"Are All Blacks breakdown cheats"?- John Mitchell

• 29 Aug 2013
 
• Follow johnmitchell on Twitter
• More stories by johnmitchell

 

In his first fortnightly column for SARugbymag.co.za, former All Blacks, Force and Lions coachJOHN MITCHELL analyses New Zealand's breakdown play.

Since the start of the Rugby Championship and the return of the mercurial Richie McCaw, Wallabies coach Ewen McKenzie has been talking about the All Blacks getting away with things, or even cheating, at the breakdown, especially in their own 22.

A good example is Aaron Smith not releasing Christian Leali'ifano in Wellington when the Wallabies centre looked set to score a try. Should he have been yellow-carded for not releasing? Was it intentional offending under law 10.2? (If it was, we would have no one left on the field!)

McKenzie's views are shared by his captain, James Horwill, who asked referee Jaco Peyper about that incident and reminded him about the All Blacks' repeated offences the week before in Sydney. Peyper politely said, 'That was last week, this is a different game'. I enjoyed that a lot!

I am not for one minute saying that the All Blacks are squeaky clean, but they do stay on their feet for longer, over and past the ball, than their opposition and they do make informed decisions at the breakdown about when to go for it or not. They are also not strictly ball-focused, but more focused on winning the space over and past the ball.

They get the rub of the green at the moment because they do their work en masse in terms of committing numbers to the breakdown. They are also very quick in their actions and decision-making, which creates indecision and doubt in the referee's mind about a possible sanction. The quicker referees, who arrive just before a ruck is formed, are in a better position to checklist the sequence.

The golden rule for players is: Give away three points instead of seven if you're in your 22, but stay on your feet as it's not as likely to be seen as cynical by the referee as when you lose your feet, fall over the ball or don't roll away. A team penalty is a better contribution than a yellow card. Well done, Aaron.

How did the All Blacks get to the Wallabies' ball?

Firstly, the Wallabies are too slow out of their attacking framework and alignment to the ball. Passing, and supporting your pass, is key but four players must respond in behind the ball. The Aussies, and their backs in particular, are good at taking the defender off his line and leaving a gap on the inside, but too often their attack breaks down because the second and third man are too slow to the ball and inaccurate in their execution.

A ball-carrier's job is to give the ball freedom, keep the ball alive while up or, if he has to go to ground, place the ball away from himself, in one movement, so that the fetcher has to take a step forward (I will deal later with the fetcher being on the ball quicker).

The second man should secure the ball first, before focusing on the threat (defender). What I mean by this is that he should go low over the ball with his feet wide and then win the space past the ball before the threat can come in.

The third man's line should be outside the second man, through the gate, focusing on the non-threat or threat. He can therefore decide to keep the ball moving or target the threat's outside leg to take away his platform past the ball. Referees tend to want to see that he has beaten the ruck but not lifted the ball.

The fourth man can then centralise his line and decide whether to secure the space over the ball, as it could be left open because of his team-mates going past the ball and not reloading over the ball. If all is good ahead of him, then he can get excited about keeping the ball moving.

The Wallabies overload numbers to the ball, they stop at the ball too much and they do not secure the space over and past the ball. The second man goes around the ball too much and leaves too much work for the third man and by the time he has adjusted his line, he has been beaten for space in numbers.

All of the above is relevant to the Springboks too. They demonstrated a quicker and lower method of arrival against the Pumas at Soccer City, which was encouraging, and beat the Pumas past the ball on a regular basis.

My issue with the Boks' breakdown work is that they are too threat-focused. I would like to see the ball-carrier taking the defender off his line to keep the ball alive in the gap while up and/or getting the ball away quickly when going to ground, and securing the space over and past the ball. It's a subtle mindset change that requires the ball-carrier to take the side of the defender, with his body before the ball in two hands, and the second man to secure the space over and past the ball in front of the threat. Only then do you look to engage the threat should he show interest.

