U20 Rugby Championship 2025
-
On the game against South Africa, I just wanted to quickly highlight some other facets of the NZ U20 attacking shape and how they dealt with the Junior Bok rush defence (I still want to look at the NZ defensive pattern throughout the three games as well but that’s probably going to take a while). I felt like Stanley Solomon’s try in the 52nd minute showcased some interesting aspects of this shape.
The set-up
The Baby Blacks started their attack from kick return, Will Cole taking the ball into contact around the halfway line. The first thing to notice is how comfortable the NZ U20s are keeping the ball in hand and building the phases in the middle of the field, not looking to kick but instead searching to play towards the space. The goal is not so much to break on the outside – the Bok defence is set up cohesively – but to keep the defenders moving wide to wide. The NZ attackers are also wary of moving the ball into space to players lacking support. Wiseman has McLeod in space on the wing but he’s isolated and in danger of being turned over.
The space is a lie: Wiseman could play it wide but there’s no support in black available to protect the ballInstead, Wiseman stays connected to his support and takes the contact. What the Baby Blacks are looking for are disconnected defenders, fractures in the line which are due to appear when defenders are starting to tire out. Eventually, the gap appears when Norton and Bester drift too far apart, Norton looking to make the big hit on Pole and Bester too focused on the threat of Wiseman in midfield.
Faleafā’s break allows the NZ U20s to move up field and start organizing an attacking strike.
The end goal of the set-up is to ultimately split the Junior Bok defence into two through attacking from a midfield ruck. This would give the NZ U20 attack two wide areas of the field to target, something which is made further possible by the abundance of playmakers on the field. The defensive scanners in the backfield can’t really exclude either option, so they’re forced to hold off rather than intervene in a decisive manner.
In the movement following Faleafā’s break, two attacking patterns typical for dealing with a rush defence coalesce into one. One is the so-called 21 attack play (two phases in the same way, then one phase back in the other direction) and the other is attacking from a midfield ruck. I’ve already mentioned the advantage of the midfield ruck against the rush defence, as it splits the defensive line, leaving fewer defenders available to fulfil the different roles within a rush pattern. On the other hand, the 21 attack play has as the goal to move defenders away from the space where you want to attack.
In the two phases immediately after the break, the attack moves to the open in both instances, first Tengblad carrying into contact with the first pod, before Bason takes the second carry with the second pod.
Setting up for the 21 attack play
The set-up is now complete: the NZ attack has gone two phases into the openside (drawing defenders away) while setting up a midfield ruck (split defence).
Now Sinton will move into the strike, going back to the blindThe strike
In the meantime, the backline has realigned to attack the blindside, with Faleafā and Pole setting up a blockers play while Cole, Simpson and Roberts are stacked behind each other, executing a double loop behind the attacking pod.I’ve slowed the movement down so as to more clearly show the stacked formation of Cole, Simpson and Roberts
The final part of the strike is simply great skill execution: Simpson completing the overlap and finding Wiseman, Wiseman stepping inside before passing back outside to Solomon, Solomon stepping an overcommitted Bester, all of it is just part of what was consistently excellent decision-making on attack throughout most of the game.
Solomon try
Throughout the game, the NZ U20s were again able to showcase a very patient attacking game plan: rather than moving into the illusory space on the edge too quickly, where they would be at risk of turning the ball over and losing attacking momentum, the Baby Blacks took a measured approach. They used the middle of the field to gradually fracture the Junior Bok defence, using width to stretch the Bok defensive connection while attacking the seams which were gradually becoming more brittle with each new carry-and-clean.
The rush defence, at its best, can be experienced as being caught in a current: no matter how much you struggle to get back to surface, fresh waves coming through will keep pulling you down. That’s what it can feel like when you get on the back foot against the rush: at one moment, you’re in space. Next thing you know, however, you’re being engulfed by defensive wave after defensive wave, until it feels like you can’t possibly get on top of this thing.
