Numbers at the breakdown...

As shown on Scrum V last night, the Welsh team where too quick to throw numbers in at the breakdown, while the All Blacks didnt commit more than 2 or even 1 player.

During the 2008 Grand Slam game against France this is exactly the way Wales played and I belive is what won them that game, as France kept putting numbers in while Wales where happy to let them win the ball as they knew they wouldnt get past the next defensive line.

So, if Shaun Edwards drummed this in too them in 2008, as he is still in place and apart from a few retirements the squad is basically the same. Why are we know thowing numbers into the breakdown. When 6+ players are on the floor they are out of the game. Worse than that, many times we have some of our 3/4 line tied up in the breakdown, when they should be setting up for an attack or defence against the opponents speedsters...

Has Shaun Edwards changed tack, or are the players choosing to ignore his coaching.

Anyone have any thoughts on this...

It's about deciding when to do one or the other. That's the difference between the NH and the SH. If the ball is lost then don't bother unless you can disrupt their possession. If the ball could be won then immediately attack it with whomever is near by.

Numbers at the breakdown is tought to kids as young as 11, and has been for years. It's not a new idea, it's not a modern idea it's happened since the amatuer era.

Jon Davies has an obsession of screaming about the basics of the game constantly and they tend to rehash it on scrum V!!!

Numbers at the breakdown can happen through a hundred differing scenarios...

1stly the Argys really gave it to NZ (and a few other teams) by attacking the breakdown with numbers constantly, but that relies on someone on the floor slowing the ball down enough for those numbers to get there. When it works the gameplan of only commiting 1 or 2 players there is nullified (See NZ V Argy TRC first 60 mins until NZ changed tack). So the numbers commited could be a tactical response to a teams threat.

2ndly it could be a confidence issue, Wales were turned over time and time again by lesser teams than NZ in the 2 games previous because they were flooded at the breakdown and they tried not to over commit. The response to that is to over commit to ensure you keep ball (even when there is no defendcer to challenge for it)

For all of the scrum V blustering (and I am sure they highlighted how it effected us, and the reason we lost the game blah blah blah) it really isn't a case of why we do what we do, it is how we do what we do. How we execute the numbers at the breakdown, how the players respond to no threat from a specific ruck, if any of the 6 forwards stood over the ball with no defender in front of them realise they can pull out, or pick and go (which Scotland did succesfully)

Numbers at the breakdown is a non issue being blown up by the media for those who know little about the game (no offence)

no-one should be standing, lying, floating around a ruck unless they are DOING something to get the ball, or slowing opposition ball.

These last 3 games, it has become a place for players to hide. stay down, have a rest, get up slowly, all the 'old dog ' tricks of taking it easy.

even hook when he came on 'seagulled ' at the rucks, why? look at me i am involved? utter nonsense.

it also shows that they dont know what else to do, 5,6,7, at the ruck not actively getting a result of some sort time after time shows poor execution and no-one calling the shots on the field.

no thinking at all.

Don't think the numbers mattered as much as the way the players entered the ruck. Certainly in the first two games it was evident that Wales were committing men to the breakdown, yet Argentina would hit them much more intensely, and be much stronger in protecting them, that you wonder what the effect of all those wrestling matches in Spala really was.

That said, I'd rather we committed more men to the ruck to make sure it is secure, than not enough and constantly get turned over, as we did between '09 and the '11 6N. This was part of the gameplan that was successful at the World Cup, all to do with ball retention, but now that we're dead set on kicking everything away, it seems like we're playing with the worst parts of several different, conflicting gameplans.

I think we have 5 or 6 in the ruck to secure it while we wait for Mike Phillips to turn up.

Very noticeable that the Kiwi's only needed 1 or 2 there because the ball was away so quickly that was all that was needed.

I watched several times where we had 5 or 6 in there and NZ just had 1 or 2 counter rucking. Mike Phillips wasn't even in the camera shot. He then jogs up to the breakdown and then goes through the routine of getting the ball away slowly. By which time NZ defence is set and they have had a cup of tea. We only caused issues for them when we got the ball away quickly.

That is called rocket science.

Isn't it largely dependent on whether you're defending or attacking? I wasn't paying much attention to it but every time Davies was talking about it the All Blacks were defending. The same was the case for Wales in 2008. Defending team don't bother to contest the ruck unless they get there first or the attacking side don't defend properly.

NZ were exposed three times this season. Once against Australia in the Brisbane draw, once against Ireland in the second test, and once against South Africa in the first half of the final SA v NZ RC test.

The common element in all of those games was that the opposition threw large numbers into the offensive breakdown and then used the pick and go around the fringe to break through and get behind the NZ line. Simple, old fashioned, effective.

I imagine the coaches noticed it and asked for the same thing.

There are a few problems in the implementation however. First, that Wales didn't persist to attack the fringes and instead went wide after too few tight phases, playing into NZ's hands. Secondly that NZ have improved their fringe defense by compressing around the ruck more and being more aggressive in meeting the ball carrier. Also Messam and Vito are growing into the six role and are becoming more effective, and the addition of Crocket, Retallick and Coles gives NZ effectively three more players able to operate as flankers.

i still say we did nothing at the rucks, shambles

I watched Scrum V and they selected Wales attacking and they were putting in the number to retain the ball. I watched the game back and when the AB's were attacking they were doing excactly the same and Wales only had one or two in the ruck defending. I suggest selective highlights.

I'd go so far as to say that the breakdown and the handling of it are what seperates NZ from the rest of us pretenders. They are without doubt the ultimate protagonists of qucik ball and of ensuring the oppostion do not get quick ball. However the rules change the ABs adapt. A certain Mr McCaw has a small part to play in this. I think that's why the only way engalnd can even dream of a result this week end revolves around slow, pick and go, drudge, dredge, scrum and maul, kick the penalties etc etc.....try and take on the might of nz in a quick ball game and we are, as a wise woman once said, fooked!

glamorgan, why , what purpose , the selective highlights? to what end , to prove what point?

Any point at all, Gav. They have a slot to fill up.

gavstar

To prove Davies doesn't talk nonsense, to highlight why Wales really lost, and most importantly to fill the air!!

They are hardly going to come out and claim that the professional game in wales is failing, the junior system is flawed and our players are just not good enough are they!?

Wales should have stuck to a much simpler gameplan V NZ involving using their forwards to pick and drive the ball down the middle and using the crossfield up and under kicks/punts to try and cause confusion and panic in the well-disciplined All Black defensive line and wall in front of them when they had the ball. To me it seems that any team including even Australia and South Africa that even tries to using an expansive attacking running backline gameplan V New Zealand will always come off second best as that is the style of rugby that suits the New Zealanders right down to the ground.