The most basic injunction in ball retention is, “Never to let an opposition player touch the ball.” This may seem utterly obvious and, I have to admit, somewhat simplistic but it is apparently often forgotten. How often we have seen the ball literally taken away from a player who isn’t concentrating. I could even be persuaded that in one-on-one contacts the defender may very well have the advantage — i.e. it’s easier to dispossess the ball carrier than it is for the ball carrier to retain possession. Don’t let it happen.

икони

I have been vastly entertained by the Rugby World Cup. It has lasted a little too long – in the sense that I had other work that I’d promised myself to do – but I must admit that, in retrospect, the time was well spent. The rugby wasn’t always exactly champagne quality but I for one can happily forgive the lack of razzle-dazzle if I’m watching real play and real combat. Gaining a metre at the breakdown with a perfect pick and go is to my way of thinking not all that far short of a perfect 1st phase back move. Winning a turn-over by the efforts of two or three players in harmonious mutual support may well be better and consistently destroying the other team’s lineout demonstrates a multi-player coordination the equal of any other in any sport. Am I admitting that these sorts of endeavours make more of an impression on me that kicking a ball between the posts? What do you think?

I now have video of 20-odd matches to help while away those long winter evenings and a host of questions still to answer. What exactly did England do that was different after their humiliation to South Africa? How did Wales lose to Fiji? Was Ireland’s sickening slide really the result of a regression in skill or a regression in spirit? On the other hand one of my perennial questions has been answered. How do you beat a big, brutal team playing 10-man pressure rugby? Easy, it turns out. Play better 10-man pressure rugby.

There is not much doubt that history will show that while South Africa won the cup Argentina was the team of the tournament. A combination of several charismatic players, indomitable (almost) determination, a game plan which in the end turned out to be not quite so rigid as the analysts had decided and the overwhelming glee they brought to their victories has cemented their place in our memory banks. South Africa’s imperious procession through the pool and play-off stages was also impressive – something like watching the Queen Mary coming into dock, I suppose. They did what they had to do with an unruffled thoroughness and with not a little polish. That Habana is the Player of the Tournament is absolutely no surprise (see below: he came 3rd in my estimation!).

England’s turn-around was also a cause of amazement. Much has been made of it elsewhere and more will be but to me the second half of the Samoa game will remain an example of what an unprepared team of good players can do when it finally decides to win.

There was another source of vast amusement in the RWC and that was the antics of the rugby press. We are all inured I hope to the normal level of nonsense - how many times do we have to endure the Bambi’s mother bit? - that most rugby journalists regurgitate on a regular basis but this tournament seems to me to have taken the process to a new level. Yes, I suppose they have to make a living and yes their editors have column-inches to fill but if I never read another story about Wilkinson’s dedication it will be far, far too soon. But why did we see nothing or very little in print about the Fijian back line and their outstanding back row? How come nobody had the vision to remark that the All Blacks looked a little flat? Where was the reporting of Scotland’s lack of ambition that finally sank them? Oh well, four more years, as they say.

Everybody else has done it so now it’s my turn – my team of the tournament picked not necessarily for quality but for watchability and sometimes for sheer bloodymindedness!

15, Montgomery
14, Vilimoni Delasau
13, Seru Rabeni
12, Steyn
11, Habana
10, Martinez
9, Gommersal
8, Gonzalo Longo
7, Juan Smith
6, Akapusi Qera
5, Chabal
4, Matfield
3, Hayman
2, Ledesma
1, Roncero

And what about my players to watch?

Sébastien Chabal +1, +1, 0, 0, +3, +2, +1 Total 8
Brian Habana +3, +1, 0, +1, 0, +3, +1 Total 9
Frédéric Michalak 0, +3, +2, 0, +2, +1, 0 Total 8
Victor Matfield +2, 0, +2, 0, +2, +1, +4 Total 11
Juan Martín Hernández +1, +2, 0, +5, +2, +1, +3 Total 14

I found this photo on the internet and downloaded it for my collection - today I looked at it closely and saw what Roncero has done to Van der Linde! Now that’s aggressive scrummaging.

I stupidly did not make a note of the source of the photo and I apopogise humbly to who ever took it for adding it to this post without permission. I’ll be happy to provide complete details of its provenance if the taker would contact me.

