Innovative tactics and selections?

This may be a bit daft and naive but is there no way of developing innovative tactics any more? as far as i can see no one has tried anything radically new for a while - nothing came to light in the WC nor in any internationals I have seen recently.

is this down to conservative coaching or have all possible variations been tired and failed?

things such as all the backs lining up directly behind the scrum and only fanning out as the ball is in play? Things like I saw the Canadians do a good few years ago using an enormous American football style pass to go from a scrum one side of the field direct to the other side winger? like putting a back on an attacking scrum to leave one of your flankers in the inside centre channel? More "trick plays" like American football? all teams seem to use similar patterns and I would have thought innovative plays especially in world cups could be to your advantage?

also on selection - why does the 10 have to take the place kicks? why not find out who your best place kicker is and train him up? Is inside centre so different to outside centre? 6 to 7 etcetc Guys like Ritchie vernon - a great player. can no where be found for him to play in the scotland team?

World cups from a while ago I remember teams unveiling new tactics and types of plays but nothing seems to have been developed for a long time - or are innovations just more subtle now? are coaches afraid to experiment or have conventional tactics been proved to be the best?

I think more worrying is the lack of basic skills on offer. Who needs innovation when you can't even do simple things like draw and pass. The ABs showed with Corey Jane's try the ball always beats the man. How many times did Scotland also enjoy overlap opportunities only to shut down the space around them and allowing the defence to drift across.

How many times does the attack demand straightening up to suck in defenders only for teams to crab sideways and close down any space on the wings? A pop pass or support play when a line break is made?

Instead of getting too technical, I think a lot of teams have to return to the drawing board and sort out the fundamentals and learn them to do them well and at pace. Rugby doesn't need to be a complicated game.

In one word pressure, noones willing to take risks at the sake of losing their job, especially at int level!!!

Even simple trick plays like when on the oppo 22 setting up for a drop goal only instead of the SH passing back to the FH in the pocket a pop pass or lateral pass to someone who hopefully is unmarked?

Yes, I'd agree with Kia. Rather than some sides trying to be 'innovative', they might be better suited to practicing and practicing and practicising the basics.

And by basics, I actually don't mean passing a ball to each other - that's the elementary. The basics are the ideas involved in the reasons for passing in the first place. If it (passing - at speed, short, long, offload, etc) isn't done with the intention of creating space then the whole art of passing at speed cleanly and without errors is worthless.

The basics are using passing to create space - and that's not being innovative, that's just knowing why rugby works.

Guys

Lack of basic skills can be masked to a point, effective tactics can make teams succesfull without the basics.

And IMHO a lot of teams are doing such, coaches/managers don't have the time to do things correctly they'll be canned long before making any progress. They need a quick fix!!!

I hadn't heard of using 'choke tackles' as a strategy until this year and I wasn't aware that there are different kinds of 'blitz' defences too. Scotland, of course, adopting the 'Ineffective Blitz Defence' when facing the All Blacks.

The rolling maul seems to fall in and then out of favour too - I like it and think it takes a lot of skill to pull off.

it's also true to say that crap refereeing has also informed a lot of team's tactics in some areas - for example, binding incorrectly, boring in and holding yourself off the ground with your hand seem to be useful tactics in the scrum as most referees simply don't penalise this.

And don't get me started on squint feeds at the scrum - no need for hookers to be any good at actually hooking any more.

Why do most 10s take place kicks? Well generally your 10 takes most of your hand to foot kicks so you would have thought he would be one of the best place kickers too.

Not always the same. You see kickers from 9-15 albeit mostly at 10 or 15... as thats where most of the ball to hand kicking revolves. Meyer always chooses the best kicker as his 10. Thats his ideology and has stated that many times in public.

John Eales used to kick for AUS... won the Blesidoe Cup with the last kick of the game in 2000 if I recall. Legend.

Unfortunately rugby is a team game, you need your hog carriers, your speed merchants, your silky backs and your in your face hungry flankers.... but positions are very specialised... its not like other sports, its why we see some teams with fat, lazy and unskilled players on the teamsheet (i.e. Scotland and Chunk) and players like Vernon on the bench.

