How are tries most likely to come about?

Looking at a best individual tries of 2013 video - it struck me how many of them came from broken play.

When I looked at the best tries of New Zealand 2013 video, it struck me how many of the tries came from good offloads:

Now obviously a best individual try is not going to have a good offload in it as it would cease to be an individual try. Similarly, the best team tries are not going to have individual brilliance as then they wouldn't be very good team tries.

In the modern game, it's very rare to see a set piece move come off. They do happen but usually the way to unlock the opposition defence is to seize upon an error - coming up in the line too quickly, losing the ball in a tackle or ruck, kicking poorly - and then attack straight away before the opposition has time to readjust their line.

So what does this say about possession? Having the ball is often seen as the best way to beat your opposition as you dictate play. But if you're patient on defence and choose the right moments to attack, you can easily win a match with inferior possession stats. Continuity is not the best way of scoring a try at the moment it seems. Doing something out of the ordinary like the right offload seems the best way to do so. However, if you make the wrong offload and lose possession, there is a high probability of conceding a try.

So which is the best way to play? Concentrate on defence and bide your time or be more adventurous in your play and take the risk of conceding in order to give yourselves a better chance of scoring a try?

K - at the top level of the modern game, where all the players (well most) are 6 foot plus gym bunnies, in a world where a modern prop is faster and fitter than a back of 20 years ago and when the backs can run at speeds that would have got Olympic medals in the 1970's, the game is going to get increasingly based on possession, minimising errors and grinding "the hard yards" forwards and less on individual brilliance except inside the 22.
Or as we call it in England "Something Special" (Sorry Beshocked couldn't resist   )

For the side not having the ball, the emphasis is going to be slowing the ball down, sucking attacking players into rucks, and trying to secure ball either from turnover or more likely getting the attacking side penalised for holding on or knocking forward.

For either team, moves are constantly rehearsed, analysed by coaches, and drilled to perfection.

In short, American football without the pads.

Its true that in the 2013 classic in Joburg, NZ simply waited, allowed SA to attack and then picked them off as they capitalised from SA mistakes in attack/turnovers.

They never smashed the boks line like the score would suggest. They allowed the boks to do all the running. Very smart regardless.

Depends - as always - on the opposition.  If you're confident a lack of possession won't kill you (as in the opposition don't pose enough of a threat in general ability and personnel terms) then you might be tempted to concentrate on defence and wait your moments.

But you don't have the leisure to hunker down in defence and wait for opportunities if the opposition have the ability to break your wall up, crash through it and/or go round it.

If the opposition side is more talented than your own, the best policy is to try to push them off you by sustaining an attack mode for as many minutes of the 80 as possible.  That's why often the losing side can have better possession stats - fear.

kia - a lot of coaches this season seem to be suggesting that the longer you have possession, and the more phases you go through, the less likely you are to score. The argument is that defences re-organise very quickly, while the attacking team need to use more people to secure the ball.

Certainly in the AP we are seeing a lot more tries of first phase ball (including from turnovers). The first try on the Kiwi collection is an example of this. Off the top in the lineout with a training paddock move to put the blindside winger through the hole.

Sort of highlights the counter-productiveness of always kicking ball away when the chance to counter is on. At that point defences are at their most dis-organised.

I did note though that only one of those Kiwi tries started in their own half - and they were 23-0 up with 3 minutes to go at the time.

LT it's more difficult to find videos of props flopping over the tryline. The videos are certainly skewed in favour of the more adventurous approach. I'm certainly not denying the hard graft approach isn't effective and for more than three minutes NZ scored one of the most incredible continuity tries to end their 2013 campaign. I just thought it a topical issue after the England Wales match where Wales seemed intent on punishing mistakes with the boot rather than chance their arm with running the ball back.

Some good points - certainly it seems that phase play is not the most effective way of working a try-scoring opportunity, although it may be a good way of milking a penalty in a kickable (or good tap and go) position.

One thing that the 6Ns has shown is that most teams have very good scrambling defence and reorganise very quickly after an intial line break. There was a good example in the England v Wales game, where Jamie Roberts made a break straight through the middle off early phase ball, and was well tackled by Brown. Even though the ball came back reasonably quickly, the English covering defence was back and well enough organised that JD2 (after receiving something of a stopping pass) tried to kick through in the next phase rather than look to exploit any space.

