Attacking style
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:18 pm
Some very interesting comments in the Zebre thread which IMO merit wider consideration, have taken the liberty of reprising some of them here as a discussion point.
macdone on Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:22 am
Pretty horrible game plan from us - kick, maul and defend. In contrast Zebre attacked non stop from everywhere. Credit to them.
doedin on Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:24 am
The reality is that everyone has moved on, including the Italians, and we are stuck playing a pretty awful style of rugby and completely lacking confidence. Watching the Italians playing running rugby and off loading from their own 22 to our 22 and then watching us kicking ball away at almost every opportunity was a role reversal from where we both were 5, 6 or 7 years ago. Our game is painful to watch and you can almost feel the crowd willing the team on to be more confident.
Crichton Gunner on Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:30 am
People shouldn't be criticised for raising concerns about our attacking strategy. On last night's evidence it seemed pretty much the same as the Solly approach, using either box kicks (from which we almost never get possession from) or pods of forwards trying to bash their way through the defence. Everything is done so slowly the defence has always got time to get in position, making it very hard to get anywhere. Fowles is capable of quick service, so when you see him standing behind almost every ruck waving his arms at forwards to get them in position or setting himself for a box kick while the seconds tick by, you have to assume it's the game plan he's been given rather than his own choice. If that is indeed our attacking strategy, we must be a dream to defend against, so hopefully there is more to it than that. I don't think I can take another two seasons of watching Solly-ball reincarnated.
Zebre's attacking play was much more adventurous than ours, and if they had kicked that virtually unmissable penalty in the first half they would have won. It would have been hard to argue that they didn't deserve it.
Friday Knight Lights on Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:02 pm
Credit where it is due indeed, I'd love to do a Connacht. However, as a team before any of the good play was a functional and simple forward based game plan. Which they could then evolve into fluent and exciting rugby. We have nothing to evolve yet.
Everything else being about equal (including the reffing!), you generally win games by scoring more tries than the other side. Edinburgh is averaging barely two per game, and one a game in the last three outings. Further up the Conferences, they are scoring 4 a game on average, which is why we are sitting in mid table.
For the first three games, the backs attack went quite well and the centres notched up 5 tries between them. It seems to go better when Fruean is on, the centres are slicker and open up gaps in defence. Since then though, the box kicking game seems to have become the main blunt instrument with which we try to open up defences. I think that is leading up a blind alley. Kicking for territory, in behind a winger so that it bounces into touch is a real pinpoint skill. If successful, the oppos are looking at a defensive 5m lineout and are going to scramble to kick it back, but our scrum halves are not that accurate. A box kick from behind ruck or scrum to clear the ball from our 22 is fine, as long as there are blockers on each side of the ruck, or you are going to get yourself charged down and give away tries, as Fowles has already demonstrated. A low chip kick can be a good tactic - as long as you can get the ball to bounce exactly where your winger needs it, but that again is a real skill that requires loads of practice, the wing being in the right place to start with and there being a suitable space within reach.
I don't think our 9s really have the skill levels to be attempting these things, in which case we are just giving the ball away. The up and under/garryowen (which, pedantically, is not necessarily a box kick, as you can kick it from anywhere, as opposed to the mini box behind your scrum/maul), is again quite an art. The ideal is that your winger is the first one there to catch it or, failing that, to tackle the receiver and contest the breakdown or set up a maul, if support arrives quickly enough. The danger is that, if the kick is too high or a couple of yards too far, the receiver will win the high ball, recycle it quickly and you will be on the receiving end of a counter-attack.
It would be great if the half backs could perfect some of these skills, but at the moment, it is not a great attacking weapon and is being used far too much. Good scrummies use the box kick sparingly, because they are looking for the right moment to surprise the opposition by exploiting a fleeting gap in the defence. If you use it repetitively, then the surprise element is gone and the tactic becomes predictable and easy to defend against.
I think the backs need to go back to what they were doing quite well, running good angles, getting the ball out fast from the set piece and ruck, keeping it in hand and either breaking through in midfield or spinning it out to the wing or to Kinghorn whizzing into the line. A bit more of that would do nicely (and be a lot less boring to watch).
