Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Piggies and Princesses must share the load

  1. #1
    Immortal Contributor
    Moderator
    travelling_gerry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    18,483
    vCash
    5062000

    Piggies and Princesses must share the load

    Bret Harris | September 21, 2009

    Article from: The Australian

    THE Rugby Club television show on Fox Sports introduced a new segment this year called "Piggies versus Princesses" in which a back and a forward are pitted against each other in trivia quizzes, table tennis battles and cook-offs.

    It is pretty silly stuff, but it highlights the demarcation that still exists between backs and forwards, at least in Australian rugby.

    When people talk about 15-man rugby they are usually referring to attacking strategies, but the philosophy covers every aspect of the game.
    Just like forwards should be able to run and pass like backs, backs must be capable of competing at the ruck and mauls like forwards.

    Unfortunately, this was not the case for the Wallabies in their 33-6 loss to the All Blacks in Wellington on Saturday night.
    Australia's backline is skilful and slick, but it is relatively small and non-combative at the contact zone.

    One of the reasons for this is that the Wallabies are effectively playing with three five-eighths -- inside backs Matt Giteau and Berrick Barnes and fullback James O'Connor.
    Barnes and O'Connor are quite courageous in the way they attack the breakdown, but because of their lack of size, they are largely ineffective.

    Most of the other Australian backs tend to leave the hard yakka at the breakdown to the forwards, unlike the New Zealand backs, who train to be as physical and aggressive at the breakdown as the loose forwards.

    This is one of the reasons the Wallabies stand tight five forwards out wide on phase play -- to help the backs at the breakdown.

    "It's to mix it up a little bit," Wallabies loosehead prop Benn Robinson said. "They see a couple of props on the wing and they might change their defence a little bit.
    "It's mainly to look after the breakdown. The forwards' ability to look after the breakdown compared to a back is a lot different."

    Having tight five forwards running out wide did not really add anything to the Wallabies' attack. If anything, it hindered it.

    Robinson and hooker Tatafu Polota-Nau both knocked on as the ball was shifted to the edges.
    If a player is tackled out wide, the backs should be able to take care of the breakdown themselves.

    It is the responsibility of the players closest to the tackle area to enter the breakdown whether they are backs or forwards and to operate efficiently.
    But the Wallabies were not just dominated physically in the backs. They were outmuscled across the board in the tackle contest.

    From the kickoff, the All Blacks won every physical contact area in the game, although the set pieces were fairly even, at least until towards the end.
    Wallabies captain George Smith constantly complained to referee Craig Joubert about the All Blacks infringing at the breakdown, but the Wallabies have to learn to play the whistle and not become distracted by perceived illegalities.

    The Wallabies' poor performance was all the more disappointing because they had performed so well in this area in their 21-6 win against the Springboks in Brisbane two weeks ago.
    "We weren't happy with any of the ruck and maul work regardless of the numbers on their backs," Deans said. "It had been so much better two weeks ago against a side that is probably the toughest in that area."

    That is the most frustrating element of this Australian team: inconsistency.
    It is a trait Deans has inherited from his predecessors. In 14 years of Tri-Nations rugby, the Wallabies have recorded back-to-back wins only seven times.

    Deans has been trying to instil self-belief into the Wallabies since he took over last year, but there is a fine line between confidence and over-confidence.

    As much as Deans warned his players of an All Black backlash after New Zealand's 32-29 loss to the Springboks in Hamilton the previous Saturday, they seemed to be in the wrong head space after their own win against South Africa in Brisbane.

    "Without a doubt. That's what you witnessed," Deans said. "We went from being desperate to play well and represent our people well to being a little bit comfortable and expecting others to take care of what is ours to take care of. That's all it takes."

    And that brings us back to Piggies versus Princesses. It may be a little bit of fun on a TV show, but it is an outdated concept in modern rugby, particularly at the breakdown where demarcation lines become indistinct.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...015651,00.html

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  2. #2
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    An open letter to Bret Harris

    Bret, You begin your article by blaming Australia's small backline for the loss in Wellington on Saturday, saying that the separation of the forwards, across the backline is the reason they didn't perform in attack, you also implied that forward stocks were spread too thinly to win the ball. On the surface I agree that it di appear that there weren't enough forwards in the collision zone, often one or two Wallaby forward would be competing with 5 or 6 Allblacks.

    You then go on to mention the game two weeks ago where the breakdown was so effectively and efficiently managed by the Wallabies. I ask you, what has changed, since the team list didn't change between the two matches, I can only assume you have information about a massive outbreak of Dystentery in the Wallaby backs, causing them all to lose size massively, because if back's size was a problem in Wellington, it would also have been a problem in Brisbane.

    I would like to ask if you could please stop writing rugby pieces with your ass and actually smash the limited brain cells you have left TOGETHER. you might come up with the actual reason why the Wallabies are failing to perform against the AllBlacks.. I think it's more likely to be fear! That is the only way I think a team which routs the World Champions (a team which went on to do the same to NZ) can put together such a massively poor performance only two weeks later., sure the Boks could have been bitten by complacency, as could the AllBlacks in Hamilton, they could have both turned their performances around. But that surely would have been a 10-15% difference, rather than the total capitulation around the ball on the floor that I saw on Saturday night.

