How Do Big Leads Become Liabilities

16 - 3. That's what France were leading yesterday. It reminded me of the 2011 RWC quarter final. France out to a big lead and England came back in the second half but the damage was done. This time England managed a lot better and went into the final minutes up by 5. France for most of that second half were doing their impression of a scared turtle. Retreating deep into their shell: the backs were set deep and invariably failed to get over the advantage line aided by slow ruck ball which gave the England defence ample time to set up at the fringes and charge at the French line which never got more than two passes out. What makes teams lose sight of the game when they're up by a large margin? Statistically if you lead a team at half time you are likely to win the game but is it a curse if you lead by a big margin?

I think back to last year and the Wales Ireland game. Ireland up by a bucketload and you could see in the body language of the senior Welsh players that they were down and out. But suddenly when you realise you're down and out, the pressure comes off. You start playing like you have nothing to lose because you know you already have. Lo and behold, you get back in the game and then a transformation takes place in your mind. Well rugger me we can actually win this. Simultaneously the thought process changes in the opposition mind: rugger me we might actually blow this. The only reason Ireland won that match against Wales was their heroic line defence. Against NZ though, it was Teenage Ninja Turtle Power though and they failed to score a single point in the second half after being up by 19 points.

NZ have blown leads against France. It was a slender margin in the 2007 RWC but it was a big lead in 1999. In the Bledisloe with the world record attendance NZ went up by three tries early on only to be clawed back by the end of the first half. France are experts in turning off and then switching on when the game seems lost.

Sometimes I wonder it's better to have a small lead within a score than a big margin. It's like being up at poker. The big stack starts playing every hand because he thinks he's got room for gambling and the discipline goes out. Hanging in focuses the mind and often sees better decisions.

So why do you think building a big lead often sees team making wholesale changes, switching off mentally and poor decision making?

England were always going to come back at a 16-3 scoreboard.  The French were working in blobs of effort and then sat back and didn't seem to have any solid plan to lift the pressure being exerted by England.
England always looked the better drilled and fitter side and that's going to tell eventually as the clock ticks through 80 minutes.  Had France looked more menacing in attack for sustained periods, then you would begin to doubt England's ability to crawl back... but I remember saying to myself that France (playing as they were) would need more than that score to keep England out in the second half.

Frances lead was due to a lucky bounce etc. England should have won.

If they had not let those stupid points go and similarly against Nz we'd have won.

Yeah, but sides need to capitalise on lucky bounces - there is still work to do and the French were at least up for preying on anything that looked like a stray ball. You could say their entire gameplan was opportunism. Not my ideal gameplan but scrappy and all as it was, it won them a game against a much more professionally organised team.

England is not the only team victim to a lucky bounce or silly mistake. All teams can look back at a match and claim a bunch of ifs, buts and maybes. There is no such thing as an undeserved loser who is actually the winner if not a lucky bounce, missed kick etc.

France changed style at half time. They were flatter and chipping the line and it was working with the green Backline.

For some reason, rather than continuing with what was working they switched to a deep Backline, who were utterly static. Is tend to try basteraud on the wing, because at centre he's just a slow reacting lump.

SecretFly wrote:England were always going to come back at a 16-3 scoreboard.

Lancaster's England seem to be able to do so. Under every coach since Woodward, England never came back if they fell nine points behind no matter what stage in the match they gave away that lead.

It's another matter to then get ahead and stay there. That's now two big matches where England have got their noses in front only to let the opposition come back.

I don't think we can lay the blame solely at the changes in personnel. The last quarter is always going to see replacements on, and there's a much higher chance players will be out of position too. I didn't see much evidence that we had any set drills - how to stay in opposition territory; how to keep possession; how to squeeze out three points; what to do when your flyhalf is crocked. These drills are one way of providing a unity of purpose when exhaustion has made the brain work a bit slower, and new faces haven't got into the rhythm of the game.

Ideally, of course, our leadership group would be rallying people but we don't have much depth there, especially when Lancaster takes Hartley off. Wood and Robshaw can't have much breath for talking after seventy minutes of their work rate. Robshaw is improving as a captain, and leads by example, but we've seen before that he can be a bit foggy in the final moments. Farrell is something of a field marshal but he was one of the players down at the end, so couldn't bark out any orders.

You can't have too thick a playbook. Rugby isn't American Football and play can be robotic enough as it is without wanting every moment to be scripted. However, all teams need to have a rough idea of what they do when the match situation calls for a certain type of response. When England got that final drop goal in 2003, every player knew what their role was straight from the kick off.

I'd like to know if we lost the penalty at the end of the first half because we backed ourselves to score another try (after all, Care's gamble had just come off) or because no-one had a proper handle on the match situation. Care might well have gone for his later drop goal instead of playing for a try because he remembered how that three point chance had evaporated earlier.

For all of Young's burrowing work, he does seem a liability at Lineout time and if you need accuracy in the crucial last quarter, it doesn't matter how good you are at gaining metres. Morgan was doing plenty of those. You want players who can be relied on to do their job as well as those who provide impact. Youngs provides impact in the loose but seems a liability in the set piece.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:For all of Young's burrowing work, he does seem a liability at Lineout time.

He's not a liability for his club, but that's two games in succession where he has lost a key lineout straight after coming on. It's a bit like a kicker who gets charged down twice: it doesn't matter how well you perform off the big stage, the pressure is now on him to show it was a mistake he won't repeat.