What the NZ U20s have shown with their attack, is that you need to take a patient and measured approach to navigate the waters. You need a plan. You need control (breakdown), you need balance (support), and, most importantly, you need to take it one wave at a time. Once you’re able to do that, you’ll be riding those waves like it’s the most natural thing in the world in no time.
-
-
@Bovidae said in U20 Rugby Championship 2025:
Parsons talks about the NZ U20 attack and the use of the backs behind the forward pods on this weeks ARP (at 32:29).
I like Hall's point about how it was more a case of the attack being good rather than the defence being bad, which is what you often hear when there's a lot of points scored in a game.
Both attacks, the NZ U20s and SA U20s, were just really clever at times, and, as a defence, there's not necessarily a whole lot that you can do.
It's also good to see that there's some continuity in attacking philosophy for the NZ U20s, with the stacked attack from last year being used again, despite Brad Cooper's departure. With so many ball players in the back line, I feel like it's even gone up a level.
-
@Mauss yep, a good attack can manipulate the defence and make 1 man over/under commit to a tackle or attacker, making him look foolish and then everyone says they only scored cos he was shit, ignoring the pattern that forced him into a poor position or making a decision that sees the miss
-
-
-
-
@cgrant said in U20 Rugby Championship 2025:
Who among this squad will play in this year's NPC ? Not a lot IMO.
I suppose it depends on what you define as a lot. My personal prediction, for players to receive some game time from the current U20 TRC squad, would be: Letiu, Oudenryn, Pole, Tengblad, Fale, Woodley, Bason, Pledger, Sinton, Cole, Simpson, Roberts, Kunawave, Saunoa, and Solomon.
So around 15 players, with 7 of those having already had their debut in the NPC. That’s not counting players to come in for the U20 World Cup, who’ll definitely play in the NPC, like Mathis, Sa and Vaenuku.
From last year’s squad – both TRC and World Cup, 36 players – around 21 players received minutes in the NPC. So I’d reckon this group will end up with something similar.
Edited for removing some incorrect passages. The NZ U20 Wikipedia lists several wrong provinces for the players, so I made some wrong assumptions about playing opportunities. But I'll mostly stick with my predictions.
-
Previously, I have mainly focused on the NZ U20 attack, how it was a mixed bag against the Junior Wallabies before really coming into its own against the Pumitas and the Junior Boks. Here, I’d like to take a look at the Baby Blacks’ defence across the U20 TRC, mainly their defensive shape, what they’re trying to do and, finally, what its main issues were throughout the tournament. And when you’ve conceded an average of 31.6 points across three games, it’s probably fair to say that there were more than a few. It’s also become way longer than I expected so I’m going to split it into two parts, first looking at the shape and how the defence is supposed to look before looking more closely at all the different ways it didn’t reach its desired heights.
Part 1: The shape
So what is the defensive set-up of the NZ U20s? When looking at their shape in general phase play, it’s clear that they defend very narrow. A view as seen here, from their game against the Pumitas, can be considered as representative of their typical positioning:
The Pumitas’ ruck is on the side line and the NZ U20 defensive line covers half of the width of the pitch. Behind them, there are three defensive sweepers: the 9 (Sinton) who covers the space immediately behind the defensive line, the openside winger (Lewai) and the 15 (Solomon). The role of the defensive sweepers is to (1) cover the backfield, (2) lead the scramble defence, and (3) come up when the opposition backline moves into their space.
So why do the Baby Blacks defend so narrow? This is closely related to one of the two main principles of what I believe their defensive philosophy is, which is dominance of opposition in the collision. The NZ U20s want to smother the opposition attack, through defensive pressure, double tackles and breakdown disruption. They want, in other words, to win the physical battle in the close quarters. A narrow defence helps with this, as it concentrates your strongest defenders within a smaller space, making it easier to defend in groups and swarm multiple defenders into the contact. While this leaves a lot of space out wide, the NZ U20 defence tries to combat this by having multiple, mobile scramble defenders but also and more importantly, by employing defensive shooters, either (1) using the third or fourth defender off the ruck to rush the opposition first or second receiver or (2) using the openside winger to shoot up into the opposition backline, looking to disrupt passing lanes or to take the intercept.
