Wall St Journal covers Ireland at the RWC

cerebus

The WSJ isn't known for its sports coverage, so you can imagine my surprise when I sat down to read the paper this morning over breakfast and found a half page article on Irish rugby. The writer makes a case for Ireland's success being based on innovation around the tackle, and how other teams are beginning to adapt.

The article is here in case anyone is interested - makes for an interesting read.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204612504576611022253180068.html

It might be subscriber access only, so I have pasted it below:

wsj wrote:

Ireland Will Hug You to Death
With a Suffocating New Defense, the Shockingly Good Shamrocks Plot the Ultimate World Cup Coup

By JONATHAN CLEGG

Enlarge Image

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Ireland's Brian O'Driscoll (left) and Keith Earls (right) battle with Australia's Quade Cooper (in yellow) during a Rugby World Cup match on Sept. 17.

Auckland, New Zealand

The Rugby World Cup has its exclusive club of bluebloods. Only four teams—New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and England—have ever won this tournament, and they've produced 11 of the 12 finalists. It's an elite group that shuns new members.

But as the 2011 tournament reaches the knockout stage this weekend, the team everyone's talking about is Ireland. With a surprising surge, the Irish have blitzed through the group stage, beating Australia 15-6 and becoming the talk of world rugby. It's not just that the Irish are unlikely contenders (Ireland has never really won much of anything before). What makes this team special is something that's unusual in any sport, and exceedingly rare in a royal and ancient game like rugby: a sprig of genuine innovation.

The secret behind Ireland's surge is a revolutionary and suffocating defensive scheme, known as the "choke," that relies on ferocious tackling and a loophole in the rules of the game to sap energy and momentum of its opponents. As Ireland prepares for a quarterfinal matchup with Wales on Saturday, this new system has confounded opponents and transformed a struggling team into contenders for the sport's biggest prize.

"Ireland didn't come into this World Cup as big favorites because they lost all four of their [pre-event exhibition] games, but they've got a team that can knock over anyone," said Nick Mallett, Italy's head coach. "I don't think any team could be confident of playing Ireland at the moment."

What makes the choke so effective is the way it has reinvented one of this game's oldest and most established arts: the tackle. For more than a century, rugby players have used the same basic technique to take down opponents: Hit them low and mash them into the turf as quickly as possible. Even as teams employ bigger, faster payers, the fact that they fall over if you hit them low enough has remained true.

For Ireland, the reverse is true. Instead of trying to take down opposing ball carriers, this team of muscular brutes wants to hold runners upright and prevent them from hitting the ground with a tandem of chest-high tackles—roughly akin to receiving a bear hug from a boa constrictor.

"You dare not leave runners isolated in the tackle," said Ben Kay, a former England international and now a rugby analyst for ESPN. "They're like a pack of dogs."

Executing the choke requires two defenders to tackle a ball carrier from either side. One goes high, trapping the runner's arms against his body, the other goes low, preventing him from reaching the ground.

The physical toll required to perform the choke is so exhausting that it would have been impossible to implement without the fitter, faster, physically stronger players in today's game or the time to practice it obsessively which is now available in the professional era. But when it works, it traps opposing runners in a sort of suspended animation.

One major advantage of this technique is that it stops an opponent from offloading the ball to a support runner, slowing down the offensive team.

But the most revolutionary aspect of the choke defense—and what makes it almost subversive—is the way it takes advantage of tweaks to the rules of the game, which were intended to foster more adventurous play.

In 2009, the International Rugby Board took steps to make the game faster and flashier by ruling that defenders would be penalized if they failed to release a player after making a tackle. By making it harder for tacklers to steal possession, the lawmakers hoped to encourage more epic long runs.

But the choke defense circumvents these laws because it stops opposing runners from hitting the ground. By holding the ball carrier upright, the Irish can attempt to strip the ball and steal possession without having to release the trapped runner. More importantly, if the ball gets caught up in this tangle of bodies, possession is awarded to Ireland at the ensuing scrum.

"The law was changed to stop what Ireland and others were doing on the ground," said Shaun Edwards, the Wales assistant coach. "They've just elevated things a foot or so in the air."

Les Kiss, the Ireland defense coach and architect of the strategy, says the team first began implementing the choke during the 2009 Six Nations tournament, when Ireland finished with the best defensive record and won the championship with a five-game sweep for the first time in 61 years.

The tactic has been a potent weapon in Ireland's playbook for the past two years, notably in a crushing win over England in March. But here in New Zealand, it has become the cornerstone of the team's defensive strategy.

