Space Invaders

First topic message reminder :

Most of us are urban creatures. We live piled on top of one another. Moving around is difficult in a city. Traffic jams, finding a park, fighting the bustle of public transport, we feel trapped in our urban jungles and spend the majority of the year craving open spaces. The problem is, when we do finally escape, we quickly find out we're not alone. No wonder Julie Andrews burst into spontaneous song when she found herself skipping gleefully through the Austrian Alps: she'd finally found some elbow room. Skip to the current day and Pharrell Williams is writing songs about feeling happy about rooms without a roof.

The modern rugby player is no different. The professional era has brought about a marked improvement in defence. Generally if a team rushes up in a straight line, it makes life very difficult for the opposition to make inroads on attack. Closing down space is the single biggest obstacle to getting over the advantage line. You can recycle ball and shift the point of attack from side to side, but generally if a team can keep that straight defensive line and smother a team's space in possession, it's very difficult to be dominated on the scoreboard. Even if a break is made, all efforts are made by the cover defence to shut down that open space and tie the ball down in the contact area.

It's like discovering a new holiday destination. I can't believe this place. There was nobody there. Everything was so cheap and it was so easy to get around. Fast forward to a few years and prices have gone through the roof and a feeling of claustrophobia sets in. So we look for new ways to finding those elusive open spaces.

In rugby there are various ways to find open space. Which do you think is over/under-utilised in today's game?

1) The lineout. Penalty opportunity. You opt for the lineout instead of going for the three? When points are scarce or hard to come by, why take this option? You might lose the throw. The defence might hold out and you come away with nothing. The eyes light up in the captain's eyes as the lineout has so many options for creating space. Keep it in tight and make a rolling maul. Split the lineout and then drive up the middle. Keep the opposition forwards in one area and take on the backs with no clutter.

2) The scrum. Like the lineout, the risks are there but depending on the effectiveness of your scrum, it can be used as a great attacking weapon. You can split the backs and use your 8 to create an extra man in the line. A wiper's kick is more likely to succeed if you narrow down the number of players who are able to compete for the ball.

3) Sucking in fringe players. If a team doesn't commit great numbers to a ruck, it is more likely to keep its defensive shape. The more players you have to tackle, the less likely you will be exposed on defence. The pick and go, the rolling maul, the offload are all designed to commit further players to the tackle area. The more players you commit to the tackle area, the more chance you have of finding open spaces away from the tackle area. How many times do we see a team utilise the rolling maul, it works well for them and then they don't use it for the rest of the game?

4) Running lines and support play. A pass is quicker than a man. A man going sideways is easier to deal with than a man going forward. All teams are guilty of being too lateral at times. When the play calls for a straightening up of attack, a player moving inside away from the touchline, a player running a good angle at the weak shoulder of the defender, a simple draw and pass, communication can break down and opportunities for space can be clamped down. A player makes a break but seeks contact without thinking of getting the arms free and continuing the attack. A player makes a break and finds himself isolated. A kick is made and there are no chasers in support of the man who claims the ball back. All teams are guilty of it: hanging on too long, 'numbers' cries Jiffy and the ball gets passed too quickly to the outside shutting down the space that was available, running into one another as opposed to running into space.

5) The kick. The chip over, the grubber, the wiper's kick. If a team rushes up on defence and shuts down the centre pairing thus blocking off the space outside, the kick is seen as a tempting method to shake free from the shackles of oppression and find freedom. Too often it's telegraphed or cover defences are better adept at reading the intent of the playmaker. It did surprise me that for all the talk of Folau's aerial supremacy, I can't recall many times, if any, where he was given an opportunity to demonstrate that ability against NZ. If something doesn't come off once, there seems to be an unwritten rule not to repeat the exercise. We've all seen the wing flailing his arms in open spaces. If a pass can't be made, then a kick is an effective way of finding space. Are we so afraid of looking like rugby league players on the 5th tackle and bombs away that we keep this option in check?

6) The counter-attack. If you place great faith in your defence and ability to get the opposition ball, the counter-attack is an extremely effective way of finding open spaces. When a team is aligned for attack, it's very difficult to realign your line for defence. Players will often not be in a line but jagged. That is like discovering Croatia in the 1980s. Why is nobody here? This is incredible! How many times though do we see a poor kick with no chasers putting players on-side and players back in the line able to form an attack and a kick is sent back. Even if it goes out and you gain metres, is it not worth sometimes retaining possession and having a crack at the opposition line that is not yet defensively set?

Feel free to add to the list, or argue against the case of finding open spaces. Today is the last day of July and we're heading into the peak season of August. Are rugby players the same as holidaymakers? Are they too predictable in their choices or not determined enough to find a little corner to themselves? Are they too traditional in their approach and not innovative enough or do they over-think things and don't choose the simple option before their very eyes?

