Balancing Your Backrow

[Scott Allen]

Certainly in the emails to members, the Tahs have highlighted that the outside backs are getting to the rucks first because they are playing a much wider game.

With McCutcheon playing at 8 (who has primarily been a 7 in the past), I'm guessing that he's playing more of the 6 role and playing wider and Dennis is playing the tighter game of an 8. I think the stats back that up with McCutcheon being the first at quite a lot of rucks.

When Palu comes back this weekend I'm guessing that Dennis will start to play a wider game as Palu won't be playing the same game as McCutcheon.

The measure of who's into breakdowns first is one I know other teams look at constantly so no surprise that the Tahs confirm they are too.

I think you're right about Palu's impact on the balance but if Dennis goes wider, Hooper will have to do more of the on-ball work to compensate for both McCutcheon and Dennis not being in tight. If not, the balance will be wrong and the breakdown in tight may become more of a problem than wide breakdowns.

 

[Scott Allen]

Cheika in his last post game suggested they may have to refine their approach to supporting the ball carrier with a unit posted on/near the hip of the ball runner

My actual concern is what happens when the Tahs play proper counter attacking sides (we will find out this week) spinning it wide is nice, but we get done in transition too often

It's interesting that Cheika is now talking about that change to bring a support player closer because the Tahs have been playing with their support players well away from the ball carrier and this seemed a deliberate part of the game plan to me - see my previous videos on the blog pointing this out as a real problem - he must have read my articles

This player in close support is what I believe the 'on-baller' does. Stay close to the tight forwards - if the ball carrier can get their shoulders through the defensive line the 'on-baller' is in good position to receive an offload but if the ball carrier is tackled the 'on-baller' is first into the ruck to protect the ball which allows for good, quick ball to be available.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I accept that stats don't tell you everything - but -
On no view of it should Dennis be ahead of Hooper on rucks first hit. Isn't that right?
I hadn't seen these stats before but given that everyone actually running teams these days has doesn't this provide another clue to the Tahs issues: everyone knows that the bloke who should be first there (Hooper) isnt getting there so they can focus on getting advantages at other places (this probably assumes, correctly in my view, that Dennis is slower than Hopper - meaning that we are slower to get our first man to the breakdown) - I'm sure there's a flaw in that logic and Im relying on you blokes to point it out.
As a matter of interest - in the olden days when I coached i always thought (instinctively- there being no stats in those days) that the fight for control of the breakdown was actually determine by how quickly the 2dn and 3rd man got there: this has probably ceased to matter as much with multi skilling of backs.

 

[Braveheart81]

The measure of who's into breakdowns first is one I know other teams look at constantly so no surprise that the Tahs confirm they are too.

I think you're right about Palu's impact on the balance but if Dennis goes wider, Hooper will have to do more of the on-ball work to compensate for both McCutcheon and Dennis not being in tight. If not, the balance will be wrong and the breakdown in tight may become more of a problem than wide breakdowns.

One other thing that I feel makes the Tahs slightly different is that Benn Robinson is probably the second best pilferer in the team after Hooper.

I don't have statistics in front of me but he must be close to the best pilfering prop there is. He has consistently done this at both Super Rugby and test level. It helps that he is short and wide so can often be seen to be supporting his own bodyweight over the ball even though part of him is being supported by a player on the ground. Someone taller can't get away with that.

 

[Scott Allen]

One other thing that I feel makes the Tahs slightly different is that Benn Robinson is probably the second best pilferer in the team after Hooper.

I don't have statistics in front of me but he must be close to the best pilfering prop there is. He has consistently done this at both Super Rugby and test level. It helps that he is short and wide so can often be seen to be supporting his own bodyweight over the ball even though part of him is being supported by a player on the ground. Someone taller can't get away with that.

Good point - just checked the numbers - I don't have the numbers of turnovers by individual players but another interesting stat is that Robinson has been first into 6% of all rucks this season to date, the same number as Hooper. Robinson has achieved that despite playing only 79% of the game minutes, whereas Hooper has played 100% of the minutes. Robinson is the Tahs "on-baller" - the fact that he is a little slower getting around the park than Hooper makes his performance even more admirable.

