[Note: I had two posts on this topic a while ago and after re-visiting, didn’t think they were clear enough or at best had way too much information. They have been removed and this is the – hopefully! – simplified version.]
A Simple Structure for Dynamic Play
Structure gives players a focus and a plan of action they can rely upon when defences do not offer easy opportunities to exploit. Heads-up, free play allows athletes a chance to show their skill, both as individuals and combined in pairs, threes, or in larger collaborative units. Both attacking strategies have their limitations, however. Rigidly-structured play can make players to worry too much about their positioning within ‘the plan’, causing them to miss easy opportunities that emerge. Heads-up play can be random and hand initiative to the opposition, especially when individuals go alone or players find themselves not knowing where to be. The obvious solution should be to combine the two strategies.
This simple ‘structure’ is more of a guideline that gives players a clear idea of where to go and what they can do when they get there, but still allows them the freedom to exploit opportunities as they emerge and play to their strengths. Note: everything that follows assumes that every breakdown is well-defended and that there are no immediate opportunities to exploit (overlap, gap, mismatch, etc.). This pattern of play, however, seeks to create such opportunities every single phase, so scanning for them should be the first thing done when a breakdown occurs.
This structure is based on an understanding that each set piece or breakdown has two attacking channels, each with its own possibilities and limitations. A set piece or breakdown outside of the 15m lines has a wide Open Side and a Short Side. Between the two 15m lines, there will be two Split Midfield channels that are obviously not as wide as the Open Side, nor as narrow as the Short Side.
As a tackle contest emerges and a breakdown is about to form, players not needed there adopt an attacking shape and scan for opportunities in BOTH available channels. The playmakers should be able to attack either side of the breakdown, so it’s important that players work quickly to get re-aligned. The tactic those players choose to go through or around the defence will be based on several important factors:
- the space available
- the personnel present and the shape they have adopted
- the amount of defenders present and their shape
With all of those things considered, the tactic should really choose itself! (If you need to turn a screw at one end of a board and saw a bit off the other end, you wouldn’t choose a wrench and a hammer to do the work.) It’s vital that players train for this under game conditions, understanding how they can best use and create space with any given group of teammates. This will allow them to develop a ‘tactical tool box’ of solutions to familiar problems they will encounter in the game.
We have, then, a structure that allows players to know that they are going to align themselves ‘here’ or ‘there’ at each breakdown. Two other factors help players know where we’re likely to go next. When we’ve assessed that the breakdown is well defended, we want to move away from it quickly and play in space. Thinking about the four different channels that exist, it should also become clear that attacks from a midfield set piece or breakdown typically result in an Open Side / Short Side scenario. Open Side attacks result in a Split Midfield or another Open Side / Short Side, and attacks down the Short Side always result in a large Open Side.
Playmakers or players providing them with tactical feedback can simply call Wide, Middle, Tight, or Short to launch a focused attack from the Open Side. When teams play into the middle of the pitch, they will either go Same Way or Rewind and play in the direction the ball originated. Below is the way this structure can play out, starting from a lineout:
Again, this structure is based on moving the ball to space and avoiding congested breakdowns that typically result in little gain / disruption of the defensive line. With that in mind, it also becomes clear that there is no sense running more than two phases in the same direction (unless there is a clear opportunity, of course). There won’t be a reasonable amount of space to achieve those two principle aims. Knowing that we’re only going ‘that way’ once or twice also allows players to conserve energy and set up the next phase quicker. For example, from the scenario above, players who were in the lineout and closest to the touchline might possibly be called upon for a Rewind after the first phase. If not, they would likely be involved in a Middle Left or Wide Left move after the second phase. They wouldn’t go Short Side or Tight as the time needed to get there would allow defenders time to organise themselves. This is very common in rugby – players moving across the pitch to a breakdown and taking time to get set, only to face defenders who are ready and waiting to pounce. Even worse, players who are unsure of what’s going to happen on the next phase move all the way over and end up leaning on rucks or aren’t used at all and have to go back to where they might have stayed. This structure is efficient in its simplicity.
In this video below, you can see how each play essentially provides the team in black with a 1-2 attacking punch. A purposeful and well-supported attacking move manipulates the defence in a certain way. The next phase, also purposeful and well-supported, then exploits that manipulation (more space for talented individual(s), defenders stretched or condensed, individuals out of position, defenders over-committing to one side of the ruck, etc.). Effective attack in just a few phases, and the ability to re-set with another 1-2 punch if that didn’t work, is the beauty of this style of play.
This strategy typically plays out as follows:
- From a set piece (or at a point in open play where we need to re-focus), we choose a move that plays to our strengths.
