Areas We Need To Improve -- Rucks.

[Rodent]

I have been re-watching the Force games and have come to the conclusion that one of the main areas we seem to be weaker than the top end teams is at ruck time... We seem to be lacking a real ball thieving flanker.
This seems to be the root of a lot of our problems. Because we are not challenging as hard at the break down we are not slowing the ball down, which means our defense is on the back foot most of the game, which is why I think we give up what appear to be soft tries. And on attack without those flankers in there to clean out the defenders quickly it is causing us to get extremely untidy ball, quite often squirting out the side of the ruck or turning over...

I was looking forward to seeing Richard Brown, after such a great display at 8, in his regular role as a flanker, but alas once again we were struck down by injury. If you look at the other 3 Australian sides all have quick powerful flankers that are extremely adept at thieving the ball (Smith, Waugh and Croft), I think its definately an area we need to work on, if we can start contesting more opposition ball at the break down rather than relying on the balls being ripped free in tackles to create our turn-overs (Digby,Sharpie and Welborn have been great at this all year) I think it will go a long way towards us becoming a more consistant side for the whole 80 minutes. Just my humble opinion but I am interested to see what some of the other members think.

[Lonzy]

I think you have thought that out very well you clearly know your rugby! I however do not! so I will trust your judgment! lol ... yeah ... sounds like it makes sence but we are pretty good at our defence arent we?? eh?? at least I think we are!

[Burgs]

I reckon you are pretty much on the money there Rodent, however I do think that we have the potential within the squad through Brown and Hodgson and next year with Pocock. That fella has the biggest upper body I have ever seen on an under 25 let alone someone who is just turning 18!
On regaining the ball from our own created rucks, I think a big problem there is we are often losing it in the initial contact and the loosies are left to slow the play or give away a penalty trying to retrieve the ball. That is, the damage has already been done from bad ball presentation in the tackle.
This could well be from the upper body strength of our backs?
You often see opposition players able to roll in the tackle to give their forwards a better opportunity to retrieve the ball, where as often our boys are lying there in a mangled heap.
As great as he has been in attack, Ioane is possibly the worst offender for turnovers once he loses his feet. He has excellent strength holding himself off the ground against multiple tacklers however, once he goes to ground there is often a turnover as a result.

Under your heading “areas we need to improve”, the other glaringly obvious one to me is the effectiveness of our rolling mauls.
We often set up a decent platform and start well but after about twenty seconds it disintegrates, often not able to continue over fallen defenders and tripping, or splitting apart and only half the forwards knowing which way it went when they lift their heads.
To a great degree this comes down to the Halfback not talking the right things to the forwards.
It isn't encouragement and berating that they need but clear concise information as to what they need to be doing.
In these situations the Half needs to be like a Cox in a rowing crew, telling the grunts exactly what is happening, when to wheel, when to lift your feet, which way to break.
We certainly have the pack to succeed with rolling mauls but we need better direction and cohesion.

[spankytheking]

Whats a ruck? and maul? lol

[Burgs]

Whats a ruck? and maul? lol

I take it from that that you either haven't played or you are a back Spanky
Happy 50th post by the way

[spankytheking]

guess whos back, back again, spankys back, tell a friend..

yeh i have no idea but im guessing its when the guy gets tackled then when u get the ball out of the wreckage on the ground?

so a rolling maul is when the guy is tackled but standing and the other players push him forward?

u talk alot burgs 1117 posts! that asterix guy with the big mouth suits u lol

[The EnForcer]

I take it from that that you either haven't played or you are a back Spanky
Happy 50th post by the way

Have you noticed that in modern rugby players tend to get involved in all facets of the game.......too busy pontificating and not watching mate.

Anyway, if it wasn't for the backs attracting all the ladies you boys would never get laid by the cast offs.

[Burgs]

Have you noticed that in modern rugby players tend to get involved in all facets of the game.......

Involved, yes. Effective? Sometimes.
Anway, it was a good thread started by Rodent, perhaps we can stay halfway on topic with this one?
I love helping people learn about the game but at times it's good to get a bit more technical too.

Really simplistically Spanky:
Ruck= when the ball is on the ground and two or more players involved.
Maul= when the ball and controlling player are above the ground.
A maul can evolve into a ruck but a ruck needs to free the ball to become another maul with a detached player.
Rolling Maul= when the maul is moving from side to side like a big lump of lava, ver difficult to defend against when being done effectively.