I don't agree with FKL about the main building block being a simple, forward-based game, from which no doubt one day some more fluent attacking rugby may evolve. That is just too reminiscent of the weary (and unsuccessful) Solomons era. There is nothing to prevent all three elements - forward play, defence and backs attack - developing in tandem. The defence is a lot better, the forwards are inching forward to being at least competent in most areas of play, if posing a pretty limited threat or support in attack, but the main focus of the backs' attack seems to have veered off in a less productive direction that is difficult to do well.
macdone on Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:22 am
Pretty horrible game plan from us - kick, maul and defend. In contrast Zebre attacked non stop from everywhere. Credit to them.
doedin on Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:24 am
The reality is that everyone has moved on, including the Italians, and we are stuck playing a pretty awful style of rugby and completely lacking confidence. Watching the Italians playing running rugby and off loading from their own 22 to our 22 and then watching us kicking ball away at almost every opportunity was a role reversal from where we both were 5, 6 or 7 years ago. Our game is painful to watch and you can almost feel the crowd willing the team on to be more confident.
Crichton Gunner on Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:30 am
People shouldn't be criticised for raising concerns about our attacking strategy. On last night's evidence it seemed pretty much the same as the Solly approach, using either box kicks (from which we almost never get possession from) or pods of forwards trying to bash their way through the defence. Everything is done so slowly the defence has always got time to get in position, making it very hard to get anywhere. Fowles is capable of quick service, so when you see him standing behind almost every ruck waving his arms at forwards to get them in position or setting himself for a box kick while the seconds tick by, you have to assume it's the game plan he's been given rather than his own choice. If that is indeed our attacking strategy, we must be a dream to defend against, so hopefully there is more to it than that. I don't think I can take another two seasons of watching Solly-ball reincarnated.
Zebre's attacking play was much more adventurous than ours, and if they had kicked that virtually unmissable penalty in the first half they would have won. It would have been hard to argue that they didn't deserve it.
Friday Knight Lights on Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:02 pm
Credit where it is due indeed, I'd love to do a Connacht. However, as a team before any of the good play was a functional and simple forward based game plan. Which they could then evolve into fluent and exciting rugby. We have nothing to evolve yet.
Everything else being about equal (including the reffing!), you generally win games by scoring more tries than the other side. Edinburgh is averaging barely two per game, and one a game in the last three outings. Further up the Conferences, they are scoring 4 a game on average, which is why we are sitting in mid table.
For the first three games, the backs attack went quite well and the centres notched up 5 tries between them. It seems to go better when Fruean is on, the centres are slicker and open up gaps in defence. Since then though, the box kicking game seems to have become the main blunt instrument with which we try to open up defences. I think that is leading up a blind alley. Kicking for territory, in behind a winger so that it bounces into touch is a real pinpoint skill. If successful, the oppos are looking at a defensive 5m lineout and are going to scramble to kick it back, but our scrum halves are not that accurate. A box kick from behind ruck or scrum to clear the ball from our 22 is fine, as long as there are blockers on each side of the ruck, or you are going to get yourself charged down and give away tries, as Fowles has already demonstrated. A low chip kick can be a good tactic - as long as you can get the ball to bounce exactly where your winger needs it, but that again is a real skill that requires loads of practice, the wing being in the right place to start with and there being a suitable space within reach.
I don't think our 9s really have the skill levels to be attempting these things, in which case we are just giving the ball away. The up and under/garryowen (which, pedantically, is not necessarily a box kick, as you can kick it from anywhere, as opposed to the mini box behind your scrum/maul), is again quite an art. The ideal is that your winger is the first one there to catch it or, failing that, to tackle the receiver and contest the breakdown or set up a maul, if support arrives quickly enough. The danger is that, if the kick is too high or a couple of yards too far, the receiver will win the high ball, recycle it quickly and you will be on the receiving end of a counter-attack.
It would be great if the half backs could perfect some of these skills, but at the moment, it is not a great attacking weapon and is being used far too much. Good scrummies use the box kick sparingly, because they are looking for the right moment to surprise the opposition by exploiting a fleeting gap in the defence. If you use it repetitively, then the surprise element is gone and the tactic becomes predictable and easy to defend against.
I think the backs need to go back to what they were doing quite well, running good angles, getting the ball out fast from the set piece and ruck, keeping it in hand and either breaking through in midfield or spinning it out to the wing or to Kinghorn whizzing into the line. A bit more of that would do nicely (and be a lot less boring to watch).
I don't agree with FKL about the main building block being a simple, forward-based game, from which no doubt one day some more fluent attacking rugby may evolve. That is just too reminiscent of the weary (and unsuccessful) Solomons era. There is nothing to prevent all three elements - forward play, defence and backs attack - developing in tandem. The defence is a lot better, the forwards are inching forward to being at least competent in most areas of play, if posing a pretty limited threat or support in attack, but the main focus of the backs' attack seems to have veered off in a less productive direction that is difficult to do well.