Are Aussies scared to maul?

[Bruce Ross]

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.

I agree with you, JJJ. My article was about what makes sense biomechanically rather than what teams are actually doing. Despite my best endeavours people ignore my sage advice. It's been the story of my life.

It would be most instructive to see what would happen if a team, after losing a lineout where the opposition was likely to maul, immediately packed at scrum height and took them on.

 

[DPK]

Re: Why can't we maul?

Bruce and the guys who watch a lot of NH Rugby and Currie Cup, do the European Nations and SA commit more players to mauls? From my perspective, I dont recall seeing Australian teams commit more than the forward pack (rotating and rejoining) to a maul.

 

[RugbyFuture]

Re: Why can't we maul?

it didnt help the sharks were allowed to go offside and the reds werent

 

[liquor box]

Re: Why can't we maul?

"It would be most instructive to see what would happen if a team, after losing a lineout where the opposition was likely to maul, immediately packed at scrum height and took them on."



I was thinking that this morning, why cant the players in the defensive team in a line out bind and stand sideways and face the opposition. the moment the feet touch the ground then cut them off at the waist and drive over the ball.

 

[Pfitzy]

Re: Why can't we maul?

Its because scrumming, where your head is in a defined channel, and everyone is bound in a certain way, is far easier to do than picking a random point and, as a team, pushing.

 

[Cutter]

Re: Why can't we maul?

A couple of points:

1. Bodyheight

As Nick alludes to, in scrums the power is almost equally opposed meaning that if you get low you won't fall because you are held up by the opposing scrum. Mauls need to be able to respond to changes of direction. If a defending forward pack got very low and drove through a higher, somewhat looser attacking maul, the attacking maul would be able to splinter, re-form and continue.

2. Shape of mauls

Because of the interpretation of the laws, it is beneficial for mauls to be formed with a narrow front. If you have 2, maximum 3 forwards at the front of a maul and players packed behind them in 2s with the guy at the back controlling the direction and the ball, it is very hard for a defending team to stop it. By widening the front of the maul, there is less concentration of power and a greater area to attack it from a defensive perspective. A longer maul is also more adept at changing direction, splintering and reforming etc. Longer mauls also allow a whip wheel attack to breach the pillar, post defensive structures.

3. Defending a maul

A properly formed maul where the players know what they are doing is bloody hard to defend against.

 

[PaarlBok]

Re: Why can't we maul?

Blame the EFTs , sorry I mean ELVs for this. Epecting the Lions, Bulls and Stormers to follow the Sharks maul vs the Reds. Stormers did the same thing vs the Tahs.

 

[JJJ]

Re: Why can't we maul?

At least the Reds have a coach in McKenzie who will hopefully can teach them a few things about forward play. Not sure if Aussies have ever been good at mauling though. So maybe he's just as clueless.

 

[Biffo]

Re: Why can't we maul?

Not sure if Aussies have ever been good at mauling though. So maybe he's just as clueless.

Bob Dwyer's Wallabies knew a thing or two about the maul.

 

[Gagger]

Re: Why can't we maul?

Last year the Wallabies had a few good mauls going in the pre-trinations tests but then forgot them under pressure, along with decent tactical kicking

Jim's going to be a busy boy. Our re-starts, line-out defence and now mauls are all in the shitter.

 

[Pfitzy]

Re: Why can't we maul?

Bob Dwyer's Waratahs could maul too - Link just reinforced this. But he had the Freiers and Vickermans to carry this work on.

 

[Langthorne]

Re: Why can't we maul?

On another thread I said:

A few ideas on Maul defense - tackle the ball carrier before it forms, get numbers in fast to stop them gaining momentum, hit it head on with numbers (not one at a time). (a little controversial) If not too close to the line, dropping off for a moment so the maul gets spread out (great potential for tripping over or accidental offsides), and then hitting it hard again. If you are going to pull it down, do it early.

To further elaborate, maybe the low drive advocated by Bruce would work if used in small groups (2 or 3) for stopping a maul, but a more upright 'traditional' maul strikes me as being the better option for attack. It is the deception as well as the forward momentum that are important - the more successful mauls in the last few weeks have not been the long snakey ones.

If the Aussie teams use the maul more often it will improve.

 

[Lee Grant]

Re: Why can't we maul?

the more successful mauls in the last few weeks have not been the long snakey ones.

You sure? My girlfriends in my young days said there was nothing better than a good long snakey one.


Can't say that I have great knowledge of the maul. It used to be illegal when I played, believe it or not; but as soon as I see guys heads coming up like periscopes, or pushing upright, I know that they are not applying much force.

The maul (like the restart) is a set piece in my book or rather an unset piece - a piece of work, if you will. It is a dynamic team action with forces going all over the shop, and must be difficult to coach for attack and defence. And it doesn't have certain players in fixed positions either.

