Tactics questions

Bruce7

Apologies if this has already been discussed, and this is not intended as Ireland bashing or a criticism of anyone, and doesn't apply to any specific team.

But can anyone explain the strategy / tactics / thinking behind the following decisions:

(i) Kicking the ball straight down the middle of the pitch to the opposition.

I don't get this. This is like a team in American football opting to punt on first down. What is the point of it? Is the kicker hoping that the fielder will drop the ball or knock it on? Surely that never happens, or happens so rarely that it's not worth bothering with.

(ii) Garryowens in the middle of the pitch that go about 10 yards.

Don't get this either. The upside is that you might get the ball back 10 yards further downfield, but you risk giving the ball away and giving the opposition good field position.

(iii) Why would a team opt to kick for touch when they have a penalty deep in the opposition's 22. They might lose the susequent line-out. Why not just tap and go and form a ruck in the same place that the ruck would form after the lineout?

Again, not looking to bash anyone with this. I played rugby for years and have watched it all my life, but have never understood the above.

hardCopy

Bruce7 wrote: »

Apologies if this has already been discussed, and this is not intended as Ireland bashing or a criticism of anyone, and doesn't apply to any specific team.

But can anyone explain the strategy / tactics / thinking behind the following decisions:

(i) Kicking the ball straight down the middle of the pitch to the opposition.

I don't get this. This is like a team in American football opting to punt on first down. What is the point of it? Is the kicker hoping that the fielder will drop the ball or knock it on? Surely that never happens, or happens so rarely that it's not worth bothering with.

Kicking for position, with quick lineouts there's not much benefit in making touch when the wings are covered. I suppose the hope is that your chasing line can move up fast enough to keep the opposition in their own half and force a turnover or penalty.

Bruce7 wrote: »

(ii) Garryowens in the middle of the pitch that go about 10 yards.

Don't get this either. The upside is that you might get the ball back 10 yards further downfield, but you risk giving the ball away and giving the opposition good field position.

Just another way to try and beat an organised defense. Variety is important to keep the opposition guessing.

Bruce7 wrote: »

(iii) Why would a team opt to kick for touch when they have a penalty deep in the opposition's 22. They might lose the susequent line-out. Why not just tap and go and form a ruck in the same place that the ruck would form after the lineout?

Again, not looking to bash anyone with this. I played rugby for years and have watched it all my life, but have never understood the above.

The team throwing in have much more control from a lineout and can organise a maul or a well rehearsed set piece.

Just my two cents.

The only Garryowen that a team should ever make is the one that we saw time and time again against Australia in the WC, when the kicker drops the ball between 5-10m outside the opposition 22, giving players enough time to get up in the face of the catcher and potentially steal a ball in the air, or put considerable pressure on a retreating pack in order to force them to err close to their own line.

wrt kicking the ball straight down the centre of the pitch, it's beyond bizarre imo.

Bruce7

hardCopy wrote: »

Kicking for position, with quick lineouts there's not much benefit in making touch when the wings are covered. I suppose the hope is that your chasing line can move up fast enough to keep the opposition in their own half and force a turnover or penalty.

I don't mean when there are chasers going after a kick. I get this, obviously, they might catch it themselves, or pin down the receiver. I mean just booting the ball down the pitch when there's nobody going afer it.

hardCopy wrote: »

Just another way to try and beat an organised defense. Variety is important to keep the opposition guessing.

Ok, I get that, but I just don't see the reward justifying the risk.

hardCopy wrote: »

The team throwing in have much more control from a lineout and can organise a maul or a well rehearsed set piece.

Just my two cents.

I hear you, but it seems to me that in a lineout there is a risk, however small, that the other side will win the ball, whereas a team can set up a maul there and then without taking the same risk.

WeeBushy

A line out gives the attacking team far more options. Setting up a maul from a tap and go will mean the opposition defense is set up perfectly so its very hard to break them down. Line outs provide much more variety in attack so keep the defense guessing, and hopefully out of position.

Neil3030

Bruce7 wrote: »

Apologies if this has already been discussed, and this is not intended as Ireland bashing or a criticism of anyone, and doesn't apply to any specific team.

But can anyone explain the strategy / tactics / thinking behind the following decisions:

(i) Kicking the ball straight down the middle of the pitch to the opposition.

I don't get this. This is like a team in Aamerican football opting to punt on first down. What is the point of it? Is the kicker hoping that the fielder will drop the ball or knock it on? Surely that never happens, or happens so rarely that it's not worth bothering with.

(ii) Garryowens in the middle of the pitch that go about 10 yards.

Don't get this either. The upside is that you might get the ball back 10 yards further downfield, but you risk giving the ball away and giving the opposition good field position.

(iii) Why would a team opt to kick for touch when they have a penalty deep in the opposition's 22. They might lose the susequent line-out. Why not just tap and go and form a ruck in the same place that the ruck would form after the lineout?

Again, not looking to bash anyone with this. I played rugby for years and have watched it all my life, but have never understood the above.

