Speed - is it cruicial?

Both between the ears and on the feet. Seems to me that there is no substitute for speed in the modern game and the teams that have exceeded expectations have speed to spare - both in decision making and running. Japan - the speed with which they executed moves and also got to the breakdown was critical to their success. NZ - everything done at a pace no one can live with
One Issue I had with england is the forwards especially but also the centres simply were too slow - get to the breakdown second and you loose the ball - on opposition ball they get lovely quick clean ball, on your ball it gets slowed down or even turned over. Same in the backs - speed gets you space.

Speed between the ears is most important. I think the best teams/players don't even need to think. It becomes instinctive.

It comes from repeated moves and experience with team mates.

Yes, speed that is instinctive is from brain to feet and hands.
But you do need super athleticism to sustain fast messages from brain to feet and hands. When oxygen deprivation hits a lesser athlete, the brain loses the plot.

I like to have a rather simplistic view when it comes to rugby union. I think a robust, physical pack which can carry out its primary duties is more important than speed and dynamism. However the backline needs pace and smart decision making in order to break a good modern defence, especially through creating mismatches in the midfield. This is where having more mobile forwards actually helps when defending, however I still think the pack must be capable of dominating the scrum, line-out and breakdown first and foremost before anything else.

At the end of the day though it entirely depends on the team and their strengths/weaknesses. Some teams have smaller, quick footed backs and others have big ball carrying behemoths in the backline such as Wales. If you can make it work, then do it. However modern rugby seems to suggest that pace both of the mind and the feet is vital.

It was said at the beginning of this Competition that many of the AB players had taken substantial enough weight off in the lead up to this WC...because they intended playing things Fast!

I think the French game shows they're men of their word so far in the knock-out stages.  If it's only a sign of things to come from them then SA have a job on their hands. All players ..all fifteen need to have a turn of pace - both to aid in attack and to provide defensive cover against best attacking sides.  In the NH, teams can just about survive with players like Ross or Toner.  But nope, not against high grade attacking sides with mobility and deftness of touch through all 15 players.  That's a different planet.  That's the real world and all sides have to adapt or die to the increase in super-athleticism coming mostly from SH.

It's the standard.  Big fat burly forwards shuffling around from scrum to scrum are going to get burned if they don't also have quick feet and accomplished hands. Multi-tasking is the new................... black

Of course another general question always needs thinking about when considering the often quite stunning pace for sustained periods that some players seem to possess..........

................is all that we see always real?

Rory - I think that is a mistake many teams make - if your forwards dont have pace then you simply will get blown away every breakdown.

I remember someone once saying -

Speed kills....it kills those who don't have it.

In rugby terms though speed isn't just down to sprinting ability, athleticism is one aspect but game reading and the ability to be in the right place at the right time is key as well, maybe even more important than fleetness of foot although the latter helps.

TJ - what teams are you referring to? The breakdown nowadays involves far more than just the pack and it must be a universal skill. A good pack will dominate the set piece first and foremost. Pace is obviously desirable, but if you look at the top packs in the world, are they really that "quick"? Or if you look at the top fetchers in the world (not just 7s) are they particularly quick?

Intelligence and positioning across the board are much more important at the breakdown rather than simply picking a pack for mobility/speed and sacrificing dominance at the set piece. I think England have made this mistake.

rodders wrote:I remember someone once saying -

Speed kills....it kills those who don't have it.

In rugby terms though speed isn't just down to sprinting ability, athleticism is one aspect but game reading and the ability to be in the right place at the right time is key as well, maybe even more important than fleetness of foot although the latter helps.  

In a furiously paced game, the ability to be in the right place at the right time diminishes over time though. And that's the very point of best teams keeping tempo high. It's a tactic to do damage. Those teams can endure the burn - players who are not conditioned or not suited to such a high tempo game for long periods wilt.

HammerofThunor wrote:Speed between the ears is most important. I think the best teams/players don't even need to think. It becomes instinctive.

It comes from repeated moves and experience with team mates.

Look at Brian O'Driscoll as a case in point. He didn't lose his effectiveness even as his pace decreased. He simply applied his experience. Similarly, Richie McCaw isn't the fastest backrow around (not that he's slow), but he is first man to so many breakdowns.

That said, I do think that there is a base level of speed that is required at international level, without which a player can never be truly effective regardless of their speed of thought. Alex Goode as a case in point.

I'm not sure that speed should be the subject of measuring a teams performance when it comes to decision making. we see many teams lose opportunities merely because they lose that moment of initiave. players education from the age of early teens should address so many facets in general play, and repetitively those facets are practised to such an extent that they become an 'over learnt skill".

When opportunities arise in a game no player should spend time thinking about what to do, but rather every player should sub conciously know what to do.

What this achieves, is that you bring forward the clash of basic elements like attack versus defence. and the reward gained is that you have one team siting behind the advantage line working out ways to make the advantage line while others teams will have already deemed that they have already breached the adavantage line and are playing a structure to launch attack, If you can put a team in that position, then after a period of time defence cant keep up, it is constantly in reactive mode.

This philosophy doesnt need to be limited to your top national team, if instilled in your junior/ development teams. you then have a group of players that can just slip into the top team when called upon, and seemlessly resume normal service.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Speed between the ears is most important. I think the best teams/players don't even need to think. It becomes instinctive.

