Test rugby in a dour patch?

Read an opinion piece today that claimed test rugby was going through a brown patch at the moment: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/7662037/State-of-test-rugby-not-what-it-used-to-be

When you look at what's on offer in both hemispheres in terms of club or provincial rugby and then compare it to the test scene, it doesn't make for happy viewing. The Super 15 had a good mix of games this year with some hard fought local derbies and a nice contrast of styles. In comparison, the 4N tests have been error-ridden, defence dominated and have lacked continuity and proper execution.

Now there are obvious injury concerns for Australia and SA. It really is incredible how both their squads have been decimated through serious injury and any side in world rugby would be a paler shade of themselves faced with such an injury count. Maybe that has encouraged the conservative gameplan of containment and snuffing out opposition attack through blanket defence. But really no side in this 4N tournament has played a good all-round game. Argentina have been the best in terms of consistency but only in defence. NZ has tried to attack but their play has been littered with unforced errors.

When you look at this year's 6N, it doesn't compare that favourably either. The England and Wales matches against Ireland were probably the pick of the games but probably only for the uncertainty of the result. Too many times, the teams favoured a conservative style of play and offered little in the way of attack. That might be argued is the best way to win test rugby. I would hope though that there is enough flexibility to offer up some more variety in attack. I'm not advocating throwing the ball round willy nilly. Moving out wide and lateral movement can be just as predictable and ineffective as crashing the ball up. Test rugby seems to be going through a patch where the emphasis is based on defence and points come through pressuring teams into mistakes or hoping this will be the case rather than being more proactive on attack and trying to unlock defences through some creativity and innovation.

We see that kind of play in matches where the opposition is weaker. Take France for example against Italy. That game disappears though when they line up against a better team. They retreat into their defensive shells and their attack is a cowered toothless dog trying to gum its way out of the corner. Take Ireland, Australia and pretty much any side you care to mention in test rugby at the moment and it's much the same. NZ is trying to introduce a high tempo game but they are far from accomplished at doing so at present and so we have seen games where largely the winning team has worn down the opposition and done enough to take the game. We have seen few examples where a team has worked to a plan and taken the game by the throat and forced its style upon the opposition.

So what hope do we see of this situation changing? Well in terms of this year's 4N, I see very little change in the status quo. Australia and SA are riddled with injury and you need settled combinations to feel comfortable enough to play a varied game. Australia needs all its stars like JOC, Beale, Cooper, Beale and Ioane in form and with some key forwards to get them some ball. They don't have that at the moment and so must revert to a conservative style of containment that does them no favours. SA has too many key forwards out to play their traditional abrasive game and seem out of ideas. NZ have been largely poor by their own high standards but at least have shown enough determination to find a way to win despite playing poorly. Argentina are conducting themselves well in their inaugural run but need to learn to add attacking strings to their bows if they're serious about their claims to win the competition in 2014 (according to an ex player Topo Rodriguez).

The autumn series will be interesting to see how the sides go. There will be time for SA and Australia to get back some much needed topline players, and NZ will be wanting to impose their high octane game on teams like Scotland who have shown they cannot live at that pace. But will it be another series of attritional tests or will someone chance their arm and go out to attack the touring teams and take the game away from them rather than wear them down and try to pressure them into mistakes?

Yeah he's right to an extent. NZ's not playing that well but they're trying to push it and when they do click it'll be great to watch. The Wallabies have a ridiculous amount of injuries as do SA and both their coaches seem to be taking the flair out of their games-SA more with selection. That's what's infuriating me the most-Meyer's head in the same approach when not only picking Goosen/Lambie will make the Boks better to watch, it will also give them more attacking threats. Which is kind of relevant if you want to score tries (again easier to watch than a penalty kick).

I agree completely

International rugby has been crap this year apart from the Ireland - Wales game and one of the NZ-Ireland thrashings imo.

Everyone seems to be playing a very league style game plan and the rucks are a mess.

I think much of the situation has to do with the fact that some teams hung on to players too long in view of the RWC last year.

