Just five years ago there was nothing much wrong with rugby but the latest International Rugby Board statistics point to a broken game with too much emphasis on kicking.
In 2004 the International Rugby Board reported that there were an average of 4.5 tries a game in the Six Nations Championship and 5.2 in the Tri-Nations. There were 4.6 and 6.0 penalty goals on average and the ball was in play 46 and 43 per cent of the time respectively. There were 291 passes per Six Nations game and 251 in the Tri-Nations, with 57 and 50 kicks.There were no complaints and not much was wrong with rugby yet the IRB introduced 35 experimental law variations which it now says were only ever options, to be taken or left as wanted. Such 'blue-sky' thinking caused three years of argument and turmoil.
The 2009 autumn internationals were plagued by breakdown mayhem and aerial kick-tennis. Southern hemisphere fans say 'It's your own fault; you killed the ELVs.' Some blame lack of ambition, pointing to New Zealand's and Australia's final games as proof that the game works as it is.
They are wrong, of course. Poor play and the adopted ELV penalising the return of the ball into the 22 are contributors to the try drought. There is also a major problem at the breakdown. In combination these factors mean many teams, including the world and Tri-Nations champions South Africa, base their game on kicking.
This year's Six Nations/Tri-Nations statistics, which include the two teams held up as exemplars of ambition, show the problem is global: Tries 3.7/3.0; Penalty goals 4.9/7.7; Ball in play 49per cent/42per cent; Passes 273/222; Kicks 65/60.
The 2009 IRB review states that in the first Lions Test South Africa made only 49 passes and their hooker passed as many times as the fly-half. They won the Tri-Nations by making fewest breakdowns, least passes and having most kicks. In one game their 43 passes was the lowest by any team in either competition for seven years.
The IRB's only response has been to enshrine the controversial breakdown ruling as law, making it irreversible until after the 2011 World Cup. That is bad enough but what terrifies is that they intend to review the laws in 2011 with a Laws Consultation Group assessing global playing trends. As before, no specifics, just a wide spectrum to indulge fertile but misguided minds.
Sorry, the IRB have done something else – they agreed to waste money trialling Goalscan technology to see whether a kick at goal goes over. When has this been an issue?
What most fans do not know is that behind this obstinacy is a desperate attempt to avoid further public derision.
Following a survey which highlighted the breakdown retention rate of 95 per cent in the 2007 World Cup final (over that tournament as a whole it was 92 per cent) one leading IRB official called the figures "truly scary". The IRB and ill-informed commentators said it would lead to the game being for only one shape and size of player.
They then, wrongly, assumed that the high retention rate meant there could not be proper competition for the ball at the breakdown and ruled in favour of the defender, thereby overlooking the crucial fact that quality and speed of ball is determined by what competition does take place, even when the defence does not make a turnover. A high retention rate is not a problem provided there is the possibility of turnovers. Rugby league outlaws competition for the ball in the tackle, unless one on one, balancing this by allowing a maximum six possessions before the ball is turned over to the opponents.
If the retention rate almost guaranteed the attacking side would score there would be no problem, but is does not. The reverse is true; the more phases a team have to win, the fewer the chances of scoring. Most tries occur after three or fewer breakdowns.
The IRB also ignored evidence showing that in the 1970s matches averaged around 50 breakdowns, attracting six or seven attackers and five or six defenders. Today's games have between 150 and 190 breakdowns, attracting 3.3 attackers and just 1.2 defenders. This is why there is no space.
All the above have made kicking the most effective tactical option. It is facile to say all you need is a fly-half to play flat; what if you do not have a Dan Carter or Matt Giteau? And why were they not successful in this year's Tri-Nations?
Rather than admit causing this mess, the IRB blames teams for lacking ambition.
Identifying your most effective way of playing and winning is normally praised. Why should a team refuse this option in favour of entertaining when they know their opponents are not similarly compelled?
The greatest problem is making more space and this means committing more players to the breakdown. Why refuse to look at how this was done in the 1970s? I'll tell you why – it would mean reintroducing rucking; the love that dare not speak its name.
The study of history is important to avoid repeating mistakes – the IRB should go back to school.
"I’ve heard it all now. The North is bemoaning the Laws of the Game. What audacity, as it was these conservative, blazer wearing buffoons that derailed the Experimental Law Variations project last year.
ReplyDeleteIn the Sunday Times in London last week, Stephen Jones, one of the architects of the ELVs destruction, unbelievable stated, “That the problem with the modern game is the breakdown. It is killing rugby, it is destroying the flow, it is boring the pants off everyone.”
Stephen Jones, shame on you.
If you had not totally ignored the first few years of the ELV project that started in Stellenbosch University – instead of waiting until the ELVs were due for trial at a more senior level in UK territory – you might have understood that the Law Project Group had the primary intention of reviewing the breakdown, rectifying it and then looking at the wider effects on the rest of the game.
The knock-on effect of simplifying the breakdown was to ensure it could be better refereed.
In fact, they went right back to the beginning and played matches at the University with no Laws at the breakdown to understand player behaviour and how the breakdown operated under such conditions.
Naturally, they had to tweak it, as no Laws meant it was all too easy to kill the ball and to go to ground.
The next step was to slowly add in Laws that would see the breakdown operate functionally. This included keeping players on their feet.
This is what transpired and included the trialling of use of hands in the ruck by players on their feet which had its merits.
The next stage was to take the trial out of the University to higher level competitions around the world. So what happened?
When the Project Group asked for permission, an ELV ambush happened. Jones and his fellow media cronies and the union blazers in the Northern Unions choked on their warm beer at the thought of such trials and decried the ELVs as a southern conspiracy.
The continuing ELV program was cherry-picked: no breakdown ELVs were allowed to be trialled and what we ended up with was a watered down bunch of new Laws that have not really solved anything.
And now the north is belly-aching about the breakdown.
The poor old IRB must not know whether they are Arthur or Martha at present. Having seen the ELV breakdown trial derailed so early, they now see Jones blathering such absurdities as: “When is the International Rugby Board going to do something about it? (the breakdown) We have the rampaging inconsistencies and illegalities, the different interpretations by different referees, we have the cheats who go unpenalised. This stemmed from the early years of the Super 12, where continuity of possession went on for hours. It must be said again: the IRB have spent years on the barking law experiments and they have scandalously taken their eyes off the ball when it comes to refereeing and playing the game at the breakdown.”
The only scandal here is the blinkered, conservative, anti-southern hemisphere thinking by Jones and the rest of the north, which was clearly negligent in understanding the original objectives and intentions of the Law Project Group.
Not once apparently did any of the media attend the early trials or deem it appropriate to speak to the members of the Group to understand what the trials were attempting to remedy.
We all know the game has its problems as defence dominates attack, brute force is preferred to skills and players continually breaking the Laws at the breakdown. The IRB had the right intentions must revisit the breakdown ELVs.
And Jones and his cronies should put up or shut up."
Have to disagree with you on this. It, is not only the NH that is decrying the current state of the game. Graham Henry has also voiced his disquiet and he fears for the future of the game. Most SH coaches are also worried about the amount of kicking there is now, even if South Africa are using it to their advantage at the moment.
ReplyDeletePaul
Paul,
ReplyDeleteAgree with you that everyone everywhere is concerned. But the key point here is that given the precedent, how likely / effective will any new modifications when the NH has the power to simply veto and wallow in their own self-interest?
I think the more hilarious point is that the northern hemisphere coats all said the ELV's were a southern hemisphere conspiracy because they could not scrum... hmmmm, did anyone watch australia derail most of the northern hemisphere scrum. Some conspiracy.
ReplyDelete