So what happens when the fetcher is on our ball and we arrive simultaneously? A bit like the Pumas turning up physically in Mendoza and beating the Springboks at the breakdown!

Was this down to attitude? Was there a lack of understanding of the method and process employed by the team? Or was it just poor execution?

I believe it was partly attitude and knowledge in the process, because the Pumas created a different contest at the breakdown, which exposed Ruan Pienaar's game (as it would for any scrumhalf when the ball is slowed). When you have to blame the scrummy, it's too late!

I am not a huge fan of the rollout of a player, because of safety and player welfare. I would ask the second and third men to focus on their roles and arrive at the same time, with the third man especially targeting the outside leg of McCaw – oops, I mean the player!

So the solution against the All Blacks is to get to your ball quickly, otherwise McCaw, Keiran Read, Aaron Smith and company will beat you to the space in numbers and then cover up an offence with numbers (you could, admittedly, find an offence at every breakdown).

We would love to see referees grow a pair, and use law 10.2 when teams are 5m out from the tryline, but they are human beings who have to survive (and protect their futures) rather than thrive. There are also about 90 rucks per game, so there's bound to be the odd mistake or two that determines the outcome.

And when players – or you and I – are debating a ruck, the All Blacks have already moved on to the next one.

Got Game(manship)?

First things first.

John Mitchell is right about the Springboks.

We have always been apocalyptically bad at the breakdown.  Twenty years into the modern game and we still approach the ruck like it’s 1989 – by attempting to clear it using nothing but brute force. This, after all, is the South African way: bludgeon the opposition into submission. Meyer’s new found epiphany-  that we suck at the ruck and that we need to work on it- is a step in the right direction but it is misguided in its execution. They seem to be focussing on technique (low body position etc.) and numbers at the breakdown (as seen after the first wobbly 20 minutes at Soccer City). The problem is that low body position won’t help your loosie when there are already two Argies camping over the ball by the time he arrives at the ruck. The Pumas demonstrated this all day long in Mendoza. The All Blacks showed the Wallabies that is pointless to flood the breakdown when it is actually helps your opposition to get their hands on the ball because too many bodies are obstructing the referee’s view. It seems then, that the Springboks will keep sucking at ruck time unless Haneke & Co realise that dominance at the breakdown is about speed and brains, not about numbers and brawn.

As for the All Blacks, they have always understood that the modern game of rugby is won or lost at the breakdown. Ever since we have called the game modern, they have been masters at slowing opposition ball down. Now, while they are great at doing this legally, they are equally good at doing it illegally. What I mean by this is that they are ALLOWED to do this illegally. And therein lays the problem.

Let’s look at what the esteemed All Black player, captain and coach, John Mitchell said in his column:

“The golden rule for players is: Give away three points instead of seven if you're in your 22, but stay on your feet as it's not as likely to be seen as cynical by the referee as when you lose your feet, fall over the ball or don't roll away”

