An aggressive defence is the logical step forward for England Rugby

by Ed Budge

            The new Guinness Premiership season kicks off this weekend, and with it comes a new season for England rugby. With two years of disappointment behind them, everyone in the national set-up must feel that it is time for the team to get back on the rails; and with Wales' running rugby resurgence, New Zealand's wonderful performances against the Lions, and South Africa's impressive Tri-Nations, if Andy Robinson's men are to have any chance of retaining the Webb Ellis Trophy, they need to get back on the rails in a big, big way. 

            But how? Much has been made of the team's failure to score tries, of the boring 'Old England' style of rugby adopted in this last season's Six Nations Championship. England made the fewest tackles, had the most line-outs, cleared the most rucks and ran the most ball; in short, England dominated possession throughout the Six Nations, and while this does represent a deficiency in attack, it also shows that the team was punished when they shouldn't have been. England conceded 7 soft tries, and this summer's Lions (with whom England, sadly, share a great deal) conceded many more. Having the Six Nations' best defence is not enough - backlines run by Jones, O'Gara and Delaigue were never likely to pose the same threat as those marshalled by Carter, Larkham or Michalak - and there is still enormous room for improvement. After all, offence sells tickets, defence wins championships.

              If the 2005 Lions Tour has taught us anything (and it had better have done), it is that anyone can miss tackles - Jonny Wilkinson and Josh Lewsey, two of England's strongest defenders, probably missed more tackles in Wellington than they would normally in a full International season. As we all know, defence is not about one man, anyone is capable of dropping off a tackle or two, rugby players are only human after all. What this amply demonstrates is that a sound defensive system is the key to success, and it is my considered opinion that Phil Larder's current system is far from sound. In the current style, the openside wingers defend deep, out of the line, while the midfield (the fly-half and his two centres) drifts wide as the ball is moved; the winger only moves up and into the line when he is sure the ball will reach his opposite number. In theory, all the attacking side needs to do is run straight enough to hold their markers, move the ball through 3 pairs of hands, and the winger has a full run-up against a static opponent. Bryan Habana or Sitiveni Sivivatu will have a static opponent for breakfast, and if the full-back is introduced wide, then it produces the simplest of overlaps. As New Zealand and Wales have shown this year, turning simple theory into practice should not be the exception in International rugby, it is the norm.

             Larder's drift defence is a style adapted from rugby league; but a drift defence is one thing when there are up to 13 men in a defensive line, in Union, there can be as few as 4. So, to sit back and let the attacking side come at you is tantamount to rugby suicide - top-class players will find holes if they are allowed to play their game naturally. The way to counter this is to challenge and disrupt. The best form of defence, they say, is attack - and that is the case here.  It is far easier to act than react, and if your defence is flying up, getting in the faces of the opposition then it falls upon them to make decisions, rather than the other way around. The All Blacks beat the Lions without breaking a sweat, running in tries with simple moves performed well; the All Blacks, however, lost to South Africa because they were put under pressure. The defence was up at them quickly and, all of a sudden, passes were going astray, balls were being dropped, set-plays were being nullified before they were completed and aborted before they even began because of the Springboks' aggressive defence.

             The rush defence has seen South Africa achieve success, but before that it has led London Wasps to 3 consecutive Premiership crowns and a Heineken Cup, so it is far from unknown to English coaches. It is executed by attacking the team in possession from 'out-to-in', with the openside winger and outside centre coming up at pace and coming infield, cutting off the available space. More often than not, by the time the ball is in the hands of the inside centre, the defence is already in amongst the attacking side, and the man outside the ball-carrier is being lined up before he receives the ball. If a side's planned move involves a pass out, they carry it out at their peril. If the defence is up quickly enough, the winger can often make a hit on the outside centre and what would have been a four-on-three is now a three-on-four. What's more, when tackles are made, they are regularly made behind the gain line. It is all very well missing one tackle per game, but if a side is allowed to make ground without ever breaking the line, they will eventually arrive in the 22, and if the one tackle is missed there, then tries will be scored.

             There are many criticisms of the rush defence. The first is that it can leave the opposition winger in space if it is not executed perfectly, but England's current system is often doing this anyway; for the ball to reach the winger in space against a rush defence usually requires a player to think on his feet and float what is usually a very tricky pass over the defenders. You cannot defend against brilliance, you cannot set a plan for improvisation, so I see this as an acceptable risk. The defence can also be vulnerable against a kick in behind, as the midfield is advancing so quickly and is unable to turn. If the back row and the full-back can sweep behind the line (close in, and wide, respectively) then the risk is reduced, and again it is a risk worth taking. I can categorically assure you that Wasps have scored many more tries from interceptions than they have conceded from kicks in the last 3 seasons.

             The other obstacle is that this is a system that requires absolutely everyone to buy into it, everyone to be committed to it, and everyone to understand it. The latter should not be a problem if Robinson gets the coaching blocks for his squad for which he has been campaigning, as it would give England enough time to develop and perfect the system with a new group of players. The first two points may prove difficult, but they are vital for success. Hopefully, England will have moved on sufficiently from the Woodward autocracy, and Robinson can make his decision with all the information available to him. Possibly a meeting with his Captain (whoever that may be) and a few select assistants to discuss the issue would be a positive idea. To go ahead with such an idea may mean dismissing Phil Larder. To get rid of a sacred cow like Larder after all his success seems ridiculous, but we must remember that, at the moment, England are not good enough. Larder claimed that England were 'on song' defensively in the Six Nations. Unfortunately, the bottom line is, if you have lost a rugby match, you may have defended well, but you have not defended well enough. And if change is what is required to bring about an improvement, then change there must be.

             In terms of personnel, having established that everyone can miss a tackle, I see no reason to pick a player in the backline who may have a defensive edge over his nearest rival if he lacks the ability in attack; as long as nobody is picked who may be considered a liability. For example, Jamie Noon is a better tackler than Ollie Smith, but Smith is by no means a bad tackler and has an extra edge in attack, so he should be played. However, Iain Balshaw may be quicker and more dynamic than Mark Cueto, but I would not trust him to make a tackle if my life depended on it - there are certain areas where risks become too pronounced. The greater issue of personnel comes in the pack, where the little things can make a big difference. Simon Shaw is the best in the land at organising defence against mauls, and Steve Borthwick is the best line-out thief we have at our disposal, so maybe it is time they got their chance. More importantly, someone in the pack needs to emerge as a defensive leader, as Neil Back was a few years ago. Lawrence Dallaglio's decision to open up the England door again could be just the fillip that the side requires.

             This is by no means a definitive argument.............. , but merely my firm opinion that the game has evolved to such a point where an aggressive defence is the logical step forward for England, and every other side in World rugby. Two years is far too short a time for the World Champions to have fallen so far behind, and rugby has come a very long way since November 2003. Some things never change though: defence will always win championships. Unless Kath has cancelled me already, I'll be deliberating over England's attacking play next month, with four weeks of the Guinness Premiership under my belt. Enjoy the new season everyone!

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

• Digg
• Delicious
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Stumbleupon