip kicks is very much a skill that needs a player with vision and awareness.

I also believe that every team needs players that can provide the game breaking moment in other words have the ability to sum up a situation in a mere moment and act outside of the predictable game plan, be it hitting the line, varying the line of attack, running from deep etc.

In other words there needs to be some unpredictability in attack, not used all the time, but when the opportunity arises and for that a player must be able to recognize the moment where such a variation presents itself.

Their stance.

“you’ll see that every single play is called”

“Morne Steyn has been described by PDV, Frans Ludeke and Heyneke Meyer as a flyhalf who does exactly what his coach says. That means when the backline leader calls the play M Steyn does what he has been instructed to do, exactly as his coach and backline leader wants.”

“Dan Carter does not make plans on the fly… he does what he has been trained to do… and what his team mates have been trained to do… do you really honestly somewhere truly believe that New Zealanders magically run those supporting lines because they instinctively know what their team mate is going to do?”

“But it is still useless to blame a player because he does what he is told to”

“Instinctive players do not exist anymore. They never have.”

There is a lot more of this type of thought process, now the problem I have with this view of rugby is that the individual skill of a player is completely ignored, essentially the ability of a Dan Carter that can eye a gap is not down to skill but to game plan. I find that hilarious, how do you “plan” to spot a gap. How do you plan to do a grubber or a chip kick, it comes from recognizing the opportunity, if you had a predetermined plan to chip, grubber take the gap etc. it is more likely to backfire than succeed.

In my view a player either has the vision to spot opportunity or not.

What do you guys think, has rugby become a game of predetermined game of chess where every detail is preordained and there is no room for the creative individual with the vision to act outside of the plan?

I've always looked at it like this. Each pre planned move is a weapon in the arsenal, the playmaker's job is to identify which weapon is going to be best at breaching the opposition defence. You've not the got the vision, you won't see the weaknesses in front of you and will select attacking moves that will be nullified by the opposition defence.

The reason the Carter's etc of this world as so admired is their ability to see beyond what the player in front of them is doing and see all of the opposition defence formation and know how best to bring his weapons into the game. Yeah, the switch to the blindside winger coming on to his inside shoulder might well be rehearsed to death and be almost expected. Yet he nearly always brings it out at the right time for Guilford or some other fleet footed Kiwi to go slicing through the gap between the opposition 10 and his forwards.

It's kind of related. An Aussie take on backline structure on attack.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/wallaby-attack-patterns/

You always need vision. Finding mismatches are a great way to score tries and for making ground.

Even a team like Saracens who are one the strictest in regards to sticking to a gameplan have a gamebreaker like Brits who can do something special.

Without that match winning performance from Brits Saracens would have not beaten Leicester in that 2010/11 final.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BoZBKxO4TQ

Rugby is a team game but individual brilliance and vision is certainly important.

Obviously Brits is good example for you because he's a South African. Not your stereotypical big gym monkey. He doesn't fit the South African style.

The way I see it: a strong gameplan means you'll win most games, individual brilliance comes to the fore in the one off games/most important games.

When two teams are evenly matched it's those fine margins that make all the difference. No player can week in week out win games singlehandedly but on their day you know they can.

Also if the opposition are watching a particular player it frees up his team mates.

I agree with all of this frankly. The strength of the player is in selecting the right moves at the right time, despite them being rehearsed or not. It requires structure and practice, but also instinct and vision.

Sometimes it just 'opens up for you' so to speak, and a player has to be in a frame of mind where he can recognise that in an instant. Either he calls the perfect move or he acts alone, goes himself and others are in support.

Playing to a rigidly strict game plan not only damages players and their confidence, it is guaranteed to destroy scoring opportunities.

On a personal note I will add that the existence of sport depends to a greater extent on entertainment. Certainly at the higher levels. That is entertainment of others outside of the immediate team. Retaining that interest is vital for the game as a whole, and if a team resorts to highly negative tactics it always leads to a decline in viewer numbers and popularity in general. How long can we go on killing our sport?

