They’re sitting in plum jobs, earning bucket loads of money and their chief aim is to kill the game.
“A pack of ex-rugby league guys are having a ridiculous influence on the union game.”
Peter Bills, Belfast Telegraph
Not the game they always loved, mark you, the game they played most of their careers. That was rugby league. But today, more than aware of the growing riches on offer in union, the sport many of them deserted in their playing days, a pack of ex-rugby league guys are having a ridiculous influence on the union game.
You have to ask two things. Why does rugby union keep signing up more and more of these guys and isn’t it about time their influence was diluted?
To hear someone like Shaun Edwards, the London Wasps, Wales and 2009 British & Irish Lions defence coach, talking about a recent rugby union game was highly revealing. Edwards, a man who bases his whole working life on trying to shut the words ‘entertainment’ and ‘tries’ out of rugby union, his game of convenience now he’s retired from playing, made me sick.
At half-time of a cracking, hugely entertaining recent match on Sky Sports, you would have thought there’d be only praise for players and coaches who had espoused such an attacking-minded philosophy. But there sat Edwards, grumbling about the defensive failings and the need to tighten everything up.
Ye Gods, talk about Mr. Scrooge. This bloke wouldn’t give you a cold for Christmas.
Edwards abandoned rugby union at a young age, eager to accept the league shilling. Of course, now rugby union is a paying business, he’s back to collect big time. Nor is he alone. Les Kiss, ex-Australian rugby league, is Ireland’s defence coach, Mike Ford, ex-Oldham, Castleford and Wakefield Trinity player, fills a similar role with England.
Phil Larder, a former coach of the England Rugby League team and a player for Oldham and Whitehaven, was England’s defence coach for their 2003 Rugby World Cup win. Denis Betts, a legend with Wigan and Great Britain in his playing days, helps shore up Gloucester’s defence.
That’s five examples to be going on with but there are plenty more. We’re entitled to wonder, isn’t there anyone with a background in rugby union who can coach a defence? And what’s happening in rugby league with all these guys deserting the sport?
Straight-jacket
The influence of the ex-rugby league group on the game they once deserted or ignored has been enormous. It’s said that they have brought a structure to the union game. More like a strait-jacket.
Scoring tries, which was once the intrinsic appeal of union, has become as arduous a task as finding humour in Halifax. Defences have become iron-tight under the influence of these guys. Trying to stop the opposition playing, preventing anyone scoring a try has been their mantra. How depressing, how one-sided . . .
Rock-solid defence all that matters
You wouldn’t mind if rugby union had devoted as much time to working on attacking skills. Alas, it has been suckered into believing that all that matters is a rock-solid defence. Shut out the opposition, shackle opponents and stop them playing has been the slogan and to hell with the game or any element of entertainment.
In little more than 18 months time, another rugby world cup will be held, this time in New Zealand. Given the fact that the best attacking performance by any international side in rugby union throughout the whole of 2009 was the All Blacks 39-12, five tries to nil demolition of France last month, you have to hope that they will adopt a similar creed at that tournament.
What is more, we must pray that the teams which go out with an attacking mindset prevail, and the defence-obsessed outfits influenced by the rugby league boys get their comeuppance.
It’s sickening to see people who turned their back on union years ago coming back to transform the game into little more than a war of attrition. The game is crying out for some balance in approach.
December 26th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
You wouldn’t mind if rugby union had devoted as much time to working on attacking skills. Alas . . . all that matters is a rock-solid defence.
Shut out the opposition, shackle opponents and stop them playing.
=====
Guy has a point. When last was
there something new regarding
attack?