    If a part-time rugby enthusiast such as myself can analyse the game, can't a professional rugby writer?

    Earn your bloody paycheck, and stop wasting my time!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  3. #3
    Champion welshrugbyfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    2,014
    vCash
    5000000
    Wallabies biggest problem is as soon as they think their being beaten they soon are.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  4. #4
    Veteran beige's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    4,515
    vCash
    5000000
    Quote Originally Posted by travelling_gerry View Post
    And that brings us back to Piggies versus Princesses. It may be a little bit of fun on a TV show, but it is an outdated concept in modern rugby, particularly at the breakdown where demarcation lines become indistinct.
    That's one of the reasons we ARE getting smashed - backs at the breakdown and forwards in the backline!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  5. #5
    Champion Contributor jazza93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    the beach
    Posts
    2,068
    vCash
    5000000
    The worst thing about the game against NZ was forwards throwing nothing passes.

    The front row and locks should just run the ball up whenever they get it because once they do throw a pass it ruins the whole phase.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  6. #6
    Legend Court Reporter
    Contributor
    James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Bridgetown, WA
    Posts
    6,103
    vCash
    20000
    Quote Originally Posted by welshrugbyfan View Post
    Wallabies biggest problem is as soon as they think their being beaten they soon are.
    Australia's biggest problem is that when it rains it pours. We are being beaten at the breakdown so what do the backs do? Get the ball past the gain line? Kick for the corners and pressure the line-out? Hell no lets throw three cut-out passes and take the ball into contact on the other side of the field 5 metres behind where the ruck was. The optimist in me see this as an experience/leadership problem. Maybe with a year or two together playing test rugby the team will better adapt to the conditions. I wonder who the next long term captain will be? Horwill? Moore? Pocock? Can't see any of the backs filling the role very well.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.

  7. #7
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Nedlands
    Posts
    884
    vCash
    5000000
    I think you're a bit hard on Brett Harris, GIGS. I think he made a few valid points. We performed better against the Boks because we earned the right to go wide, and didn't throw cut out passes at every phase. When you play side to side rugby like we did against the ABs it is difficult to predict where the next breakdown will occur. Often it occurred wen the Wallaby player was isolated, with only other backs anywhere close. Sprinkling forwards in the backline, as the Wallabies seemed to admit they were doing, doesn't really solve the problem.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  8. #8
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    Yes and No BeeJay, Harris was saying the reason we lost against the ABs was the size of the backs. Did that change? no! the problem wasn't in the bodies it was in the heads. I agree that once the Blackness started pressuring our rucks the backline started slipping in their own poo and did some insane things to get away from contact. I also agree O'Connor was flustered by the pressure and agression which was charging at him and should have been shown his seat after about 30. But the fact remains that the tactic which was being criticised by Harris (splitting the forwards to have breakdown cover on two sides of the field) was consistent in both games, both routs, one in our favour and one against.

    So is the tactic flawed?........not completely, it seems to work against the Boks quite nicely. I think the real issue is attitude, The Wallabies don't respond to pressure and don't adjust plans when they don't work. you might be able to blame that on small backs, but more accurately you should blame the entire team, probably the coaching/support staff but not the play system, it's never capable of doing those things!

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

  9. #9
    Legend Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    5,259
    vCash
    5100000
    Just a passing thought, but this is elite level sport. The Wallabies are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the absolute best players that Union has to offer, so I have a question : why is it seemingly implicit that the same team should run out against the Springboks as against the All Blacks (or anyone else)?

    That team clearly performed well against the 'Boks, but sucked up a storm against the ABs. But is that really so surprising? Does anyone think that the 'Boks and ABs play similar game plans? What about the French and English - do they play the same? So what is it about "consistent selection" and "finding the right team for the RWC" - it seems such an amateur concept, where you have the team you have and you make the best of it. This is the Wallabies - they should have whoever they want, as appropriate for whatever gameplan they want.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  10. #10
    Apprentice henry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    43
    vCash
    5000000
    But seriously, if TPN and Fat cat are standing in the back line, can we just not pass them the ball. Sick of moves being ruined because a forward is standing in the backline...

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Yeah Mitchell

  11. #11
    Immortal GIGS20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockingham
    Posts
    20,508
    vCash
    1296000
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyS View Post
    Just a passing thought, but this is elite level sport. The Wallabies are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the absolute best players that Union has to offer, so I have a question : why is it seemingly implicit that the same team should run out against the Springboks as against the All Blacks (or anyone else)?
    I had the same thought when writing the second paragraph of my last post.

    Quote Originally Posted by henry View Post
    But seriously, if TPN and Fat cat are standing in the back line, can we just not pass them the ball. Sick of moves being ruined because a forward is standing in the backline...
    I agree, They'd also be more likely to be blowing over at the breakdown rather than lying on the floor holding on to the ball.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    C'mon the

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •