• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Have the AB invented a new rugby ?

T

tituslechmakus

Guest
Laporte has a radio show every friday at 6pm on rmc info (see rmcinfo.fr for french speakers) or monday at 8pm during autumn tests. he said something very interesting during the last one, saying that : Have the AB invented a new rugby ? 'cause we're used to attack/defense ... one team is attacking, and the other defending ... but he said that during last france - AB, he noticed that the ABs were casi, in their own 22, waiting the opponent, waiting for a false pass (which happened 4 times), just to have the opportunity to have a 80m counter attack ... is it inconcious or a strategic way of playing ? what do you think of that ?
 
P

Prestwick

Guest
I don't think its a new form of rugby. When Scotland under Matt Williams insisted on kicking away possession deep, they used to hemorage alot of points from tries scored by their opponents attack fromd deep for example.

Its just that the All Blacks have through instinct and through careful planning and preparation have mastered how to do this as a matter of applying a pre-drilled method learnt on the training pitch to any situation.

They have always had this counter-attacking, devil may care instinct, it is almost as if thousands of years ago the Welsh and the Maori shared the same island together or something. But in the last three or four years, the amount of training that has gone into using this instinct and through hard training and planning, thus equips some of the most intelligent players in the game with the ability to attack from deep, from turnover, from a collected clearance kick not only as second nature but with the cognitive skills to create a well worked and strategically sound move out of it.

It is true as SANZAR pointed out in an earlier discussion, that when a break happens or the Kiwis attack from deep, the runner is suddenly supported by two, three, even four runners. That may be instinct, maybe even supernatural, but there is a structured, pre-planned emphasis on this that we haven't seen in an All Black side before.

Thats what makes them the best team in the world, but its not exactly a brand new type of rugby.
 
N

NZL Fan

Guest
Probably the biggest advancement the all Blacks have made (a new rugby?) is how ALL the players now have the necessary skills to play expansive rugby.

In the past teams may have had skilled backlines, maybe even skilled loose forwards as well, but the Blacks have gone the whole hog where props, locks and the hooker possess passing/handling/running/tackling/fitness/positional/thinking skills of very good players.

The equivalent of the forwards having the skill-set of 8 open side flankers on the field.

My mind goes back to the last game where McAllister made a line break and who was in support the whole way to the line? Woodcock! McAllister didn't pass it to him (instead waiting for the rocket man) but the fact he was there, and the fact it was the middle of the second half tells you something.

Locks are scoring on the wings and props are running huge distances in attack. The thing is though (and something New Zealand has struggled to do in the past) is that the forwards are also doing the business up front. Dominating at the setpiece, and doing the tough grunt up the middle.

There is no shirking of traditional rugby fundimentals in playing the expansive game.

It is their ability to suddenly change from playing 'basic' rugby to 'expansive' rugby that is creating the opportunities. How often do you see the All Blacks soaking up an attack near their line only to force a turnover and break out from all parts of the field for a long range try? The fact that every player recognises when to switch into expansive mode allows them to have numerous support numbers whenever turnovers occur.
 
S

ShowMe

Guest
Great insight NZL
Yeah i also think its about playing the game not just one way but having various styles and being able to master each of these styles and implementing them successfully on the pitch, having a planB, C or even a D to call upon if other things dont click - better decision making collectively and individually, i think the talent has always been there for us thru out the years, but the difference now is that this AB team has greater organisation on attack and defence, encouraging individualism at the same time responsibility in a positive atmosphere, so i think thats what these coaches have instilled in the team now that past AB teams didnt really challenge.
 
G

gjohn85

Guest
We will soon find out how good this theory is come World cup. If they win it, it works. If they don't, it either don't work or NZ played cack.
 
G

Gay-Guy

Guest
Any team is MOST vulnerable on defence when they have just turned over the ball.

France made two "clean" line breaks during the game...both in the second half. The first line break was when the AB's lost the ball at the halfway mark and the French immediately cleared it away. I remember thinking "Damn...a counter attack and we haven't had time to set our defence." Sure enough a couple of passes later and some French guy was in a hole and away up field.

With the AB's having a lot of support players on the counter attack....it is simply to do with fitness and a mentality to counter. Any team can do it they just need to think counter attack whenever they get a sniff and have people with the fitness to do so. Tired players never counter when they get a sniff including the AB's. They just kick for touch. So it is a matter of whether a player is up for it.
 
S

shtove

Guest
In 2003 the AB pack ran around the pitch as fast as they could, flapping their arms in the hope they might take flight. The ABs in 2006 have a serious scrum and dependable line-out. That's the difference.