SA is a prime example of that. Since the Jake white era 8 years ago there was a mindset to forsake everything for the need to win the RWc in 2007, so JW started building a team in 2004 and when he was replaced there were very few retirements for SA, in fact the only two I can think of currently is Os du randt and Percy Montgomery.

So the PDV era started with the same squad whereby 18 of the RWC were Boks that won the 2007 RWC.

Arguably there were a number of players who although perhaps of international standard were no longer the best in SA, players such as Bakkies Botha, John Smit, Jean de Villiers, Fourie du Preez, Pierre Spies etc were no longer their dynamic selves and it resulted in PDV exposing very few players during the first two years of his tenure.

In fact most players PDV brought in was more due to public demand and then others still never got called up.

When you look at the Springbok pack that will play this weekend the only starter that was around for the RWc is Beast Mtawarira, due to the game plan PDV exposed very few new back line players in the last four years, and even then was lead around the nose by his senior players.

Morne Steyn came in due to his kicking prowess that worked in 2009, but since then he has miraculously held onto the position blocking players to be tested.

Pierre SPies has not performed in a Bok jersey for how long, yet he has been picked every time he was available.

Fourie du Preez was only replaced due to his injury and even in poor form was always selected.

Jean de Villiers since the last world cup has been blocking more exciting players and his "mini me" in Juan de Jongh may have been given an opportunity last year, but even though more exciting doesn't pass.

So our backline has remianed pedantic, Habana has been strangled out of form, JP Pietersen is the one stand out in the backline that has actually improved.

SO our pack is currently going through a long overdue overhaul and are missing at least coneie Oosthuizen, Bismarck du Plessis, Schalk Burger and Brussow who will make a huge impact if they were available.

Our backline is in dire need of replacements and much required freedom to change our method of attack.

I believe the "judge me at world cup time" has slowly ruined SA rugby at international level.

Question is, is Meyer the man to fix it?

So far he hasn't convinced at all.

I blame the vast inconsistencies of the referees decisions at rucktime for the conservative gameplans. Some referees arent even consistent for the full 80minutes itself, let alone from one ref to another. Most teams have a kicker that can kick 3pts from 50-60m regularly and rucktime is becoming as much a lottery as scrums. Why would teams bother playing with the ball in hand when they're as likely to be penalised as the defending team who'll just want to spoil and cause confusion in the refs mind at each and every ruck. Every team does this, its the state of rugby as a concsequence, thats not to say you wont see some brilliant tries and ball-playing, just less frequently i think.

I actually think it's been going downhill since before 2007. I think the key issue is the rules. As teams get better it's more and more difficult to run the ball effectively. It's not surprising, we have better defensive systems. It's harder than league because the defence is closer and the extra numbers means that there is almost always cover defence behind the main defensive line (a point SBW highlighted after he left for Japan).

The stats highlight the fact that most teams are now dependent on the referee to award kickable penalties to the win.

I agree comfort.

Comfort has a good point. Refereeing in consistency means when referees allow little time for recycling, players are less likely to take risks for fear of a tackle situation going against them therefor kick the ball more and don't risk breaks and overlaps, or the opposite when a referee favours an attacking team so much that the opposition cant win ball they then commit more penalties.

blackcanelion wrote:I actually think it's been going downhill since before 2007. I think the key issue is the rules. As teams get better it's more and more difficult to run the ball effectively. It's not surprising, we have better defensive systems. It's harder than league because the defence is closer and the extra numbers means that there is almost always cover defence behind the main defensive line (a point SBW highlighted after he left for Japan).

The stats highlight the fact that most teams are now dependent on the referee to award kickable penalties to the win.

ELV's?

The problem is the refereeing is drifting back to favour the defending team at the ruck. How many offensive ruck technical penalties do we see now? A lot, that's how many. And this in turn encourages negative play.

Also we've added the most notoriously negative and defensive minded team to the most notoriously open and constructive annual competition, so it's only natural we see some degradation in style.