The above statement is revealing. Firstly, it confirms what we all already know: that it is a deliberate All Black strategy to give away penalties in their 22. Not only is this encouraged (Well done, Aaron), but it appears to be enforced-Mitchell goes as far as to call it the Golden Rule. Curiously, Mitchell’s statement also implies that it is somehow all right for a player to go off his feet as long as he is not in his 22. Now, any Kiwis reading this will undoubtedly say that I am putting words in Mitchell’s mouth, but many a Springbok or Wallaby supporter who has watched an All Black forward flopping down on the wrong side of the ruck and perform what appears to be a full body stretch before leisurely rolling away, might tend to agree with me. But the most important revelation about the Mitchell’s statement is what it tells us about the way in which the All Blacks tend to play the ref. What Mitchell is saying is that it is okay for a player to play cynically as long as he doesn’t APPEAR to be playing cynically to the referee. Now, South Africans call this cheating but it turns out that we only think it is cheating because we don’t understand the concept of gamesmanship. Indeed the average biltong- eating, Castle- swivelling, South African rugby oke knows absolutely nothing about gamesmanship except that it is a word commentators use when they talk about Richie McCaw. The Australians know the meaning of the word but they have never perfected it.  New Zealanders invented the word and Sir Richie seems to be its very embodiment. But don’t be distressed dear average South African; it’s not difficult to understand: when commentators talk about Richie McCaw’s gamesmanship, all they are really talking about is his ability to get away with things that other players would generally be punished for.  Or more specifically- and I promise it won’t get more complicated than this-  his ability to be punished for things that other players would be MORE SEVERELY punished for.  Now, the average South African will scratch his head and then conclude that this is still called cheating (and so will the average Australian when they can’t get it right), but the average New Zealander will always insist that this is not in fact called cheating, but gamesmanship and that it is actually an essential part of the game. We can’t really blame the All Black supporters for taking this stance. They are, after all, so very good at it and the truth is that Springbok and Wallaby supporters would not have a problem with it if we were also as good at it as the All Blacks are. But this does beg the question: why do the All Blacks have so much gamesmanship when the Springboks and Wallabies seem to have none?

At this point it might help to consider the statistics. Since the turn of the millennium, the Springboks have conceded almost twice as many yellow cards as the All Blacks. While I am not on top of the Ausie stats I do know that in 2010 a Wallaby player was 8 times more likely to get a yellow card when he conceded a penalty than an All Black (the Springboks were slightly worse). Think about those statistics for a while. We can debate about what constitutes cheating all day long but the fact is that All Black players are punished much, much less severely than their Ausie and Saffa counterparts. Why is this?

John Mitchell says they get the rub of the green at the moment because they do their work en masse. But the moment has lasted for more than a decade and that is a lot of rub. One might be tempted to wonder how their jerseys remain black after all that rubbing on the green.

John Mitchell says he would love to see the referees grow a pair but they seem to have plenty of pairs when they punish the Boks or the Wallabies.

John Mitchell says he would love to see the referees use law 10.2 when teams are 5m out from the tryline, but they are human beings who have to survive (and protect their futures) rather than thrive.  But what exactly would endanger the referees if they blew the game according to the laws and blew all teams equally? That last comment is especially mystifying since it implies (quite explicitly actually) that the referees would somehow endanger their survival if they suddenly started to penalise teams for cynical play when they infringe on their own tryline, the very habit that Saffas and Ausies happen to be accusing New Zealand of.

The really, really puzzling thing is that the average All Black supporter loves nothing more than a good scrap. You always get the feeling that they would welcome stiffer competition, especially in the Southern Hemisphere. The All Blacks, after all, have always had a natural aptitude for rugby far beyond that which the tiny island of New Zealand should reasonably be able to produce. As if Rugby is fused into their DNA to create a collective that is somehow greater than the sum of its parts. Why would they blemish their god given ability with the tinge of bad sportsmanship? Why would they find it necessary to create a culture of crafting victory by means of tactics that are at odds with the spirit of the game when their natural spirit is enough to ensure victory on its own? Why, you ask? Because they can.

When all is said and done, John Mitchell is right. While we are debating a ruck, the All Blacks have already moved on to the next one. The All Blacks get away with things other teams cant because they do these things quick, decisively and as a collective. This is called gamesmanship, you see. And we had better learn to deal with it, or else we better find some gamesmanship of our own.

Good Comments Jaypsa.

Something that intrigues me is that it seems to be less of an issue at SuperXV level than at test level- Is this something that you would agree with, or not?

In a domestic competition like the curry cup their are turnovers and competition at the ruck, but not the same degree as in other countries (test or clubs).

Perhaps it is because South African referees are different to most others in the world, especially the Northern Hemishpere who tend to blow the game more differentely to each other.

The SuperXV also seems to be influenced by SA referees who tend to get more matches, and get the finals, get awared as best referee, recognitian from the fans all over).

