You need to LOG IN to reply.

Tactical kicking is winning matches

Forum » Rugby » Tactical kicking is winning matches

Feb 02, 2019, 22:07

There are some who believe endless, sterile phase play is the answer....but the key Scottish tries that broke Italy came from tactical kicks. A long cross kick and a grubber over the line both set up tries.

The Boks have no tactical kicking kick players who look to open themselves up for the kick. Too often we simply grind away at half pace. Tactical kicking makes the running game more effective....we need a kicking coach who appreciates the tactic, and players who react. Morons like Allende and Kriel will never react like a Stuart Hogg to a chance opened by a well placed kick.

Feb 02, 2019, 23:39

In the Northern Hemisphere.... 

However, it still important on hard fast pitches as well- just for diversity to keep the opposing defence guessing. It helps when lots of the backline players can do grubber kicks. It works well for rush defences. 

The up and under is overused in SA, it needs to be balanced with more grubber kicks, from more players in the backline.

Feb 02, 2019, 23:40

Wait a minute. Something ain’t right. What you’re describing requires the back line coming into play but we’ve been told, time and time again, that the kicking game is the typical shyte ten man game, started by Naas Botha.

How now brown cow?

Feb 02, 2019, 23:45

It is hard for a team to mimic the game plan followed by Naas, because his kicking ability was much better than most kickers- so it is hard to replicate as a "blue" print....

Feb 03, 2019, 07:19

Well duhhhhhhhh!!!

Tactical kicking is a weapon and if used correctly can be very dangerous.

There is a very big difference between "tactical kicking" and kicking possession away ... so please Moffie ... and Toadie ... don't mistake the two for being the same thing.

Shame ... and so ends Moffie's attempt at exalting Morne Steyn ... haaaaaaahahahahahahaaa!!!

Feb 03, 2019, 09:02


I was one who thought Ireland was unbeatable and I looked at the game carefully.   I think Jones studied  the Irish game plan in every detail and came up with a plan to beat them.   The plot  centered  around neutralizing the Irish normal weapons, the main one was box-kicking and Murray became a dead loss to the Irish,

You know our local duds do not know the difference between  strategic (tactical) kicking and aimless kicking.    They do not know that aimless kicking result  in possession handover often associated by territory loss as well.   

In the Irish - English test yesterday the English limited their kicking game drastically and the scrummie made much less box kicks than Murray did,    

Jones is not an idiot as a coach - he can use tactics to neutralize the opposition weapons and in this case it was their aimless kicking game.   Remember the way the Japanese buried the Springboks in the WC in 2015,     Jones knew exactly what to expect from the geriatrics in Meyer's team and  use their ineffectiveness to the benefit of the Japanese.   He did the same with  the Irish yesterday,              

Feb 03, 2019, 15:30

“You know our local duds do not know the difference between strategic (tactical) kicking and aimless kicking. ”

Are you saying that strategy is synonymous to tactics? It surely looks like that.

Having said that, I don’t think that it was really a matter of one coach “out strategising” another. It was more a matter of one team’s execution of the game plan being way better than that of the other.

The first thing that comes to mind is that the number of kicking was fairly evenly spread. I haven’t checked the stats yet but I’m not too sure that one team kicked significantly more or significantly less than the other.

The big difference was the execution. Youngs’ kicking was way more accurate than that of Connors. Combine the accurate kicking of Youngs with the relentless chasing down of those kick and subsequent competing for the ball, and you already have a winning chance.

The next big difference between the teams was the deadly defence of England. They pinned down Ireland behind the advantage line with dead eye one on one tackling.

The game plan was simple. Bully them up front, defend like tigers, kick accurately, chase down the kicks and compete for the ball and the rest will sort out itself.

Now where have we seen that before?

England’s only weakness was the line outs. Once Itoje and Kruis left the field, they seemed to have lost the linout edge. They seem to be a bit short on backup in the lock dept. Granted, Lawes has been absent for quite some time and should improve in time to come.

Feb 03, 2019, 19:35

kicking from the first phase is rarely going to be successful. That is where it always falls apart for SA teams. The All Blacks kick but never from the first phase, instead, they carry the ball up suck in defenders, then kick into space. 

SA teams also overdo the aimless up and under due to lack of a game plan. Morne or whoever will kick without chasers in position, or too far for chasers to apply any pressure.