See Bergamasco vs. England in 2011 (I think) playing scrumhalf. Example when a coach tries to field his most skillful XV rather than the best XV players in their respected position.

An innovation I've seen this year is that Hansen is getting his forwards to pass to a support player so the hit up is two out from the ruck. It takes a lot of practice and is why the NZ handling errors are more frequent than usual-they're still getting to grips with it. You'll see Read get the ball one out and pass to Messam a la his try vs Ireland. It shifts the point of contact further away from the big boys and that coupled with the pace of the passing off the ground means any defence will be tested. You see the NZ forwards pass and catch under huge pressure due to it happening so flat but again when it comes off it's very hard to defend against. Credit to Hansen-it's only come up this year.

Carlin

There are no hookers anymore, theyre flankers who scrummage. Instead of the actual hook they are used as handbrakes for the scrum, the whole scrum (aside from the 8) is already leaning in and ready to go, the Hooker holds them back by planting a foot out in front and releases it when ready to go, then he scrummages while the ball is played behind him.

IMHO this is one of the biggest tactics that has derived from bad reffing!!!

The other problem is when you get a tactic that when it first appears is genuinely innovative, like cross field kicks, which is then over used and often done badly

I couldn't agree more with Kia here. Wales's efforts at going wide on the weekend were so poor that to call them woeful would be an insult to woe itself. No one took the ball to the line, no defenders were committed, the ball was passed out to the wing so far behind the gainline that the Argentinian defence could just drift across to cover. That's what we need to be working on, or we may as well stay in the freezers in Poland.

sometimes to your benefit though lostinwales...

remember Mike Tindalls attempt in the RWC03 QF vs. Wales?

Only guy chasing was Ben Kay... Shane Williams received and went in to set up a great try and a memorable first half for you guys.

LP

Howley was talking about the wide channels and taking Argy out of their comfort zone pre game, it was terrifying, and I did post that if we went touch to touch we'd concede points like OZ did and wouldnt come back!!!

Always remember Gwent Dragons doing a few 'set piece moves' a few years back (to use the soccer term, not referring to scrums and line outs) when we had a free kick near the opposition line. There would be a few variations that would be centered around a quick tap, a line of players blocking the view of the defenders, a few passes back, and then the line of players parting like the Red Sea to allow the prop (Adam Black) to come steaming through and charge over for a try. Can't find any videos of it, but I remember it working I think against Clermont in the Amlin! Sometimes it went spectacularly wrong too! However, I always wondered why more of these set piece moves weren't done. Defences are so strong these days, and they practice their defensive patterns over and over. Teams just seem to hope to either create an overlap or power over (from scrums and free kicks close to the try line). Why not think outside the box?! If it's something new then it's likely the opposition haven't practiced defending it, so the chances are you'll confuse them. Especially the way that players are like pre-programmed robots these days. Anything new or different from the pattern they're expecting will completely throw them.

TJ wrote:This may be a bit daft and naive but is there no way of developing innovative tactics any more? as far as i can see no one has tried anything radically new for a while - nothing came to light in the WC nor in any internationals I have seen recently.

is this down to conservative coaching or have all possible variations been tired and failed?

things such as all the backs lining up directly behind the scrum and only fanning out as the ball is in play? Things like I saw the Canadians do a good few years ago using an enormous American football style pass to go from a scrum one side of the field direct to the other side winger? like putting a back on an attacking scrum to leave one of your flankers in the inside centre channel? More "trick plays" like American football? all teams seem to use similar patterns and I would have thought innovative plays especially in world cups could be to your advantage?

also on selection - why does the 10 have to take the place kicks? why not find out who your best place kicker is and train him up? Is inside centre so different to outside centre? 6 to 7 etcetc Guys like Ritchie vernon - a great player. can no where be found for him to play in the scotland team?

World cups from a while ago I remember teams unveiling new tactics and types of plays but nothing seems to have been developed for a long time - or are innovations just more subtle now? are coaches afraid to experiment or have conventional tactics been proved to be the best?