 

[Scott Allen]

...meaning that we are slower to get our first man to the breakdown) - I'm sure there's a flaw in that logic and I'm relying on you blokes to point it out.

I think your logic is spot on - that's what I observe during the games and is why I think opposition teams are disrupting the Tahs ball at the ruck, not so much the "fouling" issue Cheika is worried about.

 

[USARugger]

Good point - just checked the numbers - I don't have the numbers of turnovers by individual players but another interesting stat is that Robinson has been first into 6% of all rucks this season to date, the same number as Hooper. Robinson has achieved that despite playing only 79% of the game minutes, whereas Hooper has played 100% of the minutes. Robinson is the Tahs "on-baller" - the fact that he is a little slower getting around the park than Hooper makes his performance even more admirable.

Maybe he's just very good at reading the breakdown progression and alignment of the offense so he knows when he will have the best likelihood of successfully poaching, or at least not getting penalized. Will have to watch for it this weekend!

I think your logic is spot on - that's what I observe during the games and is why I think opposition teams are disrupting the Tahs ball at the ruck, not so much the "fouling" issue Cheika is worried about.

Your analysis of the Waratahs forward attacking patten the other week and then the comparison to the Brumbies was all that really needs to be said. The Brumbies were rushing over the ball like a raging torrent the moment the tackler went to ground. The Waratahs on the other hand weren't even in frame when the tackler went to ground. It's not hard to disrupt ball when there's nobody there to secure it! It just looked like either very poor planning from Cheika or very, very poor execution.

 

[fatprop]

It's interesting that Cheika is now talking about that change to bring a support player closer because the Tahs have been playing with their support players well away from the ball carrier and this seemed a deliberate part of the game plan to me - see my previous videos on the blog pointing this out as a real problem - he must have read my articles

This player in close support is what I believe the 'on-baller' does. Stay close to the tight forwards - if the ball carrier can get their shoulders through the defensive line the 'on-baller' is in good position to receive an offload but if the ball carrier is tackled the 'on-baller' is first into the ruck to protect the ball which allows for good, quick ball to be available.

One of my reasons for liking rugby so much is the how often the laws of unintended consequences so often hit game plans.

My first thought was the support unit being a tighter forward/pod looking to either ensure momentum and a quick cleanout, or to battle for position. This is what the Crusaders do a lot with the pigs split right/left

But they have pigs that can run, catch and pass, the Tahs ................. not yet

 

[rugbysmartarse]

I spent some time (about 3-4 minutes) watching only Hooper last week (one of the joys of watching rugby live) to see how he was positioning himself and aligning. This was during a period where the tahs didn't have the ball and were defending the whole time. My view was that Hooper was being required to do too much of the tackling to be effective in the ruck, as the first tackler was not dominating the initial hit, and Hooper was required to also step in to effect the tackle. While he was positioning himself well behind the first line of defense in the middle of the field, too infrequently was he able to attack a breakdown. A quick look at the stats show that he leads the tahs tackle count in every game except v the blues, where his Ruck maul count was up on his average from the other games. Later in the game (last quarter) he was far more effective, getting to the ball and winning a few turnovers.

 

[Torn Hammy]

It's interesting that Cheika is now talking about that change to bring a support player closer because the Tahs have been playing with their support players well away from the ball carrier and this seemed a deliberate part of the game plan to me - see my previous videos on the blog pointing this out as a real problem - he must have read my articles

At first I was critical of this lateral support and passing. On reflection, though, I was converted as I realised that it was providing many genuine line breaks by the forwards. The difficulty was in the execution, as the Tah forwards would eventually spill the ball trying to force a pass that wasn't really on.

I hope Cheika doesn't abandon this strategy completely as it provides a wider range of attack that opposition defenses have to deal with. This will slow down the slide and result in giving the backs more room and opportunity to attack. This was a skill Des Hasler developed from scratch at the Bulldogs last year and it took them from 2nd last to 2nd, ironically I suppose, losing the GF to the direct running Melbourne Storm.