In Ireland's crucial first-round game against Australia last month, the team used the choke defense for nearly the entire game. The Irish didn't surrender a single try, held the world's No. 2-ranked nation to just six points and found a way to derail the world's most electrifying offense. The choke yielded three turnovers and slowed down Australia's passing game. In Australia's last two TriNations Series matches, the team averaged 11 offloads per game. Against Ireland, they made just four.

"That was a bit of a surprise tactic for us," said Quade Cooper, the Australia fly-half. "It got them a lot of turnovers."

Through four games here, Ireland has conceded just 34 points and ranks second in both points and tries allowed. The team's defeat of Australia was only the second time in the World Cup's 24-year history that a southern hemisphere nation has lost to a northern hemisphere country in group play.

Even though Ireland's defense has been almost impregnable so far, there are doubts about whether the choke will have the same level of success as the quality of opposition improves in the knockout rounds. Some have questioned the legality of the tactic and say referees could penalize Ireland for killing the game if they take a dim view of the strategy. Others point out that tackling high is a risky strategy against the bigger, faster power runners the Irish are likely to face as they advance.

"Whenever we have done it well in the past, we have generally gotten our rewards for it," said Paul O'Connell, the Ireland forward. "It has never reared its head for us in the past and hopefully it won't going forward."

But the biggest concern may be the runaway success of Ireland's inventive scheme, which has already caught the attention of the world's elite teams and diminished its element of surprise. "Some teams have already started copying it," said Kiss, the Ireland defense coach. "England have taken it on and other teams are starting to look at the technique. You can't keep these things under cover for too long."

07734

Great article, thanks fr the link!

Buceph

Terrible article. It's called a smother tackle. Tt's been around in rugby league for donkeys years. It's been around in union for almost as long (I've been on a team that used that method at least 16 years ago in underage rugby.) The tackler having to release the player has been a rule for ages as well, it's just it was given special mention and emphasised when the ELVs came in. Ireland may have been using it since 2009, but I remember before that they were using a similar method where they would let the tackler through the line, then bring him to ground and use incoming ruckers to take the ball.

Ireland aren't a struggling team. They were in poor form leading up to the world cup, but they were never struggling. We also have not "never achieved much," we've won more than most at provincial level and done reasonably well at international level since the "Golden Era" began.

I wouldn't be surprised if that article was written by an American ignorant of rugby, or an arrogant Australian.

durkadurka

A bit grumpy today are we?

Buceph

durkadurka wrote: »

A bit grumpy today are we?

No. I'm quite happy. I've just been recommended for a great job that will start me off in my ideal career. I just think it's a fairly shoddy article from some who knows little about rugby. It's great that the WSJ is covering rugby, and Ireland, but they could get a decent freelancer in to do it rather than writing things that are plain wrong.

.ak

Buceph wrote: »

Ireland aren't a struggling team. They were in poor form leading up to the world cup, but they were never struggling. We also have not "never achieved much," we've won more than most at provincial level and done reasonably well at international level since the "Golden Era" began.

I wouldn't be surprised if that article was written by an American ignorant of rugby, or an arrogant Australian.

It was never going to be a good article in the WALL STREET JOURNO. Seriously...

But they are right Ireland area a struggling team. We've never consistently been top dog in NH. As for achievements? We've won one grand slam in 50 odd years, have never progressed past the QF stages in the RWC, and have never held a decent spot in the IRB world rankings.

The provincial level thing doesn't facilitate into how THIS team has done I'm afraid.

As an outsider the writer of the article can be forgiven for not thinking we've achieved anything or done more than struggling.

Big Nelly

This could be seen as the kiss of death, I hope not!!!

GerM

Jonathan Clegg is English. His articles in the WSJ are generally concerned with world sports with a heavy focus on the UK. His article is written for an American audience who aren't exactly prolific followers of rugby.

steve9859

GerM wrote: »

Jonathan Clegg is English. His articles in the WSJ are generally concerned with world sports with a heavy focus on the UK. His article is written for an American audience who aren't exactly prolific followers of rugby.

That's right. You beat me to it. I would add that he has to make the sport sound interesting and cool to Americans, which is not easy just as the NFL season is gathering steam. Which means simplifying it and and in this case trying to make it comparable with the gladiatorial and violent nature of the NFL, which the Americans love. Hence words like "choke defense" and exaggerating the 'rise of Ireland' in the cause of a good attention grabbing story

Amazotheamazing

Munster used choked tackles last year against Australia when they won in Thomond Park, whatever about Cooper, Deans and Williams have no excuse for not noticing them.