With this system of defensive shooters, in the first instance, the idea is to target the first or second receiver’s outside shoulder, forcing the latter to either take the contact, halting the attacking momentum, or to force them back to the inside, where the NZ U20s have numbers and are trying to exert dominance. An example of this is Tengblad rushing up, in the game against the Junior Wallabies, where he targets Doyle, not so much to make the tackle necessarily, but rather to force the attack into spaces where the defence wants them:
Tengblad rushes up, not so much towards the ball carrier but towards his passing lane to the open side
Another good example can be found in the end stages of the game against the Junior Boks – where the NZ U20s were reduced to 13 so defending in the right areas becomes even more paramount – where Fale rushes up on Hlekani’s outside shoulder, forcing him to come back inside where he’s swallowed up by multiple NZ U20 defenders.
Fale looking to stop the wide attack before it gets going
In this first instance, in other words, the defensive shooter is used as a way of guiding the opposition attack back inside and removing the possibility of a wide attack.
In the second instance, someone like Kunawave is given the responsibility of ‘spooking’ backline movements, entering into the opposition attacking space and hoping that they panic. In the game against the Junior Boks, Kunawave successfully did this, Moyo seeing the space out wide and going for the long pass, only for Kunawave to intercept the ball, the turnover eventually resulting in a try to Harlyn Saunoa on the other side of the pitch.
In order to further show how this defensive shape is supposed to work in general play, we can look at a specific example of a positive defensive set, from the game against the Pumitas.
From an Argentina lineout, the NZ U20 defensive line pushes up, with Roberts making the spot tackle behind the gain-line. When the Argentinean player gets the offload away and moves towards the side line, the aggression of the Baby Black defence increases. Harvey and Woodley fly into the breakdown, looking for the counter-ruck, while Cole enters the breakdown when a brief turnover opportunity arises. In the next phase, Woodley and Fale execute the double tackle, with Fale wrapping up man and ball in the upperbody tackle, before ripping the ball away. NZ possession.
This is what the NZ U20s are looking for: physical dominance in contact, breakdown disruption and swarming the opposition. In their next defensive set against the Pumitas, the Baby Blacks would further up their aggression in their midfield defence and gain even better results.
Harvey makes a great spot tackle, with Roberts and Maisiri both following up well in order to increase the pressure on the attack
Harvey, Roberts and Maisiri are all in sync with what they’re trying to do and it leads to a turnover try. But this immediately brings us to the second pillar of this defensive philosophy, which is communication and connection. Whenever you leave a lot of space out wide in favour of a defensively aggressive system, it forces your players to be in constant communication: who goes into the breakdown? Who goes high and who goes low when making the double tackle? Who guards the space I’ve left when I’m making the defensive read? Who covers the backfield when I push up into the defensive line as a sweeper? All of these questions need to be answered constantly, all the while when you’re making tackles and moving bodies.
It is in this breakdown of communication and defensive connection where most of the issues still reside within the NZ U20 defence. This I’ll further explore in the second part of this short series on the Baby Blacks’ defence.
-
-
After trying to deduce what the intended defensive shape of the NZ U20s side was in a previous post, here I want to highlight some of the issues experienced by the Baby Blacks during the U20 TRC and what we can reasonably expect from them moving forwards.
The issues
Before looking more concretely into the several ‘improvement areas’ of the Baby Blacks’ defensive effort, we can take a look at a chart of the opposition scores. How did they come about, where did they originate?
An area for immediate improvement becomes apparent when seeing that the NZ U20s conceded 4 maul tries and 3 rather cheap tries off of turnovers: Kunawave’s volleyball spike towards his own try line against the Junior Wallabies, Harvey’s reckless offload in his own 22 against the Pumitas, and Woodley’s backdoor pass which was intercepted by Mlaba in the game against the Junior Boks. A more sturdy maul defence – the openside pillar of the defensive maul was exposed several times, allowing the attacking maul to sheer all too easily towards that space – and better decision-making in the 22 should, at the very least, make the defensive numbers a bit more respectable.
