Sunday, November 12, 2006
Rush under threat
South Africa (15/3) vs Ireland (32/22) 11 November 2006
Jake White is giving the Rush Defense a bad name.
This was the worst defeat by Ireland in Springbok rugby history, and marks a new low for South Africa. This defeat will bring the concept of the Rush Defense into question. It would be a great pity if the only major power rugby power to play it were to give up the Rush. However as it is currently implemented, more teams, now including Ireland, are able to pick it apart.
The biggest problem with the Springbok Rush Defense is that it is played man on man. Man defense on the Drift is acceptable, because you are essentially covering the cut back. However in the Rush, you must play zone. You must be able to force the play inwards, and the worst thing you can do is let the runner through on the inside - going outwards. So you must always be able to cover the zone inside you, no matter how many people come into that gap. The very least you must do is let the play through inwards, towards the cover defense. You must be able to exersise control over the gap inside you and the next defender. The width of that capability is determined by your own speed limitations, not by the spread or numbers of the offense.
This is particularly shown up in Ireland's first try with the come- across- blind side wing. De Villiers, playing leaves too wide a gap as he is "marking 12" and he gets taken on the inside, by the worst kind - on the inside, moving out - going away from cover. In The Rush, The Defensive Lineman must always leave only enough space as to be able to close it down, irrespective of the number of people running into the hole. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the zone concept. While this is in play for the Springboks, they will always be predictable. Ireland merely took advantage of this.
If you have a weak defender at no 12, The Rush will ocme under pressure. He is not much better on the right, but De Villiers is incapable of tackling to his left - EVER.
In second phase, the Springboks leave huge holes around the shoulder of the ruck (See Ireland second half). Attacking teams can actually increase these holes by standing wider. Because the Defense is man on man, they follow you outwards like sheep. This makes them particularly vulnerable to the inside switch pass.
The idea of a rapid Rush is great, as long as it is controlled with a "breakdown", has sufficient cover backup and uses "stunts" to create uncertainty. Even the All Blacks rush up, but you have to get the basics right. Even pressure with the inside out defense (The Drift) is effective. The All Blacks make more interceptions with The Drift!
So this brings us to the crux of the matter which is that what is wrong with Springbok Rugby is that Jakes system is no longer able to function. Form has little to do with it. In Super 14 2006, not even Luke Watson was able to cover JDV. This weak axis was one of the key reasons The Stormers got whipped. Quite simply in the game against Ireland Jeanne De Villiers was his usual absolutely awful defensive self. Without Habanna at center - their best player, Brian O Driscoll would have run riot. This outside centre battle was one of the very few that we actually won in the game.
Number 12 has to be the key defensive position on the field. You can play an Aaron Major or Matt Gitteau there as long as you have an absolutely perfect open side. The Springboks insist on playing slower lumberers at loose forward. I will go further to say that in fact the only reason that the ABs get away with Major is that the rest of us don't have proper attack coaches to take advantage of this. You should be able to drive a truck (well at least a Porshe) through Major and Muliaina.
The Rush Defense has the potential to be devastating, but with this kind of inept display, it is in danger of going extinct in top level rugby.
South Africa (15/3) vs Ireland (32/22) 11 November 2006
Jake White is giving the Rush Defense a bad name.
This was the worst defeat by Ireland in Springbok rugby history, and marks a new low for South Africa. This defeat will bring the concept of the Rush Defense into question. It would be a great pity if the only major power rugby power to play it were to give up the Rush. However as it is currently implemented, more teams, now including Ireland, are able to pick it apart.
The biggest problem with the Springbok Rush Defense is that it is played man on man. Man defense on the Drift is acceptable, because you are essentially covering the cut back. However in the Rush, you must play zone. You must be able to force the play inwards, and the worst thing you can do is let the runner through on the inside - going outwards. So you must always be able to cover the zone inside you, no matter how many people come into that gap. The very least you must do is let the play through inwards, towards the cover defense. You must be able to exersise control over the gap inside you and the next defender. The width of that capability is determined by your own speed limitations, not by the spread or numbers of the offense.
This is particularly shown up in Ireland's first try with the come- across- blind side wing. De Villiers, playing leaves too wide a gap as he is "marking 12" and he gets taken on the inside, by the worst kind - on the inside, moving out - going away from cover. In The Rush, The Defensive Lineman must always leave only enough space as to be able to close it down, irrespective of the number of people running into the hole. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the zone concept. While this is in play for the Springboks, they will always be predictable. Ireland merely took advantage of this.
If you have a weak defender at no 12, The Rush will ocme under pressure. He is not much better on the right, but De Villiers is incapable of tackling to his left - EVER.
In second phase, the Springboks leave huge holes around the shoulder of the ruck (See Ireland second half). Attacking teams can actually increase these holes by standing wider. Because the Defense is man on man, they follow you outwards like sheep. This makes them particularly vulnerable to the inside switch pass.
The idea of a rapid Rush is great, as long as it is controlled with a "breakdown", has sufficient cover backup and uses "stunts" to create uncertainty. Even the All Blacks rush up, but you have to get the basics right. Even pressure with the inside out defense (The Drift) is effective. The All Blacks make more interceptions with The Drift!
So this brings us to the crux of the matter which is that what is wrong with Springbok Rugby is that Jakes system is no longer able to function. Form has little to do with it. In Super 14 2006, not even Luke Watson was able to cover JDV. This weak axis was one of the key reasons The Stormers got whipped. Quite simply in the game against Ireland Jeanne De Villiers was his usual absolutely awful defensive self. Without Habanna at center - their best player, Brian O Driscoll would have run riot. This outside centre battle was one of the very few that we actually won in the game.
Number 12 has to be the key defensive position on the field. You can play an Aaron Major or Matt Gitteau there as long as you have an absolutely perfect open side. The Springboks insist on playing slower lumberers at loose forward. I will go further to say that in fact the only reason that the ABs get away with Major is that the rest of us don't have proper attack coaches to take advantage of this. You should be able to drive a truck (well at least a Porshe) through Major and Muliaina.
The Rush Defense has the potential to be devastating, but with this kind of inept display, it is in danger of going extinct in top level rugby.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