Once in the distant past there was a player Ron Jarden an All Blacks wing and a great thinker on Rugby.He played in the age of reality when wings chased kicks,threw the ball in at lineouts and cover defended.Scoring direct from a set piece was considered impossible,yet he played 134 first class matches and scored 146 tries.He wrote one of the best books on rugby coaching ever"Rugby on the Attack".One thing he was precise about.EVERY player needed to concentrate for the full 80minutes.Then he needed [the player] to see whats on every time he got the ball.In the days when one score meant winning a game it was vital.The player had to decide for himself whether to run, pass ,or kick,.he also said.The biggest crime in rugby is for a wing to die with the ball,he played for Welligton,the University Club and the All Blacks.He played at times for the All Blacks with his University team mates,Fitzgerald a hard tackling centre.Brian Fitzpatrick[fitzy`s dad] and Bill Clark.Clark was an anomaly in a pack of behemoths he was never more than 12 stone ringing wet.A flanker with the speed of threequarter he took on the Hennie Muller role.Jarden had this ploy a centreing kick under the goal posts for Clark to chase and often score from.
All any team can expect is parity in the forwards then it is up to the backs to find a way.Planned moves are ok ,but being unable to detach from the scrum means.Scrum moves like the "Wallabie"or the "Wyllie" are now illegal and lineout peels are seldom seen.The basic orthodox back moves to create the extra man are standard practice.After the Chiefs ploy of pressurerising Mc Caw and Carter or Crudon?all teams will try the same tactics but may not be as siccessful.
IF you have a dominant Set piece fine,the Boks may find the All Blacks are as good or better in that area now.The kick /chase game well done in poor conditions is a good ploy on hard grounds not so much.Todays players are nothing like as robotic as some of the 1960`s "Cement Mixers" which game plan was subdue and penetrete"A Game Plan shoud be a guideline not just endlessly bashing against a brick wall.Little chipkicks or grubbers are fine when they come off great,charged down and a score down the other end not so.
Of course when a player say 10 makes a play the rest of his players need to no what to do next.Dan Carter of all 10`s does the basic things right,not for him the Quade Cooper flash stuff.It is one thing to see some one like Cooper pull of a move that splits a defence.But then see him pass back a ball to no one in his own goal area without looking.
The training ground is where you work out set play moves and you can`t blame a player.If he slavishly obeys orders and is intercepted because the opposing coach had worked it out on the video screen.
I can give you an instance that cost a possible Series win in 1960,in the final test with the Series 1-1-1,tied at 3 all.Don Clarke standing close up to a defensive Scrum ,kicks for touch,Martin Pelser, Bok flanker anticipated,charged down andScored Tour over.During this period the All Blacks game plan was simple a massive pack to do all the forward stuff.Don Clarke did the tactical kicking at Scrum and lineout and Don Clarke kicked the points.55 metre rugby the All Blacks worked out play the game in the other teams half you could`nt lose.But with" The Boot"capable of kicking them from his own 10 metre line
the AB`s`s certainly could.It worked mostly in the 8 year period he played DB was on the losing side in tests only 3 times.BUT the pattern was predictable and in this case fatal.

The autobots were sentient and could make decisions and have vision.

As were the evil decepticons.

sugarNspikes wrote:The autobots were sentient and could make decisions and have vision.

As were the evil decepticons.

blackcanelion wrote:It's kind of related. An Aussie take on backline structure on attack.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/wallaby-attack-patterns/

This passage from it:
The fools at the ARU who signed Deans back on should have to explain just what improvements he has made to the Wallabies play in his time. I care not one wit about results, they will take care of themselves if the team plays well.

In all honesty I can see the Wallabies finishing last in the RC, as I think they will struggle to put the Pumas away at home and are a very big chance to lose their home tests to the ABs and Boks.

----

I agree strongly with the 1st sentence, hope the 2nd sentence is incorrect, but there is a little ring of possibilities in it!

Eddie Jones, though he forgot what forwards were, did give the Wallabies backs some excellent moves, some which needed slow mo replays to see the intricices of it, and yet some where so much dummy running involved used to get blown up for crossing, even though replays showed no crossing. But our current lot seems to have no plans and just hope for a moment of individual brilliance to get us somewhere. I would rather a side has a plan, and stick to it, because then it gives a base point to start from to build on it. And of course have a plan B, just in case.

I think Biltong that your poll needs more to it.

A team wants players with vision to ensure there is no deadlock.

Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure I remember seeing ROG kicking a drop goal to beat Wales to win the 6Ns. He got a lot of praise for that kick. But I remember watching that game (first time to watch much 6Ns really) and thinking that the game and especially he were poor and his mistakes kept Wales in the game.
Sorry for the insults to Wales and Ireland and getting off topic but my point is you always need players with vision always have always will. Those little moments of excellence from players like Cullen, Blanco, M Jones, S Williams, BOD, Campese, Zinzan Brooke etc make the game brilliant!

Catch me at Gwent Dragons in my fleece watching real sport. I make the Dragons' fleece more famous Than the Argonauts, in newport, newport, newport.