But there are also some more structural issues, both inherent within the chosen defensive system and ingrained within particular playing habits, which might be more difficult to fix at short notice. These particular things stood out to me.
(1) Learning the system
As mentioned above, the defensive shape chosen by the Baby Blacks – narrow defensive line, double tackles, defensive shooters – is not an easy one and requires both a lot of communication as well as defensive nous. The defensive shooter on the wing, for example, can be tasked with shutting down a massive overlap. At several points during the tournament, the outside backs did what was asked of them by shooting up but, once they were in the right space, didn’t really know how to effectively kill the opposition backline movement. This happened multiple times, for example, in the game against the Junior Wallabies:
In the first instance, Solomon shoots up to kill a two-man overlap but there’s zero pressure on the player with the ball in his hands (Fowler), making it easy for the latter to just throw the long ball over Solomon’s head for the easy walk-in try to Harvey.
The second example shows much of the same. Kunawave shoots up but, again, there’s no pressure on either the player with the ball in his hands (notice the clever blocking play by Eli Langi) or on the targets for the pass, Kunawave running past them rather than stay with the play. It’s important to say, however, that this isn’t easy at all. Singlehandedly stopping an overlap requires a lot of defensive know-how, which isn’t something that can really be expected of players like Solomon and Kunawave, who are most likely unfamiliar with the such requirements.
Both examples show that having defensive shooters to ‘spook’ the attack is a collective endeavour: the time and space of the ball carrier needs to be cut down, just as much as the space for the potential receivers needs to be. If a defensive shooter operates alone, there’s very little chance for them to actually be effective. Everyone in the defence needs to be on the same page, if the defensive pressure game is to actually be implemented.
This is quite an aggressive and complex system to employ, so it will take time to properly embed within the team. It should get better by the time of the World Championship but it’s still a risky system, meant to pressure opposition decision-making while leaving a lot of space available for the opposition attack. Learning the ins and outs of the system is tantamount to becoming a serious defensive outfit.
(2) Lack of numbers and weak edge defence
A second issue is closely related to the first and can partly be explained as a systems issue and as something which the players probably still need to get used to. A side effect of the narrow defence and the focus on dominating the collision around the middle areas of the field is that the NZ U20 defence can easily be outflanked. The Baby Blacks do not want to concede the gain-line through their centre so they concentrate their forwards in the middle, trying to put multiple numbers into the collision while wrapping up the opposition carrier, slowing down their ball and trying to turn the contact into an arm wrestle.Against the Junior Boks, for example, with the NZ U20s defending inside their own 22, the forwards are all concentrated close to each other, looking to stop the Junior Boks from going through them.
First Johnston and Bason, then Woodley, Pole and Treacy, bringing down the Junior Bok forwards in double tackles while looking to wrap up the ball in contact. The issue is, however, that the numbers of the stronger defenders quickly run out and with a few more carries one off the ruck from the Junior Boks, Mlaba, the Junior Bok number eight, is suddenly only faced with Cole (10), Wiseman (12) and Kunawave (14) as his opposite defenders. No points for guessing how that ends.
One of the reasons why the Baby Blacks struggle with numbering up in defence is the double role given to the 9 to perform within this system. Within this passage of play, we see Sinton organizing the defence behind the ruck at the start of the movement.
Sinton, behind the ruck, scanning the opposition attack and directing numbersBut the 9 is also responsible for defending the edge against backline strikes. So when the Junior Bok backs start moving into position and Moyo starts getting involved in organizing the attack, Sinton disappears out wide to shore up the outside defence in anticipation of a midfield strike. At that moment, however, the defensive organisation starts to suffer as well, as there is no one to direct the defensive numbers or point out weaknesses in the defensive line. As a result, mismatches are easily manipulated by the Junior Bok attack, positioning loose forwards to carry against smaller backs.