I love trick plays (though in American football, they are used predominantly at college level- the average NFL game that I have watched has all the creativity of One Direction's song writer, the willingness to take risks is even lower than in International rugby), but there is too much pressure at the top level to do it! One thing I have admired about the Aussies and the SH in general is that they play a bit looser with the "accepted" positions. You have guys switching positions, so if I take a best Wallaby side, their backs can cover the following:

Beale- 10, 15
Ioane- 11, 14
AAC- 13, 14, 11, 15
Barnes- 10, 12, 15
JOC- 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Cooper- 10

With the likes of Giteau playing every position in the backs. The 10s frequently don't kick. George Smith used to play 6 or 7 equally well and he did well at 12 for Toulon! It's another thing I like about Lancaster, I think Foden at wing was a great shout and it worked, and a lot of people think that a specialist fetcher 7 is a waste of time.

Griff, it occured to me on the weekend that teams should take tap penalties more often when they're in the opponents' 22. It paid off for Scotland, and if nothing else, it's less of a gamble than kicking to touch - at least you're guaranteed the ball.

I saw a great tap maul a few years back.

Tapper was the prop and tapped and turned to present the ball to the back of the maul, the defence stood off screaming offside and the ref blew the whistle for offside before realising the ball hadn't left the props hands, he was first man and ball carrier and scored.

Also saw one where the prop tapped and turned, a full maul formed and the hooker at the back broke off to score, as all defenders rushed to dive onto the hooker the original prop went over, again the ball never left his hands.

Very risky but both worked!!

I remember Craig Chalmers running over the top of a ruck on the Lions' tour of Australia in 1989 (it involved him trampling on his own team-mates). Would you be allowed to do that these days, or would it be whistled for being dangerous?

In the AP final this year, Quins played Robshaw at first receiver for most of the game, allowing him to vary the point of attack by moving it wide to Evans, start the Quins offloading game by passing to Turner-Hall or just make the hard yards himself.

I think it only worked because Quins had the breakdown covered and from the element of surprise, but it was pretty innovative. They also scored a great try from a 5m ruck where Care was looking around for where to pass the ball, Robshaw jogged slowly up along the goal line, took the pass when he reached an undefended spot and dived over. Again, needed the element of surprise, but effective nonetheless.

I remember that Chalmers one - the Aus players were a little miffed to say the least. It was a scrum IIRC. Was that the same series as someone headed the ball forward and then fell on it to score? rules were changed to stop that IIRC.

One that Edinburgh do is interchange SH and FH to ensure quick ball from rucks - makes sure there is always someone to act at SH

I think the american football reverse would work quite well maybe and also the flea flicker

I did think it was a scrum, TJ, but I don't know how the two packs stayed bound long enough for him to do it. It was against New South Wales, I think.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I think more worrying is the lack of basic skills on offer. Who needs innovation when you can't even do simple things like draw and pass. The ABs showed with Corey Jane's try the ball always beats the man. How many times did Scotland also enjoy overlap opportunities only to shut down the space around them and allowing the defence to drift across.

How many times does the attack demand straightening up to suck in defenders only for teams to crab sideways and close down any space on the wings? A pop pass or support play when a line break is made?

Instead of getting too technical, I think a lot of teams have to return to the drawing board and sort out the fundamentals and learn them to do them well and at pace. Rugby doesn't need to be a complicated game.

I think that pretty much sums it up. The basic skills on display on the weekend (NZ excepted) were generally poor. The back line of the local age team (where I do some coaching) can all run straight and pass beautifully. Why can't so many of today's internationals?

Maybe the old myth of players spending more time in the gym than on the training field has some truth to it.

Strength and physicality are vital aspects of the game, no question; but if they come at the expense of genuine skill and guile, then I don't know how much longer I'll enjoy watching the game.

The best team in the world (NZ) combine great strength and physicality with skill and guile, and it is that combination that makes them the best luckless.

Sadly, in trying to emulate them to a standard whereby they don't absolutely thrash you, most coaches have adopted the approach of 'what can we do quickest, improve strength and physicality or skill and guile? Ok, physicality it is'.