Sorry, you said Autobots not argonaunts but I already typing it out.

I remember once a quote from Miles Davis that Jazz is about the illusion of improvisation. My mind is the same applies to rugby. Very talented natural player with a lot of flair and tricky can make the hard work, planning, analysis, awareness and fitness look like "flair" and "vision".

anotherworldofpain wrote:
I remember once a quote from Miles Davis that Jazz is about the illusion of improvisation. My mind is the same applies to rugby. Very talented natural player with a lot of flair and tricky can make the hard work, planning, analysis, awareness and fitness look like "flair" and "vision".

Or perhaps the plan is just to give the ball to your 'flair' player in the right parts of the field and then hope you have some team mates quick enough to support him when he runs round / over the defender

I think the really good teams are something like 60-40 in terms of executing the gameplan versus playing the opportunities. Obviously, the first couple of phases are more planned / structured but with increasing freedom as the opposing defence becomes less organised. Obviously, also the best teams need some players who mainly follow the script, but a few who have the ability to improvise.

Can't argue with that. Although flair counts for naught if you have equal measures of flakiness, like many flair'y players.

In the days of tours really long ones Lions had plenty of great Flair players,but the Robots won nearly all the time.Not until there were some Lions robots did they start to win series.

Hmmmm

I think many folk are actually saying the same thing but placing themselves on one side or the other.

I think you need both. If you don't follow your game plan two things happen.

1. Your teammates don;t follow you and oppertunities are lost
2. No "vision" situations arise to allow your "flair" player to expose the opposition.

I'd compare it to a boxing match (seeing it was on tele at the weekend)

You go into a match with a clear picture of what it is you are trying to do. In boxing for example, you know your opponent has the longer reach so your game plan is to defend and hit back on the counter. This is therefore your game plan. Keep your defense up, strike when you spot a gap and use whatever "off the cuff" or "pre-deremend" attack you can come up with or remember.

In rugby terms, say you are have a game plan of shipping the ball wide hrough the hands. But you notice your opposition are playing a blitz defense. You see that thier fullback is too close to the line and you decide to kick it over the top, into space and your winger see's you doing this, takes off after it and scores!

The arguement is, was the kick part of the game plan? Did shipping it wide make your opponents play blitz thus creating the oppertunity for you to kick it over the top? Or did the player use "vision" to spot a chink in the armour and expose this?

For me, it is a blend of the two. You cannot have one without the other. Hitting your head off a brick wall again and again without sucess is pointless. But, hitting your head off that wall enough times to create a gap which allwos yo to do something different, well, its a chicken and the egg thing really.

but thats what makes rugby so interesting imo!

Maybe if you show all of those SA fans this link they'll understand that you always need players who can unlock defences with vision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYCuB1AE6HQ

Tigertattie, I agree with you, you need a gameplan and players who perform and execute the gameplan 80% of the time, but you need those individual gamebreakers to break the deadlock.

Yappysnap

A prime example of nerve, flair and execution coming together in one beautiful moment

Yep it was a pretty amazing try, especially the courage to take that option when you're drawn at 78 minutes.

Of course this one probably shows those skills to an even more impressive degree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRpzejrMlEo

The sad thing of it all is if JP Pietersen stcuk to the "gameplan" in the first 15 seconds of this clip, the rest of it wouldn't have made the highlight reel.


JP Pietersen.

And they just don't get my point. That is truly sad.

I remember comment on it at the time Biltong. It was the first time a Springbok broke the "kick or find contact" rule in a decade. But the advantge of surprise only works once! shame he wasted it on ENG...

Well then we are stuffed again.

Yeah ha! All good tries. Liked the Pieterson and nonu tries especially as it was squeaky bum time. Close score lines, closing minutes, attacking with intent and brilliant execution by all involved. Pieterson is class, maybe I've not been paying attention but he's got much better lately.

Extending this, obviously there is more scope for players in some positions to be flair / vision guys, with Bots in other roles.

In most cases I'd say the front 5 are largely Autobots - do their jobs in the set piece, at the breakdown and in defence, and keep out of the way when the girls have the ball. A few exceptions like Brits or Gethin, but they are definitely the exception.

Back row needs to be able to both follow the plan and on occasion provide the spark of inspiration, usually from the 8 although some 7s also do this (when playing in a linking role rather than as a fetcher).