But it has been possible to see entertaining rugby this year. We saw in the Super 15 the Sharks and Hurricanes captured the hearts of neutrals with their enterprising display. You take a game like Wasps vs Harlequins recently as well. I know there is tighter defence in test rugby usually and less time for players to react but I can't help but think teams too often are unwilling to chance their arm for fear of being lambasted by the coach.

Maybe that has something to do with the rules. I do like how the defending team is allowed to compete for the ball or how they can counter ruck. But I agree there is a mess at the breakdown and often the attacking team finds it difficult to string phases together. We don't want to go down too far the Brumbies way of playing either (stringing 40 to 50 phases together) but at the moment it seems we're stuck in a game of conservative low percentage rugby and it's not particularly pleasant to watch.

AWOP

You need to get that chip off your shoulder, the ruck is a competition by nature, and therefore both teams get to compete for the ball.

And Argentina can hardly be called the most notoriously negative team when they employ the exact same gameplan as the SA team!!

Yes, the standard in this years rugby championship isnt the most stratling display of International rugby, and as some above have mentioned this may be attributed to the rules, referees (New Zealand only gets Northern Hemisphere referees), selections, styles of play etc etc.

What we see is three countries Aus,SA, and NZ playing below themselves, On the other hand we have Argentina delivering everything that we expect.

Maybe its got something to do with the fact that the Argentinian players havent been going flat out since the end of January?

thebluesmancometh wrote:AWOP

You need to get that chip off your shoulder, the ruck is a competition by nature, and therefore both teams get to compete for the ball.

And Argentina can hardly be called the most notoriously negative team when they employ the exact same gameplan as the SA team!!

I would beg to differ with you on that, we don't employ negative tactics to slow down ball, whereas Argentina does that consistently at every possible ruck.

Then SA should definately learn a lesson from Argentina then...

My point is there is no way you can blame a lacking tournament on the new boys, they are doing what they have to to survive!!!

Aus and SA are massively injury hit, and teams are struggling to break down a tough Argy 60 minutes, it's not Argies fault that nether SA or Aus could control the ball, it's not Argies fault that NZ were flat and generally beaten up in the tight (well it was argentinas fault that time)

I don't really think anyone is seriously suggesting it is Argentina's fault.

read AWOPs comments again!

bluesman

I get the feeling that you are confusing blame with a description of a style of play or inability to play a style of play.

Also we've added the most notoriously negative and defensive minded team to the most notoriously open and constructive annual competition, so it's only natural we see some degradation in style.

That sounds like blame to me! I would certainly not use the SA team as an example of notoriously open or constructive play!

Infact I'd say the puma's have added a dimention to the tournament that it's been lacking to a certain extent, some good old underdog spirit, someone for the neutrals to care about, and finally a bot of character to the tournament.

I meant that with no offense but having pundits, players and fans alike all talk about the tri nations so pompously it is so difficult to like, or enjoy as a neutral, now it is far more desirable!!!

Good on you Bluesman, I'm pleased to see you can now get some enjoyment out of the tournament.

Some...

So wait, you enjoy it more now there is a dour negative cynical and limited team involved? And by prospect means it is slightly fewer lightyears ahead of the stodgy old 6N borefestival on average?

That says so much...

What is a test match,the highest level of our game,the 6Ns and 3[4]Ns are both harder to win than an RWC.The RWC games withe top tier sides are always dour things anyway.Post every RWC most teams lose top players look at 2004,and 2008.All three SH teams are in rebuild mode to some extent,but Sa and AUS have had an horrendous injury toll.NZ less so, test rugby should be closely contested not blow outs.It does`nt help that in about 3 different parts of the world.Laws are being experimented with or trialled but not applied univesally or at every level.So you are back to 2008 where you could be playing 3 seperate sets of laws at each level for example 2 props on the bench,or the 5 second clearence from the ruck and so on.Both officials and players are bound to be confused,and the reffing of the Scrum has been a joke.

I tend to agree with the OP. Henry predicted in 2010 when the rules changed in favour of the tackled player that the face of rugby would change.