That is the pressure of the modern game, not to get beat, and is shortsighted in the extreme. Yes it's easier to coach teams to be solid defensively, and to improve strength and fitness than it is to give someone attacking nous, but at some point you have to take a long term view, and say if we don't teach people to unlock the door, then eventually the other teams will have it reinforced enough to prevent us from battering it down.

I remember a Babas match when a penalty was awarded 5 metres from the try line to Babas (attacking side). They ran it with the scrum half taking the tap and various players steaming towards him at different angles. We were all trying to guess who he would pass to when he simply kicked it up, backwards, over his head towards the try line. One of the players steaming forward got to it first and dropped it....would have been a great innovative try and I am surprised to have not seen it since.

Ozzy, I think the New Zealand approach of arranging their youth teams based on weight rather than age is genius. That way, it's not enough for a player to be big and quick, as he'll find himself up against players of equal size, if not necessarily of equal speed. Also, a genuinely skilful and quick player who may not be as big as others his age won't be deterred from playing the game by being smashed by bigger opponents.

Absolutely 100% agree mate. Underage rugby where you just have the big kid smashing through the smaller ones all day benefits nobody.

The weight classing rather than by age is something that all countries should be adopting.

a bit like the college game somewhere, all the players stood in a line shoulder to shoulder with their backs to the opposition. The ball was passed to the end player and they quickly passed and mimed passing the ball along. The opposition couldn't tackle anyone as they didn't know who had the ball at that point, a call went out and all the players stuck their hands up their jerseys including the player with the ball and they all split up running for the try line.

the player with the ball got through and scored, the ref wasn't impressed and the refs forum after the match banned the move

I like that one!

I always thought forcing a broken play cavalry charge with 5 or 6 players would be effective.

at an arranged call the backs tighten in and one player runs laterally, before jinking in to a tackle, the other players will be streaming through the gap and it only takes a couple of players who can take the initial tackles and cover tackles whilst offloading behind, with the backs being the last to receive the pass.

Instead of width, you'll see a line like this o=defenders /= attackers approach direction
o o o o o o
....... / \
......../
..........\
...........| o o o



Column vs line, high risk but what an adrenaline rush.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I think more worrying is the lack of basic skills on offer. Who needs innovation when you can't even do simple things like draw and pass. The ABs showed with Corey Jane's try the ball always beats the man. How many times did Scotland also enjoy overlap opportunities only to shut down the space around them and allowing the defence to drift across.

How many times does the attack demand straightening up to suck in defenders only for teams to crab sideways and close down any space on the wings? A pop pass or support play when a line break is made?

Instead of getting too technical, I think a lot of teams have to return to the drawing board and sort out the fundamentals and learn them to do them well and at pace. Rugby doesn't need to be a complicated game.

This.

Ozzy3213 wrote:The best team in the world (NZ) combine great strength and physicality with skill and guile, and it is that combination that makes them the best luckless.

Sadly, in trying to emulate them to a standard whereby they don't absolutely thrash you, most coaches have adopted the approach of 'what can we do quickest, improve strength and physicality or skill and guile? Ok, physicality it is'.

That is the pressure of the modern game, not to get beat, and is shortsighted in the extreme. Yes it's easier to coach teams to be solid defensively, and to improve strength and fitness than it is to give someone attacking nous, but at some point you have to take a long term view, and say if we don't teach people to unlock the door, then eventually the other teams will have it reinforced enough to prevent us from battering it down.

And this.

If we could pin these two posts inside every NH dressing room, please.

As far as the crabbing across field, again I think it's the skill levels of the NZ forwards that sets them apart here. Because when the ball is passed along the backline, an All Black runner will straighten and the people inside him will run around to take the pass on the outside. Usually this is a forward as they are closest to the previous breakdown, but their ball skills are such that they can continue the passing movement and make a numerical advantage. Saw this happen on the weekend. Think this could be to do with the confidence in the team's skills.

It takes time, look at NZ still dropping balls this season. But they do get it right for passages, lasting about 10 minutes on average at the moment, and in that time they are unplayable and amass an amount of points that can't be overhauled.

So many guys run at the man instead of the space or weak shoulder. I know it's a physical sport but sometimes you get the feeling people enter into a masculinity contest instead of doing what's best for the team.