Their counter-attacking is lethal, but they've always had that. For this team, it comes from the amount of opportunities they get from frightened teams kicking away possession, turn-overs by McCaw, and big hits in defence. Add in great support-runners, and a decent proportion of those opportunities turn into tries.

But go up against a confident team that keeps possession and doesn't make mistakes, and the source may dry up. So the scrum and line-out then provide the platform, and the ABs have mastered the rolling maul (there was one beauty against the French that looked like an AB scrum) and pop-pass moves.

All you need to beat them is an animal front five, a demonic backrow, and a midfield that glides angelically across the turf and doesn't drop the f***ing ball.
 
C

cwans

Guest
All Blacks look real good atm mainly due to international rugby being so weak, I can't remember when it was this bad.

A lot can be blamed on the World Cup. Every single country is so obssessed with building a side for the world cup, that you get mediocre games in between the tournament.

It is no coincidence that to blood players, South Africa and Aussie are playing **** in the NH. It is such a false sense of security for the NH teams esp. Ireland thinking that they are better than they actually are.

International rugby's farce is what makes AB rugby look so good rather than us inventing some new way to play the game. Rugby has been around a while and you would think that what need evolving has already evolved barring rule changes.

The rugby ABs are playing are just Mitchell's attack plan + Henry's defense plans if you really think about it.


(edit: Glad to read that Fitzy is thinking along the same lines)

Fitzpatrick says World Cup is ruining rugby
11/20/2006 1:48 PM

Former All Blacks captain Sean Fitzpatrick says World Cup is ruining international rugby with team only peaking every 4 years

Former All Blacks captain Sean Fitzpatrick believes the international game is being poisoned by a heavy focus on the World Cup.

The comments come in the wake of Australia's crushing defeat to Ireland this morning.

Fitzpatrick believes the 21-6 result and others like it, prove that too many international teams are using the years in between World Cups to develop players, meaning fans are getting a diluted product. He says he's never been a huge fan of the World Cup and the fact everything seems to come down to one or two games.

Fitzpatrick says player rotation has become the norm and fans are not getting to see the best players week in, week out. He says the All Blacks rotation policy is a classic case of what he is talking about.

Taken from http://radiosport.co.nz/SportsNews/sprug/D....aspx?id=107784
 
G

Gay-Guy

Guest
He's right...the standard of International rugby can be a bit lacking at points between cups.

However ask him these 3 questions and Fitzpatrick will answer all correctly.

What year did England win the Fifa World Cup?
What year did NZ win the Rugby World Cup?
What year did Australia first win the Rugby World Cup?

Ask Fitzy these next 3 question and it will be highly unlikely he will get 3 out of 3.

How many times did England play Germany in a friendly the same year they won the Fifa World Cup and beat them?
What was the highest score the AB's achieved against another International team the same year prior to the World Cup was played? (He should know this as he was playing!)
How many times did the Wallabies play the AB's in tests the same year prior to the World Cup was played in England where the Wallabies won? (He should know this as he was playing!)

Now....why is it that most people who take this test will not answer the bottom 3 questions without googling it? Yet the top 3 involving "cups" are easily remebered.

World Cups are the bechmarks throughout history...the reference points for fans to look back on.
For instance 1956 was a huge turning point for NZ rugby. Yet most of todays generation have no idea what happened or even the details of why this is so. 100 years from now people will know what 1987 means but not what 1956 is for NZ rugby.
 
N

NZL Fan

Guest
He's right...the standard of International rugby can be a bit lacking at points between cups.

However ask him these 3 questions and Fitzpatrick will answer all correctly.

What year did England win the Fifa World Cup?
What year did NZ win the Rugby World Cup?
What year did Australia first win the Rugby World Cup?

Ask Fitzy these next 3 question and it will be highly unlikely he will get 3 out of 3.

How many times did England play Germany in a friendly the same year they won the Fifa World Cup and beat them?
What was the highest score the AB's achieved against another International team the same year prior to the World Cup was played? (He should know this as he was playing!)
How many times did the Wallabies play the AB's in tests the same year prior to the World Cup was played in England where the Wallabies won? (He should know this as he was playing!)

Now....why is it that most people who take this test will not answer the bottom 3 questions without googling it? Yet the top 3 involving "cups" are easily remebered.

World Cups are the bechmarks throughout history...the reference points for fans to look back on.
For instance 1956 was a huge turning point for NZ rugby. Yet most of todays generation have no idea what happened or even the details of why this is so. 100 years from now people will know what 1987 means but not what 1956 is for NZ rugby.
[/b]

Some nice points there.............more then the French could muster in two test matches (ha!)

Perhaps the answer is to have a major tournament between the world cups (much like the European cup for soccer), or having the world rankings actually meaning something every year (maybe a world championship, big money, one off game between teams ranked 1 and 2 each year?).