Point One: Any team can beat any other team on the day.
We saw it proved three times, now do we believe it? Argentina v France, England v Australia and France v New Zealand. All surprises, all totally unexpected - except by the winning teams one supposes - and all apparently inexplicable by the losers. Oh, it’s a good idea to reach for the usual suspects - the ref, the ball and the weather - but it’s a much better idea to take your lumps and make sure that it’ll never happen again. And just how do you do that? Repeat after me: “Any team can be beaten by any other team on the day.” Your job is to make sure it doesn’t happen to you!

Point Two: Do the basics well and the rest will happen.
They may be the sensation of the tournament but no-one is ever going to call the 2007 Pumas a wonderful team. Gusto yes, world-beating no! Of course they include the sublime Hernandez and the irritating but endearing Pichot but one to fifteen there are weaknesses. What they have done, however, almost to the last, is to show that if you execute your game plan perfectly, or nearly so, good things will inevitably accrue. Maybe it doesn’t matter too much exactly what your game plan is but obviously it must be carefully tailored to accentuate your strengths and hide your weaknesses. Mind you, it helps if your opponents forget Point One above (France - that’s if they ever knew it!) or are in a mindset from the Moon (Ireland) or have been coached into a stultifying mediocracy by a coach who is so risk averse that I bet he wears both belt and braces under his track-suit top (Scotland). Sadly, when fatigue and lack of real depth reduce the near perfection only a little a decent but certainly not spectacular team playing totally within themselves can upset your applecart (South Africa) and it’s then that the game plan shows its frayed edges. Still, thanks for the reminder!

Point Three: If at first you don’t succeed maybe it’s finally time for plain speaking.
Much has already been made of the meeting that took place in the English camp after they were demolished by the Springboks and much, much more will be made of it over the hundred years or so. Ostensibly players, coaches and management expressed their dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in no uncertain terms. What is amazing, however, is that things actually changed. A group of elite athletes playing in perhaps the best - certainly one of the toughest - leagues in the world transformed themselves overnight from a dejected rabble into a very fair facsimile of a winning team. Wonders will never cease! So it can happen no matter what our deepest fears predict. It is not possible to say that today’s England is a good team, it’s not even possible to say that the change we’ve seen will be sufficient to put them on the right track for the future but we can certainly say it is a team and my opinion is that it’s the first time in years we’ve been able to go that far.

Point Four: Never let up, ever and never think you can defend your way to victory.
Nuff said. France v England. It just wasn’t going to happen when you use the wrong substitutes - Michalak obviously with orders to control the game but too flaky to add to the defence, Harinordoquy too late to make a difference and, criminally, Poux much too late in the obviously tiring front row - and the wrong game plan - kick, kick, kick when run, run, run was obviously needed. I’m reliably informed that somebody once said that the best defence is attack. He was right.

Only four points? Yes, only four. But four crucial, central, important and indispensible lessons to learn.

Players left to watch!

Sébastien Chabal +1, +1, 0, 0, +3, +2
Brian Habana +3, +1, 0, +1, 0, +3
Frédéric Michalak 0, +3, +2, 0, +2, +1
Victor Matfield +2, 0, +2, 0, +2, +1
Juan Martín Hernández +1, +2, 0, +5, +2, +1

Looks like Habana and Hernandez are going to run away with it!

This is a fascinating article and deserves close attention in total. What follows is a excerpt.

Yorkshireman behind All Blacks’ downfall prepares for Le Crunch
France’s defence coach, David Ellis, tells William Fotheringham why Brian Ashton should be worried
Wednesday October 10, 2007, The Guardian

The spectacular victory over New Zealand that earned France a semi-final place against their old enemies from this side of the Channel was, ironically enough, “made in England” - with one of the keys to the upset in Cardiff being the steadfast rearguard masterminded by their Yorkshire-born defence coach David Ellis.

The official post-match statistics, somewhat impromptu in their nature, did not actually do justice to France’s achievement in restraining an All Blacks side that spent long spells in their 22 - at one point managing over 30 consecutive phases of play in a lengthy close-quarters battle - and enjoyed almost three-quarters of possession.