Back 3 are clearly the positions where there is greatest scope for the non-Autobot player, although even then it depends on overall strategy - the likes of SA like their wingers to do certain basic tasks well, while France traditionally have allowed more spontenaity. This raises the question of whether Lomu was really an Autobot - give him the ball and a few yards to accelerate and he really did little other than run straight; just left a path of destruction in his wake.

Centres are more Autobot players - largely sticking to the formulaic game plan.

Half backs are interesting in this discussion - there are some who are clearly pairs of Autobots (Stringer-O'Gara being one example), but successful partnerships probably need one to be a more spontaneous player. I'd argue (for example) that Wilkinson was an Autobot but that he worked best with Dawson who was capable of great vision and 'off the cuff' play, while the ABs have managed for the last several seasons to play with an Autobot SH but with Carter able to play either as a strategy / gameplan guy or as a spontaneous playmaker at 10.

Centres are more Autobot players - largely sticking to the formulaic game plan.

I agree with most of what you said, apart from this.

I disagree with midfielders being only Autobots. Consider Frans Steyn in the England series, and the RWC last year, when he plays our balls get to the wings and we score tries, when he skips Jean de Villiers who never #$$%^ passes the ball then our backline is effective, without Frans Steyn being able to read when the run on the outside is on, we are lost.

I think the 12 in any team must be an excellent distributor, have some skills with the boot and enough vision to know when to attack, draw defence, offload, grubber, chip, skip pass etc.

Biltong

Even as I wrote it, I was considering whether it was true. Seems to vary from team to team. You make the point about F Steyn being a heads up player, and JdV being essentially an Autobot. I'd say that Wales (for example) have two starting centres who are Autobots, while the ABs have two who are much more able to turn the game (Nonu was the ultimate Bot when he started, but has improved immeasurably).

Can't even make a sensible comment about England as we don't have a clue as to who our first choice centre partnership is.

Yeah, I think the point is you will benefit if your 12 is not only an autobot, there are times in my opinion anyway where a heads up 12 can really make an impact on the game.

Johnny Wilkinson was no Autobot

He was deffo a Deceptacon!

All this idea about having a team of 'flair' players is a complete and utter joke.

Today's international defences are tighter than the proverbial duck's arse. If you look at videos of matches in the 70s you won't see anything that looks remotely like a defensive line in any aspect of the game from start to finish.

Teams need a gameplan and all players to buy in to it to have any chance whatsoever. That's the real world.

Nobody said they must not buy into a gameplan, they suggest some players with instinct and vision can unlock defences by variety away from a known gameplan that teams can set organised defences for.

englandglory4ever wrote:All this idea about having a team of 'flair' players is a complete and utter joke.

Today's international defences are tighter than the proverbial duck's arse. If you look at videos of matches in the 70s you won't see anything that looks remotely like a defensive line in any aspect of the game from start to finish.

Teams need a gameplan and all players to buy in to it to have any chance whatsoever. That's the real world.

Nah mate that's your world.
Players need to know when to take advantage of things that happen. The try by Dagg, from the pass and break by Nonu was created by Smith and McCaw making the tackle and creating the turnover. To me that is the key flair bit in the movement.

EG4E

No-one disputes that defences are way better than 30 or 40 years ago, and that much of the attacking play is based on a gameplan - indeed there are two elements to this, which are the pre-planned moves and the more general 'strategy' elements (i.e. whether and when you are looking to attack the fringes, out wide or with players on cut back lines). However, if a team is attacking purely to a formulaic gameplan, they become easier for the defence to nullify.

If anything, as defences have become better, the necessity for a handful of players in the team who can spark something opportunistically in attack has increased. Look at the success of the likes of Jason Robinson or Shane Williams - players who have the ability as ball carriers to beat the defensive system and create a broken field situation where all players are having to play 'off the cuff'.

To me it is fairly straightforward.

If you have 15 "autobots" in the team you are 1 dimensional and predictable.

If you have 15 guys simply playing it as they see it you will never consistently win.

The ideal is to have a sound tactical gameplan where each player knows their role coupled with having players who have the cop-on to know when to vary their actions.

For example when Peter Stringer scored the decisive try against Biarritz in the 2006 Heineken Cup final, all of his team mates assumed he would pass the ball as that was the call. However he saw a gap and decided that it would be better to act himself.

RS
I think in that case the shock value of Stringer carrying the ball may have contributed as well - the defenders probably couldn't believe their eyes as they'd never seen him do such a thing before (or since).

Your point is well made though, as even the Barbarians now try to have a couple of training sessions to work out a rudimentary game plan and defensive system rather than playing absolute off the cuff rugby all the time

All players need to be able to follow the gameplan. But every player must also be able to think on the bounce and adapt and overcome. It's what seperates us from the beasts people!

