RWC tactical guessing games

One full season lays ahead for all international sides. In a World Cup year, there are no June tests or Autumn Internationals. The 6N is sufficiently far enough away from October to play your top sides but the RC heavyweights may once again look to play more experimental sides in their away matches. The physical peak for all sides will be targeted for the month of October 2015.

Obviously you want ideally to arrive at the RWC with momentum and winning momentum at that. There are some sides who championship the underdog status but that is usually good enough for one major upset. If you have aspirations of winning the 3 necessary knockout games, you need confidence and self belief and that comes from consistency in both performance and results.

The problem is how do you play your hand in terms of tactics. Safe and steady placing your faith in the systems you have honed and put in place? Or do you make your opponent think you're going to play one way and then come out with the unexpected? Let's take England and NZ for example. It's safe to say that in their last two encounters England have won the breakdown battle. With a June series first up, does Hansen keep playing the same way and send the message to SL you're in our backyard now so good luck with that? Or does he rework his approach at the breakdown and send the message that you think you have the edge, well how do you like them apples. Similarly does SL rework how his backline functions and attempt part of what Meyer did with the Ellis Park test? Is it more important to win psychological points at this stage by winning or do you play a cat and mouse approach and keep a few tricks up your sleeve?

Do possible draws come into it? England might face hypothetically NZ in the semis or the final. Does home advantage make SL think to hell with tactics, let's just make a statement by winning against NZ at home. Does it make more sense to keep their tricks up the sleeve for Wales who are in their pool group or is it a case of winning is more important? If Ireland do meet NZ in the quarter finals they might not have met since this year's game. Difficult to muster a similar performance like that when Hansen will make that test compulsory viewing for his side. Does Schmidt do the same or does he conjure up something different? Gatland's style has had success against England in recent times. Does he maintain the status quo and come up with the unexpected against Australia?

How important is winning leading into a RWC and when is the best time to introduce new tactics to undo a side? Now or when the time comes?

I think there is too much emphasis on the RWC, coaches attempt to have their best squad available for a small window every four years, often sacraficing other matches for the good of the RWC.

Go out to continuously build a squad regardless of when the RWC is and win as many matches along the way.

If by chance you have a great squad available at the time then great, irrespective of how good a team is luck plays a big part of rugby world cups and the better team does not always come out victorius. That is unfortunately the reality.

The draws work out to favour you sometimes and other times not, so you might as well just play test rugby all the time to win, be it a RWC or not.

You seem to be in the win at all times camp BB. Maybe the last 3N and the experimental away Bok squads and not getting the rub of the green in the quarter final and it's more than a difficult quarter final result to bear (know that feeling!). It's also knowing that you missed out on another trophy that compounds that sense of loss.

But let's face it BB. There are very few sides who approach all their matches thinking they can win all their matches. That's different from winning all your matches, as most sides recognize they have to pick and choose their moments. Some teams may have lofty ambitions and you just have to win three knockout games and at least two pool games. That's more manageable than contemplating 12 to 14 games which had been beyond every side in the professional era.

Even if you try to win as many games as possible, you need to have a plan b or c to fall back on. The question is when do you try those plans out? You can't cover for every contingency but if you don't try to at least try something new when an opponent is getting the best of you, you won't get much in the way of sympathy. Thing is do you wait until somebody is getting the better of you or do you anticipate how to get the better of your opponent?

You need to always improve, not for specific events. That's why I believe focusing on the RWC does more harm than good.

I think it goes both ways...success at Rugby world cups has little to do with what goes on before the world cup- the exception being how injuries are handled.

For the AB's Dagg playing in SA in 2011 when he had had 6 months off through injury meant he wouldn't have been included in the squad if he hadn't proved himself in the 3N- no way were they going to 'try him out' in the final decider in Brisbane- so tactically, and with Dagg's resulting semi final blinder, it does have its benefits.

On the other hand we had injuries to Carter, Slade and Weepu in the final with McCaw carrying injury through the last 3 matches.

Oz played their best side in the 3N, then suffered big time with both form and injury in the World cup.

South Africa's going out to Oz had nothing to do with forfeiting the 3N unless they attribute the 'secret' training camp down to increasing fitness levels, preserving players and building team cohesion. But in the end it was more on the day, Brussouw off leaving SA to the mercy of both Pocock and a very poor Lawrence.

For NZ we needed the 3N final in Brisbane- it was the last big match prior to a knock out match- pool matches never being a test for the AB's- and having Oz and a last loss to them fit perfectly motivation wise.

For all the reasons above I believe Hansen is already well into trying to build up not one, or even two but three fifteens capable of nullifying any chance of repeating the Donald duck whitebaiting scenario.

