By Bifta on 04/03/03
March 3 2003

Before we start, let's make a couple of things clear. As of today, the Tykes are 5th in the Zurich Premiership, level on points with Leicester and with a game in hand over Wasps. Only three sides have more points than we do. We are at least five points clear of the remaining seven sides.

And We are twenty-two points clear of the relegation place. Compare this to last season. Without going into dull statistical detail, beyond any measure, this season has been a resounding success. Close season recruitment and preparation, allied to the indefatigable spirit the Tykes always had, have transformed the fortunes of our team. All of us are hugely proud of what has been achieved, even more so when you consider that financially we will not be on a level playing field with the rest of the division for some years to come.

Secondly, let's tread warily around this 4 tries bonus point issue, which is becoming an albatross round our necks. Why shouldn't three be the magic number? Or 5? The fact is that, with the exception of Sale, nobody finds it easy to score 4 tries in a match. Bath haven't managed it once this season. London Irish have only done it once. This article is not about bonus points!

This article IS about constructive criticism. It is about the style of play we are currently pursuing, and it is about a concerned fan, me, trying to think of how we can improve on the remarkable achievements we have already made this year. I'm not interested in slagging people off, and I hope I don't fall into the easy trap of doing so.

Ritchie the Rhino covered part of this issue in his article "The Sword of Braamocles" as long ago as November. In it he touched on the dangers of becoming over-reliant on the prodigious kicking qualities of our favourite Springbok, and eschewing potential seven pointers, for nailed on penalty kicks. At that early stage in the season I think the general consensus was we wanted to win, and BVS was the likeliest way we could achieve it. But perhaps the time is ripe for a review...

In the last round of ZP matches Newcastle Falcons, our bogey side, came down to Headingley and won the game. They also won a fair share of admirers, the author among them, for the style of play they pursue. Now let's be honest up front, it helps to have one of the best fly halves in the world in your team, no doubt about it. But what I liked about the Falcons was their willingness to put the ball wide, to put it there fast, and to see what happened. Rugby is a team game, with an individual dynamic within it. As a winger myself I want to be in a position where I can go one-on-one with my opposite number, to test him, to beat him - for pace or power. In the modern game this isolated duel is becoming more and more elusive - what matters is the speed or momentum the ball reaches you at, and the speed you have to be carrying to meet the ball. That speed has to be greater than the speed at which the opposition defence is moving. If it is - you will gain ground.

From the off, Newcastle pursued this option. Runners came into the line at pace, freed by long, flat, accurate and above all, quick passes from outside-half. Liam Botham, far from Newcastle's most incisive three-quarter, regularly took the ball at speed and made yards. Of course, making ground is no use if you fail to retain possession, which has been the Falcon's problem this season. Contributions from some of the Falcon's messageboarders helped in the writing of this article, and they were more than ready to admit that the open style has both its attractions, and its dangers -

"We have always tried to move the ball around and yes its great when it comes off,which unfortunately has not happened too much this season because our scrum half has been very slow or not protected by his flankers..." (m9lfalcon)

"...forwards playing, or trying to play, quick pick up and drives, akin to the way Scotland play...at the appropriate time we would release our backs where we had the pace and guile of Michael Stephenson, Dave Walder and Jamie Noon. By and large, last season this was quite successful....." (DJMC)

Obviously there has to be a happy balance, and you have to have the personnel to satisfy the style. As Newcastle have proved, it can be suicidal to move the ball wide if you are faced with opponents who are stronger and quicker, or just as importantly, if you are lacking in self-confidence. And confidence breeds confidence, it's a vicious circle. If you don't try it, it won't work, and if it doesn't work, you won't try it!

So, we can say that running rugby is not the be all and end all of success - the relative positions of the Tykes and Newcastle would seem to prove it. But that's not to say that there aren't aspects of the running style that would enhance the Tykes performances, and chances of going on to better things...