Here's another little gem to back that up, from everyone's favourite erotic dancer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMnaPR3DhLk

and this is what happens if you do have a team of 15 (crap) autobots...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTQWT-B0EBw

Brian Moore goes frickin bat Poopie crazy

First of all, where's the 1% gone?

A good fullback showing how to score a solo try
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf9Elzj7ZPU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

And why limit flair to just the players
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct2bQVgagvg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

...and that Brian Moore brain fart was hilarious

ebop wrote:...and that Brian Moore brain fart was hilarious

Yep, he wasn't very impressed at all.

Biltong wrote:

ebop wrote:...and that Brian Moore brain fart was hilarious

Yep, he wasn't very impressed at all.

Neither were most of us England fans watching such rubbish

Moore was just saying what the rest of us were thinking, the only differences were he had the microphone and had to restrain from swearing.

Well it seems the results of this poll is rather conclusive at the moment, only 1 vote thinking you need 15 autobots and Kasparov to move the pieces.

It seems my fellow South Africans (more so a bunch of Bulls supporters and Morne Steyn Fans) believe that talent, individual brilliance, vision and instinct is for hunting mosqueto's on a summer's evening at the dam.

I recall reading in a newspaper a spoof piece about the international rugby of the future. The best side would consist of 15 muscular heavyweights, picked for their ability to wrestle the ball from the opposing team, retain possession and trundle, the length of the pitch if necessary - all 15 of them as a unit - over the try line.

Such a side would be the ultimate Autobots, though that term was not used. In comparison, think of the ancient Roman army's testudo (tortoise) formation, with shields protecting all sides as they slowly and unstoppably advanced. Running, passing, jinkiing, creativity, quaint skills of the past, would not be needed.

The journalist was writing in about the year 2000, when England's forwards reigned supreme in world rugby. I hasten to say that it was the nightmare vision of one non-playing pundit and had nothing to do with England's players, coaches, or, I bet, supporters.

Of course we need people with vision on the pitch. I'm absolutely sure the players, coaches, fans, schoolkids - everyone - would be gutted to see it disappear from rugby.

I think it also depends on what type of ball you're getting and the awareness of space in my mind is a key component of vision.

If you're getting set piece ball then often you're working things from training, but then again so too are the people facing you on defence. If your coach is of any worth, then what you do with your set piece ball should be based on plans you have already worked out and are achieving something. For example, move the ball to the midfield away from the ruck or the lineout to spread out the opposition defence. Then use awareness to either use your forwards or your backs to get over the advantage line. Then if you do make a line break, vision knows where to get the ball where the defence is lacking.

If, on the other hand, you get ball from a turn over or from a poor kick, then vision is knowing where to put the ball and a player into space. I think modern defences are so intent on closing down space. So you need a player who has the vision and the knowhow to throw a ball round a player, for example, to put another into space, or to put in an angled kick to someone ranging out wider. Lastly the trick is to do that all at pace. Where the weaker teams struggle is doing the basics at pace to make it look not so textbook.

Hi guys, thought I'd throw my view in, havnt managed to read all responses but such a cutting issue needs to be adressed...

To a point everything done on a rugby feild is scripted, from the set peice, to strike plays, flash drives, defensive organization, turnover ball and even broken play messy basketball style.

All training is attempting to mimic game situations for a confident and effective reaction by the players.

We've all heard the terms 'two passes' at a turnover, weve all heard the term 'take it up' in attempts to drill in a default setting into players mindsets on how to react.

When talking about the Kiwis ability to support and offload it isn't a coincidence, it is a direct product of their junior system. I personally beleive that the weight class (not necesarily weight but maturation grouping) system provides the least mismatch's in players, and more rounded skills are developed in an attempt to win.

I did a small study last year and counted line breaks in nearly 88 games of compatitive rugby both in NZ and England, essentially it showed that the number of linebreaks was 20% less in NZ, and the number of players making those linebreaks in England were very few, compared to a much larger number in NZ. Infact in 18 games in England all line breaks were made by less than 4 players per game, 2 games saw 14 linebreaks by 1 player and only saw 2 more linebreaks in the game.

I personally beleive the game needs the vision as the kiwis tend to have better than most, but that ability needs to be in conjunction with strength, speed, and power, it's not a case of one or the other, it's a case of both is necesary.

Therefore in my opinion the NH will continue to put emphasis on size, power and drilled plays in an attempt to mask the lack of nous their players develop in the junior system!