Had we had the sort of depth we look like we will have in 2015 back in 2011, we might have been able to win the 3N as well by having a deeper, test hardened squad in SA. That would have provided a lot of the plan a,b and c that Biltong mentions.

So I agree there shouldnt be a huge focus on the World cup, just an awareness of it being there.

I always thought the "building for the RWC" was an excuse for poor results anyway. Was scw's "tour of hell" really the building block for 2003? Or was it an arrogant and misguided faith in his ability to pluck obscure and undeveloped players and believe he could win anyway with the strength of his coaching nous?

It seems the "building for the RWC" talk started then.

In a way he gave credence, focus and prestige to a youthful contest that was a bit of a side show at the time...so there's one outcome.

SCW now maintains that post 2003 he should have repeated the ploy, as his players were "too tired" after winning.

However shags efforts with the All Blacks seem to put pay to that, as did his disasterous lions effort.

GE, you may be confusing the reality of what happened on that tour with SCWs post-world cup, post-rugby rationalisations (and probably your own somewhat skewed worldview).

At the time of the tour of hell, CW (as he was then) didn't have much choice who he sent. His senior players were on strike, so he was pretty much forced to take inexperienced players. One consequence of that, though, was that several players who were part of the eventual RWC squad got their first international touring experience several years earlier than they might have done. Lewsey, Healey, Wilkinson, Vickery, Rowntree and Moody were all on that tour.

So no. it was nothing to do with "arrogant and misguided faith in his ability to pluck obscure and underdeveloped players and believe he could win anyway" and everything to do with the RFU's misguided faith that senior players would accept a pittance for their involvement in international rugby.

The tour was widely lambasted and lamented in England at the time. Any serious "building for the RWC" (as opposed to blatant backside covering for a weak squad) talk came later, when it became apparent that some good players had emerged from the fiasco.

Where Woodward might have been right - though I am not at all sure - is in the idea that he should have thrown in more youthful players post-RWC. We will never know, because he didn't stick around to finish the job, but my belief is that England's troubles since then were basically down to losing Johnson, Hill, Greenwood and what should have been the best years of Wilkinson's career in one hit, with no pipeline of successors to follow them. Maybe the ABs could have handled that kind of a hit, but I doubt any other team could have done. It's taken 10 years to come close to rectifying that issue, and at the price of going into RWC 2015 with a team that is still likely to lack experience in key areas.

One thing that's definitely clear is that he shouldn't have pulled his old muckers out of semi retirement to take them - unfit and out of form - to New Zealand in 2005. A lesson that Gatland doesn't appear to have learned, but got away with. So that's all right then.

GE This thread is not about building for the RWC. It's about what tactics teams will employ at that tournament and how they will differ from the gameplan they are playing now. My understanding of building for the RWC is giving players who are untested test time because you have a long term vision. Hansen seems to have perfected this squad development but I am more interested next year in the tactical side of things notably at the breakdown area. Will Hansen change the players' approach there and have something else up his sleeve for the RWC the following year?

Tactics will be obvious for englands group,

England: Huge pack and tactics of give it to manu, if he's injured then kick it or knock on.  
Wales: Huge backline (adam jones to get injured in training) lots of crashball then lose to oz by 3 points (same pattern as the last 5 years)
Oz: Turn up with a hangover and bad facial hair, terrible pack, spin it wide and fast and hope genia, cooper and folau are on form.

The patterns will all be the same as pre worldcup apart from the lineout calls.

Poorfour wrote:GE, you may be confusing the reality of what happened on that tour with SCWs post-world cup, post-rugby rationalisations (and probably your own somewhat skewed worldview).

At the time of the tour of hell, CW (as he was then) didn't have much choice who he sent. His senior players were on strike, so he was pretty much forced to take inexperienced players. One consequence of that, though, was that several players who were part of the eventual RWC squad got their first international touring experience several years earlier than they might have done. Lewsey, Healey, Wilkinson, Vickery, Rowntree and Moody were all on that tour.

So no. it was nothing to do with "arrogant and misguided faith in his ability to pluck obscure and underdeveloped players and believe he could win anyway" and everything to do with the RFU's misguided faith that senior players would accept a pittance for their involvement in international rugby.

The tour was widely lambasted and lamented in England at the time. Any serious "building for the RWC" (as opposed to blatant backside covering for a weak squad) talk came later, when it became apparent that some good players had emerged from the fiasco.