 

[Braveheart81]

I spent some time (about 3-4 minutes) watching only Hooper last week (one of the joys of watching rugby live) to see how he was positioning himself and aligning. This was during a period where the tahs didn't have the ball and were defending the whole time. My view was that Hooper was being required to do too much of the tackling to be effective in the ruck, as the first tackler was not dominating the initial hit, and Hooper was required to also step in to effect the tackle. While he was positioning himself well behind the first line of defense in the middle of the field, too infrequently was he able to attack a breakdown. A quick look at the stats show that he leads the tahs tackle count in every game except v the blues, where his Ruck maul count was up on his average from the other games. Later in the game (last quarter) he was far more effective, getting to the ball and winning a few turnovers.

This is an excellent point.

The less defensive work the Tahs force Hooper to do, the more effective he'll be at the ruck.

Whilst he's clearly not positioning himself to be the first player in the tackle, the fact that he's needing to be involved is hindering his game as a pilferer.

I feel like getting Palu back will assist this a lot. He routinely makes a lot of strong tackles and should give Hooper more opportunities. Hopefully we see some of that this weekend against the Canes.

 

[walshy]

I think MMM as 6, Gill 7,Higgaz 8.. your 8 needs x-factor,[which Mowen hasn't]speed[that Palu hasn't] and be a like a third centre[which no aussie 8's have]!back row has to be balanced with locks to. An abrasive,lineout jumping 6 like MMM,means you don't need heavy ball runner 8 like Fotu or Palu,and as an 80 minute player, move him into 2nd row and bring someone like Timani off bench for impact.Considering I would be bringing on TPN and Hooper...they would bring punch in latter stages!! No disrespect to Sir George Smith,but...I think the young pups deserve their spots,but...if fail...gone!! i'd have Smith at training to help.

 

[Gnostic]

I don't think you need to change players to play a different style for each match. Professional players have plenty of time to adapt their play to fit particular game plans - it is not like the amateur days when Poiveden or Codey would only have a couple of training sessions with the team before the weekend's game.

A player who is good at pilfering is also capable of changing their playing style to still getting in the same position but instead of going for the ball getting into position ahead of the ball if the referee is one that is very strict on pilfering.

If you want to protect your own ball and/or slow the opposition ball down you must have an on-baller.

The RWC QF in 2011 demonstrates this point perfectly - the Boks got burnt at the breakdown because their on-baller, Brussow left the field after only 19 minutes and the Wallabies on-baller, Pocock was magnificent on the day.

Or just counter ruck with purpose and drive past the ball, or at least contest the "ruck" in such a fashion that any "on baller" would have hands on the ball in a ruck if he could even get close enough.

As an aside, as with the scrum and the most cogent arguments given by Brian Moore in the podcast that you posted if the Laws of the game were enforced as written most of the activities of the "on ballers" in the ruck would soon disappear.

My argument is that in the absence of a standout world class "on ball" 7 the whole focus of the backrow has to change and selection balance with it. Australia has been blessed since Smith came along with 7's of this style, with Croft and Waugh able back-ups to him and now with Gill, Hodgeson, Hooper behind Pocock. But considering the question in the broader sense of the game consider the position of man of the other tier 1 nations without the luxury of having test class 7's of that type. My argument is that if one isn't available do not do a Robbie Deans and select a McCalman to attempt to fill the role. Select a McCalman and change the role and other factors to do with the interaction and dynamic of the backrow to suit the changed circumstance.

If the Boks under PDV had been able to adapt to not only Lawrence, which was totally predictable, but also their changed backrow dynamic they would have easily won that game IMO not withstanding the efforts of Pocock.

 

[Rassie]

I agree Baron - easier to counter ruck against most backs so good opportunities do arise. If #6 is doing their job properly and is into a wide ruck early they should be in a good position to counter ruck.

Yes, playing on the wing is generally too wide - between the centres is a better width.

