Are Aussies scared to maul?

[Moses]

Why are Aussie teams scared to maul? It's not just a recent thing, but something that's been going on for years.

The Tahs had a great maul for a few minutes against the Reds, made some good metres while sapping the Reds energy and will to live.

So, as seems to be the habbit with Aussie teams, they put the maul away and tried other things. If it's working, keep doing it! What's the point of a dominant set piece if we can't convert it into points?

Would love to hear from the front rowers on this one, does maulling take more energy from the attacking or defending team? Why not start mauling when we get within kicking distance, wait for he penalty or the try, or the ref to tell us to "use it". Worked for the '03 Poms.

 

[fatprop]

Re: Are Aussie's scared to maul?

Tahs should have used it more IMHO

 

[Bruce Ross]

Would love to hear from the front rowers on this one, does maulling take more energy from the attacking or defending team?

Moses, I would answer your question with a question: Is it easier to keep a vehicle rolling forward by pushing it or to stop it from rolling towards you by pushing against it? Momentum very obviously favours the attacking team once the maul starts to move.

There is also the problem for the defenders that the attackers control and can keep changing the direction of movement, meaning that defenders are constantly being cast off and having to run backwards and attempt to rejoin.

It was clear from early in the game that the Waratahs had an edge in terms of pushing power. The Reds scrum was regularly giving ground not because of weakness in the front row - Daley and Weeks are powerful scrummagers - but in the second and back rows. There is little doubt that some selections were geared towards propensity to "turn it on" rather than technical proficiency. That being so, exerting further physical dominance by looking for opportunities to maul was the obvious way to go.

The other tactic that would have worn the Reds' forwards down would have been to recycle the ball quickly. Here Burgess's tendency to sit on the ball like a broody hen played into the opposition's hands, giving them time to set their defensive line and have a breather.

Get the bloody thing out, Luke, instantly and mainly to your backs rather than turning it back into the forwards. Run the other pack off their feet and you'll start looking like a million dollars again, because of your ability to improvise and strike quickly against a fractured defensive line.

 

[Pfitzy]

From a prop's point of view, the maul is the second best thing in the game behind scrums. They're like scrums only the ref doesn't try to penalise you for driving the other guy back 10 metres, and the silly bastards aren't allowed to fall down when you do it and get a short-arm for their acting

BUT good mauls are easy to smash the enemy with. Bad mauls are not. Its also not something to use all day unless you have complete dominance at the set piece. No point mauling out of your own 22, no matter how much strength you sap.

 

[Lee Grant]

The other tactic that would have worn the Reds' forwards down would have been to recycle the ball quickly. Here Burgess's tendency to sit on the ball like a broody hen played into the opposition's hands, giving them time to set their defensive line and have a breather.

Get the bloody thing out, Luke, instantly and mainly to your backs rather than turning it back into the forwards. Run the other pack off their feet and you'll start looking like a million dollars again, because of your ability to improvise and strike quickly against a fractured defensive line.

Well said.

BUT good mauls are easy to smash the enemy with. Bad mauls are not.

Ditto

 

[Gagger]

Encouragingly the Wallabies started rolling a few at the beginning of last season, but then gave up and gave it to Gits to cross kick.

Would love to see more of it. It's also a penalty generator against McCaw, he can't help himself against them.

 

[Ash]

It was clear from early in the game that the Waratahs had an edge in terms of pushing power. The Reds scrum was regularly giving ground not because of weakness in the front row - Daley and Weeks are powerful scrummagers - but in the second and back rows. There is little doubt that some selections were geared towards propensity to "turn it on" rather than technical proficiency. That being so, exerting further physical dominance by looking for opportunities to maul was the obvious way to go.

Agree entirely, Bruce.

The other tactic that would have worn the Reds' forwards down would have been to recycle the ball quickly. Here Burgess's tendency to sit on the ball like a broody hen played into the opposition's hands, giving them time to set their defensive line and have a breather.

Get the bloody thing out, Luke, instantly and mainly to your backs rather than turning it back into the forwards. Run the other pack off their feet and you'll start looking like a million dollars again, because of your ability to improvise and strike quickly against a fractured defensive line.

You put it well. Which is why I was baffled by the weak Tahs play at the breakdown, both on attack and defence.

The Reds may have improved their attacking breakdowns, but anyone who has watched Reds games from last season and the trial against the Force (admittedly by the live stream) will know that the Reds are soft at the break down, especially protecting their own ball. Counter rucking against the Reds usually earns plenty of turn overs.

Do you have any idea why the Tahs are afraid of width? Turning the ball constantly back into the forwards is the same problem the Tahs had last year. You'd have to think it's a coaching thing.

 

[Pfitzy]

Ash - Hickey and Foley probably didn't have a fair idea yet of how the ref would interpret things. They did go wide on occasion but not after going forward which was the ruck issue. Will be interesting to see what they do this week.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Do you have any idea why the Tahs are afraid of width? Turning the ball constantly back into the forwards is the same problem the Tahs had last year. You'd have to think it's a coaching thing.

I agree, Ash, that it has to be coaching related. I had a strong sense of the déjà vus all over again watching ball being butchered in an eerily similar manner to last year. The only time that the ball started to be moved through the hands was when Holmes and Hangers were on.

I'm still a big wrap for Burgo but he needs to get back to the helter-skelter style he started out with, whipping the ball out and being constantly on the go. That way no one is going to worry about whether there are technical deficiencies in his pass.

 

[Gagger]

he needs to get back to the helter-skelter style he started out with, whipping the ball out and being constantly on the go.

Agree - it was his USP and he seems to have forgotten it. Genia hasn't, and he's got a good pass.