It was a similar story for the first Junior Wallaby try, with Pledger first acting as defensive organizer and sweeper behind the defensive ruck:
Before quickly moving to the edge when the Aussie backline started shaping up for a strike.
Pledger spots a Junior Wallaby backline shape and swiftly starts moving to the wingThis is a bit of a bug in the system, as this dual responsibility of the 9 can be exploited by the opposition attack: if they wanted to manipulate the defensive numbers, they can shape their backline for a strike (removing the defensive organizer), while their real intention is to first make the defensive line overfold to the blindside before attacking the open. The NZ U20 forwards, who are mainly concerned with dominating the collision, aren’t paying much attention to numbers, swarming into the contact area. But this makes them susceptible, as we’ve seen throughout the tournament, of losing sight of the bigger picture.
(3) Defensive connection
As I’ve mentioned above, in a defensive system which is built on attempting to establish dominance in the collision area, connection and communication are absolutely key. And it is in this aspect where I think the most improvement can and will need to be found, if the NZ U20s are to take the next step in their defensive development.There were at least three zones of recurring disconnection, in my view: (a) during the defensive chase, (b) during opposition lineout attack, between the back of the lineout defender and the first defender, and (c) between the pillar defenders at the breakdown and the first defender outside the ruck. While the first issues mentioned above were mainly systems issues, defensive disconnection doesn’t really fall under that, as the first principle of any defence is to connect properly with both your inside and outside man.
(3a) The defensive chase
A first form of disconnect which often recurred could be found during different kinds of defensive chases, such as from from kick return or from broken play. It’s clear that players are instructed to quickly close down opposition space, and kick returns and loose balls are ideal opportunities for defensive shooters to tackle opposition players far behind the gain line. But again though, the key is to remain connected to your teammates. A good example of how over-eagerness can lead to poor outcomes can be found with the first Junior Wallaby score, a try to Liam Grover early in the game.With the Junior Wallabies hot on attack inside the NZ U20s 22 after some poor discipline, a pass from Hwi Sharples doesn’t find its mark and bounces off of Beau Morrisson, the AU U20 number eight, onto the ground. This is the situation of the defensive line right before the ball becomes loose for the Junior Wallabies:
Seeing the ball hit the floor, Kunawave immediately sprints out of the defensive line to pressure the receiver. While the intention is the right one, there is zero communication with his outsides, as this is the situation just a second or two later.
Grover, the Junior Wallaby 13, has recovered the ball while Kunawave has over-chased. Simpson, meanwhile has drifted towards the side line while Letiu is still following more than a few metres behind. Where nothing was happening for the Junior Wallaby attack just a second ago, the NZ U20 line has opened like the Red Sea, as a result from an individual defensive chase.
The effects of a poorly coordinated chase
Similar examples can be found during opposition kick return, where the NZ U20 chase was aggressive but where the support following in behind was uncoordinated, leading to simple outside breaks for the opposition attack.
Again, Kunawave chases aggressively but Roberts bites in without any cover on the edge, providing the Pumitas with a potentially dangerous break outside of their own 22.
(3b) The lineout seam
Another area of poor connection could be found during opposition lineout attack, where the seam between the tail defender at the back of the lineout (the NZ hooker) and the first defender off the lineout (blindside winger) could be successfully exploited.The Baby Blacks used their wingers as first defenders in the backline, with Kunawave and Saunoa tasked to stop hard running ball carriers off first phase in the first game against the Junior Wallabies.
In their first attacking lineout near the NZ U20s 22, the Junior Wallabies would throw to the back. Their goal was to attack the seam between the NZ hooker and blindside winger, looking for a half-break to set up the attack, after which they can run at a fragmented defensive line.
Morrisson makes sure to draw Letiu before releasing the ball to Veiru on the unders line
They would have continued success with this move throughout the first half, exploiting the amount of space behind the lineout formation as well as the inability of Letiu and his wingers to effectively defend this space.
