Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘games’

Recently, I’ve been wondering if we can simplify the way we approach rugby training. I’ve been an advocate of ‘game-based’ activities for many years now, but am concerned that I use too many different games. With the time needed to teach the nuances of each and for players to get used to the rules (not to mention for both of us to actually learn from them), I probably do waste a lot of time when I could simply rely on just a few really good activities. Now I can understand that those who coach in places with long seasons need to have new and engaging content to maintain attention, but here in Canada – at most – the club season runs four or five months. So, can those of us who coach in short seasons focus on just a handful of reliable and multi-faceted activities to train all that rugby demands? I’m beginning to think so, and will re-visit this when I finally nail down what those ‘few’ might be…

Currently, I have several games in mind that are my go-tos for ‘big picture’ concepts. I had to remind myself that I often encounter or support coaches who have athletes that are completely or fairly new to rugby. So what kind of activity can still be opposed, game-like, but still encompass a wide variety of ‘basic’ skills? When I looked at a lot of ‘drills’ I used to run, and considered what’s at the heart of them, I noticed that a lot of small unit activities were pretty much the same. So I’ve decided that most individual and small group attacking and defending skills can be done in something I’m calling the Tool Box Game. Simply, you have a simulated ruck area with a number of balls and ask x number of attackers to play against y number of defenders and different widths on either side so they can explore options under different conditions.

Tool Box Game

Above, we see how the left side is narrower than the right, providing different conditions when the attackers go that way. Normal rugby laws apply, especially with defenders staying onside (their side of the coned-off ‘ruck’ area) until the ball is played by the scrum half. I prefer ‘hugby’ (wrapping up safely, but without a completed tackle) over touch because it allows carriers to slip through and even hand-off poor defence (i.e. few defenders can make a tackle only with their out-stretched hands). Various constraints can be employed if attackers are truly struggling to exploit/create space, but they shouldn’t forget that ‘in-contact’ aspects can still be worked on in this game: offloads, screens, mauls. They shouldn’t be the default, however, so constraints on defenders should delay them rather than remove them (in a real game, our athletes are more likely to encounter defenders out of position than significant numbers advantages, so let’s have ours work out ways to take advantage of poor alignment rather than the obvious 4v2 overlap). Some delays I use are placing one or more defenders in ‘arriving’ positions (full back, coming from opposite side of ruck, etc.) or by making them do a down-up or turn their backs before the ball is played so the attackers can start with positions to exploit this.

If there are only four players, maybe the attackers can start play by tossing the ball up in the air a bit? Five works perfectly for a 2v2 game, and I don’t think I’d go much larger than 3v3 (with players positioned as seen above) or 4v4 (having defenders line up 3+1  scrum half or fullback or 2+ sweepers in both SH and FB positions?). This way, the participants can have more goes than if they were waiting in line for their turn. On this, I strongly encourage coaches to not be afraid to have multiple stations set up so athletes can experience maximum repetitions. You don’t have to give them feedback on every go; in fact, it’s better for them to not only keep trying, but also to figure out why things did/did not work, and if not from their own self-assessment, from peer feedback. If they’re truly not getting something or need to work on something they’re not noticing, that’s when a coach can pose a challenge for them to work on at length themselves.

With this self-management aspect in mind, it recently struck me that I could help them by creating a laminated ‘score card’ that allows them to keep track of successes and leave comments. It’s based on a concept I learned at a coaching course many years ago: the Attacking Toolbox. Simply: the full spectrum of options players can make before accepting a tackle and setting a ruck. For detailed description and examples of what those skills would be, look at this section of my website: https://rugbyguide.ca/welcome/attack/attack-individual/

Players can keep their score cards in the ruck area and make notes as they go or after several goes (or they can shout in to a coach or player waiting their turn / injured player looking to stay involved) with white board markers. The coach can collect them afterwards and keep a running tally of what they’re doing well and what areas they might want to improve upon. The content is completely flexible but I think it’s important to remind players of the full spectrum of possibilities (and as much as I’m a fan of kicking, I want ‘running only’ to be the main constraint of this small-sided game). I also think it’s important to score only things that get players over the gain line because that should be our focus in matches. Having run this activity many times, one thing I notice players who lack skill/confidence do is to start deeper and deeper, giving themselves credit for beating defenders but well behind the gain line and being caught by a cover/chasing defender before even getting back to the original gain line. I don’t like to lay down extra cones and say ‘start here’ but that might be needed to ensure players aren’t too deep (though their lack of success might indicate that).Tool Box Score Card Image

 

Read Full Post »

I’ve been exploring more game-based approaches to coaching the last few years and have shared the ones that have worked well here: rugbyguide.ca 

Inspired by some clever coaches in a network I belong to who use dice and cards to randomise certain aspects of a game, I have come up with one of my own. For the lack of a better term at the moment, I’m calling it ‘Wildcard Touch’.