Remember watching ireland A v England a few years ago. Ireland got a penalty and signalled a kick to the posts. The English lined up mostly under the posts and around that area so Jeremy Staunton kicked to the corner of the field with his place kick and the Ireland winger caught it and scored. Nice!!

GunsGerms wrote:Remember watching ireland A v England a few years ago. Ireland got a penalty and signalled a kick to the posts. The English lined up mostly under the posts and around that area so Jeremy Staunton kicked to the corner of the field with his place kick and the Ireland winger caught it and scored. Nice!!

Percy Montgomery did the same for tge Dragons, except maybe it was a tap and go

I dont know whether someone else has previously said this another way round, but the ABs tactic of a three pass forward offense (complemented with quick hands and promoting the ball in the tackle) absolutely sucked the life out of Scotland's defence on Monday.

And on another note great to see Scotland going for the flat low kick offs, Pity one didnt go 10 metres and someone got ahead of the kick on another, but at least they were trying new stuff. they might want to look at trying to cut down on the number of times they have to kick off though.

aucklandlaurie wrote: I dont know whether someone else has previously said this another way round, but the ABs tactic of a three pass forward offense (complemented with quick hands and promoting the ball in the tackle) absolutely sucked the life out of Scotland's defence on Monday..

Yes - its a subtle but innovative - so much so I didn't really spot it until pointed out

And on another note great to see Scotland going for the flat low kick offs, Pity one didnt go 10 metres and someone got ahead of the kick on another, but at least they were trying new stuff. they might want to look at trying to cut down on the number of times they have to kick off though

Saucer of cream for auckland laurie please

Speaking of the flat low kick off, it annoys me that Wales hardly ever use it. We almost always kick long from the restart, which means we can't compete for the ball and it's a guaranteed handover of posession. Not only do the opposition get the ball, they get clean ball, because the catcher is under no pressure from our forwards.

Trusting your defence is one thing, but choosing to defend? I've never understood that. Isn't defending supposed to tire you more?

I know this is the wrong thread for this, but I hate how we kick long and deliberately infield. Again, it's handing posession to the opposition, but it also guarantees that the ball's going to come back upfield. Surely it would be better to kick for touch with a good chase, so that play's guaranteed to stay in their half, albeit temporarily?

And don't get me started on our obsession with going to the blindside, even when the blindside's covered.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Remember watching ireland A v England a few years ago. Ireland got a penalty and signalled a kick to the posts. The English lined up mostly under the posts and around that area so Jeremy Staunton kicked to the corner of the field with his place kick and the Ireland winger caught it and scored. Nice!!

Percy Montgomery did the same for tge Dragons, except maybe it was a tap and go

The kicker cannot have signalled he was kicking at goal - or at least in a way that the referee was aware. If he had then anything else is not allowed. Of course what I have seen, while reffing, is a team indicating they were kicking at goal. Put it on the tee then from that position kick to the corner. Thankfully the winger failed to reach it - as I am not sure what I would have done.

LondonTiger wrote:

The kicker cannot have signalled he was kicking at goal - or at least in a way that the referee was aware. If he had then anything else is not allowed. Of course what I have seen, while reffing, is a team indicating they were kicking at goal. Put it on the tee then from that position kick to the corner. Thankfully the winger failed to reach it - as I am not sure what I would have done.

Unsporting conduct? Pnalty to the defending team at the point the ball was kicked? Just guessing