Can you define counter rucking for me? Todays game that skill have been removed and you see something like backline players do it. Which is simply walk up to the ruck and push a guy in it so he can fall over the ball
Eg

See Olivier the 12 is able to do it easily.

 

[Rassie]

Or just counter ruck with purpose and drive past the ball, or at least contest the "ruck" in such a fashion that any "on baller" would have hands on the ball in a ruck if he could even get close enough.

As an aside, as with the scrum and the most cogent arguments given by Brian Moore in the podcast that you posted if the Laws of the game were enforced as written most of the activities of the "on ballers" in the ruck would soon disappear.

My argument is that in the absence of a standout world class "on ball" 7 the whole focus of the backrow has to change and selection balance with it. Australia has been blessed since Smith came along with 7's of this style, with Croft and Waugh able back-ups to him and now with Gill, Hodgeson, Hooper behind Pocock. But considering the question in the broader sense of the game consider the position of man of the other tier 1 nations without the luxury of having test class 7's of that type. My argument is that if one isn't available do not do a Robbie Deans and select a McCalman to attempt to fill the role. Select a McCalman and change the role and other factors to do with the interaction and dynamic of the backrow to suit the changed circumstance.

If the Boks under PDV had been able to adapt to not only Lawrence, which was totally predictable, but also their changed backrow dynamic they would have easily won that game IMO not withstanding the efforts of Pocock.

You mean if we were the better cheaters on the day we would have won?. And the Australia Ireland game?

 

[The Red Baron]

Can you define counter rucking for me? Todays game that skill have been removed and you see something like backline players do it. Which is simply walk up to the ruck and push a guy in it so he can fall over the ball
Eg

See Olivier the 12 is able to do it easily.

That is pushing a player to the ground, and disrupting the ruck, the way I see it. From what I can see from the last photo, the AB's still maintain control of the ball. An effective counter-ruck aims to blow over the ball and win possession for your team. It is a skill a few teams obviously practice quite a lot and are quite good at it.

Timing is crucial. As is opportunity. It is no point attempting to counter-ruck when you have already lost the ruck, otherwise you are committing players into a ruck for no good reason.

 

[Rassie]

That is pushing a player to the ground, and disrupting the ruck, the way I see it. From what I can see from the last photo, the AB's still maintain control of the ball. An effective counter-ruck aims to blow over the ball and win possession for your team. It is a skill a few teams obviously practice quite a lot and are quite good at it.

Timing is crucial. As is opportunity. It is no point attempting to counter-ruck when you have already lost the ruck, otherwise you are committing players into a ruck for no good reason.

Em no. No 8 fell over the ball slowing it down for that second or two enough time for the defense to realign. Have a look at the NZ 9 reaction the ball being blocked by his own player.

 

[The Red Baron]

Read what I said again; Yes he did slow the ruck down, but at no point did the AB's lose the ball. If they wanted to counter ruck, then the other players standing around the ball would have joined in. Counter-rucking is about regaining possession of the pill.

 

[USARugger]

Em no. No 8 fell over the ball slowing it down for that second or two enough time for the defense to realign. Have a look at the NZ 9 reaction the ball being blocked by his own player.

His hands are in the air because it was cynical play from Olivier. That's not counter-rucking.

If you actually think counter-rucking doesn't exist then go watch a couple Crusaders games.

 

[Rassie]

Read what I said again; Yes he did slow the ruck down, but at no point did the AB's lose the ball. If they wanted to counter ruck, then the other players standing around the ball would have joined in. Counter-rucking is about regaining possession of the pill.

Fair enough but it is impossible to win a ball in todays game with counter rucking. How are you going to get obstructions like the ball carrier or tackler out of the way? Once the ruck is formed is you have one option to get it back. That is illegally by using you hands. Before that you have once chance and that is for someone trying to take it from the tackled player. But you have a split second depending on referee before the ruck is formed. Once its formed counter rucking becomes trying to slow to oppositions ball down. Now way one can win a ruck without the old method of raking those obstructions out the way.