Where Woodward might have been right - though I am not at all sure - is in the idea that he should have thrown in more youthful players post-RWC. We will never know, because he didn't stick around to finish the job, but my belief is that England's troubles since then were basically down to losing Johnson, Hill, Greenwood and what should have been the best years of Wilkinson's career in one hit, with no pipeline of successors to follow them. Maybe the ABs could have handled that kind of a hit, but I doubt any other team could have done. It's taken 10 years to come close to rectifying that issue, and at the price of going into RWC 2015 with a team that is still likely to lack experience in key areas.

One thing that's definitely clear is that he shouldn't have pulled his old muckers out of semi retirement to take them - unfit and out of form - to New Zealand in 2005. A lesson that Gatland doesn't appear to have learned, but got away with. So that's all right then.

It looks like we agree. You choose to apportion the blame with the RFU. I think that SCW's arrogance had a part to play, under the obvious incompetence of the RFU.

 

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:GE This thread is not about building for the RWC. It's about what tactics teams will employ at that tournament and how they will differ from the gameplan they are playing now. My understanding of building for the RWC is giving players who are untested test time because you have a long term vision. Hansen seems to have perfected this squad development but I am more interested next year in the tactical side of things notably at the breakdown area. Will Hansen change the players' approach there and have something else up his sleeve for the RWC the following year?

 
From an NZ perspective, the AB game plan is pretty clear to all. It's about minimising ruck involvement to ensure plenty of players are available for counter attack. A pod system is in use in the forwards to provide punch and ball carrying across the width of the field. It's about relying on the experience and talent and judgement of the loosies and locks to pick the correct ruck to attack to enable that turn over, and trusting the defense to hold out the waves of opposition attack until the opportunity arises. He's utilised tactical kicking heavily, making sure that attack happens in the right areas of the field and that the opposition is required to run from deep if they want to score tries.
 
There was evidence this year (and last) that when any one of those elements falls down, then the game plan is flawed. Against England last year, the defense was leaky. This year, the turn overs didn't come because of a drift and evolution in refereeing of the breakdown, lead by Joubert's avante garde and some would claim flawed approach to allowing attacking teams to flout the laws where the defense are highly selective about committing numbers. Alied with problems caused by destablising the attacking scrum as a platform due to IRB tinkering, some areas for improvement appeared. I'm not sure if these are tricks that Hansen will roll out for the world cup, or just evolution of the game plan. I can't see a big shift in style, probably just mitigation of ruck laws and improvement of the scrum as a platform. I think we'll see inevitable selection changes in the front row, and tinkering in the back row.
 
NZ will have further impact options from the bench next year. I expect to see Vito back covering the back row and providing an option and depth at 8. SBW obviously for 2015 at 12 or wing and the possibility of Benji Marshall bringing further magic from full back or maybe 10.

 
As far as everyone else is concerned, if England get a new backs coach (which they sorely need), then they have the personell to add an attacking threat behind a competent pack. But I think for the RWC they are likely instead to revert to type, look to keep it close and kick goals generated from set piece penalties and use their maul from the lineout. We'll see more big runners hitting the mid-field and I suspect the usual squandering of guys like twlevetrees and whichever of their speedy wing options manage to stay fit.
 
Wales. Well, I think their depth is a serious issue for them. Once they loose Adam Jones, then their set piece starts to look suspect, and they can't get enough ball to their backs for their crash-bang game to have any momentum. Gatland needs to evolve, because his game is getting stale. I can't see it happening though.
 
SA is probably the most interesting of the lot. I suspect a difficult second season for their more expansive game. I can see a disgruntled SA public demanding a return to a more traditional power game after a few reversals at the hands of NZ and a reinvigorated Australia next year. Will Meyer hold his nerve?

Scotland might be the dark horses. I like Weir immensely at 10. He takes the line and distributes like Cruden, if the Scots can improve their fitness and keep their first choice side fit, I can see them causing an upset or two with their percentages game.

Don't think many teams will differ much from their 'traditional' game plans GE. After a June series with England and a RC against an improving Oz and SA, Hansen will assess where his team are at after that. If he's lost a couple, then there's more pressure to change. If he keeps his team's winning ways, it's more likely to be status quo. Losing can either force you back into a conservative shell (the more likely) or it can cause a major rethink (e.g. NZ after the horror run against SA in 2009 or SA in 2013 at Ellis Park). Hansen won't want to relinquish NZ's winnings ways but he'll be aware that he needs to change it up slightly to stay ahead of the chasing pack.

Vito has loyally stayed on and he'll be fighting for a spot no doubt this Super season. But he'll have to contend with McCaw who might be resting Read, Kaino's return and the likes of Luatua and Cane who will be fighting for that utility back row spot depending on who the starting team is. That said, competition for spots can only be a good thing.