It comes from repeated moves and experience with team mates.

Look at Brian O'Driscoll as a case in point. He didn't lose his effectiveness even as his pace decreased. He simply applied his experience. Similarly, Richie McCaw isn't the fastest backrow around (not that he's slow), but he is first man to so many breakdowns.

That said, I do think that there is a base level of speed that is required at international level, without which a player can never be truly effective regardless of their speed of thought. Alex Goode as a case in point.

I always thought its a myth that McCaw/Pocock etc are first to the breakdown... that's not quite it. Its that they don't necessarily go in for the big tackle but literally sit on the shoulder and then pounce. Take Robshaw for instance, he does too much first time tackling to take the steal.

They do their fair share of tackling don't get me wrong but especially with Pocock its almost like AUS have planned for an opposition number to run a few more yards past the gainline and is ambushed when isolated as he's tackled by another aussie and Pocock pounces in for the kill. It just doesn't seem opportunistic.

Rugby has changed a lot over the years (I lament the death of the ruck - the word should be banned now as it's just a "breakdown").

However, one this is still as true today as it's ever been. If you go foward, rugby is easy. If you go forward at speed, it's very easy.

So yes, speed and creating space is everything. I would always argue that speed is as important in the pack as the backs, always.

SecretFly wrote:Yes, speed that is instinctive is from brain to feet and hands.
But you do need super athleticism to sustain fast messages from brain to feet and hands.  When oxygen deprivation hits a lesser athlete, the brain loses the plot.

I used to have a coach who denied oxygen as a hinderance. He used to say we have long lives in front of us. Breathe later. Play now. Stop whinging.

offload wrote:Rugby has changed a lot over the years (I lament the death of the ruck - the word should be banned now as it's just a "breakdown").  

However, one this is still as true today as it's ever been.  If you go foward, rugby is easy.  If you go forward at speed, it's very easy.

So yes, speed and creating space is everything.  I would always argue that speed is as important in the pack as the backs, always.

Absolutely not always. Give me a pack who will dominate the collisions, the scrum, the line-out and the maul any day over a quick and mobile pack who show up as options out wide or out on the wing for a cameo every now and again. Obviously the more speed the better but it is quite clearly secondary to other things when it comes to the pack. Do the SANZAR teams have particularly quick players in the pack? Not really, apart from the likes of Hooper nobody stands out.

I prefer to let the forwards get on with their work and for the backs to capitalise on that, and they will be the players to get those opportunities more often. So they will need the pace and the guile to better their opponents. I suppose in an ideal world, all of the players would have the speed, physicality and the specialist skills of their position required but it is rarely like that.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

offload wrote:Rugby has changed a lot over the years (I lament the death of the ruck - the word should be banned now as it's just a "breakdown").  

However, one this is still as true today as it's ever been.  If you go foward, rugby is easy.  If you go forward at speed, it's very easy.

So yes, speed and creating space is everything.  I would always argue that speed is as important in the pack as the backs, always.

Absolutely not always. Give me a pack who will dominate the collisions, the scrum, the line-out and the maul any day over a quick and mobile pack who show up as options out wide or out on the wing for a cameo every now and again. Obviously the more speed the better but it is quite clearly secondary to other things when it comes to the pack. Do the SANZAR teams have particularly quick players in the pack? Not really, apart from the likes of Hooper nobody stands out.

I prefer to let the forwards get on with their work and for the backs to capitalise on that, and they will be the players to get those opportunities more often. So they will need the pace and the guile to better their opponents. I suppose in an ideal world, all of the players would have the speed, physicality and the specialist skills of their position required but it is rarely like that.

Rory - you and I seem to be defining speed differently. It's not about how fast you can sprint or standing on the wing for a cameo etc. I interperet the question as to the speed the game is played. Forwards need to do their job, but at speed. I would argue that that the best teams combine power with speed (both in thought and action. Watch the SA Japan game again - what was impressive about Japan was the speed they played and the forward momentum it gave them.

Yes that makes sense offload - I totally agree with you.

Was it Carter yesterday, when being interviewed about what was said at half time.... I'm not sure whether it was him or McCaw.... but one of them said a few things about just knowing they needed to impose themselves more rather than responding to SA...but then it was slid in too as an after-thought: 'getting up off the floor quicker'.

ie.... a simple idea that most sides probably know is important but even the ABs knew they needed to intensify as an element towards victory.  If you're forced onto the ground, at the very soonest you can you should be up and back trying to find your position.  Speed - but of thought and determination too.  

You find at times in NH games that players take their times to unhook themselves from a pack of fallen arms and legs.... they often feel they have a token 'timeout' of sorts for perhaps 7 or 10 seconds - time to catch a breather and then back on their feet to jog after the action.

But again - yes, the simple act of speeding up the time it takes to repeatedly get up off your ass is a true appreciation of the fine margins, yet you do still need the conditioning to make the job easier to do.  

You need total team conditioning to play a fast game at pace, week in and week out - whether that's an open-field game of attack and counter attack or whether its that simple idea of not lingering for little rest breaks of 7 or 10 seconds through a game.  You need the lungs to have sustained-movement games in you.  You can't just decide as a coach to demand that players get up quicker and return to action quicker.  They'll try to obey the command, but if they don't have the gas for such a perpetual motion game then they'll wilt, however great their will is.