While this isn’t a particularly easy area to defend, Letiu and his wingers presented a fragile defensive connection as well, neither seemingly on the same page of when and where to defend these incursions. Kunawave and Saunoa were either slow to react or unable to physically make a dominant hit, allowing the Australian U20s easy momentum for set-piece attack. Letiu was also too easily drawn in to the fake maul, drawing him away from this seam and further making the lineout seam vulnerable.
Part of the issue here is again system-based, the fact that, within the Baby Blacks’ defensive structure, certain backs like Kunawave are asked to do both a lot of defensive work as well as perform different kinds of defensive interventions. There seems to be a relatively clear distribution of attacking and defensive roles – for example, Solomon is one of the key decision-makers in attack while someone like Cooper Roberts seems like the defensive leader – but a utility player like Kunawave is seemingly used like a Swiss army knife. But even then, there’s limits to how much utility value a single player can bring. Realigning some of the defensive responsibilities across the backline might bring more effectiveness in this regard.
(3c) Disconnection between the pillar defence and first defenders outside
Every defensive system is going to have its own flaws – for example, the benefit of an extra defender in the line vs. the downside of not having a defensive scanner, as mentioned above – and that comes down to certain preferences and tactical decisions from the coaching group. There’s not a whole lot that can be done about this. What can be changed, however, is certain individual inaccuracies, i.e. simple bad defensive execution.While the porousness of the defensive line throughout the U20 TRC can be partly explained by the issues with the multiple defensive roles played by the 9, at the same time, players need to do better to communicate and organize the distance between themselves within the defensive line. Take the following example from the game against the Junior Wallabies.
There’s over 3 metres of space between Bason and Aio Keith, while Bason is slow in closing the space down between himself and the Aussie first five, Fowler. The latter spots the disconnection – too much space between Bason and Keith, Baker is ahead of Bason despite being the secondary defender – and easily exploits this by stepping back inside and attacking the fragile seam between Bason and Baker.
Baker does well to cling onto Fowler to stop the full linebreak
Ironically perhaps, this defensive organization improved as the tournament went on, despite conceding 45 points in their final game. The fact that the Junior Boks scored three of their seven tries from 5+ phases shows that they needed to work harder for their scores, at a pace their attack couldn’t sustain for the whole 80. After the early onslaught in the first 30 minutes, the Junior Boks were only able to construct one more score in open play, their other points coming from a maul penalty try and a rather fortuitous if well-executed turnover try.
Someone like Mosese Bason exemplified this improved defensive effort: after a poor defensive performance against the Junior Wallabies – falling off several standard tackles through poor positioning, footwork and tackle technique – Bason turned in a much more effective performance against the Junior Boks, showing more urgency, accuracy and physicality in defence.
Prospects for the U20 World Championships
As the tournament went on, certain improvements were noticeable. As can be expected, the defensive disconnection – which was especially rampant against the Junior Wallabies – became less omnipresent. Also, as players became more accustomed to the system requirements of the NZ U20 defence, system failures became less common, the outside backs more astute in when and where to shoot up, as well as support players becoming more aware of their own tasks during these moments.All that being said, it is hard to imagine this side suddenly becoming a defensive powerhouse. There is more than enough will amongst the players – it’s clear there’s no issue with work rate or commitment – but I’m not sure an extra month will be enough time to fix certain tendencies in terms of tackle technique and defensive positioning. The return of players like Oli Mathis, Jayden Sa and Frank Vaenuku – all players with excellent tackle technique, by the way – should definitely help, although the players they’ll most likely replace in the starting lineup – Woodley, Treacy/McLeod and Saunoa – weren’t necessarily the problem to begin with. Perhaps the inclusion of someone like Logan Wallace might make the biggest impact in this regard, as a prop who excels with his work rate around the field. If he can provide a stabile platform in the scrum, then the team as a whole should improve (that's still a big if).
But again, the strength of this team lies in its ability to accumulate scores in quick succession. If the Baby Blacks can get their defensive connection and communication right, to make the opposition at least work hard for their scores and tire them out, then they should have a reasonable chance at the World Championships in Italy.