A major cup event in between world cups will mean teams building a combination within a two year period rather then the current 4 year period (ie. less wasted years playing meaningless fixtures with below strength teams).

It's a nice thought HOWEVER it's major weakness lies in the lack of competitive teams - unlike soccer. This makes creating an interesting competition, that is different from the world cup event, very difficult - cricket has the very same problem.

Going back to proper tours (yes, with midweek games for blooding players) is most likely the only real answer - but this isn't very likely unless the number of domestic competition games are reduced in both hemispheres.
 
1

187

Guest
i'd prefer there b a bigger, longer domestic competition. i'd rather just have an end of year tour, i hate watching the ABs play south africa and australia EVERY DAMN YEAR!
 
G

Gay-Guy

Guest
i'd prefer there b a bigger, longer domestic competition. i'd rather just have an end of year tour, i hate watching the ABs play south africa and australia EVERY DAMN YEAR!
[/b]
Yeah the expanded tri nations is the biggest stuff up ever. Some NZ tests did not sel out..what the hell!!!!
 
C

cwans

Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
Ask Fitzy these next 3 question and it will be highly unlikely he will get 3 out of 3.

How many times did England play Germany in a friendly the same year they won the Fifa World Cup and beat them?
What was the highest score the AB's achieved against another International team the same year prior to the World Cup was played? (He should know this as he was playing!)
How many times did the Wallabies play the AB's in tests the same year prior to the World Cup was played in England where the Wallabies won? (He should know this as he was playing!)
[/b]

Perhaps the answer is to have a major tournament between the world cups (much like the European cup for soccer), or having the world rankings actually meaning something every year (maybe a world championship, big money, one off game between teams ranked 1 and 2 each year?).

Going back to proper tours (yes, with midweek games for blooding players) is most likely the only real answer - but this isn't very likely unless the number of domestic competition games are reduced in both hemispheres.
[/b][/quote]

GG, solid reply, I totally agree with you. We don't remember any matches anymore other than the final of the World Cups. Isn't that though an vindication of what harm World cups have done to rugby since its insertion into world rugby? Who can remember the last 'tour' that any country toured thats comparable to Ashes series for cricket last year? The tour of Springboks to NZ? Tour of NZ back to South africa? We remember those. Lions tour.

Rugby in its state at the moment is sadly misleading until you get to the world cup final every 4 years. That's 2 games (semi and final) that we will remember but then Nothing else.

Memories of classic games are one thing, but it's the state of rugby that world cups have destroyed that is more worrying. Soccer international friendlies is prime example of what we could be looking forward to in the future if everything hinges on world cups. Sadly, that's where rugby's heading. We'll be playing friendlies. Imagine that.
 
T

tituslechmakus

Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
i'd prefer there b a bigger, longer domestic competition. i'd rather just have an end of year tour, i hate watching the ABs play south africa and australia EVERY DAMN YEAR!
[/b]
Yeah the expanded tri nations is the biggest stuff up ever. Some NZ tests did not sel out..what the hell!!!!
[/b][/quote]

or, like in rugby 06, the 10 nations ... but then the wc would be useless ...
 
A

ALLBLACKS

Guest
Yea I remember watching the Junior Coaches this Yr for my CLub in NZ and he was drilling everyone to have skills like backs even the Props. Encouraging Kids to practice the Basic Skills. NZ is preparing there Juniors better I think.
 
C

captainamerica

Guest
this has deviated from the topic but towards something i've long thought:
there are entirely too many test matches played per year - thus devaluing internationals.
the expanded tri-nations (and bledisloe over 3 matches) is stupid at best.

as for the topic - no, nz haven't invented new rugby. they've just opened their eyes to what has always been perceived as an "opportunist" try.

we have france and serge blanco to thank for some of the most memorable (in tests).
 
D

Dumbo

Guest
Agree with the captain on the extended Tri Nations but the 'oppurtunist try' part... think there's a bit more to the AB's game plan than that, their set peice in the backline is looking pretty good, great defence, great front three... locks could do with a bit of work overall... think there's more to their game than just taking an oppurtunity.
 
S

ShowMe

Guest
Is there such a thing as a structured opportunisitic try?
If so then thats what the ABs have invented.
Alot of our tries we scored on this last tour were from counter attacks and when that happens for any team its not structured, but in the way the ABs do it, it looks as if it is and have the highest rate at converting counter attacking opportunities into tries.
 
A

AllezWasps

Guest
I haven't watched enough All Black rugby to tell really. The only few times I have seen them was in the Lions tour and every now and then when they play NH teams.

All I see differently, is they tackle harder, get a fair bit of luck, and have good players. I don't think its New Rugby, just New Zealand.
 
Top