I was reading an article today by Aussie, but wannabe-Irish (by the way he says ‘we’ when talking about them on tv), coach Matt Willaims about Ireland’s defensive woes. Simply put, he was criticising coach Declan Kidney’s use of the sliding defence, whereby players come forward and then move across the field with the ball, suggesting that they should employ more of a rush defence, like the Welsh do, coming forward quickly to stop the ball reaching the outside channel. Both cited the amount of tries Ireland have ceded out wide, being more so there than any other area. I read a comment on the article that suggested it wasn’t the defensive system, but the players involved – a subtle criticism, I think, against inside centre Gordon D’Arcy, who many feel is past it. This last bit, for starters, highlights something that’s truer for us who coach amateur club / school teams – you can only work with what you have. While D’Arcy might be in the twilight of his career, I can’t think that Ireland have any better inside centres available.
I’m not one who prefers one defensive system over another, and though I’ve not yet employed it as a club or school coach, I eventually see myself training my players to maybe use two or three for specific situations (I’ll write about that later, but to suggest my stance on it – we have different sets and countless ‘plays’ in attack, so three different ways of defending shouldn’t be too much of a stretch with training and communication systems in place). I’ve been watching a lot of France’s play of late, who were to be Ireland’s opponent yesterday until the match was called due to a frozen pitch. I seemed to recall that Ireland, with their talismanic centre Brian O’Driscoll, gave up a try to them last year that was similar to the one that prompted the criticism – last week’s inability to stop Wales in the wide channel.
Let’s dig up those clips …
It’s not the system that’s at fault here, and Ireland are definitely not using a sliding defence when North hits the line and offloads to Davies to score Wales’ second. Just as in the first try to Davies, Ireland were caught flat footed. If you play the clip up to about 1:12-1:14, you can see Ireland rush up and then slow down and almost stop dead, flat footed as George North hits the line. This is a basic no-no of tackling at ANY level. The moment you go flat footed, you lose your momentum, your power, and your ability to adjust to what the ball carrier does – you give the advantage of the tackle contest completely to the attacker. The point failing here was not the system, but the level of commitment, and possibly communication. There are three players within a 5m defensive zone – easily enough space for anyone at that level to cover themselves – yet it’s not quite clear who’s responsible for North (Wales’ 11). The
If you look at last year’s game, you can see that with a bit better communication, patience and commitment, the French might have been stopped. Just like last weekend, they rushed up (not too quickly, which I don’t think is as much of a sin as some would say – again, for a later article) and slowed down – note how both centres adopt a squatting position at about 0:05-0:08. Definitely not a dynamic position that allows one to take away space and adjust to directional changes of the attacking players!
And, again, I don’t think it’s the defensive system that’s at fault here, but the lack of commitment and communication of commitment within the one that’s chosen. At 0:25, there’s the start of what looks to be an effective sliding defence, but at 0:28, there’s obvious confusion as a French player alters his running line. This freezes 10, though 7 definitely had him covered, and even sucked in 12′s attention. O’Driscoll even, was too focused inward, allowing Rougerie to get outside him (note how he’s turned sideways at 0:30). When you’ve got your defender turned facing the touchline, you’ve got him/her at your mercy! If you’re speedy, you can beat him around the corner and face him into a side/rear tackle and have to chase down your speed (and avoid the fend!). If the defender is over-committed to that chase, then a little step inside will see you slip right by – which is what Rougerie does here. The much-maligned D’Arcy does in a couple of steps, bring down the big Frenchman, but what’s lacking – especially given that Ireland supposedly employ a sliding defence – is a more-determined commitment to covering across to pick up the counter-runner (in this case, Cedric Heymans). Being beat by a cut-back is an inherent risk of a sliding defence (as is being beat around the corner or behind with a kick for fans of the rush defence), so the Irish players should know that once the ball has got wide, they must push across with great commitment. In fact, that’s probably the most aggressive part of a sliding defence prior to the actual tackle – the slide itself is meant to usher attackers sideways and eliminate their space, but the push across to cover the switch-back has to be more aggressive as it’s the slide’s weak point. It’s an effective defence when all are committed to covering those weak points, and communication is vital when determining who’s responsible for whom … even saying it for your own sake should be a mental kick up the back side to get there and do what’s needed of you.