I think a kaino return is more likely than Vito, who would have to have been given more than his fair share of chances already.  
The blues gained some real momentum via the ABs last year and Marshall/ kaino returning makes them the most interesting sxv side if not the best.
This means their style of play could influence the ABs if JK's high octane style has some real backbone to it.
If Hansen's looking for more of an edge he might be looking the blues way to providing it having already thrown many in last year.
Depth, player management and good use of the bench remain Hansens high level tactics for 2015. How he keeps a side hardened during four weeks of low quality opposition is always the big challenge, tactics on the field not so important during this period. That's why I think we need a pre tournament loss.

No, GE. We differ on a very important point. You seem to think that both England fans and SCW saw the 98 tour as a deliberate opportunity to "build for the world cup". That was never the case, even if there was PR at the time putting a brave face on it (I honestly can't remember and even if there was it was universally ignored).

I am saying that fans and coaching staff knew it was an embarrassing and unwanted situation that did no good whatsoever in preparing for the next world cup ('99). With hindsight, we can recognise that it did benefit the preparation of the 2003 squad, although several of them didn't break into the squad properly until after the far mre successful tour of Argentina in 2001.

The difference is one of intent. The squad that travelled was the best available. It wasn't - and was never seriously painted as - a deliberate choice to try out newer players. For that, you need to look to Stuart Lancaster's decision to drop all the players over 30 at the start of a world cup cycle and start again almost from scratch.

I would like to see some innovation in tactics. Until the last WC there always seemed to be someone trying new tactics / formations / trick plays. All the NZ backs standing in a line behind a central scrum, Canada using american football style throws to the winger etc etc

IU think fortune favours the brave and the coach who can so this will do well. does anyone have the imagination and the daring tho?

Gimmicks. They're a poor excuse for smart coaching.

The welsh 13 man lineout. Rubbish.

John Hart getting Lomu to feed the scrum. I mean what was the point? Take your best strike runner out of play? Stupid.

These things creep in when a coach is desperate.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Gimmicks. They're a poor excuse for smart coaching.

The welsh 13 man lineout. Rubbish.

John Hart getting Lomu to feed the scrum. I mean what was the point? Take your best strike runner out of play? Stupid.

These things creep in when a coach is desperate.

Just for fun I searched 13 man lineout and I see the video of the successful Wales lineout v. All Blacks, but nothing about the 13 man lineout v. Australia.  I wonder why no one posted that...............

I can't see England making any changes in strategy leading up to and through the RWC.  Under Lancaster they have shown no creativity of thought other than playing players out of position:   Looking at physical tools and forgetting the skill sets need to be abetted by actual playing experience.  Maybe if a player like Twelvetrees is able to lock down the Inside Centre position, the backs might get moving a bit more.  Otherwise I can't see anything changing.

Yep. The "successful" 13 man lineout against NZ also resulted in Wales kicking away endless penalties they could have accumulated 3 points for. By the time they got their chance, the horse had bolted to the tune of 33-0. I recall priestland wetting his shorts in anticipation and kicking half a dozen penalties dead.

I understand that.
But, I was commenting there was no video for the unsuccessful 13 man lineout against the Wallabies. Kind of mind blowing that they could screw it up and thereby lose the match right then and there, eh?

Yep. You're right. Just wanted to qualify the "success" of the gimmick even when it was misguidedly celebrated.

doctor_grey wrote:I understand that.  
But, I was commenting there was no video for the unsuccessful 13 man lineout against the Wallabies.  Kind of mind blowing that they could screw it up and thereby lose the match right then and there, eh?

Lose the match? The a Lions won it pretty convincingly.

https://youtu.be/pDd93L782Io

Griff wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I understand that.  
But, I was commenting there was no video for the unsuccessful 13 man lineout against the Wallabies.  Kind of mind blowing that they could screw it up and thereby lose the match right then and there, eh?

Lose the match? The a Lions won it pretty convincingly.

https://youtu.be/pDd93L782Io

I was referring to that last Wales-Australia match.  Thought it was kind of bizarre to lose that lineout. Kind of goes to show the number of people in the lineout doesn't mean it can be won automatically.

Sorry, thought you meant the Lions (which wasn't great either).

It seems a mostly Gatland tactic. He used it with Ireland against Argentina back in '99 apparently, again unsuccessfully.

No problem.
I didn't remember that last one, the Ireland-Arg one. Agree, must be a Gatland tactic. I thought it made him look a bit too cute in that Wales-Aus match when they lost. Shame because Wales had a great chance there.