Mister Dread

The article is complete rubbish. The choke tackle is useful but hardly the cornerstone of our team. And Ireland have never really won much of anything before? No, just the grandslam two years ago and our provincial teams are the most successful in europe.

Podge_irl

Mister Dread wrote: »

The article is complete rubbish. The choke tackle is useful but hardly the cornerstone of our team. And Ireland have never really won much of anything before? No, just the grandslam two years ago and our provincial teams are the most successful in europe.

To be fair to him, Ireland are historically easily the worst of the original 5N and even over the last decade Wales, England and France have won more.

Winning one 6N in 30 or so years is a fairly poor stat.

steve9859

Mister Dread wrote: »

The article is complete rubbish. The choke tackle is useful but hardly the cornerstone of our team. And Ireland have never really won much of anything before? No, just the grandslam two years ago and our provincial teams are the most successful in europe.

Agree with you. But that is of zero interest to Americans, for whom the article is written. If it didn't grab the attention (underdog story, 'choke tackles' etc), the editor wouldn't have put it in. And it's better than having no article at all!

Mister Dread

Podge_irl wrote: »

To be fair to him, Ireland are historically easily the worst of the original 5N and even over the last decade Wales, England and France have won more.

Winning one 6N in 30 or so years is a fairly poor stat.

He says it like it came from the blue. Our 6 nations record is impressive, only 2 points behind france, 7 ahead of England and miles ahead of the rest.

Podge_irl

Mister Dread wrote: »

He says it like it came from the blue. Our 6 nations record is impressive, only 2 points behind france, 7 ahead of England and miles ahead of the rest.

Still won far less then any of them though. Ireland have been fairly consistent underachivers on the international stage - mostly do to their stunning inability to beat France with any regularity - but they don't have a strong record of winning anything. 1 6N in 26 years isn't much to write home about.

Amazotheamazing

Mister Dread wrote: »

He says it like it came from the blue. Our 6 nations record is impressive, only 2 points behind france, 7 ahead of England and miles ahead of the rest.

In it's own way that record is shows we underachieve. By those standards we should have won more titles instead of being continual also-rans.

Mister Dread

The 6 nations is test rugby. It's about winning matches and we've done very well in that regard. Winning the thing in a year is nice but who'd swap our record for Wales?

Grachain

I dont know if you seen the comment at the end of the story.....somebody slams him because the article is almost identical to a story in the british telegraph....he even used the same photo....

irishh_bob

Podge_irl wrote: »

To be fair to him, Ireland are historically easily the worst of the original 5N and even over the last decade Wales, England and France have won more.

Winning one 6N in 30 or so years is a fairly poor stat.

surely the last decade would place ireland ahead of scotland in the all time roll of honour but still second last admitadley , then again england and france are huge and rugby is the national sport in wales

jk86

"The law was changed to stop what Ireland and others were doing on the ground," said Shaun Edwards, the Wales assistant coach. "They've just elevated things a foot or so in the air."

U mad bro?

skregs

irishh_bob wrote: »

surely the last decade would place ireland ahead of scotland in the all time roll of honour but still second last admitadley , then again england and france are huge and rugby is the national sport in wales

Scotland has 3 Grand Slams and 14 championships.
Ireland has 2 slams and 11 championships.

And scotland still has a 55% win record against us. The lowest win ratio of the 5 nations teams against us, but still.

Although if we beat them every year for the next 8 years in the six nations, we get a 50% win/lose ratio against them!

Podge_irl

Mister Dread wrote: »

The 6 nations is test rugby. It's about winning matches and we've done very well in that regard. Winning the thing in a year is nice but who'd swap our record for Wales?

Winning the thing in a year isn't nice, it's the entire point of the competition.

Yes, they're test matches and worth something in their own right, but in the context of this article with reference to Ireland performing well in a competition, our abysmal record in the 6N in terms of wins is exceedingly relevant.

Pride Fighter

Mister Dread wrote: »

The 6 nations is test rugby. It's about winning matches and we've done very well in that regard. Winning the thing in a year is nice but who'd swap our record for Wales?

I would, 2 grand slams versus 1? Trophies are the reason why everyone gets into sport.

GerM

Mister Dread wrote: »

The 6 nations is test rugby. It's about winning matches and we've done very well in that regard. Winning the thing in a year is nice but who'd swap our record for Wales?