Feb 03, 2019, 22:39

Once again we are dealingwith pure unadulterated Riversdale strond. Here are the match stats:

Kicks out of hand....Ireland 31/England 32

Runs ....Ireland 160/ England 105

Passes Ireland 202/ England 113.

So in fact England kicked the ball 12.8 % of the time, whereas Ireland kicked the ball 7.9% of the time. As is so often the case the team that kicks more wins the game.

And the outstanding Connor Murray had nothing to do with the loss.

Feb 04, 2019, 17:04

And here are the Boks against Wales in November:

Boks 24, 185,139.....kicks, passes, runs = 6.9% kicks

Wales 28, 125, 10 = 10.9% kicks

Vs England

Boks 27, 155, 130 = 8.7%

England 35, 145, 105 = 12.3%


So contrary to the Riversdale Strond.....the winning teams often kick more and the Boks are losing in part because of ineffective kicking, Shark's point, not because we kick too much.

Feb 05, 2019, 01:40

Match we lost against NZ ......NZ kicked 11.9% of the time, Boks kicked 7.2% of the time.

Match we won against NZ ......NZ kicked 2% of the time.....the Boks kicked 12.8% of the time.

Kicking more is NOT correlated with losing .....for the Boks in 2018 it was correlated with winning.

Feb 06, 2019, 14:04

Great game in Varsity Cup,UWC nearly beating UCT   last Monday.

Chester Williams has a good team ,their first time in the top league.

They try encourage running rugby with 9 point goals but UCT needed to kick much to survive.
Chipping over the top was utilized well with these tight defences and seems the best option these days.Either a grubber of neat chip into space.

Feb 06, 2019, 14:43

I have to agree that you can't always run the ball all over the park. It is great for Fans but add a lot of risk. Just look at how Ireland capitulated by trying to run the ball out of their own 22. 

I think a chip over the top would put a lot of pressure on the English to fall back as their press defence left them exposed. Had they did that the back line players would have not come up so fast which would have afforded the time to try and run the ball up. 

But I'm also not a Fan of excessive kicking, especially when you have 2 kickers playing ping pong. 

SA teams use to do that to each other all the time and it use take up a lot of time, you have the guy catch, run for 5 meters, hoof it in the air, let the winger chase and the receiving kicker does the same. 

But you need special players that can do that in the modern game. To me it is Aaron smith and Connor Murray who makes a huge difference. 

Feb 06, 2019, 20:03

Murray has a great boot....distance and placement. And I agree Corn, nobody wants to go back to the old up and under ping pong.

But grubber kicks over the line.

Long kicks behind an out of place defence.

Openside cross kicks.

High balls coming down on the goal line during penalty advantage...

.....are tactics that are yielding results for other test teams. The Boks did almost none of this....and they have no organized kick chase. Erasmus has left this dimension totally undeveloped.

Feb 10, 2019, 07:24

And again today....a well placed tactical kick and a Scottish mistake got Ireland going. The speed of the defences today dictates a mix of ball in hand and purposeful tactical kicking.

We have no kicking's a huge void.

Feb 11, 2019, 18:16

And again....kicking played a huge role in the Pom demolition of the Frogs. Grubber kicks, cross kicks and especially long rolling kicks to the corners.

The Poms kicked 14.3% of the time.....France kicked 9.5% of their possessions. Another data point suggestingthe team that kicks more and kicks smartly, wins the game.

Feb 11, 2019, 18:38

I was thinking the same while watching the game. And I’m no fan of Owen Farrel by any means but he had a good game. That long pass to set up the try in the corner was brilliant. Right into the breadbasket of the receiver.

Feb 14, 2019, 20:37

Fantasy Rugby doesn't really reward kicking. Sure your nominated place kicker earns you decent points in Fantasy Rugby but there are no Fantasy Rugby points for tactical kicking . . . unless the kick results in a try in which case the kicker will score a few Fantasy Rugby points for an assist.

In Fantasy Rugby you want players who beat tackles, make a lot of metres and make try-scoring passes. Tactical kicking doesn't count for much in Fantasy Rugby.

Feb 14, 2019, 21:19

I forgot to mention, drop goal should be devalued to s ingle point.

Feb 16, 2019, 21:49

And again yesterday, the Chiefs scored brilliantly off a superb open side cross kick. If the Stormers had any effective tactical kicking game they could have slowed the Bools rush defence....instead it was the Bools via Pollard and Kriel who showcased that tactic.

You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top