Nov 25

Play Time?

Excerpt from an article by DUNCAN JOHNSTONE - co-editor of Rugby Heaven.co.nz - in Stuff.co.nz Sunday, 25 November 2007.

Unbelievable? Inconceivable? Just plain stupid? A great idea that failed? How many games do players need to play to reach their peak?

“Some startling statistics reveal how Graham Henry’s controversial reconditioning and rotation policies left his All Blacks squad severely under-done for the rigours of a world cup.

“The starting XV who lost their quarterfinal to France averaged just over 12 games each for the entire year.

“It’s an indictment on the system when game time for a workaholic player like Jerry Collins is 1011 minutes the equivalent of less than 13 games of rugby.

“But there are some even more damning figures. First-choice halfback Byron Kelleher played the equivalent of just 8.5 games this year before heading off to his lucrative French club deal.

“Senior hooker Anton Oliver played the equivalent of just 10.6 matches.

“Injuries and troubled Super 14 selections contributed to seriously restrict Joe Rokocoko, whose time on the paddock panned out to be 10.2 matches while his Blues team-mate Ali Williams was left with 591 minutes of rugby 7.3 matches.

“Ironically the busiest player this season was Doug Howlett who packed in 1720 minutes the equivalent of 21.5 matches.

“Skipper Richie McCaw had a busy season despite being reconditioned. He started in 17 matches, played in 19 and got in 1288 minutes of action.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
Nov 23

Offload decisions

42a.gif

The more one thinks about the offload ( there was a time when I called it “passing out of the tackle” or “POOTT” before the term “offload” simplified all our lives) the more complicated it becomes.

Statistics show clearly, as if we needed to be convinced, that a team’s determination to keep the forward motion of the ball alive has a favourable impact on the final score. It doesn’t necessarily win matches but it surely makes them easier to win. However, raising the number of offloads by a team or by a player involves not just embedding the sure and certain knowledge that offloads do actually work but often a complete re-appraisal of what really takes place at the tackle/breakdown. Reducing the number of offloads that your opponents can complete takes a similar reappraisal of defence tactics.

Having said all that I have to apologise for what comes next. Actions that take place on the rugby field are extremely complicated. To a casual spectator they seem to be largely instinctive but nothing could be further from the truth. A good player assesses situations and deals with them according to a pre-learned hierarchy of actions. Spelling out these actions in detail always seems horribly trite not to say interminable especially when we know that the player can mentally review a very complicated list of possibilities and visualise the possible outcomes in seconds. What is important is that the player first of all has a well-constructed sequences of actions available and equally importantly that he or she maintains the ability to run through them logically.

For the ball-carrier offloading requires a sequence of decisions and actions which begins, hopefully, a few seconds before the realization that a tackle is “inevitable”. (This is not to suggest for a second that even inevitable tackles will actually succeed! Players completely miss 10% or so of their tackles through poor technique or failure of will and even if there is an actual laying on of hands there always exists the possibility of breaking out if the tackle is poorly constructed. ) The offload process thus begins when it appears that all efforts at escape and evasion have been exhausted. You’ve done your best to either avoid, fend-off or bulldoze the defender but now he or she is moving in for the tackle.

Before it happens, however, there needs to be a final check of the availability of your support.

I’ve ranted long and hard elsewhere (In “Rugby Coaching Notes”, for example) about the need for supporters to accept that tackles will happen to ball-carriers, to position themselves appropriately AND to make sure that the ball-carrier knows where they are.

Then comes the decision sequence: “How can I accept the tackle and maintain a position to make the offload?” It is important here for the ball-carrier to realise that he has some control over the sort of tackle he’s going to receive and this question can be broken down into: “How can I make him tackle me but leave my hands/arms free to make the pass?” and “How can I force my hands/arms free if he wraps me up?” (This is obviously the point where confidence in your upper-body strength built up during those long hours in the gym comes into play!) It goes without saying, I hope, that the first priority in any and all of these actions is to maintain possession of the ball!

The options here are to force a low tackle which will permit you to either pass as you fall or immediately after reaching the ground having turned your body or to make a “half-break” by ducking under the tackler’s arms so that you can pass behind him. (My strong suspicion is that the current increase in the number of high tackles is a direct result of the growing popularity of the second of these options.) Forcing the low tackle depends on the space available and the direction of approach of the tackler - if there’s space you can “run away,” at the last moment if there isn’t you can at least change direction to wrong-foot the tackler. Making the half-break might involve changing direction (side-step or swerve) to pass the defender on his “wrong” side i.e. the side he doesn’t expect.

If a wrap-up looks likely the tactic is to try to maintain a good base with your feet well placed to support a twisting movement to spring your arms free. This is obviously more easily said than done but without good foot position it is certainly nigh impossible. If the defender lifts you off the ground - not uncommon there days - your best bet may be to clench everything and try to get to ground with your arms free.