Also, Burrell's nearly try came from England running turnover ball and exploiting the disorganisation of the Wales defence. Simliarly, Huget's second try v England came from a turnover just inside the French half - OK, there was an element of luck in the final bounce of the ball, but prior to that the attack exploited the mis-match in pace of Huget on the outside against Alex Goode.

I think one of the issues with multi-phase attacks is that it only takes one good bit of defence to stop a ball carrier behind the gain line and kill any momentum, which is what the rush defence is all about. For the attack to be effective you have to have a power caarrier that can take the initial hit and go forward, which very few players are really able to do.

It is though interesting that a few years ago it was considered a truism that you couldn't really attack off first phase ball, yet now it is seen as a good opportunity because there is so much more space if most of the forwards are tied up by the previous set piece.

Some statistics SARU came out with earlier this year suggested the longer and more phases you had th ball, the least likely you were to score.

According to them most tries are scored within the first three phases.

There after you chances of scoring reduced dramatically.

Counter attack in my view is therefor the most effective manner to score as the opposition defence is not set and if their scrambling defence (case in point SA vs NZ last year) is found wanting, you will score tries more readily.

But the importance is to have the vision to know when to counter.

I think modern day rugby has changed the manner in which teams play, take the All Blacks as an example, their tactical kicking have actually increased over the few seasons, but they have also added variety to their tactical kicking.

So in my view if you aren't scoring after 4 or 5 phases then tactical kicking is the logical step.

I agree, but phase play is still a useful game plan in a lot of situations. The other side of the coin is that it is more tiring to defend than attack. Hence why Ireland were able to run up a big score on Saturday- they made Italy break the record for tackles made in a Six Nations game and their fitness didn't hold up in the last 20 minutes. Ireland barely kicked at all in the entire game, they passed and ran and moved the ball from touchline to touchline, phase after phase.

When I got back from Dublin I was re-watched the game, and Phil Matthews on the BBC was bemoaning our tactics all through the first half- sideways, no penetration, why not kick over the top after you've gone through a few phases? And to be fair, after about half an hour the score was 7-7 because Italy had done exactly what you said and just seized on an error Ireland made when in possession. And considering Irelands only try was off a set move on first phase ball there was some justification for it.

But I was practically shouting at the TV, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to be fair, are you crazy Phil?! Every time we moved the ball from one touchline to the other and away from contact the Italian forwards had to shift from one touchline to the other too. By the last 10 minutes of the first half they already were struggling to cope physically and thats when their defence opened up.

When the opposition is as fit as you are or fitter, then fair enough- it won't work as well. But there are enough sides who aren't used to that pace in the NH to make multi-phase rugby very effective at wearing sides down. All of that good scramble defence dummy half highlights is very difficult to maintain over long periods, to do it again and again. If you can maintain your intensity and continuity over a long period of time phase play has a real attritional effect, especially when you use the full width of the pitch.

Notch, I think the quality of the opponent influences phase play.

Two well match teams will not bring the same success in multiphase as two unmarched teams.

Yep, pretty much.

Notch

Intersting comment - I guess we'll see this weekend whether England can do the same to Italy (not that I think we'll get even close to a big enough points difference). England have, according to consensus opinion, played pretty well in attack but have only managed 7 tries across 4 matches. OK, a bit of white line fever and sloppy execution have probably cost us two or three further tries, but a lot of our failings have also related to some cracking defensive play (none moreso than Murray knocking the ball out of Johnny May's hands as he was trying to ground it).

England v Ireland would be a great example of what Bilt and yourself were saying - two very evenly matched teams who kept attacking each other and just couldn't find a way of making the breakthrough in multi-phase play. I'm pretty sure both tries came on 2nd or 3rd phase possession, while the attack still had good forward momentum. Interesting as well that both tries featured the full back joining the attack coming through late on switchback passes.

on the counter and from mistakes.

or from quick taps and grubber kicks

Notch, it also depends on how many players you commit to rucks. If you pick and choose the players who join the tackle area, defending doesn't need to be as tiring as you say.

I think where you play in terms of territory has more importance nowadays (with two evenly matched teams) than how much ball you get. If you concede possession too often in your half, you will concede points either through tries or penalties.

Give the ball to the big Polynesian winger..

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Give the ball  to the big Polynesian winger..

Or in Wales's case, the big English winger   

Hearty congratulations to Ireland,great match ,deserved championship, and pleased for B O' D.