Two teams square off in a reasonably large playing space (width representative of their game day conditions and the players on-hand, ensuring they can play without defensive pressure being too great). If a ball carrier is caught in possession as per normal Touch rules (or with flags or with a wrap-up, as preferred), the player must set the ball down immediately and the entire team retreats 5m. These turnovers result in a free kick to the opposition. The main object is to find space and not be caught in possession. What we want in this game is players continually looking for and communicating opportunities and doing their best to run, pass to, support those opportunities. We don’t want them blindly taking contact and sitting back watching team mates go solo, hence the tag = turnover rule.

However, each team will have an option that will allow them to explore the conditions in which the tactic might or might not be effective. Before the start of the game, they will pick a card / roll the die and be allowed to use that condition any time they are faced with the automatic turnover scenario. These can be redrawn / rolled after each try scored or kept in place for a significant period of time.

  1. Normal conditions! Sorry, but all you can do is pass, run, support. If you get caught by a two-handed touch, you turn over possession.
  2. Limited Rucks. Ball carrier two-hand tagged by defender goes to ground and long-places the ball. Attacking team can do this three times; fourth time results in a turnover as per normal conditions. (Expansion: ‘four-handed touch’, that is two defenders tagging at the same time, equals automatic turnover… look to take defenders 1v1 and not get caught in potential jackal situations.)
  3. Standing Offload. When tagged, defender has one step / one second to make an offload. It can be a short pass, but can also be thrown or rolled backwards (as sometimes seen in 7s) to explore if / when it’s a useful option. If two defenders tag at the same time, an automatic turnover occurs because an offload is less likely for most players in a double tackle. (Expansion: One player gets nominated a ‘Sonny Bill’ who is allowed to make offloads from double-tag scenarios.)
  4. Maul. Without going too crazy on the force applied to the opposition, this one explores the rarely-used midfield maul from yesteryear. When the ball carrier is tagged, he/she can create a maul with one or two teammates and drive for five steps. They can use the ball at any time during, but MUST use it after five steps. Defenders can stop the maul sooner if they put three players into it (defenders can opt to only commit one defender but he/she MUST NOT pull it down). (Expansion: A defender may come through the middle to rip the ball or prevent it from emerging if done so legally, i.e. with a ‘choke tackle’ wrap up of player and ball.)
  5. Kick. Any kind of kick is allowed and players may continue kicking the ball along the ground to score or re-gather. If re-gathered, that player must find a team mate with a pass / kick. If the player who re-gathers is tagged, a turnover occurs. If the receiver or any other attacking player is tagged, they can restart and repeat the same as in the Ruck condition (three tags, turned over on the fourth). If a defender recovers the kick, regardless of what condition they are playing under, they get a ‘Free Tag’ to restart play. (Expansion: eliminate the defensive team ‘Free Tag’ to explore isolating defenders and the benefits of a good kick-chase.).
  6. Wildcard-Wild Card. …. your choice!

The UK-based coaches who’ve inspired this game give their conditions names of players or teams that typify the style, adding to the fun of it (but it’s not likely my Canadian kids will know them as well as English kids so I haven’t done so above).

You can add more conditions, but I think the main objective of the game still has to be ‘find space’ and, when you’re facing a tackle situation, be deliberate about the option taken to avoid the potential loss of continuity and possession. For example, I originally allowed six rucks in Condition 2, but scaled that back to three to add pressure and discourage blind crashes that amount to nothing. For the kicking condition, I added the one pass element because in a real game, a player who regathers a kick and is caught without support is more likely to turn over the ball and shouldn’t get a free phase out of it. I would also avoid negative constraints or arbitrary elements that aren’t representative (like two passes before scoring a try). Conditions and constraints must serve as a means to explore options rather than punish or discourage from doing the obvious… Why should you have to pass to a teammate when you’ve a clear run to the goal line? Using that two-pass condition as a further example of ‘rules’ that can be arbitrary, it’s often that two players standing side-by-side will do an unnecessary pass they’d never do in a real game to meet the condition, gaming the coach’s true intention.

Games like this are also a great opportunity to have the athletes come up with their own ideas and develop self-organising skills through the process and by exploring options as they see fit rather than have the coach dictate conditions to them.

Read Full Post »