Rugby: Defensive lapses mean the party's over

The Blues' Rudi Wulf tries to stop the Hurricanes' Robert Fruean. Photo / Getty Images

For a team happy to invest in cliches, it's strange indeed that the Blues ignored the one about defence winning matches.

The Blues will cling to the outside mathematical hope they can still feature in the playoffs if they beat the Brumbies and Crusaders, but really, their campaign ended in Wellington on Friday night.

And it ended because for the fourth time this season their defensive structure disintegrated. Modern rugby loves a review, loves to look back and ask where things went wrong; where things could be improved.

The Blues won't need to agonise about what they did with the ball. That side of their work has, arguably, been as good as anyone's.

In more than half their games they scored four tries or more. When they moved the ball, they were dangerous.

Isaia Toeava showed why the All Black selectors had such a fixation with him when he was just a boy.

When he shifted to second five, the Blues had the ability to hold the inside defence and send the outside runners through the holes. There was skill to their craft, aided and abetted by the forwards who had no problems off-loading out of the tackle.

The continuity, imagination, flair and accuracy were all there. What wasn't there was defensive punch. The Blues were like a giant blancmange when it came to defending their line.

The game was all but over after half an hour. The Hurricanes ran, the Hurricanes scored. That was the same story when the Blues played the Reds the week before and also when they played the Chiefs in week six and the Bulls in week two.

In those four games the Blues conceded a total of 198 points. The staggering statistic is that 119 of those points were conceded in the first half. Even more worrying is that the bulk of those points were leaked in the first half of the first half.

The Hurricanes scored five tries in the first 25 minutes as did the Chiefs. The Bulls had a 29-point lead after 20 minutes and even the Reds were able to reach the 50-minute mark with a 31-5 lead.

Coach Pat Lam has extracted the positives from those performances. The fightback in all four games was gutsy. He saw courage and endeavour when they needed to be there.

But none of this can be allowed to detract from the serious business of determining why the Blues found themselves in such bother in the first place. The brave comeback routine became stale. Those who paid money to be there for the team would rather have seen the guts and fight from the start.

So would Lam for that matter, but he's in the unfortunate position of having to build his troops back up for the last big push. He's obviously decided that now is not the time to stick the boot in, to yell the home truths and demand more.

"You have to ask how did they [Hurricanes] get those opportunities in the first place," said Lam yesterday. "There were some tough calls and we had some concentration lapses."

Maybe there were some tough calls against the Blues. The game is such a lottery around the tackled ball area that it's hard to know whether justice is being served.

There were other mitigating factors weighing against the Blues both on Friday night and throughout the season. "We had seven players playing at Westpac Stadium for the first time," said Lam. "We always knew at the start of the season that our squad looked good initially. But when you considered the depth there was a lack of experience.

"Also, when you look at the historic statistics they show it's normal to have one or two players injured for every game. We have been really hit by unavailability and that has had an impact."

There is no question that the Blues with Ali Williams, John Afoa, Josh Blackie and Gus Collins in their pack are a different proposition than the one that fronted in Wellington with Jay Williams, Tevita Mailau, Kurtis Haiu and Tom Chamberlain.

It didn't help that when Lam went to the bench he was sending out players not actually on full Super 14 contracts - Grayson Hart, Dean Budd and Peter Saili. All this can be used to help explain the result.

But at some point the age and experience of the players has to be set to one side. At some point everyone involved has to ask whether they took responsibility for their performance, particularly their defensive contribution. Not only in Wellington, but for every other game this season.

The 317 points leaked should be answer enough. That should lead the Blues players to concede they didn't always take the right attitude into the contact.

They didn't always maintain concentration when they needed to.

And it should also persuade Lam that what his side needs in place for next season is a defensive anchor - a destructive hard nut like Sam Tuitupou who sets the tone and asks others to follow.

Benson Stanley can do the same thing. He and Tuitupou both leave their feet in the contact. Too many of the current team seem to believe the key defensive aim is to complete the tackle and remain on their feet, ready for the next play.

The problem with that thinking is that too many tackles are not completed. Objective one: put the opponent down. Objective two: get back on your feet and into position.

Defence is about attitude and for much of this campaign the Blues haven't had it.