Innovations?well for a start you are using league defence tactics the laws are constantly tinkered with.IF you have the basic skills and at Test level it is something that should be instinctive.At Test level the Coaches should come up
with game plans for players to execute.The good sides play heads up Rugby they
don`t stick slaveishly to a plan.The ploys in the Scrum are no longer available as they are illegal.As they involved players leaving the scrum before the ball was out.The setting of the Scrum means it is unstable before it starts,the old method of packing down by rows.Was both safer and more solid,the old ploys twisting and lowering,boring[packing to split the hooker from the prop],dropping a shoulder etc.Are still used Refs seldom police the squint feed,diving in is endemic.Collapsed Scrum?it`s a 50/50 bet the Ref doesn`t pick it its coached trying to milk penalties.The Rolling maul is seldom effective now as the defence splits it into individual pods.The Driving maul as used by AB`s 1987-91 neutered by law changes.The Peel from the Lineout almost impossible because the supports are busy lifting the jumpers.Variations at restarts/drop outs are tried When did you last see a wing.Crosskick a ball under the posts for a support player to chase?A once great player produced one of the great Coaching Manuals of all time.The key was simple EVERY player concentrated on a basic principle.WHATS ON if it s a pass,run,kick or simply take the tackle and off load in it.THE basic principles have`nt changed 14 men give number 15 a one yard start.Aggresive Defence is as old as the hills you can`t score unless you have the ball.Goal kickers come in all shapes and sizes it is more a case of fashion,now 9 or 10 is the norm,15 used to be in vogue in the age of reality.
Many Goal kickers were forwards Frik Du Preez,Eales,Okey Geffin as three examples.

They could have said - sorry just a bad kicker. but yes that was what I would have probably done - as it was 22m drop-out.

emack2 wrote:Wrote a wall of text

Mr Mackie - really sorry but I find it almost impossible to make head or tail of your posts. The lack of paragraphs and spaces after punctuation make it, for me, impenetrable. I am sure there are some good points, but my brain just goes .

Not trying to be a grammar nazi, honest. Just I am aware you have a lot of experience etc and would love to understand your views.

TJ wrote:
also on selection - why does the 10 have to take the place kicks? why not find out who your best place kicker is and train him up?

Some guys have already pointed out Eales, but in Rugby League it's a lot more prominent to have "the best kicker" kicking, regardless of position. Andy Farrell took the majority of Wigan's, Kevin Sinfield takes shots for Leeds, and prop Lee Crooks used to kick for Hull / Castleford.

I forgot to mention that Andy Robinson still has not so far availed himself of the most innovative of all strategies - picking a Glasgow based midfield who are actually playing well.

London Tiger ,I have explained on numerous occasions I am PC Dyslexic,on paper I`m fine.I have both Gce and CSEs in England Literature and language.Also what I write in the box does`nt always appear on thread afterwards for some reason.Just either stick with my prose style which is perfectly legible if not as written by me,or bypass my posts.That way you may
actually learn something as I am well versed in the game of Rugby

I do try, honest. Was not trying to be mean and hope no offence was taken.

sorry, I got eye ache trying to read it


Innovations?well for a start you are using league defence tactics the laws are constantly tinkered with. IF you have the basic skills and at Test level it is something that should be instinctive. At Test level the Coaches should come up with game plans for players to execute.The good sides play heads up Rugby they don`t stick slavishly to a plan.

The ploys in the Scrum are no longer available as they are illegal. As they involved players leaving the scrum before the ball was out. The setting of the Scrum means it is unstable before it starts,the old method of packing down by rows. This was both safer and more solid,the old ploys twisting and lowering,boring [packing to split the hooker from the prop], dropping a shoulder etc.

Are still used Refs seldom police the squint feed, diving in an endemic. Collapsed Scrum? its a 50/50 bet the Ref doesn't see it.
Its the coaches trying to milk penalties.

The Rolling maul is seldom effective now as the defence splits it into individual pods.
The Driving maul as used by AB`s 1987-91 neutered by law changes.
The Peel from the Lineout almost impossible because the supports are busy lifting the jumpers.
Variations at restarts/drop outs are tried When did you last see a wing crosskick a ball under the posts for a support player to chase?

A once great player produced one of the great Coaching Manuals of all time. The key was simple EVERY player concentrated on a basic principle .....WHATS ON? if it s a pass, run, kick or simply take the tackle and off load in it. THE basic principles haven't changed.

14 men give number 15 a one yard start. Aggresive Defence is as old as the hills you can`t score unless you have the ball.

Goal kickers come in all shapes and sizes it is more a case of fashion, now 9 or 10 is the norm, 15 used to be in vogue in the age of reality.

PS: what did people think of my Calvary Charge?

dependent on good passing, a quick off-load that can't be intercepted and tackled players clearing the way for support runners to fill the gap

I didn't quite understand the cavalry charge, Damage. The diagram threw me!