Round 2 - Force vs Reds, NIB Stadium, 2nd March @ 6:30pm (AWST)

[amirite]

Frisby had a stinker last weekend no doubt, but his biggest challenge is starting to pass off the deck instead of picking up and taking those one or two steps sideways. He started doing that a while back and it looks like it's getting worse. When you play a game of millimeters like Quade is by being so flat, that half a second extra it's taking Frisby to pass the ball is having a big impact on the amount of time Quade has got. I think any benefit it creates through fixing defenders near the ruck is negated by allowing the 10 channel defense to get up on Quade.

Hm, Quade's career halves partner is Genia, a keen fan of the scoot.

I think the key is faster ball, not taking out those 2 steps that bunch defenders. Faster ball against big South African teams is difficult.

 

[Scrubber2050]

The real nightmare last week in respect of Frisby was his shit kicking.

Shitty box kicks (mainly) and a couple over the sideline on the full. They are particularly bad moments in a rugby game as they translate huge metres against the kicking team.

I'm sure a few of the forwards had a word or three in his ear.

 

[Twoilms]

The real nightmare last week in respect of Frisby was his shit kicking.

Shitty box kicks (mainly) and a couple over the sideline on the full. They are particularly bad moments in a rugby game as they translate huge metres against the kicking team.

I'm sure a few of the forwards had a word or three in his ear.

Frisby did far too many of them and combined with his terrible kicking out of hand made for a bad night with the boot. It's easily remedied though as hes a fricken half back and should be making 2-3 kicks a game max. I'm sure he made 8+ that match.

 

[liquor box]

hes a fricken half back and should be making 2-3 kicks a game max. I'm sure he made 8+ that match.

Exactly, why cant others kick too? If the coach doesn't want box kicks then QC (Quade Cooper) should be told to demand the ball to run a play. I think the box kicks are so common because we are lacking other options.

 

[amirite]

Most professional sides are coaching box kicks as the go-to solution if you're playing in the middle third of the field and not going forward. Because an error there is reasonably risky, and a try being scored from structured phase-play starting there is reasonably unlikely (this is all data-backed).

You use it as an opportunity to force an error or just win the ball and create unstructured attack (which is obviously dangerous, and you're more likely to score). It's not about gaining territory per say.

In theory, even if the opposition control the kick, they'll probably just do the same thing. See what happens for a couple of phases, give up, and box kick.

That being said, how many teams do this effectively in Aus? Not many.

 

[Scrubber2050]

I reckon the vast majority of box kicks are successfully caught by the other team, maybe with a gain of 20 or 30 metres.

Possession changes and attack turns into defence. Differential is only about 20 metres.

It may be better when under pressure to kick the shit out of it, have a good chase and try to force an error (about 40 or 50 metres away)

 

[amirite]

I reckon the vast majority of box kicks are successfully caught by the other team, maybe with a gain of 20 or 30 metres.

Possession changes and attack turns into defence. Differential is only about 20 metres.

It may be better when under pressure to kick the shit out of it, have a good chase and try to force an error (about 40 or 50 metres away)

But like I said, it's not about territory. Gaining territory isn't part of the equation.

It's predicated on the knowledge that professional teams rarely score from the middle third. They also rarely score after more than 5 phases of attack.

So, you box kick because the likely outcome is not so bad (opposition takes it, ends up with shitty mid third ball they're not likely to score off) and the less but still reasonably likely outcomes are excellent (opposition makes error and you end up with a set piece in the attacking third, or you legitimately win the ball and get to attack against unstructured defense).

Now this isn't done in ammo football because you're actually reasonably likely to score from mid third because cover D isn't that good. It's a different ball game in some ways.

 

[liquor box]

Why not move a winger (they should all be able to kick) behind the half and pass it back and then put up a decent kick. A proper bomb that will swirl and be hard to catch?

Kicking back over your shoulder has to be less accurate than kicking in front of you.

I am not opposed to the decision to kick but wonder if there is an easier option.