--(@Sasuke, please provide the supporting stats in this instance).

Perhaps this is why we produce less fetcher style of loose forwards, and lots of carriers in the mould of Willem Alberts, Vermuelen etc. 

At test level it is often a case of the song for the boks- " a hole in my bucket dear liza". We have the water (carriers) but no bucket (fetchers).

Clevermike.

Thanks for the thumbs-up on my post.

I am not familiar enough with the individual stats on South African loosies to have an opinion but would love to see some of the stat comparisons you’ve compiled if you have them available. I was also surprised that Lappies wasn’t selected given his blistering super rugby season.

Coaches talk a lot about playing combinations and I guess I can see why it is important for a coach to select a back row that will play according to the game plan you have selected, but then you better make sure your game plan is correct. And I think this is the point you are trying to make. I think you are saying that Haneke is selecting the wrong back row for the new breakdown- focused plan he is trying to implement.

Now you may very well be correct but I think is important to note that teams can (and often do) perform at higher levels than the stats and attributes of individual players may suggest, provided that they operate as a cohesive unit. Compare the performances of the Cheetahs vs. the Stormers this season. On paper, the Stormers should have eaten most teams for breakfast. In reality they were one or two losses away from finding themselves in a relegation match. Now, look at the Springboks against the Argies. For the first twenty minutes at Soccer City we were getting no front foot ball. The Argentinians were menacing at the breakdown and as a result the Boks were erratic and wobbly. But then they found another gear and we all know the carnage that ensued. Now look at the Boks in Mendoza. It was like the first twenty in Soccer City but this time the gearbox had seized. It’s not that the Boks didn’t pitch up; some of their hits were huge. Haneke said they lacked focus, but it’s tough to focus when you’re at Soccer City the one day and on Normandy beach the next. When a coach says his team lacked focus, he is really saying that there was not enough cohesion for them to fulfil the game plan. So we can’t talk about whether the game plan was right or wrong and we can’t really talk about whether the selections were correct, because the truth is that the game plan just fell apart.

So I think that this is Haneke Meyer’s greatest challenge, to build a team that can implement his game plan –any game plan- as a unit and en masse as John Mitchell would say.  I think right now, Meyer could select the best possible team on paper and they would still fall apart against a team like the All Blacks. Don’t get me wrong, these issues can be fixed and they can be fixed quickly but before that can happen they have to realise what the issues are. Haneke has decided we need to improve at the breakdown. That’s great and it is also correct. But if you are going to make this decision and then publicize it, understand that every team in the world is going to target our rucks even more. The Argies already did. So look at what they did to us and then fix it.  Understand that you will not retain possession if your players arrive at the breakdown after the opposition does. Understand that sheer numbers won’t help you either if the amount of bodies in the ruck is actually making your ball slower. But most of all, understand how big the payoff is if we can get the breakdown right. We got a taste of that two weeks ago. We have enormous depth compared to the Ausies and our players are younger, stronger and faster than the All Blacks, man for man. We do have the potential to dominate the Rugby Championship and I tell you know that the All Blacks know that and they fear it despite what their supporters might say on this forum or the next.

Sharkbok.

Thanks for the compliment re my post. I do think you are correct in saying that the breakdown is less of an issue in super rugby although it is obviously still very important as clevermike pointed out.

I think it has a lot to do with intensity. There is no super rugby game as intense as a test match, except perhaps a semi or a final. I think in test rugby the rucks are hit harder and with more purpose and player put their bodies on the line a bit more. Also, in super rugby the emphasis is on playing an expansive game and we see teams running out of their 22 all the time. You don’t see this nearly as often in test rugby. Test rugby is more about territory and structure. I was surprised how structured even an expansive team like the All Blacks were against the Wallabies in the first Bledisloe test, kicking out of their 22, preferring to let the Wallabies run at them in midfield and only really going wide when they were deep in Aus territory. In super rugby defending teams are more selective about which rucks they contest, preferring not to commit players to the breakdown to ensure that there are defenders out wide. But in test rugby teams are less likely to take risks running from deep and they can therefore afford to commit more effort to the breakdown.