NZ took immediate advantage of the rule changes by attacking from everywhere and turned their woes from 2009 around simply because others didnt adapt to the rules as quickly.

What Henry said was teams would get more defensive and would need to come up with more industrious ways of beating defences- referring to the short grubbers etc which did come into play more from 2011 onwards.

He didnt predict the increase in the offload instances but the thinking was there. Anything that reduces the time defences have to regroup once getting successful front foot ball is being deployed.

But for certain, if teams want to improve quickly, a rush defence is certainly a quick fix remedy it seems. Teams like Argentina survive off it.

I still think its a case of the Internationals have been playing non stop now for nearly nine months, whereas all the provincial guys got a three week break in June.

What I like about having Argentina playing NZ regularly is that NZ are less likely to get ambushed by England at Twickenham as they will be used to playing a similar style in front of a crowd just as hostile if not more. We'll learn how to break such teams down and this will bode well for future tests as other teams will take the lead and force such teams to look for alternative gameplans if their Plan A doesn't work.

Biltong wrote:I believe the "judge me at world cup time" has slowly ruined SA rugby at international level.

Biltong I'd go a step further. This attitude has ruined test rugby.

You're most likely correct stag.

I much prefer the method of old where you continuously build a squad, bring in a few players every year and remain cinsistently strong.

I think that is where the all Blacks have an advantage, becuase they have established themselves so far ahead of most teams, they can afford to continuously build, and yet still win 85% of their matches, whereas other teams try to "peak" once every four years.

red_stag wrote:

Biltong wrote:I believe the "judge me at world cup time" has slowly ruined SA rugby at international level.

Biltong I'd go a step further. This attitude has ruined test rugby.

Is there anything else we need to say? 10/10.

Test rugby now is largely like a dysfunctional relationship when one person is planning holidays and trying to arrange counselling and the other one is "staying late at work" all the time and not remembering to complement the other on a nice new hair cut.

Cheers guys. Whenever a Kiwi laments the same thing we get told we're only sad about it because we're crap at World Cups. We still are crap but we're also still worried about this as every Test should be treated with the respect it deserves. None of this warmup test for the WC crap either. Call the teams Invitationals then. If the teams' minds aren't fully on the job the game doesn't deserve Test match status.

disneychilly wrote:Cheers guys. Whenever a Kiwi laments the same thing we get told we're only sad about it because we're crap at World Cups. We still are crap but we're also still worried about this as every Test should be treated with the respect it deserves. None of this warmup test for the WC crap either. Call the teams Invitationals then. If the teams' minds aren't fully on the job the game doesn't deserve Test match status.

Agree with you guys on this.

Although i would say that England for example had to look for new players, the experienced guys weren't good enough and not enough youngins had been blooded throughout the years.

It doesn't help a lot of teams either when some older players hold off their retirement until after the world cup (even though at times they're not good enough).

gowales wrote:

disneychilly wrote:Cheers guys. Whenever a Kiwi laments the same thing we get told we're only sad about it because we're crap at World Cups. We still are crap but we're also still worried about this as every Test should be treated with the respect it deserves. None of this warmup test for the WC crap either. Call the teams Invitationals then. If the teams' minds aren't fully on the job the game doesn't deserve Test match status.

Agree with you guys on this.

Although i would say that England for example had to look for new players, the experienced guys weren't good enough and not enough youngins had been blooded throughout the years.

It doesn't help a lot of teams either when some older players hold off their retirement until after the world cup (even though at times they're not good enough).

Ireland is probably a better example again..!

maestegmafia wrote:

gowales wrote:

disneychilly wrote:Cheers guys. Whenever a Kiwi laments the same thing we get told we're only sad about it because we're crap at World Cups. We still are crap but we're also still worried about this as every Test should be treated with the respect it deserves. None of this warmup test for the WC crap either. Call the teams Invitationals then. If the teams' minds aren't fully on the job the game doesn't deserve Test match status.

Agree with you guys on this.