Watching the replays there was a great example of a rolling maul by the Tahs against the Cheetahs. Frier was controlling the ball with about six of the forwards boiling in front of him. He was really giving lip service to staying bound but it was legal and it ended at the attacking teams descretion rather than falling apart like the Force's ones often do.

[Rodent]

Burgs did you see the reds beat the rolling maul on thee weekend by running back from the lineout waiting until the opposition had set up and passed the ball to the back of the pack then engaged them causing a truck and trailer? I think we will see more and more of that tactic (aparently started by the italians) against the massive South African packs and possibly against our northern hemisphere opponents.

[Burgs]

Italians= Flee, flee! haha
No I didn't get to see their match but it was discussed on Inside Rugby a week or so ago.
It is also perfectly legal to just fall away once it has formed and leave them to it. If they don't break up then they get pinged for offside as well. Interesting that it has taken so many seasons to surface.
I imagine we will see a fair bit of it this season at Club level?
Wouldn't suggest trialling it in your own 22 in case one of your players didn't hear the call though

[shasta]

Rodent wrote:

Burgs did you see the reds beat the rolling maul on thee weekend by running back from the lineout waiting until the opposition had set up and passed the ball to the back of the pack then engaged them causing a truck and trailer? I think we will see more and more of that tactic (aparently started by the italians) against the massive South African packs and possibly against our northern hemisphere opponents.

And Burgs wrote:

Watching the replays there was a great example of a rolling maul by the Tahs against the Cheetahs. Frier was controlling the ball with about six of the forwards boiling in front of him. He was really giving lip service to staying bound but it was legal and it ended at the attacking teams descretion rather than falling apart like the Force's ones often do.

They showed that tactic from the Reds again on Inside Rugby again tonight. Regardless of the racial implications of "retreating" , I agree rodent, that there will be more instances of this counter. The referees don't penalise for truck and trailer enough IMHO. The maul Burgs was referring to should have been penalised. There's no way Frier was fully bound.

Everyone says the rolling maul is near impossible to defend against and that's what I don't like. The thing I like about rugby that RL doesn't have is that there can, in theory at least, be a contest for posession at all facets of the game where the ball is in play. I have my doubts as to whether this is true of a lot of mauls. I can't agree with the proposition under trial at Stellenbosh to allow mauls to be collapsed but I can see some value in trialling a law where only the players at the lead of a maul can carry the ball. Either that or defenders can come around "offside" to contest the ball.

BTW they got one thing right on ISR tonight - they all agreed the The Force have the best supporters in the country.

[spankytheking]

so technical for such a simple thing

thanks ham-burgs-lar

[The EnForcer]

Burgs did you see the reds beat the rolling maul on thee weekend by running back from the lineout waiting until the opposition had set up and passed the ball to the back of the pack then engaged them causing a truck and trailer? I think we will see more and more of that tactic (aparently started by the italians) against the massive South African packs and possibly against our northern hemisphere opponents.

Rodent, I'm not with you on the truck and trailer concept....can you explain a bit more please.

[Rodent]

Truck and trailer penalties occur in the situation I described where a team forms a maul (group of players bound together) and passes the ball to a player behind the front player in the maul, and then engages the opposition. This is illegal because there is not allowed to be any players in front of the player carrying the ball (it is offside) at initial contact. Once the player has engaged the opposition he may pass the ball back to his own team mates as long as they stay bound.

This happens most often when a maul splinters and the players at the back of the maul become "un-bound" creating an offside situation.

Hope that was clear enough... Kind of hard to explain without video footage to show as an example. But in its most basic forms it means that there is a player in front of the ball carrier stopping defenders from having a chance to tackle him.

[MysticBalls]

The Stellenbosch trial mentioned by Shasta of only the lead players in a maul being able to carry the ball would simplify things by taking the 'truck and trailer' out of play. One refereeing decision would be made easier but would the grunts be happy?

Burgs you should coach the Force halves. We can't have the forwards being known as the Coxless 8!

Rodent yes not enough protection at ruck and breakdown, upper body strength the key (UBS). I've just watched the Tahs v Crusaders match and marvelled at the clearing-out work done by Sailor at rucks ,who definitely has the UBS. He was there protecting the line and laying on defenders to the point that in one instance, buried under Crusaders and with a turn over, his wing remained un-manned. Crusaders scored in the corner with a two man overlap!

Point is, we need backs and flankers with the UBS of Sailor. McGaw perfect example. The conditioning staff can work on this. McGaw emphasises SPEED to the breakdown/ruck area- something that can be done NOW. From what Burgs wrote, I look forward to seeing Pocock in action next year. Maybe the UBS factor is a requirement for any new recruits in 07!