I think you may be on to something regarding the referees, is SA refs do get more matches then it stands to reason that the overall pattern of the tournament may be affected by this. For instance, perhaps SA refs are stricter around the breakdown, penalising fetchers more often which then lead to teams preferring to defend the line rather than compete at the breakdown. I have no idea about SA referee stats vs. the Aus/Kiwi’s but it would certainly be interesting to have an analysis of this.

What about those Loitewring when the 9 wants to pass? Look at the highlights check for no 3 doing it lots of times. 

What a lot of baloney!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's like the reason given for us not going for the hit at scrum time because if we did we were was blown up. Let us try mcaaaw type nonsense and we would be pinged immediately by a down under ref. We have to play to the rules they dont. Hence those yellow card states by John Reason - double the amount of the abs. How about some penalty count stats as well. They will no doubt show again how hard the bent down under refs are on the Boks. How many test have been lost becuase of bias?

For some weird reason the oaks down under think they are so smart. 

Another problem I have is what Reason said - the abs are coached to cheat. Other countries must bear this in mind and refs in partuiular should really watch out for theier nefarious activities.Give them NO benefit of the doubt. Know their misdeeds are deliberate and coached.

So now they call their cheating gamesmanship. Bwhahahahahahaha man what a laugh. However there is a growing hue and cry as folk get the message and want action taken. Good on all journalists focusing on ab illegal tactics. Keep it up and we may force a change.

One thing would help our rucks immediately - commit more players. The argies play like a NH side in this respect and hence England cleaned out the abs at Twicks. Their forwards dominated the rucks.

@Jaypsa,
you're skipping a small detail which invalidates all your theories about the AB. When Mitchell says:

“The golden rule for players is: Give away three points instead of seven..."

you deduce by yourself that these rules are for the AB players only and from that you build your theories about cheatings, about "the way in which the All Blacks tend to play the ref", etc., etc.
But these are Golden and Universal rules and apply for everybody, for the AB, for the springboks, for Georgia and for the last amateur team. It says "players" in general, not "AB players".
So nice (and worked) try but...

How long as Mitchell been coaching in SA ?

A long time i think and after all those years some how this golden rule is new?

Kiwis are coaching to cheat you are saying but how many Kiwi coaches are their in South Africa and what does that say then about the teams they're coaching?

Obviously these teams are just as bigger cheats. Therefore why are'nt Kiwi coaches being banned from SA then ? LOL

Face it Sharkbok you posted this only because you liked the look of the heading.

And if SA refs are so good why was Peyper crucified recently with Joubert and Kaplan being painted with the same brush ?

 Sure sure

 Spooney, those pictures you put their have destroyed the post. 

Can you make them smaler, so that they can fit within the borders?

To those that think the All Blacks are cheats....

If the opposition were fast enough to the breakdown then

maybe they could stop the AB from having their way 

all the time. In my (and many others) opinion,

the boks need to downsize their loosies and 

opt for speed!! 

Bigger is not always better

(no, this is not an assurance statement issued by my girlfriend...)

Wfuston: I agree that the Bok loosies are not fast enough and this limits their effectiveness at the breakdown. I watched the Boks v Argentina (second game) again last weekend and Duane Vermeulen in particular was very slow and seemed to hardly try and get to the breakdown. He's fine as long as grunt is needed but not very effective otherwise IMO.

This "cheats" subject will never go away as evidence does not seem to change the minds of those who want to believe this. The related topic below is " Rucks, tackles, and offside lines". This clearly explains that players have to quickly understand how the ref will rule in any given game. It is not cheating but understanding the interpretation different refs give. Sometimes the ref is consistently giving a poor ruling and the players have to figure this out and adjust.