December 26th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 12:19 pm:
I for one have worked a hell of a lot on my team’s attacking abillity over the past year and suffered the consequences more than reaping the benefits. With ball in hand we look good but the points do not come as regularly as hoped. Our defence has been good but we allowed the opposition to much time to play and after a few phases we got caught out wide or trying to stop the attack out wide we left holes in midfield.
the averages show that you have the ball 505 of the time and that means the other 50% you need to defend so 50% of your preparation should be on defence – over the last year I believe that we worked on defence only 30% of the time. Next year we will balance it out more and work on more of an offensive defence strategy. If you can put a lot of pressure on the opposition to force mistakes then it makes life a lot easier for your team defending. And if you can do it like SA did in the 3N then you are better off handing them posession but I will probably not want to go all the way to that strategy because the FUN in playing rugby for my players is still with ball in hand. Of course it comes down to what players you have the strategy may move more either way. My forwards like the defensive startegy a lot but my back crave for ball in hand – getting that balance right will be our goal in 2010.
December 26th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
505 = 50%
December 26th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
To free up the game of union the benefit of the doubt should go to attacking teams at ruck and maul time. This will give incentive to teams to play more attacking rugby (rucks) and will draw in more defenders (maul) to open up the field.
Just something I have said a lot and I will probably repeat till I die!
December 26th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Attack is well known
as the best form of defence.
December 26th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Reply to Duiwel @ 6:22 pm:
not with the current ruck laws – IMO
December 26th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Reply to JT @ 7:40 pm:
I’m still at a loss as to why
attack worked so superbly for
the Kiwis vs. the Frogs.
I think it may have been
preconceived: Attack, but
cover our bases for a
mistake.
Then they went on and made
no mistakes. And they have
the game breakers the Boks
don’t have.
Could be an interesting stat:
How many Bok tries come from
intercepts as opposed to
plain attack or turnovers?
How does it compare with
the Kiwis and the OZmob
and the Oirish?
December 27th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Actually the France v NZ game was a good example of how attack does NOT breed success.
The French were the ones who decided to play expansive attacking rugby against the Kiwis and they were the ones who souffered from a damned good defensive effort from New Zealand that broke them down and allowed Richie McCaw to do his evil and then allowed the Centre Tank Ma’a Nonu the Fag and those monster wings to do the damage while Carter did his usual.
I wonder what the NZRFU and ARU and WPRFU paid Bills to write this tripe though?
Just three years ago I read a piece by Stephen Jones Welsh England’s praise singer in chief saying he did not enjoy the high scoring drawn final between OFS and NTvl as much as a 9-6 snore fest in sleet at some hellhole club ground in England where defence ruled the game…
As I said before Bills will be getting his cheque in the post… from ARU, WP and NZRFU
December 28th, 2009 at 12:45 am
All we need to study is the amount of passes made from 12 to 13 in the 1998 season compared to the 2009 season.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:02 am
France v NZ, Kick/Pass/Run, stats
Fr 12 : 2/5/2
NZ 12 : 0/1/10
It seems NZ used 12 to bash the ball up quite a bit. The France 12 mostly fed his 13 with nothing to show for it.
Fr 10 : 4/15/7
NZ 10 : 14/15/6
France 10 passed most balls, whilst NZ 10 was more balanced with an equal number of kicks and passes.
Teams Kick/Pass/Run
Fr : 31/94/79
NZ : 27/103/81
Pretty even amount of running and passing by both teams, showing that it does not automatically translates into tries.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Reply to Boertjie @ 9:57 pm:
France were falling of tackles – they were piss poor against NZ!
France beat SA at the breakdown and the poor kicking did not help either.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Reply to Boertjie @ 9:57 pm:
A teams attack is only as good as the defending team allows it to be. Full stop.
December 28th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Reply to Ollie @ 11:27 am: Which is why New Zealand won when faced with a team that ran at them….
For once you and I agree
December 28th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 7:47 pm:
Yep, the French defence was crap, allowed the AB backs too much space through the phases.
Against the Boks they just contested big time in the forwards and our backs never got as much space as the AB’s. Nevermind that our backs from 10 through 15 don’t have the penetration of their AB counter parts.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
That and a few spots of filthy play that the worst ref in the world per NZ rugby fans and commentators being Wynne Barnes missed…. the way he always does…