1 second ruck - squidge
-
Squidge is great. Wish we had more like him - the sort of guy that keeps your school 6th team going. Always finding the 16a guys who have a bye, the firsts destined player who is slowly coming back from a devastating injury, inventing moves that the whole school will be using soon, always organizing touch in the summer and chatting with the school stars on little tweaks they should make to their game but will ignore.
But this video is why they ignore him: it’s no devastating insight to say run off shoulders, pop off the deck and look to maintain continuity.
-
@Smuts said in 1 second ruck - squidge:
But this video is why they ignore him: it’s no devastating insight to say run off shoulders, pop off the deck and look to maintain continuity.
That's it? And that apparently takes 19 minutes to explain?
In answer to the OP, I'd say because it's a low return proposition when you consider how narrow and congested defences are, meaning there's practically always another defender readdy to pounce on the ball before the tackled player is able to pop it to someone. It's an even lower return play for tight forwards.
And pop passing off the ground to a supporting player is nothing new. This "insight" I'll rank with his claim England were dead set going to win the last RWC under Eddie Jones...
-
He’s no doubt a full time rugby geek, but this is an online rugby forum so we’re all a bit guilty of that too .
Is it good take that the pop pass / offload high continuity game used to be the way the game was played down here (NZ) but isn’t so much now and the preference is for a quick ruck?
Is it deemed too risky / inaccurate?
-
I'd say the risk return isn't there to make it a plinth of your attacking strategy. There's a big difference in a n attacking player who has been brought to ground andd is unencumbered by the defence so can pop it to a supporting player. We do see this in rugby, especially SR.
It's much more difficult to do so in structured play. Here you have to attempt to isolate the defender and dominate the tackle so you are in a position to pop the ball. Get it wrong and your support has now overrun you and you're isolated on the ground which is easy pickings.
-
-
@Nepia said in 1 second ruck - squidge:
@Smuts said in 1 second ruck - squidge:
But this video is why they ignore him: it’s no devastating insight to say run off shoulders, pop off the deck and look to maintain continuity.
So the Blues 2003.
Can't be. Squidge says it's new.
-
You lot can smirk all you like, but he has a very valid point.
It's not a bout popping the ball off the ground -- it's about doing that when on attack regardless of what the situation is -- accepting that you win some, you lose some, but it tends to lead to a turnover if it goes wrong, but a try if it goes right. In the past you did it if you could see someone steaming up, but it wasn't pre-programmed.
It has been clear for a while that making a line break does not generate tries like it used to. The Chiefs have learned that the hard way at the pointy end in the last three seasons. You pretty much have to score or get a penalty immediately from a break or you might as well not bother having made it. Once the ball is in a ruck for 3 seconds it is basically static.
-
@Chester-Draws said in 1 second ruck - squidge:
You lot can smirk all you like, but he has a very valid point.
His point being an Englishman turned the dour Fijians into an offloading 7s team? Or that Galthié coached Penaud into running across field and isolating himself and as a result popping it to a team mate who wouldn't have been able to secure the ball?
Pointing out players sometimes pop the ball to avoid being isolated isn't insight. Nor is the revelation that quick rucks eventually fracture defences.
-
I think the point that even a really quick ruck reduces the likelihood of scoring dramatically is a really interesting one.
Perhaps it’s like the ‘stale domination’ in football that plagued Arsene Wenger.
.
-
@yeahbutnah said in 1 second ruck - squidge:
I think the point that even a really quick ruck reduces the likelihood of scoring dramatically is a really interesting one.
But even that principle has been relatively well-known for quite a while, no? Wayne Smith has basically built his career on this insight, using the concept of 'click attack'. This is from a 2018 Sydney Morning Herald article by Brendan Venter on this concept:
The concept of click attack is where they wait for opportunities to counter from broken play and pounce to devastating effect. A poor kick-chase, an up-and-under, which they field, and a turnover are all clicks for them on offence.
[...]
Everybody tries to perfect click attack, but few teams actually manage to implement it successfully. Click attack is akin to a door closing, and the defence is theoretically at its most vulnerable for the next two phases. At a high level, the defence would realign and then it basically morphs into multi-phase rugby. The ability to try to break down the defence within the first couple of phases post the situation is critical, and the All Blacks are the best at that out of everybody in the game.The idea that the Ireland team used multi-phase as an effective way of scoring is, I think, wrong. They played a possession game where the goal wasn't necessarily to score through multi-phase but to build pressure and momentum. Their principles for winning were more built on their defence as well as their strike plays, which they used to score at crucial points.
And like any effective attack, those Schmidt strike plays were constructed around pace and not possession (think the Stockdale switch to the blind try in 2018 against the ABs or Jordan's try off the Mo'unga dummy in the 2023 RWC quarter-final).
Modern rugby is basically a contest between attack and defence to the available space. And while certain tools will change (ruck speed, offloading, jackalling), it's very hard for any principle to fundamentally change the nature of this contest.
Plus ça change, etc., etc.