And TBH the guy arguing against NZ would be right, had they lost that game they would have developed further as RWC chokers, which is not a great thing to say, but if your happy to facilitate the 'best ever' tag without the RWC win then you have to concede the 'chokers' tag.

Hungary being the best team not to win the WC I have no idea about, and anyone claiming that as fact would be making an opinion, you could claim they were the heaviest favourites never to win it, but you can not claim they were the best not to simply because you can't prove it.

I agree with you totally that France were a shower of you know what, they shouldve been knocked out in the group, then they shouldve lost to Wales, but they never, and they managed to make the final, NZ were the best team in the world, and dominant in the tournament, please remember i'm not anti NZ whatsoever, if anything I'm probably pro NZ as I don't have a top tier nation to support to oppose them. my point is no matter how bad France were they were there, and they were there by rights of results, yet they were the better team and undone by a series of refereeing decisions (and a well worked try). France were shackled by Jubert, for whatever reason we won't know, but they were. I can't say I've seen such a refereeing performance before or since.

2011 RWC has a lot of similarities to 2007 RWC, England were poor in their group, and limped to the final because France and Aus underperformed in crucial knockout games, however they were beaten by the better team in the final.

And just to be clear it wasn't just Joubert in the final that wasn't right, Owens being put in a position where he had to referee a Fiji game that directly effected Wales qualifying chances was a disgrace, and thats part of the problem with the RWC, it tends to be tailored to the favourite.

The problem with the RWC is that too much emphasis is placed on it. It can only been seen as a supporting case for greatness. Its not an automatic label on victory, nor should it be automatically dismissed for failure to win one.
 
Players get injured, referee choice and errors have a big impact on games (as you mentioned with the final in 2011) so in one off games its difficult to gauge on that one match alone whether a team is a truly great one. It should be over a collective period with all factors coming into place.
 
For every poor decision in the 2011 final you could probably say the same for the 2007 QF when France KO NZ with similar disputable events.

The difference there is that from memory, and it may well let me down, there were only 2/3 mistakes that favoured France, everything else was typically negotiable. Even if, lets say you are right the 2011 and 2007 games were even, SA were still undeniably up there with the best in every game, not only deserved winners, but they won each game on the day by right.

I think we've sidetracked onto debating greatness, RWC schedules, refereeing decisions etc, the original point I made was that simply I wouldn't be able to remember the 2011 RWC without the display by Joubert in the final. IT would be forgetable under any other circumstances if it wasn't for the amount of pressure NZ had to lose the 'choker' tag, on home soil to boot, with one of the most dominant sides the game has seen, playing against an underacheiving French team, that were abysmal from first game to last, riding extreme luck in the group and a red card that shocked the tournament (not saying it was right or wrong, just that it was out of character from every reffing performance in the tournament thus far), to get to the final, then despite being shackled outplay the far superior team just to be hampered at any sniff of causing the upset.

Now i'm taking heat from some claiming me to be pro NZ and anti England, I'm not being harsh on NZ for the sake of trying to ease the claims, NZ certainly deserved the RWC win, and were the best team on the planet, I'm just highlighting my peronal emotion when I think of the final.

Perhaps I was being crass in how I brought it up, it wasn't meant to offend.

In 2007 Barnes hardly gave a decision to NZ in the 2nd half. The run on the ball was unfavourable at least. As a non-kiwi I loved it at the time but looking back it was a poor performance by Barnes and it almost certainly cost NZ.
 
In terms of SA deserving it. They never really proved it until years later in 2009. Jake White never won a single test in NZ and his record vs. NZ wasn't brilliant (3 in 9, all home games). They faced quite possibly the easiest route anyone had ever had in a RWC save 2011 NZ.
 
SA played Fiji, Argentina and England in the KO stages and again England in the pools.
 
With those 3 sides being ranked 13th, 6th and 7th respectively at the beginning of the tournament it was hardly a case of a proven win but I admit you can only beat those in front of you.
SA achieved their victory without ever facing anyone in the top 5 teams at the time.

All I took from that was that Barnes was at least 50% better than Joubert then, and had France had 40 minutes they probably wouldve won (only kidding!!)

The problem with comparing results pre RWC and RWC is that everyone is building to the RWC, so everything the year or so prior is essentially build up.

I may be placing too much importance on the RWC, but from a neutral view it is the only stage that is truly level (with regards to top tier nations, it sacrifices everyone else)

There is an element of truth in what you say. It is the only true level, the only time teams are all in peak condition in their season for one time.... during the AIs the NH are right into a new season and the SH are at the end. In the Summer tours the NH are at the end and the SH are in the middle.
 
Hwoever that doesn't mean all that occurs within those 4 years should be disregarded.