So where do we start? First, let's acknowledge that we have some very potent runners in the back three, whatever combination we play. Scarbrough, Albanese, Hall, and George Harder - who is by no means simply a crash ball merchant. As Dan showed for England A against France, these guys are seriously quick. To my eye, they are all somewhat hesitant in attack at the moment, probably due to a loss of confidence in the chances of them getting good quick ball. But the fact is, if we give them half a chance, they'll score it.Second, I can't miss this opportunity to pick a bone with the vast majority of ZP referees, although with a caveat. Given that the referee is the sole arbiter of the offside law, thanks to the touchjudges being either unable or unwilling to police it, it is far too easy for teams to encroach at the breakdown. A move will break down, a ruck will be formed and the referee has one quick look behind him to check the back foot - then concentrates on the undoubted shenanigans going on on the deck. As soon as he does so the defence moves up a yard. How many times have you seen a referee take two looks behind him at a ruck? Not once this season. Something has to change, or cynical defenders (and let's face it, we are guilty too) will continue to exploit the situation. And it's very hard to set the ball and the back line moving when the defence has a yard's advantage or more.

If there is one creed that I live my rugby it is this - let the ball do the work. The ball can move faster than any defender, and you can move it as long or as short as you want to. Take Brian O'Driscoll for example. Watch how he lines up on the outside shoulder of his opponent, and how he shapes his run to take him further outside. Then watch as the pass allows for that movement, and meets him as he is already moving outside the defender. He doesn't have to worry about receiving the ball then making the move - the move is already made. The pass, and the line of attack, has already beaten the man.

Of course we don't have Brian O'Driscoll. And at the moment we seem to have a problem in our back line, at 10, 12 and 13, that is insoluble. There are three problems:

1. the runner/receiver is frequently static or running a poor line
2. the speed and direction of the pass limits the potential of the runner to make ground
3. a general lack of confidence means we are not looking to beat our opponents for pace, or more critically, space

Let me clarify that last point. BVS and Tris Davies are never going to beat most of the other ZP centres for gas. The only way they can get round the man is to get the line right, and get the pass delivered on that line. BVS seems to have been nailed down as a battering ram, and the moves we use in the backs utilise Davies in the same way, except coming back to the forwards from a wider angle. Gordon Ross tried one flat long pass against Falcons and threw it a yard forward. BVS and Tris appear unwilling to pass more than a yard to either side. On the one occasion in recent memory when Dan Scarbrough looked to enter the line, the pass went behind his back. This is down to confidence. We have become locked into a style of play that breeds caution and conservatism, to the extent that we seem to be incapable of performing simple miss passes. We are afraid to try something different. In the Falcons game we won possession in our 22. Scarbrough, Diego and George were lined up against Grimes and Smith. That was the sum of the defence. We never even tried to beat them. I accept that I could be accused of living in a bit of a dream world, populated by Blanco, Sella, and assorted other French loonies, to even contemplate it. On the other hand, we couldn't even clear to touch. What would have cost us more?

And to this point, it hasn't cost us all that much. I am sure there will come a time when it will. Harlequins, at home, is an opportunity to rectify this. Sale put 45 points on Quins, unopposed at the Stoop. Let's not be afraid to try a few things. We need some gas at outside centre, and we need to encourage Ross to put the ball into space, by hand, not by the boot. I'd suggest moving Dan Scarbrough in, if Tom Rock is not yet ready. I don't think George has the hands for centre, and I think he looks for contact a little too hard. Dan always looks for the space, and he has fast feet. I'm not suggesting this is a permanent solution, but it will hopefully show the team, the players, what they can do. This close season we need to recruit a class outside centre.

I'm willing to bet that Callard and Davies have already talked about this issue (if they haven't, they should have done). I'm ready to put my faith in them, as I have done before, and accept that they will sort it out. It would be nice to see some evidence sooner rather than later.

---

Editor's Note: Whew! heady stuff indeed! Do you think Bifta's hit the nail on the head? Has he just put in a bid for the number two coaching position beside JC, or is he in the honk-tweet-gibber-gibber world of those "Assorted French Loonies" ? Let us know, by posting on the message board....

---