According to Ellis’s own statistics, France made a total of 299 tackles, their highest in any match under the Yorkshireman. Critically, they missed just 15. “That’s around five per cent, normally you would look for about nine per cent missed so that’s as good as it gets,” he said. Such is the Ellis effect that the staunchest defender of them all was the Toulouse back-row forward Thierry Dusautoir, who is only at the World Cup because of an injury to Elvis Vermeulen, the author of 38 tackles.
…
What mattered as much as the tackles themselves was the target of the tacklers. Critically, Ellis said yesterday, France’s tacklers were instructed not to go for All Black legs but to tackle around the upper body, in pairs if possible, in order to prevent the quick off-loads that had given New Zealand such impetus in the past.

“They had perfected off-loading and it was unstoppable,” said Ellis. “We knew we had to stop the off-loads. We weren’t putting them to ground. If you put them to ground with leg tackles, they have a system where they have a support runner who is always behind the player being tackled.

“The ball carrier goes into contact, the support runner comes over the top, takes the second tackler out, there is a third support runner just in case, [the scrum-half] Byron Kelleher gets the ball and it is gone. It’s a two-man ruck. There was no point in putting them to ground close to the gainline because we’ve got to come back on side, going backwards a metre at a time.

“If we block the off-load, they are in a foreign situation, the ball is slowed down. [The French players] can block it. There were several occasions in the second half when [Frédéric] Michalak hit the guy, Jauzion was in next, we were in, we kept them on their feet, the ball is off the ground, they’ve taken it into contact, scrum for us. They can’t put two men into the ruck, they put five men, their whole structure has gone completely.”
…

First a hint. The winners were England, France, South Africa and Argentina, OK?

So here’s the challenge: See if you can fit the following game-plans to the winning teams. (No prizes for four correct answers.)

1. Who needs a game-plan? Let’s do what we always do.

2. We’ll play stupid in the first half to lull them into a false sense of security. In the second half, we’ll score just enough points to get ahead and then close out the game.

3. Let’s not worry about their backs, they won’t use them anyway; we’ll just demolish their forwards and kick our points. That’ll be enough.

4. Let’s not do anything really exciting. In fact let’s not do much of anything and just get the game over with.

First, of course, is Argentina’s plan. No surprises there. It has to be said tho’ that in carrying it out there was a decided lack of snap and crackle, never mind pop. And Scotland were close, very, very close. Ten more minutes they said and they’d have won. Well, maybe but that’s the trick of it all. You have to win inside the distance. However, can this Argentinian team recover it’s gusto in time for the Springbok monolith? It’ll take everything the magician and his cohorts can muster.

Second: France. This wasn’t their game-plan but it might have been! I will admit that I believe I detected faint, very, very, faint, stirrings of France’s ambition during their dire first half and had a feeling of, if not confidence, at least anticipation at the half-time whistle. Having said that their second half display and the capitulation of the All Blacks to muddle headedness in the second half came as a total surprise.

Third was England’s plan - apparently. Or at least it could have been. If it was they carried it out to the letter and if it wasn’t Australia have a lot to be ashamed of. Quite apart from their scrum/breakdown disasters how Australia could make so many breaks and fail to capitalize is a total mystery. Error-strewn seems hardly the word for it but it’s still difficult to understand how such a narrow game plan could succeed at this level.

And finally the Springboks‘ apparent absence of plan. With Fiji running rings around them for two thirds of the match they succeeded in simply playing what was in front of them without much sign of either gusto or satisfaction. Neither were they apparently fazed by Fiji’s stunning two-try blitz to level the scores. Far from it. They simply kicked off and continued down the path offered to them. This speaks volumes either of immense inner confidence and absolute faith in their ability to overcome all adversity - or a complete lack of imagination. Argentina had better pray it’s the latter.

Players left to watch!