- At the next ruck, and every ruck henceforth, we do a quick scan to see if there is a clear and immediate opportunity to exploit (overlap, mismatch, poor defender, poor alignment, etc.).
- If not, we then play to one of two channels that gives us the best possible chance of breaching the defensive line from a position of strength. BOTH sides of the ruck need to be ready to play:
- Open Side
- Short Side
or
- Split Left
- Split Right
- Whichever channel we choose, the players must then consider the best tactic for the space, their numbers and shape, and the skills those players possess.
- Go Around – a wide move exploit defenders with evasive running, isolate outside defender, draw defenders in and outflank with passing
- Go Through – a middle or tight move to exploit defenders with evasive running, exploit space with angled runs, power through defenders
- Get Behind – is a kick worth it at this stage? If the chances of scoring or retaining possession aren’t high, then rely on one of the first two options and allow players in the next phase to have a go.
- Players not involved in that phase need to follow the previous play in case they are needed to support a linebreak. If a new breakdown is formed, they then need to quickly re-align themselves in one of the two new attacking channels, repeating the cycle over again.
- As a general rule, when defenders are getting re-organised reasonably quickly, a team should not go more than two phases (three if there’s an opportunity down the short side) in the same direction. The aim is to attack space quickly from a position of strength and before the defence has time to set up. At some point, you will run out of space worth using and waste time getting organised for it, handing the advantage to the opposition.
Here are some further examples with some notes on how the first phase created an advantageous opportunity on the second:
Hey Rob – Love your site – and your new site too..wish there was some more space in Canada for these kind of discussions. I’m noticing a pretty big disconnect between my teams in the summer and my high school teams and just wondered if you’d also noticed the same and if it is merely a question of athlete focus and training – or perhaps there is a specific strategy or technique I need to begin teaching. We have an attacking shape that is a bit more complex than just the POD attack from when i was a kid – it involves forwards being in an attacking triangle off 9 – or off 10. My summer athletes seem quite able to read the situation and position themselves accordingly when they arrive from a ruck – or see that other pack players have positioned themselves in that triangle and are therefore needed as support – but what I find in the high school teams is that they are so slow to assess the situation that they get bunched up – or end up with too many people in that attacking shape – or no one because they thought ‘others were going there.’
Wondering if you’ve used any strategies with your high school athletes to help them analyze where they are needed and get there with purpose.
Thanks!
Chris Jones
Hey, Chris! Thanks for the comment. In a perfect world, we’d have well trained development officers facilitating these discussions within each community like I saw when I taught in England. I hope to start one up in the next year once I get myself sorted work-wise.
Anyway, onto your question. I must admit that I’m not a big fan of that system of attack, but think the way to do it is ensure everyone knows what the plan is, WHY it’s in place, what they can do from it, and establishing some sort of communication structure to help with organization. Ideally, the forwards would take care of it themselves so decision-makers in the backs can focus on their roles and not moving forwards about. When I was in Australia, before they started using systems, my club had a numbering off process. First forward to arrive yelled “First!” and took up the position he felt was best for the moment, second and third to arrived shouted as much. The drill I remember watching involved five players, so you’d hear two more, but upon hearing “Third!”, I’d hope that would send a message to your players that they’re probably to go elsewhere. As much full squad, live and opposed training as possible should help them get used to the flow of when it’s needed and when something else needs to happen (securing possession regardless of the pods or maybe overloading an area because there’s a linebreak that needs supporting).
For me, tempo is everything and if we can keep the defence in a constant state of disarray, then we should have at least a few options to move the ball where we are strong and they are vulnerable. A system can give players an idea of where to go when the options aren’t so obvious – with the view to always be working on their ability to recognise and exploit bad defence in training – but what I don’t like about the way many teams run their systems (and this goes right to the top of the game), is that you see teams giving the defence time to reorganise while they get set in their pods.
I’ve got a new blog coming soon offering some simple guidelines on how to attack without structure, just a few heuristics based on what they see. As an example, when I last coached a girls team (in London, ON) we had no pattern, no plays, just a few simple guidelines. If the ruck area is congested, move two passes to get into space and into the hands of our fast backs. If the ruck area isn’t congested, and no one’s calling for it to go wide, check that there’s support and feel free to pick or use a short pass (player arriving to the breakdown was encouraged to shout this to someone ahead, helping her with decision making because she was in a better position to see more of what was going on… usually this was the scrum half’s job, but often a forward called for another to pick or make a short pass because she saw some space to exploit around the breakdown.) Our hooker was one of the top scorers because she saw this so much. Two other forwards scored a lot out wide because they were quick to recognise when the ruck was congested and found themselves out with the backs.