I am sure there are other reasons for doing the above, but for me:

(i) If the receiving team return the kick to a lesser distance (either into touch or back to one of the kicking team's players) there is a net gain in territory. Plus, as you say, there is the hope that the fielder will knock on or, more likely, slice the return kick out into touch around their 22.

(ii) Yes, you may gain only 10 yards, but you've put the defenders on the back foot and disrupted their defensive system. This is likely to lead to further advancements in territory if you can get quick ball or an offload from the first ruck or tackle after the catch.

(iii) Again, this is only one interpretation, but for me the benefit of taking the line-out is that you concentrate all the opposition forwards in a small section of the pitch. This frees up space and hopefully overlaps for when the ball comes out to the backs, either on the first phase, or after a few mauls which hopefully suck in more of their defenders. You may also feel that you have a stronger pack and would be more likely to score from a maul than from a tap-and-go. But remember, circumstances can also dictate the tap-and-go, like how Sexton did recently against England in the Aviva for Bowe's try.

yupyup7up

Sexton was horrific. Didn't even have chasers for his kicks, and kicking possession away to a back 3 that would score giving half a chance. Useless. I wanted Sexton to start yesterday but he has totally put me off him. ROG HAS to start vs France

justsomebloke

yupyup7up wrote: »

Sexton was horrific. Didn't even have chasers for his kicks, and kicking possession away to a back 3 that would score giving half a chance. Useless. I wanted Sexton to start yesterday but he has totally put me off him. ROG HAS to start vs France

banned. You have had multiple warning and infractions already this morning. Please don't drag threads off topic just to start inter pro crap

MungBean

I know theres possible advantages from kicking straight down the middle of the pitch but the odds cant be in the kickers favour. Likewise with a garryowen, the chaser may have a one in five chance or something of reclaiming the ball. May not 5-1 but odds certainly in favour of defending team and the result is possession given up to defend 10 yards further up the pitch.With the opposition now with options and control of the game.

Any time I have seen so many kicks its always ended in a feeling of "Why are we giving away the ball ?" followed by the defence eventually getting caught out and a try conceded. After every match a coach will say the same thing "You cant win if you dont have the ball and we just didnt have the ball" despite it being a very conscious decision to keep giving the ball away.

Wouldnt a better plan be to trust the players to work a position to kick for touch or run an attacking line ? Rather than trusting the team to defend for 60 minutes of the game ?

Bruce7

Neil3030 wrote: »

I am sure there are other reasons for doing the above, but for me:

(i) If the receiving team return the kick to a lesser distance (either into touch or back to one of the kicking team's players) there is a net gain in territory. Plus, as you say, there is the hope that the fielder will knock on or, more likely, slice the return kick out into touch around their 22.

So it's a negative tactic, designed to force a weak fielder / kicker into making a mistake? That's fair enough. Then kicking straight down the centre of the pitch at a full back who is good at catching and kicking is a stupid thing to do? And kicking straight down the centre of the pitch at a full back who is good at catching and counterattacking is also a stupid thing to do?

Neil3030 wrote: »

(ii) Yes, you may gain only 10 yards, but you've put the defenders on the back foot and disrupted their defensive system. This is likely to lead to further advancements in territory if you can get quick ball or an offload from the first ruck or tackle after the catch..

That's the potential upside. The potential downside is that you end up handing away possession in the middle of the pitch. As far as I can see, it's about a 50/50 chance. If the ref is playing penalty advantage or something I can see the sense of it, but otherwise it escapes me.

Kidney said yesterday that if the opposition have the ball 60% of the time, then you will struggle - or whatever his exact words were. So surely protecting possession is more important than anything else, and these decisions where possession is either risked or given away for little or no advantage don't make any sense?

Neil3030

Bruce7 wrote: »

So it's a negative tactic, designed to force a weak fielder / kicker into making a mistake? That's fair enough. Then kicking straight down the centre of the pitch at a full back who is good at catching and kicking is a stupid thing to do? And kicking straight down the centre of the pitch at a full back who is good at catching and counterattacking is also a stupid thing to do?

Well, prefacing the tactic with "negative" is an entirely subjective matter, but it's not specifically done in the hope of forcing a mistake. Mistakes are simply a bonus, should they occur. The quality of the recipient will certainly be factored into the equation, of course. In addition to factors like the wind, both teams' set up, etc.

That's the potential upside. The potential downside is that you end up handing away possession in the middle of the pitch. As far as I can see, it's about a 50/50 chance. If the ref is playing penalty advantage or something I can see the sense of it, but otherwise it escapes me.

You have to remember that if you kick a garryowen, you're probably in and around midfield, which means that your opponent (if they catch it) will be within kicking distance of their own goal and usually behind the majority of their team. Their team will therefore be on the back-foot, whereas your team will be charging forward. This increases the likelihood that their man becomes isolated and gives away a penalty.

Sindri

Bruce7 wrote: »

Apologies if this has already been discussed, and this is not intended as Ireland bashing or a criticism of anyone, and doesn't apply to any specific team.

But can anyone explain the strategy / tactics / thinking behind the following decisions:

(i) Kicking the ball straight down the middle of the pitch to the opposition.