 

[naza]

I'm still a big wrap for Burgo but he needs to get back to the helter-skelter style he started out with, whipping the ball out and being constantly on the go. That way no one is going to worry about whether there are technical deficiencies in his pass.

Hard to do when your team is half asleep, nowhere to be seen in support and the forwards are blocking the flyhalf out of sight !

 

[JJJ]

Why can't we maul?

Anyone watching the Reds match last night would have seen the familiar sight of an Australian team helpless before an opposition maul, and unable to make any forward progress when they set up a maul themselves. Why is this so? We do okay at scrums, so it's not like our forwards are powderpuffs. They're big guys and have similar strength to their SA counterparts. So why is it that mauls fuck us up so much?

I'll concede that lineouts are probably a more pressing priority, but mauling seems to have become a more important weapon under the new interpretations. This really needs to be sorted before the World Cup, because otherwise I can see teams like SA, England, France and even Ireland mauling us out of the game. Should we get in maul coaches like we got in scrum coaches? What's the solution? Do you think we have a problem here?

 

[DPK]

Re: Why can't we maul?

One the other hand, Tah's did alright last night. I can see what you mean, though.

 

[Scarfman]

Re: Why can't we maul?

Cheetahs definitely won the mauls, I thought. And the scrums, but probably not the lineouts or rucks (I say this without the aid of stats, mind).

 

[Pfitzy]

Re: Why can't we maul?

Cheetahs didn't win the scrums from where I was sitting. Tahs didn't dominate either, but that's because the ref let the Cheetahs' THP get away with his shoulders down all night.

Back to the maul - the Tahs haven't done this as well under hickey as they did under Link. Part of this is due to the personnel, particularly Freier who was good at directing it. Its something I hope Deans has in his top 3, now that pulling the maul down is no longer available.

 

[matty_k]

Re: Why can't we maul?

I do remember one maul last night that the 'Tahs started and were quickly pushed back ten.

There was also a couple of times where Fat Cat popped his opposite number of times in the scrum.

 

[Pfitzy]

Re: Why can't we maul?

Yeah Robbo smashed the fucker when they were allowed to scrummage. The rest of the time the THP was diving downwards, or binding under Fat Cat's armpit, and the ref was too dumb to see it.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Re: Why can't we maul?

Anyone watching the Reds match last night would have seen the familiar sight of an Australian team helpless before an opposition maul, and unable to make any forward progress when they set up a maul themselves. Why is this so? We do okay at scrums, so it's not like our forwards are powderpuffs. They're big guys and have similar strength to their SA counterparts. So why is it that mauls fuck us up so much?

This really needs to be sorted before the World Cup, because otherwise I can see teams like SA, England, France and even Ireland mauling us out of the game. Should we get in maul coaches like we got in scrum coaches? What's the solution? Do you think we have a problem here?

I think this is an important issue to raise, JJJ, in the context of the next World Cup. One of my enduring impressions of the last such event was the ferocity of the Northern Hemisphere teams at the breakdown. I fear we will be again caught short in this department this time round.

Similarly with the maul. One of the most notable things about the mauls we are now seeing in this hemisphere is that they look nothing like the classic mauls of earlier times.The maul used to be a somewhat misshapen scrum with players well-bound and the ball always hidden from view until it would suddenly and mysteriously appear at the back or to either side.

If the progress of the maul were temporarily halted, the ball could be transferred across the maul and a different direction of assault launched. Once the defensive wall was breached, very frequently a player from the front rank would burst through with the ball, his support players in close attendance.

Now it is a meandering long-tailed affair characterised by the ball being clearly visible held in one arm of a player at the rear who maintains the most tenuous connection with the maul with his other arm. No shape or structure; no effective delivery of force and no mystery as to where the ball is. When the ball carrier breaks away he has only one way to go and has to skirt around his own players before he reaches the gain line.

Four years ago I published an article titled: "Why do rugby players scrum and maul at such different body heights?" http://myoquip.blogspot.com/2006/01/why-do-rugby-players-scrum-and-maul-at.html In summary it argued:

"The body height of rugby players in mauls tends to be very much higher than in scrums. High body positions are inefficient for generating forward momentum. There would be advantages in training players to pack at thigh height rather than waist height. Not only are they likely to gain dominance in the maul, but the practice of adopting biomechanically superior body positions is energy-conserving over the course of a game."

Even over four years we can notice a further degeneration in maul technique, at least in this country. If we don't quickly develop a respect for the trench warfare of close-combat forward play, we may come back from New Zealand with a similar result to the previous World Cup held there.

 

[fatprop]

Re: Why can't we maul?

The Tahs did well in all mauls but the last, at scrum time it was parity with each side getting their ball claer

 

[JJJ]

Re: Why can't we maul?

"The body height of rugby players in mauls tends to be very much higher than in scrums. High body positions are inefficient for generating forward momentum. There would be advantages in training players to pack at thigh height rather than waist height. Not only are they likely to gain dominance in the maul, but the practice of adopting biomechanically superior body positions is energy-conserving over the course of a game."

That may well be true from a biomechanical point of view, Bruce, but from what I've seen the teams who maul best (England, France, Ireland, SA) tend to do so in a more upright position. Those are the mauls which get the better of us time and again. The Force seem to be good at disrupting mauls, which has to be about technique since they're not the best forward pack we have. IIRC neither the stormers nor the bulls could get a decent maul going against them.

You'd think with the Wallabies forward coach being the former forward coach of Munster our guys would be getting top-notch maul training, but then I guess he didn't need to teach mauling much to Munster players. They already had it down.