Sébastien Chabal +1, +1, 0, 0, +3
Brian Habana +3, +1, 0, +1, 0
Frédéric Michalak 0, +3, +2, 0, +2
Daniel Carter +1,+2, +1, 0, +1
Victor Matfield +2, 0, +2, 0, +2
Juan Martín Hernández +1, +2, 0, +5, +2

What strange outcomes! Scotland v Italy and Argentina v Ireland: two matches with an almost identical patterns and quite different qualities. If I was asked to describe the winners’ game-plans I’d be forced to say they were the same. Simply put it could be described as 10-man rugby; dominate in the set pieces, play in your opponent’s half and always take the opportunities to score that are offered. Never mind that both winners had good to excellent backs on the field these were forward-centric performances. An yet, and yet… Scotland seemed completely uncomfortable with their role. They presented what has to have been some of the flattest, least interesting periods of play I’ve seen in a long time to the extent that there was a sense that the players were embarrassed by it all. They did it and they did it fairly well against an opposition which lacked class and won on the back of penalties. It was an important but, I would have thought, totally unsatisfying win.

Argentina, on the other hand, revelled in their game-plan. Indeed, they brought a whole new meaning to the term. No only did they squeeze the life out of an opposition which, on paper at least, was dripping with class, but who on the day showed it only in a couple of flashes but they enjoyed it. And their enjoyment showed. Their pleasure when the final whistle sounded was palpable.

And then there was Fiji v Wales. What a match! It had the proverbial everything: thrilling running rugby, crunching tackles, wonderful hand skills, on both sides it has to be said, support play to die for and drama of the highest. Oh, yes, and the so-called underdogs won. What more could you ask for? Well, very little is the answer.

But hang on a minute. How exactly could a Fijian team with a non-functioning scrum - the sight of the rueful grin on the face of a Fijian prop after he had been comprehensively dumped stays in my memory - and a lineout reduced to taking the ball at the front and hence, according to the coaching manuals at least, sacrificing the possibility of quality ball to the backs do so well? (I have to mention here that for all their set-piece woes Fiji did produce one of the best - if not the best - rolling mauls of the tournament so far - and once was enough to panic the Welsh into
changing their defence pattern for the rest of the match and preparing for an attack tactic that never came.) Well, vast courage and enthusiasm at the breakdown producing a flood of fast, clean ball plus the ability to run straight into gaps had a lot to do with it.

The Welsh lost but they might have won. Their tries were no less exciting and their play in the loose was only a little less enthusiastic but they made too many mistakes, their timing was wrong and they succumbed to the idea that playing rugby was the objective. All that said it was a great match and it will sadden generations of Welshmen that their team was on the losing side.

Stellar performances this weekend? The Fijian midfield backs under Nicky Little’s leadership certainly qualify, the Argentinian forwards must be up there too - Ledesma’s grin told the entire story - but individually the top award has to go to Juan Martín Hernández, perhaps a little enhanced by the nightmare performance of his opposite number, I have to say, but stellar nevertheless. “If you can keep your head while all around you are losing theirs…” Simply world-class.

Here’s how our players to watch fared:

Sébastien Chabal +1, +1, 0, 0
Brian Habana +3, +1, 0, +1
Frédéric Michalak 0, +3, +2, 0
Gordon Darcy +1, 0, 0, -3
Daniel Carter +1,+2, +1, 0
James Hook -2, +1, +1, +1
Victor Matfield +2, 0, +2, 0
Juan Martín Hernández +1, +2, 0, +5

It would be nice to be able to say that the smoke is beginning to clear and the front-runners are beginning to emerge but it’s crystal clear that, in truth, they emerged months ago. The three southern-hemisphere giants have already taken their places in the quarters and the remaining pool contests somewhat resemble children squabbling over the last sausage. Not, on the face of it, that winning the squabble will do them much good.

The last semi-final place is still up for grabs, thank goodness, so that Tonga v England, Wales v Fiji, Scotland v Italy and, of course, Ireland v Argentina will provide all the interest but looking at these eight teams plus France it’s hard to spot a viable contender. On paper France looks the part but I suspect that there are still a few dice to be thrown in the last chance saloon.

Thus, once again we have had a week-end where the favourites cruised to victory and in the other matches the underdogs, without exception, sadly couldn’t quite make the step that we’d all hoped for. Tonga v South Africa was perhaps the most encouraging of these matches with the Tongans by dint of no more than average-to-good set pieces, a courageous and bloody-minded approach at the breakdown all flavoured by regular flashes of sublime handling and support gave a fairly pedestrian Springbok team a definite scare. Of additional interest was the transformation made by the Springbok bench in the second half when Matfield seemed to re-energise the dispirited pack and Steyn did the same for the backs. Too often we’ve seen acknowledged stars or specialist impact players coming off the bench when their teams are in trouble but proving unable to stem a downward spiral.