I don't get this. This is like a team in American football opting to punt on first down. What is the point of it? Is the kicker hoping that the fielder will drop the ball or knock it on? Surely that never happens, or happens so rarely that it's not worth bothering with.

You can only kick offensively, or defensively. The point of kicking a ball down the pitch, depending on the circumstances is either to pin the opposition back (but then you should be kicking towards the corners) or in the case of a garryowen, because either you have forward momentum in broken play and wish to chance it, or nothing else is on, or the opposition's back three is weak at counter attacking (unlikely). If you were to boot the ball down the pitch for territory, chase it, and then hope to win it back, or have it kicked back to you the opposition would have to have a weak back three and you would have to be able to counter ruck effectively.

Bruce7 wrote: »

(ii) Garryowens in the middle of the pitch that go about 10 yards.

Don't get this either. The upside is that you might get the ball back 10 yards further downfield, but you risk giving the ball away and giving the opposition good field position.

Yes that is a risk. It's is an effective way at getting in behind defences, as players are not offside and can sprint from the off to the ball. But kicking to a team that is good in broken play and can counter attack effectively is risky.

Bruce7 wrote: »

(iii) Why would a team opt to kick for touch when they have a penalty deep in the opposition's 22. They might lose the susequent line-out. Why not just tap and go and form a ruck in the same place that the ruck would form after the lineout?

Again, not looking to bash anyone with this. I played rugby for years and have watched it all my life, but have never understood the above.

Because you can practice set pieces all day, and if utilised correctly, offers a greater margin of success for a team looking for 5 points.

profitius

Ireland play a cautious style of rugby. Thats the most flattering way I can describe it.

They're under instructions to take no risks in their own half. Kicking is fairly risk free and gives them a chance of gaining easy possession. Usually though the opposition are more likely to catch the kicks because the kick is either too long or even good kicks the opposition have a better view of the flight of the ball because they're not running underneath it.

Ireland benefited from this tactic a few times against Wales. The problem is most of the time Wales benefited. They wanted Ireland to kick the ball to them because they have superior kickers. The last 2 games between the sides showed this and we were saying it before the game started. I naively thought Ireland would have learned there lessons.

Ireland did play well yesterday when they played positive attacking rugby. The tries were good and the attack was an improvement from the Gaffney attack. When Ireland started to offload it before the tackle the big Welsh lads were struggling to close the space down. If Ireland played like that in the Irish half of the field it would have been a different match entirely. Its called playing to your strengths. I#m starting to believe the people behind the team are not only conservative but not very intelligent. If plan A isn't working go to plan B.

I think Wales were walking throughh the team at the end because the Irish team were probably tired from tackling. Thats because they kept giving the ball away.

Reloc8

To be honest I view a garryowen in midfield that only goes 10 yards forward as a mis-kick.

crisco10

The kick down the middle isnt aimless. And it doesn't necessitate an opposition mistake, if executed correctly, the angles are with your team. Yes its a "boring" percentage play but the theory is this:

If their backfield defense is out of position or too close to the touchline, the ball will be allowed bounce a few times after hitting the deck which if it is a decent spiral will mean it will run on say an extra 10 yards.
Add to this if you kick it from the centre of the pitch, all the kicking distance will go toward pushing you up the pitch.

Finally, and this is the big one, if the chase is ORGANISED, i.e. a good flat chasing line with an extensive backfield defense, the fielder for the opposition will be forced to kick to touch on the full. So their kicker has to battle the angle to reach the touchline and not have the luxury of the added distance from a bounce or two.

All of the above combined can easily lead to a significant gain in territory. Espeically if the covering player is a secondary kicker like most wingers are.

Of course, the main thing with this is not using it all the time, only ising it when there is space in the backfield etc....

profitius

crisco10 wrote: »

The kick down the middle isnt aimless. And it doesn't necessitate an opposition mistake, if executed correctly, the angles are with your team. Yes its a "boring" percentage play but the theory is this:

If their backfield defense is out of position or too close to the touchline, the ball will be allowed bounce a few times after hitting the deck which if it is a decent spiral will mean it will run on say an extra 10 yards.
Add to this if you kick it from the centre of the pitch, all the kicking distance will go toward pushing you up the pitch.

Finally, and this is the big one, if the chase is ORGANISED, i.e. a good flat chasing line with an extensive backfield defense, the fielder for the opposition will be forced to kick to touch on the full. So their kicker has to battle the angle to reach the touchline and not have the luxury of the added distance from a bounce or two.

All of the above combined can easily lead to a significant gain in territory. Espeically if the covering player is a secondary kicker like most wingers are.

Of course, the main thing with this is not using it all the time, only ising it when there is space in the backfield etc....

You're correct. In the context of last weekends match its a pity Ireland didn't cop on to the fact that Wales have superior kickers. Sometimes things will go Irelands way but overall Wales will gain more ground from kicking, as they showed in the last 3 games. Halfpenny in particular has a massive boot and accurate as well.

profitius

profitius wrote: »

Halfpenny in particular has a massive boot and accurate as well.

Cuthbert's kick in the first half was absolutely unreal too