 

[amirite]

Why not move a winger (they should all be able to kick) behind the half and pass it back and then put up a decent kick. A proper bomb that will swirl and be hard to catch?

Kicking back over your shoulder has to be less accurate than kicking in front of you.

I am not opposed to the decision to kick but wonder if there is an easier option.

Sure, I don't disagree anecdotally but I'm sure someone somewhere has crunched the numbers. However, some coaches don't care about data so IDK.

I don't love the idea of a box kick but people who know a lot about rugby currently feel like it's the sensible decision.

The advantages of the box kick are obviously -

1. Everyone is onside
2. Very few moving pieces reducing the likelihood of an error (the halfback just kicks)
3. Easy to screen for
4. That kicking around the ball motion of a box kid is really good for height too

 

[Brumby Runner]

^^^^^^^ I just can't see the benefits you do from the box kick as it is being executed by our Super Rugby teams.

Everyone is not on side; the forwards are almost universally in front of the kicker and are often penalised for advancing in an off side position.

Reduced likelihood of an error; from my viewing there is about a 50/50 chance of the kick being charged down, and when it is there is more than a 50/50 chance of a try being scored against us.

Good height; would definitely be a positive, but is more often than not negated by the kick being too long and therefore uncontestable.

I also don't agree that the opposition taking the ball in their third of the field limits their opportunities for try scoring. Any of the NZ sides, particularly the Crusaders, Hurricanes and Chiefs are very likely to score within a phase or two of a poorly executed box kick as they specialise in counter attacking in disjointed play.

I'm with Scrubber - kick the shit out of it and chase hard and accurately. Put the receiver under pressure deep in his own territory and try to force a turnover, or a kick for touch where you have a better than even chance of regaining possession in a better field position.

 

[Scoey]

Watch Aaron Smith box kick and that's how it's supposed to be done. The fact that we are shit at it, doesn't mean box kicks are bad, it means we are bad at box kicks.

Done well, they are an excellent weapon in the arsenal. Pretty much as amirite has described. The chasers should either be contesting possession in the air or smashing the receiver the second they are on the ground with the ball. The idea being that you either regain possession around 40m out (either through winning the contest in the air, tackling the receiver and driving over or the opposition knocking on) or the oppo gains possession inside their own half but outside their 22 and get shitty messy back foot ball and are forced to kick back to you for no real likely net loss of territory on your part and hopefully you can mount an attack then against a misaligned defence.

 

[Hawko]

But like I said, it's not about territory. Gaining territory isn't part of the equation.

It's predicated on the knowledge that professional teams rarely score from the middle third. They also rarely score after more than 5 phases of attack

Unless you're the Hurricanes or the Chiefs.

 

[Scrubber2050]

BRunner
That was exactly the strategy of the Brumbies under Jake White - it worked a dream for them.

Boring as shit rugby but was very very effective

 

[amirite]

^^^^^^^ I just can't see the benefits you do from the box kick as it is being executed by our Super Rugby teams.

Everyone is not on side; the forwards are almost universally in front of the kicker and are often penalised for advancing in an off side position.

Reduced likelihood of an error; from my viewing there is about a 50/50 chance of the kick being charged down, and when it is there is more than a 50/50 chance of a try being scored against us.

Good height; would definitely be a positive, but is more often than not negated by the kick being too long and therefore uncontestable.

I also don't agree that the opposition taking the ball in their third of the field limits their opportunities for try scoring. Any of the NZ sides, particularly the Crusaders, Hurricanes and Chiefs are very likely to score within a phase or two of a poorly executed box kick as they specialise in counter attacking in disjointed play.

I'm with Scrubber - kick the shit out of it and chase hard and accurately. Put the receiver under pressure deep in his own territory and try to force a turnover, or a kick for touch where you have a better than even chance of regaining possession in a better field position.

To be clear, most box kicks take place from a ruck in the middle third (sometimes called the 'amber' or 'yellow' zone). If you kicked the shit out of it, it'd be a dead ball. Playing to the edges is always an option, but there's a margin for error.