England’s defeat of Samoa came as the result of a considerably narrowed game plan, a change entirely appropriate for the loosy-goosy opposition as it happened. Whether the same approach will be sufficient to keep the rambunctious Tongans in check remains to be seen. Elsewhere Scotland did nothing and Ireland committed collective hari-kari.

Looking at the tournament so far one general question seems to be surfacing: Is the day of the prepared move off 1st phase finally at an end? Apart from Samoa’s 1st try against England I can’t seem to remember another in this tournament.

Which leads to the question: Have ‘prepared’ defences, i.e. defences given more than a few seconds to get organised and in place, finally figured out how to comprehensively repel all boarders? An answer in the affirmative would give weight to the proposition that most tries in the future will be initiated by simple failures of skill (pressure induced, presumably) and turn-overs - a proposition which if it proves to be true will see coaches leaving the set-pieces to their assistants and concentrating on coaching handling skills and the more complicated, and hence generally ignored, breakdowns, restarts and (at last!) support play.

In the interim let’s look at how our selection have fared:

Sébastien Chabal +1, +1, 0
Brian Habana +3, +1, 0
Frédéric Michalak 0, +3, +2
Gordon Darcy +1, 0, 0
Daniel Carter +1,+2, +1
James Hook -2, +1, +1
Victor Matfield +2, 0, +2
Juan Martín Hernández+1, +2, 0

By Paul Ackford, Sunday Telegraph 23/09/2007

It’s not often that we find rugby journalists making serious and (hopefully) influential statements about our game but Paul Ackford’s article in today’s Sunday Telegraph strikes me as a real breath of fresh air. What follows is a small excerpt from his cogent article which I recommend highly to all readers.

England’s response to their disastrous defeat against South Africa was to organise a clear-the-air meeting the following day at their team hotel. The conclusions:(…) “We’ve tightened up what we are doing. It’s a bit more regimented.”

In that observation lies the explanation of all England’s present difficulties. It is an indictment of the way the game is played in the Premiership and a revealing insight into the inferior skill sets of the country’s elite players. Put yourself in Brian Ashton’s shoes for a moment. How would you feel if the group you thought capable of the possibility of self-determination turned round and said we’d rather play rugby by numbers? Join the dots rugby. Rugby for imbeciles. No wonder England’s coach has been a bit tetchy of late. The coaching philosophy he has lived his life by and has unsuccessfully tried to communicate to the national side has been thrown back in his face.
(…)
It remains to be seen whether England can extricate themselves from this mess and begin their climb back up the rankings. My sense is that it will take a major clear-out of players and coaches before the revolution can begin. But when a squad’s instinctive response to a reversal is to reach for the blinkers that revolution can’t come soon enough.
(…)
www.telegraph.co.uk/ackford

Re-reading my deleted posts this one seems more than usually pertinent.

Excerpt from an article by Bret Harris in The Australian, July 30, 2007, including quotes from John Muggleton, the Wallabies’ defence coach.

It’s not often that we receive such a cogent and thought-provoking example of current rugby thinking. Perhaps with the World Cup looming we shouldn’t take Muggleton’s back-off’ tactic too seriously, though. The emphasis is mine, however.

…
“Defence has changed completely because the game has changed completely,” Muggleton said. ‘It is more about unstructured play now. Most tries are scored from unstructured play - turnovers, kick-returns. It has actually become a game where people really take the risk in attack, when they know the defence is not set.
…
“The emphasis now is how to go from attack to defence and doing that quickly. If you do lose the ball, what do you do, if they have the numbers?”
…
“You’ve got to get them to waste space,” Muggleton said. “You’ve got to make them pass the ball. You’ve got to make them play away from the scoring zone, while you get organised. So what we do is actually back off and hope they’ll pass the ball towards the sideline, use up passes and use up men so we end up with even numbers and we’ll close it down.

“In the past, we’ve tried to run up and shut it down straight away and that’s where you are disjointed in defence and they can find holes, draw a man and pass. They use up very few numbers, but they have an overlap so they score in the corner.

“Now we back off and let them play. We try and let them use up their advantage, shut them down eventually and try on the next phase to regain control.”