Australians have never been much good at it for very long. It doesn't suit our carefree nature; nor is it a natural progression for our younger players who have a penchant to run with the ball - to a fault. Don't blame them too much though: it is how they were coached by their elders who were also coached like that.

Even our cousins across the ditch, the great pragmatists who have ever adapted to the current laws throughout their rugby history, are having trouble with it now.

It is the SAffers, especially those of the stock that circled the wagons in laagers, who find the imperative and discipline of the maul a thing of nature and comfort. To them it is like a wagon train in the Great Trek.

We thought we had dodged the maul bullet when the maul ELV was introduced but the powers that be expunged it. To do so was no bad thing in my eyes. Since our sport is for all shapes and sizes and fatties had been marginalised by the ELVs that survived, plus the current law crackdown, we have to retain activities wherein big men excel.

If the maul is going to stay in the law books, but is not natural to Australian rugby players, it has to be coached into them. Since most amateur coaches of junior teams had the same rugby background as their players, as did their fathers and grandfathers before them, there has to be an agonising reappraisal of our junior coaching and the implementation of something different.

It's easy enough to write the words but it won't win the hearts of coaches until they see what the mad Irishman sees. T78 points out that the maul produces tries; not only when they are scored by Neil at the Back, but also by whipping the ball out wide after seagulls have been sucked in to defend it.

When coaches see the scoreboard ticking over for their side, or the other side, our mauling will improve.

 

[Spook]

Re: Why can't we maul?

The Saffas resort to the maul when they are under pressure out wide and they use it well. It's a defensive ploy that can also reap offensive gain. Personally, I hate it. A contest for a ball stuck behind eight players? : Those same people who cry about the lack of contest at the breakdown under the new laws or interpretations are generally maul advocates. Consistency in logic? No fucking way.

 

[James Buchanan]

Re: Why can't we maul?

Australians have never been much good at it for very long. It doesn't suit our carefree nature; nor is it a natural progression for our younger players who have a penchant to run with the ball - to a fault. Don't blame them too much though: it is how they were coached by their elders who were also coached like that.

Are you sure? I remember in my younger days that Queensland used to use it to good effect. I am even reminded of some occasions where they employed some form of 15 man maul or some such.

 

[DPK]

Awesome post LG. Can we get a "History of (insert aspect of game)" series of threads?

 

[Lee Grant]

Re: Why can't we maul?

Are you sure? I remember in my younger days that Queensland used to use it to good effect. I am even reminded of some occasions where they employed some form of 15 man maul or some such.

Well, when I said that Aussies haven't been good at it for very long I meant that we haven't had long periods of success using the maul, not that we haven't been good at it at times a while ago. Poor writing - I can see now the meaning you took from it.

Awesome post LG. Can we get a "History of (insert aspect of game)" series of threads?

Actually I deleted the post you have probably referred to. It was in response to what I read in JB's post. I thought his "Are you sure? I remember in my younger days that Queensland used to use it to good effect" comment related to my earlier comment that the maul was illegal in my day - but it's nothing to do with that.

I'm having a shocker.

 

[Biffo]

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 !

Right on the button!

The halfback's options include pass to the 5/8, cutout pass, box kick, real kick and the two which seem to attract so many flies to Burgess's game - dart and looking for a runner. Burgess's pass to the 5/8 and cutout are very restricted when the forwards get in the way; but he was excellent at both last Saturday. Noone can query the quality of his box kicking and real kicking. Noone can say his darts are not very high quality. We are left with looking for a runner - that can not be very effective if the forwards stand around looking at him, which is what they did last Saturday.

 

[fatprop]

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 !

Right on the button!

The halfback's options include pass to the 5/8, cutout pass, box kick, real kick and the two which seem to attract so many flies to Burgess's game - dart and looking for a runner. Burgess's pass to the 5/8 and cutout are very restricted when the forwards get in the way; but he was excellent at both last Saturday. Noone can query the quality of his box kicking and real kicking. No one can say his darts are not very high quality. We are left with looking for a runner - that can not be very effective if the forwards stand around looking at him, which is what they did last Saturday.

Yep, there was an interesting quote from Greg Martin on how Deans watches a rugby match.

He is often looking at what the players 10m around the ball are doing, not just the ball carrier. Who is continually calling running lines, getting quickly back into position etc etc This week the Tahs are up against a side who does work exceptionally hard off the ball, it will be a real test.

 

[Lee Grant]

Yeah that was a good comment about Deans. As I have mentioned a few times I try to do that myself, but more watching replays than at the ground.

I can't watch a whole game like that, not even close, because I get motion sickness. Your eyes always want to go back to the ball and when they are halfway towards it you remember and get them back to the periphery.

A variation of if is just to watch the tacklers around the ruck though I get equally squeamish when I do that, always going back to the ball.

For folks who haven't tried it, give it a go but not for too long at first. Or maybe you have a stronger stomach than I have.