I also did say we (Aussie sides) were bad at it, and that this take on box kicking is not my opinion but a combination of the opinions of elite level coaches and their analysts. As always, skill execution is key. A sensible tactic executed badly is not a bad tactic.

A few crucial points:

• A box kick to pressure is not a 'disjointed play' in the same way a turnover is. The Kiwi sides aren't counter attacking against mess, they're attacking a well set defensive line when the skills are executed.
• The Forwards only get called offside if they're within the 10m from a poor box kick, they're almost always put onside by the winger almost instantly.
• As far as the 50/50 chance of a charge down or 50/50 chance of a try being scored against us, that's not true. This is not an opinion, it's a fact.
• Don't trick yourself into thinking the Kiwi teams are wizards, the numbers stack up for them just like everyone else, and they kick roughly as much as everyone else. Like everyone else they also tend not to score from mid third ball. They big different is their skill execution and excellent decision making. People seem to think your team does things differently when you're winning, but really you just do the same things better.

I don't love box kicking, and I've sort of trapped myself into defending it. The numbers here just add up - it's got its place.

Unless you're the Hurricanes or the Chiefs.

Even then against good teams you'd be surprised. Data doesn't lie but out confirmation bias does. The Kiwis are human, they just make good decisions and execute their skills.

 

[wamberal]

Any team that cannot kick the ball competently, in attack and defense will usually lose against a team that can execute this crucial aspect of the game.


We have had poor kickers more often than not in recent years.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Amirite, I accept that you don't particularly like box kicks and that you also think the Aussie sides are generally inept at their execution.

But one issue I'd like you to clarify - is it true that a winger chasing puts the forwards onside? I know that happens in League, but my understanding is that in rugby only the kicker can run players onside. I also believe that a player in front of the kicker is offside if they start to move towards the opposition goal line regardless of how far they are from the point of landing of the ball.

 

[Moono75]

If this game turns out to be half as interesting as this box kick discussion were in for a real treat tomorrow night

 

[fatprop]

I'm interested in knowing the crash ballers and how many is too many? I'll say the wingers and will throw Kerevi in, but believe he is more than a one trick pony, but who else?

To me, there is a sameness to their attacking options, it is a big unit running off a Quade ball, I would swap out one of the wingers and find an "Alan Gaffney" type to work on their attacking lines.

I think it would also help Hunt to have that higher workrate wing\15 as well

 

[dru]

The box kicking discussion started with Frisby. For me its also about his role and the role of the forwards.

For me in this Reds outfit, the first role for the pack is possession. The attack will be centred around Quade/Paia'ua/Hunt and how they marshall themselves and the broader attack. But it comes with a risk. We can call this poor execution, poor handling etc, but its also inherently taking chance.

Which comes back to the pigs who need to balance out possession, something we are actually good at.

Frisby's role is not in my mind to take chances. Its to help the pigs hold possession. And to feed Quade/Duncan when they call it. I wouldnt ban the box, but it was misused against the Sharks

 

[amirite]

Hey mate, responses in bold.

Amirite, I accept that you don't particularly like box kicks and that you also think the Aussie sides are generally inept at their execution.

Appreciated.

But one issue I'd like you to clarify - is it true that a winger chasing puts the forwards onside? I know that happens in League, but my understanding is that in rugby only the kicker can run players onside.

Incorrect, if you're onside you can put others onside.

In this situation, if a winger is behind the kicker at the point of the kick they can then put people in front of the kicker onside (the forwards screening and in the breakdown).

I also believe that a player in front of the kicker is offside if they start to move towards the opposition goal line regardless of how far they are from the point of landing of the ball.

Correct by the letter of the law, players in front of the kicker have to make an effort to retreat (though they generally don't) and definitely can't advance.

In practice, offside players usually just linger, neither going forward or back, and sometimes they fan across field to cover space.

In the context of a box kick, the forwards are put onside almost instantly by a winger who will set 5m behind the advantage line with a run-up, and thus don't really have to retreat.

Makes sense?