Beauden Barrett kicks the ball during the Rugby World Cup pool match between France and New Zealand. Photo / AP
Beauden Barrett kicks the ball during the Rugby World Cup pool match between France and New Zealand. Photo / AP
I recently attended a World Rugby conference in Sydney to provide a presentation on our World Cup experience in France. I was joined by Simon Raiwalui, who has recently stepped down as Fiji coach to take up a post with World Rugby, who represented the tier two sides.
The event was to provide a World Cup review for tier-two countries such as Chile, Portugal, Uruguay, Romania and Namibia. It was fascinating to see the statistics that were put up in terms of the successful teams and eye-opening to hear about the difficult challenges those teams face over the course of a four-year World Cup cycle and how tough it is for them to get up to speed in time for the tournament.
The review also shed some light on what we need to change in the game. We talked about how defence dominates the game, but the biggest thing in the game at the moment which is probably having the biggest influence on performance and results is the kicking game and the kicking strategy.
That includes the number of kicks by a side, the type of kicks and kicking metres. What has happened is that the middle part of the field has become the area where no side wants to be turned over, particularly if the concession is a penalty at the breakdown, whether it is for a player not releasing, going off his feet or in at the side of a ruck. Giving away a penalty in that area of the field can have a big consequence on what happens next and how long it takes for you to get the ball back.
Through the World Cup in France, the team that registered the most kicking metres enjoyed roughly an 80 per cent win rate. It is a damning statistic from the perspective of a coach and a player who wants to play rugby and shift the ball when the opportunities arise and take chances. Instead, there is a greater emphasis on territory, of needing to be smart when you have the ball and limit the amount of turnovers in the game, particularly in the middle part of the pitch – and that means more territorial kicking.
It was a statistic that came back to bite Wales during the World Cup. I was delighted that we topped the pool, beating Fiji and Australia along the way, but we had a brilliant chance to reach the semi-finals, which would have been a fantastic return. However, during our quarter-final defeat by Argentina, it was the one game when we lost the kicking duel despite making more line breaks, more carry metres, and more passes. Argentina finished the game with more kicks and more kicking metres than us. It is one thing knowing about the stats, but you must have the ability to apply them as well.
Wales head coach Warren Gatland. Photo / Huw Evans Agency
To address this issue, we need to do something to swing the balance back in favour of the attack, but with so much pressure on results at international rugby I hope people can understand why the kicking game has such a massive influence at present.
I believe there are a number of changes that can be made to improve the game going into the start of the new World Cup cycle. The first thing is the officiating. As a game we have to do everything we can to support the referee and match officials. Rugby union has always prided itself on showing respect for officials as players, but that has to be broader. We have to make sure we all look at that.
The engagement of the television match official and bunker system needs to be reviewed as well to decide whether we proceed with that. I would also like discussions on the use of red cards. I liked what they did in Super Rugby by bringing in a 20-minute red card.
It wasn’t accepted by the northern hemisphere nations, but I think it needs to be looked at again because we don’t want semi-finals or finals decided by cards. Those are the moments when the world is watching our game, and it is the chance to grow the audience and you don’t want to ruin the spectacle. A 20-minute sanction is something I think most people could live with.
Speed up scrums
There are some law changes I would also like to see that might help improve the game from an attacking perspective. One I have been thinking about is taking the ‘mark’ out of the game. I am not sure there is a need for it anymore. It just slows the game down and takes some of the jeopardy out of putting high balls up into the opposition 22.
We also need to speed up scrums. Referees have stopped teams holding huddles before line-outs but what about scrum time? I said to one of my coaches that we need to run there, get set up as quickly as we can and put the referee and the opposition under a bit of pressure to speed up the scrums. Keep an eye out for Wales implementing this in the upcoming Six Nations.
These are the sort of quick fixes that can have quite a major impact in making our game more exciting. I would also like to see the 50:22 kicking law changed so that teams can attempt them even if the ball is passed into their own half. That could have an impact on creating more space in the back field.
Currently if the team in possession has a breakdown just inside their own half, the opposition back three are dropping back, making it difficult to execute a 50:22 kick. But as soon as the team in possession crosses the half-way line, the defensive line tends to flatten because the opposition knows that a 50:22 cannot be attempted if the ball is passed back over the half-way line. Changing that would force teams to hang back more often, which could create more space to attack, as well as making the law easier to referee.
Encourage teams to be more creative
Defences are also getting better in holding up attackers over the line to win a drop-out from under their posts, which can clear the ball to the half-way line. How about a compromise that if a team is held up over the line, they are awarded a five-metre scrum or line-out – even better a tapped free-kick?
We have to look at ways to keep the game moving and encourage teams to become more inventive and creative.
The final item on my Christmas wish list would be to review how we use replacements. The game is producing incredibly powerful athletes and when you see teams like South Africa at the World Cup name a bench with seven forwards and just one back, it means that your forwards only have to play for 40 minutes. That was not what it was intended for.
Rugby used to be about attempting to tire out a forward pack so that the space opened up in the final 20 minutes and there were more opportunities to attack. We are not seeing that at the moment because of the number of replacements and the incredible athletes we are producing. I think the time has come to trial a reduction in the number of replacements or even a return to when they were only for injuries. This ruling may just apply to top level or international rugby.