Although i would say that England for example had to look for new players, the experienced guys weren't good enough and not enough youngins had been blooded throughout the years.

It doesn't help a lot of teams either when some older players hold off their retirement until after the world cup (even though at times they're not good enough).

Ireland is probably a better example again..!

True

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: NZ will be wanting to impose their high octane game on teams like Scotland who have shown they cannot live at that pace.

Well in regards to this statement from said article, I believe NZ in 2010 took Scotland very seriously and subsequently tore us a new one. So if they could kindly not take Scotland seriously this Autumn that would be fantastic I've stupidly bought two tickets for the game and would like to see some sort of contest this time.

I might be going there in November to see it with a Scottish mate so you'll forgive me for hoping some more of the same as 2010. I'd like to break the 50 and hold you to 0 this time. Always room for improvement.

Kia are you going to the Rome game? I'm off that way on my todd.

Would love to mate but don't have friends in Rome and prefer to go in September to Italy. Less crowds, good weather and cheaper rates.

This thread has really tried to be taken seriously but in reality it's fallen on it's face like most of 's articles.

Post world cup, internationals are fatigued, teams are re adjusting, new personnell, new team to the tourny, new venue, thousands of miles extra travel...

Theres a hundred reasons why the game isn't where you lot believe it should be, but it is where it is and games are just as hard fought and tough as they have always been, if not tougher now Argentina's pack are taking all on in front of them.

Toulouse play attractive rugby and they're TOP14 Champions.
Leinster play attractive rugby and they're HC champs.
Quins play reasonably attractive rugby and they're AP Champs.
Ospreys can play attractive rugby at times and they're PRO12 Champs.
Chiefs play attractive rugby and they're Super 14 Champs.
Australia play attractive rugby and they're Trinations Champs.
New Zealand play attractive rugby and they're RWC Champs.
Wales probably play less attractive rugby. But it's not totally negative. They have their moments, and they're 6 Nations Champs.

The teams that are still trying to play negative rugby are chumps. Most notably South Africa, France and Ireland at international level. They're all underachieving because of their negative play. I don't think the laws or the refs are favouring negative play at all. That's what makes Ireland, South Africa and France all the more dumb.

I agree though, that the RWC is making teams try to peak every 4 years and is having a negative effect on standards post-RWC.

Not sure where you think this article hasn't been taken seriously bluesman.

Good point about post World Cup but this has been going on before that I think. The defensive mindset has been around for a while but the lack of attacking has definitely been in evidence more this year.

I'm not talking just about the 4N. Argentina are doing what they've always done. The others like Australia and SA are hamstrung with injuries but the rest seem to be favouring a conservative gameplan.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Toulouse play attractive rugby and they're TOP14 Champions.
Leinster play attractive rugby and they're HC champs.
Quins play reasonably attractive rugby and they're AP Champs.
Ospreys can play attractive rugby at times and they're PRO12 Champs.
Chiefs play attractive rugby and they're Super 14 Champs.
Australia play attractive rugby and they're Trinations Champs.
New Zealand play attractive rugby and they're RWC Champs.
Wales probably play less attractive rugby. But it's not totally negative. They have their moments, and they're 6 Nations Champs.

The teams that are still trying to play negative rugby are chumps. Most notably South Africa, France and Ireland at international level. They're all underachieving because of their negative play. I don't think the laws or the refs are favouring negative play at all. That's what makes Ireland, South Africa and France all the more dumb.

I agree though, that the RWC is making teams try to peak every 4 years and is having a negative effect on standards post-RWC.

Well then, based on that we should cancel the Currie Cup, withdraw from SANZAR and start playing something more suitable to our strengths.

Wrestling?

No Biltong. Just play more ambitious attacking rugby. Not sevens style stuff now. Just a more balanced approach. The best teams in every competition have a strong pack, a good kicking game, good defence and quality attacking play. Some teams are needlessly ignoring the attacking part. But I don't see much evidence of an ambitious attack being penalised to be honest. All the Champions are doing it.

Do you think South Africa only have players to play negative rugby? I don't think so.