By Leipziger
December 11 2013

 I’m not against a good defence. Back when we were teenagers, my mate Billy and I had a bit of a fascination with defensive football. He even got a Norway shirt for his birthday one year, while I still maintain that Roy Keane was the best footballer in the world back around the turn of the century.

I remembered this last night, somewhere between the office in the City and the Deptford Travelodge.

No good rugby team achieved anything while letting in three tries every game, and if gets regular results then I’m all for it. It seems to be accepted in professional rugby, at least among coaches and the media, that a team that goes out to attack will be relegated (or finish in the top half, presumably), and so those of us who support teams at the wrong end of the Premiership are doomed to witness a turgid, forward-dominated style of play.

I’d add ‘wasteful’ to the adjectives in that sentence. “We could build a platform from here, but because we’re only forty metres from our own goal we’d better kick it to their full-back and let him run back at us. Even if that full-back is Mike Brown or Ben Foden.”

Smithy reckons that Dean Richards has publicly stated that the Falcons will kick everything in their own half. I didn’t see that quote but no reason to doubt Smithy, so it’s quite disappointing that we have this philosophy. Not only does it mean that we fans have to watch an unattractive style of play normally, I just don’t think it works.

A negative style of play didn’t work against Harlequins, and for all of the plaudits our team got at Northampton, a 0-18 defeat suggests it didn’t work there either. My eyes told me it didn’t work.

The league table suggests we are doing OK, but I think we (and Gloucester and London Irish) have to remember that Worcester are having an extraordinarily poor season and but for that things would be a tighter.

I remember a few years ago reading an article by a fan of (I think) Worcester, which claimed that relegation didn’t cause negative rugby – rather, s/he argued, negative rugby caused relegation. Their back-up for this view was a table of tries scored per team in the Premiership that season. Of course the top teams will always score more tries than those at the bottom, but the gap was so big that it suggested there was something more at work. A difference in philosophy.

Read more here.

Going on the attack

Discussion started by FalconsRugby.org.uk , 11/12/2013 21:40

FalconsRugby.org.uk
11/12/2013 21:40

What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

Reply Quote Report

Monkey1
12/12/2013 07:47

Quote:

...which claimed that relegation didn’t cause negative rugby – rather, s/he argued, negative rugby caused relegation.

Good thoughts to go with Breakfast Leipy. The way to win rugby is to starve the opposition of ball, only ever give them rubbish ball, you keep the bloody thing & score points with it. You cannot score tries without the bloody ball.

Our philosophy at present seems to be exactly the opposite.

Reply Quote Report

steve1888
12/12/2013 09:00

The tactic to kick any possoesion in our own half seems bizarre , more so when the chase is terrile if even exists.

Reply Quote Report

limpopo
12/12/2013 10:03

A very good and constructive look at things Leipy, relegation, or the fear of it, does cause negativity, but I prefer that we don't open up the ring fencing debate again on here!

Reply Quote Report

Leipziger
12/12/2013 15:34

If "fear of relegation" causes some teams to play negative rugby, then it is only because certain people, including sadly many within the game, have managed to convince themselves of this. There is no law of the universe that says that a team that is in danger of relegation must play negative rugby, and there is no law of the universe that says that a team will definitely be relegated if they adopt an attacking mindset.

I say again, look at the season we were relegated. If for the first 13 games of the season under Alan Tait we were playing a negative game because of "fear of relegation" (a logical assumption), did it do us any good? I guess not, considering our league position at the time and the fact that we won just two of those 13 games.

Relegation is not the death of a club – look at Harlequins and Northampton. Even ourselves and Worcester have come back not much worse off.

All I'm saying is, negative rugby over the years has got us absolutely nowhere, except a relegation and contributing to a situation where we have quite poor crowds. Why not take a risk and go out and attack? When we have in the past, we've actually got decent form together, so who's to say it won't happen again this time? It's not like our form is going to get much worse.

Reply Quote Report

limpopo
12/12/2013 17:09

I am agreeing with you Leipy, but what I am saying is that teams who are not the Leicester's of this world and are languishing in the bottom three do go out and do their best not to lose. I am certainly not saying as my sports master used to say "attack is the best form of defence" and that way at least you lose with style!!

Reply Quote Report

A tramp abroad
12/12/2013 20:08

Let's get real and stop dreaming, we don't have the quality in the backs to win games through attacking back play. Our management realizes this which is why we have game plans to keep it tight and defend, with these tactics we can win the crucial matches that we need to consolidate our premiership position. Next season we can look to start expanding our style of play, as many have previously stated it is a long term strategy that we have, we just need to have patience to allow it to come to fruition.

Reply Quote Report

steve1888
12/12/2013 20:23

To be fair I'm not sure it was negative rugby that got us relegated it was a poor squad put together on a very small budget nothing in comparison to what we have now and didn't have the coaching back up have now, if anything he probaly tried too hard to get the team to play an open attacking style at times.

I remember playing sarries down there and we played some great rugby till we got a silly amount of injuries and Hogg ended up on wing and mayhew playing with no foot and unable to run.

Reply Quote Report

Leipziger
12/12/2013 21:22

Limpopo - I agree that teams do that, but I'm not sure they have to, and the results and what I see suggest to me that it's not working that well. What I am certain about, and this is what happened at Northampton I believe, is that if you go out and spend 70 minutes defending against a decent team then they will eventually score at least once, probably more often, and in the 10 minutes you might attack it's a big ask to overhaul the deficit.

Reply Quote Report

steve1888
12/12/2013 22:01

Also playing a defensive game you need a reliable kicker as you get far less chances for points

Reply Quote Report

Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search• Log In

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net