Probably the majority of people. Two grand slams? Having a decent win ratio is all well and good but this is about winning trophies and that's something the Welsh national team have beaten us in. Triple Crowns are meaningless. Win 60% of your games in a 6 team tournament? Meh. We take part to win. Nobody remembers who finishes second. There's a reason why the general rugby public will always think of DK's tenure as being more successful that EOS despite us playing the best rugby of the modern era under EOS.

JustinDee

Buceph wrote: »

Terrible article. It's called a smother tackle. Tt's been around in rugby league for donkeys years. It's been around in union for almost as long (I've been on a team that used that method at least 16 years ago in underage rugby.)

Its called a choke tackle. A smother tackle is a 'gang tackle' that takes a player down, preventing ball-carrier getting ball away. The 'choke' keeps a player off ground, slowing down ball and making it more available for turnover. Yes, it has been in rugby league for some decades (code of rugby which I played) because a tackle can still be called as a tackle in that form.

Buceph wrote: »

The tackler having to release the player has been a rule for ages as well, it's just it was given special mention and emphasised when the ELVs came in. Ireland may have been using it since 2009, but I remember before that they were using a similar method where they would let the tackler through the line, then bring him to ground and use incoming ruckers to take the ball

The heightened emphasis on releasing the tackled player was actually introduced post-ELVs as a different method of making a ruck less of a foregone conclusion in favour of the carrying team. If you remember it was at Croke Park in the middle of the RBS Six Nations against Scotland with Craig Joubert as referee.
I'd be keen to see where you identify Ireland (or any team actually), allowing opposition break their defensive line.

Buceph wrote: »

Ireland aren't a struggling team. They were in poor form leading up to the world cup, but they were never struggling. We also have not "never achieved much," we've won more than most at provincial level and done reasonably well at international level since the "Golden Era" began

If you read these forums throughout, you'd think Ireland were at death's door.

Buceph wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if that article was written by an American ignorant of rugby, or an arrogant Australian.

He's from England. Is sports editor for the European edition of WSJ, a Rupert Murdoch paper based in London.

JustinDee

GerM wrote: »

Jonathan Clegg is English. His articles in the WSJ are generally concerned with world sports with a heavy focus on the UK. His article is written for an American audience who aren't exactly prolific followers of rugby.

The articles are actually written for the European readership. Its the European edition that he edits.

bamboozle

i dunno, good article but cant take it too seriously if it fails to mention Sean O'Brien or Stephen Ferris!

pajunior

I don't know how we have gone two pages without someone mentioning the phrase "shockingly good shamrocks".

Literally laughed out loud when I read that.

As for the rest of the article, I didn't think it too bad especially from such a publication.

Mister Dread

Pride Fighter wrote: »

I would, 2 grand slams versus 1? Trophies are the reason why everyone gets into sport.

Nonsense. You play to win, play your best and enjoy the game. Should the Namibia players just pack it in because they are never going to win a trophy?

GerM

Mister Dread wrote: »

Nonsense. You play to win, play your best and enjoy the game. Should the Namibia players just pack it in because they are never going to win a trophy?

Exactly. Play to win. Wales have won more that matters than Ireland. Nobody cares about percentages. It's what the wins amount to that counts. Would you be happier with Ireland winning 4/5 games every year or 2/5 games and winning a GS every third year?

Mister Dread

Games every time. I'd rather they were a good team and thats what Ireland have been for the last decade.

GerM

Mister Dread wrote: »

Games every time. I'd rather they were a good team and thats what Ireland have been for the last decade.

I would think you would be in the vast minority so. That's like saying you'd be happy if we had won all our warm ups and lost to Australia in the pool. We'd have won 7/8 games then instead of 4/8. No competition.

steve9859

GerM wrote: »

I would think you would be in the vast minority so. That's like saying you'd be happy if we had won all our warm ups and lost to Australia in the pool. We'd have won 7/8 games then instead of 4/8. No competition.

You're mixing up competitive matches and experimental matches

pajunior

steve9859 wrote: »

You're mixing up competitive matches and experimental matches

I would agree with Germ, would rather 3 Grand Slams with 6/7 4th place finishes then 2nd every year.

Same way I would rather 1 WC and never be #1 on the IRB rankings rather then be #1 for 10 years and have nothing to show for it.

pickarooney

Realistically no team can produce and blood players at a rate that gives them a GS shot every year so for ages we've been trying to get our best team together and falling a little bit short while our 6N opponents have been taking the hit in alternate years in order to develop a winning squad for the following tournament. Even England, with their massive pool of players, know they need to take the occasional step back to make two forward.