The last and perhaps the most crucial decision, strangely enough, is whether to pass or not!

Making a bad pass is almost as bad as dropping the ball so if you’re not confident you can complete a sympathetic pass it may be better to simply lay the ball back. This decision will be based on the amount of freedom available to your arms/hands, the position of your best supporter and the actions of the tackler and his supporters. It’s better to have the courage not to pass than to force an error on your team-mate. The supporter will be watching you intently and, if he sees hesitation on your part, is most likely to driver over and thus protect possession. This is second-best but it’s certainly better than watching a defender boot the loose ball down the field and scamper after it.

To sum up offloading is about preparation as much as execution. Having mental images of the opportunities and pitfalls of your possible actions will, as always, play a big part in their success. Good luck!

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
Nov 23

Any Given Sunday - or Saturday

any.jpg For all of us who have spent long nights wondering what the life of a top professional coach is really like I can heartily recommend the blockbuster movie “Any Given Sunday,” a gritty and obviously totally authentic picture of coaching at the top of the tree complete with all the thrills, spills and romantic complications required by the position. It almost made me want to go back to coaching…
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
Nov 11

RWC Statistics: SARugby.com

I thought I was fairly familiar with the world’s rugby websites but recently I discovered one I’d never seen before. SARugby.com is a South African site and while it seems (on short acquaintance, I must admit) not very remarkable in other respects it has a Stats Center with an excellent table of every RWC statistic you could ask for backed up by very extensive and exhaustive articles, team lists, player profiles. Paradise for the statistics nuts among us and clearly a labour of love by SARugby.com. I’m sure you’ll join me in thanking them for their work.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
Nov 09

Website Reviews: Planet Rugby

In this series of critical review of rugby websites there will be no winners or losers. My links are to be found at Links

Planet Rugby
planetrugby.jpg

  • |News 9| Analysis 2| Coaching 5| Gossip 2 | Topical 9|
  • |Timely 7| Regional 9| Video 1| Audio 0| Images 4|

What to expect: A lot! Planet Rugby’s home page looks like the first page of AutoTrader! Literally 10s of headlines, two or three (small) topical photos, a video box (more about that later,) and various Fixtures, Results, Tables, TV schedules, links and boxes. And a few ads, of course.
Comprehensive? Absolutely. Strong editorial discrimination? Hardly. While the major “newspaper” sites confine themselves to between 5 and 10 top stories, i.e. headlines and first paragraphs with a “read more” link, plus links to various topical sections, look hard enough at Planet Rugby’s home page and you’ll find links to ALL the latest rugby stories from around the world. As a result this is hardly a site for the casual browser and certainly not a site for one-eyed supporters. All the better for that you may say!
The aim of the content also seems to be coverage rather than controversy. No correspondents are named so there’s no-one to get annoyed with. “Gimme the facts, Ma’am, only the facts.” There is however an “Off the Field” section with excellent but all too few coaching tips from the resident “Guru” and the odd article about refereeing etc. as well as betting and fantasy rugby (whatever that is?) links.
The video box works - at least on my browser and video set-up - which is more than I can say for other sites - but the content is terminally bland. Ed Turner hasn’t yet figured out that the Republic of Ireland doesn’t have a rugby team or how to pronounce Waikato but he can read the scores. Otherwise we currently get Nelson Mandela, the return of the Pumas and Jake White with the cup. Oh! and that vastly informative series of Visa “Debates”.
Strong points: Coverage and attention to detail.
Weak points: Few, considering what it is.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
Nov 02

IRB RWC Statistical Analysis I: NZ’s demise

Excerpt from the Commentary section.

“…the one question that was critical therefore was whether an expansive approach would stand up under the pressure of a winner take all knockout competition.

It did not – and this has never been more dramatically illustrated than in the France v New Zealand quarter final game. In order to understand the immensity of this game, it is necessary to go back to November 2006 .

In that month, New Zealand defeated France – in France - by 47 points to 3. This suggested that New Zealand seemed to have found the right formula for beating one of their major world cup rivals. They scored 7 tries, creating just 43 rucks and kicked the ball 29 times. They made few passes – just 91 – but were clinical in their execution .

This formula disappeared however in their RWC quarter final match against France. Instead of creating 43 rucks, New Zealand created 165 or almost 4 times as many. This was around 100 more than a normal New Zealand game; was around 50% higher than the next highest in the tournament and is almost certainly the highest figure ever seen in an international match. It was at a scale that New Zealand had never remotely experienced before with an often seen expansive approach being replaced by forward attrition. The successful formula of recent years had been abandoned for some reason and New Zealand found themselves out of the competition.”

This interpretation certainly seems compelling (and the numbers it quotes are nearly incredible!) While the implications and mechanics of “creating a ruck” raise questions there seems to be little doubt that NZ got their game plan totally wrong!

What do you think?

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...