Rush Defence

Coaching article

In the wake of the Tri-Nations match between New Zealand and South Africa our Guru, the wisest coach in the world, discusses "Rush Defence".

The All Black backline rhythm was badly disrupted last Saturday by the aggressive defence tactics adopted by the Springboks in that test match. No doubt they had noted while studying videos of the All Blacks, their flat backline alignment - flat, that is, compared with the Wallabies' alignment. It will be interesting to see if the same tactics are used by the Boks in their match against the Australians in Perth - I am curious to see, if they adopt the same approach, whether those tactics will work against a deeper lying backline. In the previous article we talked about game plans - it seems that the Bok game plan was devastatingly effective albeit simple, though, I suppose, you could argue that the plan also lost them the game for the Boks to achieve their purpose lined on the offside line for much of the time and paid the penalty/ies.

The reason for the flat alignment of the All Blacks is that they cross the advantage line almost immediately and thus have their support players moving forward and the defence moving backwards, assuming the New Zealanders manage to cross the gain line. Their backs are quick, sharp and talented, all using their feet well. They no longer use a large inside centre to crash through, as the South Africans tend to do. (I was delighted to read Gatland's comments recently on the role of the inside centre. He felt the game was moving towards the use of more fluent number 12s, capable of "stepping" and creating chances and half-chances for their outside players through quick hands and feet.)

As I read it, the Boks used a combination of "crash" and "banana" defence. Crash defence , really, is nothing more than we used to use about ten or more years ago - coming up in a line as quickly as possible to smother the ball carrier/catcher - preferably to hit the receiver of the ball as he catches it. It is totally different in this respect to "drift" defence where you hang back and move across a channel as the ball moves across the field, thus plugging holes created for the extra man.

"Banana" defence is called such because it describes the angle at which your backs move up in defence. The outside men move up very quickly in a line with the other backs but slanted inwards towards the set or broken piece (scrum, line-out, ruck or maul). So, instead of being parallel to the try-line coming up in defence, the backline comes up rather like a gate opening. Think of the defenders opening the gate - the outside of the gate, away from the hinges, is your open side wing, the hinge end of the gate is the flyhalf. The result of this angle is that the outside attackers have men on top of them, or in their faces, if you like, before they receive the ball. The inside ball-carrier cannot then pass to his outside and thus collects a heavy tackle - heavy because of the speed at which this closing gate is swinging open on him and the rest of his backs.

You can see why there could be doubts about using this defence on a deep-lying backline. If it is deep enough, then the outside defenders will not be up on their outside opponents in time to prevent a pass reaching them. It is also essentially a one-on-one defence mechanism and so with the increased depth of the attackers comes more room into which to inject an extra man and then the one-on-one has little chance of adapting in time to prevent an incursion. The greater the space between you and the opponents, of course, the greater the time you have as an attacker to gear yourself for an attacking kick - and all your "rush" defenders will be committed to rushing; the open side wing cannot afford to hang back in defence if this system is used. A skip pass becomes a very viable and effective option , too, so that the ball reaches your wing way before his "rush" man gets up to him; and, what about a skip run-around move? Even more effective!

Nevertheless, the rush defence is a very effective one indeed. It is quite feasible to use a combination of it and "drift" defence. From a broken ball, you would, for example, use a drift defence, unless close to your line, when you would "rush" defend, man-on - man; from set pieces, you would "rush" defend.

"Rush" defence cuts the attackers off from the outside men, if it is properly applied - it forces a side to play back inside. If you have good loose forwards and a powerful lot of tight forwards it could pay you to use a "rush" defence game plan.