Contact

It’s Importance in the Modern Game

Level 3 2015 - Lachlan Parkinson

Page | 1 CONTENTS

CONTENTS ...... 2 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Winning the Collision ...... 4 3. Ruck Speed ...... 8 4. Breakdown Support ...... 12 5. Conclusion ...... 15 6. References ...... 16

2

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015 1. Introduction

The following paper will look at the importance of contact in modern rugby and how coaches have adapted training practice and behaviour to ensure their teams remain successful. The paper will examine Super Rugby team’s stats in the contact area and whether there is direct correlation with team success. There are a number of questions that we can pose that will help identify the important of contact to the game and the success of a team, they can include: • Does winning the collision affect attacking shape, defensive shape and penalty decision at the tackle contest.? • Does being dominant in contact in attack improve the speed of the ruck ball provided or on the flip side whether dominance in defensive contact actually reduces ruck ball speed.? • Does contact play a part in the number of players required at a breakdown and if so what is the affect and how do we manipulate it effectively? • Is success in contact a way of improving our continuity and flow of play? All these questions may be reflected in the way we train and the type of athlete we require to be successful which provides our last question to look at which is: • Will the importance of contact change the outlook of both coaches and performance staff and how they approach training and preparation? By examining these questions this paper will provide an insight into the importance on contact in the modern game of rugby and highlight key areas for coaches to improve or exploit to increase their opportunity for success.

3

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015 2. Winning the Collision

Attack

The ability to dominate the tackle contest during attacking ball carries is a central component of successful performance in rugby union. Performance analysis shows that the top 4 teams in the Super Rugby competition demonstrate a higher percentage (19%) of tackle-breaks compared to the middle five (16%) and bottom five (11%) ranked teams.

The statistics outlined below demonstrate this from the 2014 Super Rugby Season. The statistics look at totals for all matches played in the 2014 season.

Attack Runs Run Mtrs. Tackle Break Gain Line Half Breaks Line Breaks Blues 1659 11367 321 602 226 108 Brumbies 1572 10169 256 539 170 117 Bulls 1353 9284 271 491 166 95 Cheetahs 1412 10459 281 452 198 130 Chiefs 1676 11269 312 615 226 126 Crusaders 1638 11896 323 552 225 143 Highlanders 1334 9339 351 498 169 105 Hurricanes 1782 12773 389 612 239 151 Lions 1366 9960 298 480 178 124 Rebels 1670 11765 333 629 201 117 Reds 1502 9813 276 550 152 120 Sharks 1410 9583 346 428 131 101 Stormers 1569 10924 318 535 187 109 Waratahs 2147 15361 411 785 314 169 Force 1555 9827 289 572 196 95

From the data above we can identify some significant points about the importance of winning the collision to being a successful team. The waratahs were the 2014 Super Rugby Champions and they also won the Australian conference. They significantly made the most metres when carrying the ball, with over 2,000 more metres than any other team, they made the most line breaks. The most significant statistic from the above table for the waratahs is their ability to achieve gain line, they were the number 1 team in achieving gain line when carrying the ball, they achieved this almost 150 more times than any other team.

4

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015 This gain line statistic is important and is identifies that the waratahs were able to achieve go forward and front foot ball, which in term would have stressed defensive structure of the opposition and therefore lead to the number of line breaks they were able to achieve. It seems that from this we can make the assumption that attacking ball carriers are more likely to dominate the tackle contest when this carry has advanced beyond the advantaged line.

If we look at the other end of the spectrum at teams who did not perform well in the 2014 Super Rugby Season, we can identify that their statistics are reflective, if we look at the cheetahs for example they only achieved gain line success 452 times which is almost half of what the waratahs achieved, along with 142 tackle breaks again this figure is much lower than the successful waratahs.

On average all teams that won their conference and participated in the Super Rugby Final series of 2014 featured in the high end of the statistics in regards to ball carries, this can lead us to say that winning the collision and dominance in this area is important if a team wishes to be successful in rugby union.

If we look at the international game the statistics again tend to reflect that dominance in this area are generally reflective of overall performance of the team. Below is a table outlining the statistics taken from the 2014 Rugby Championship.

Attack Runs Run Mtrs Gain Line Tackle Breaks Half Break Line Break South Africa 339 2295 125 67 46 25 New Zealand 381 2695 153 86 58 32 Australia 433 2704 190 78 67 23 Argentina 331 2294 117 70 45 35

Defence

As we have discussed above the ability to win the collision in attack is important to the overall success of a rugby team, but does this same dominance of the collision in defence reflect overall success.

Again if we analysis the statistics below from the 2014 Super Rugby season we can identify a number of significant figures which may answer the above question. The statistics look at the number of tackles made, tackles missed, the tackles effectiveness percentage of a team and how many tackles resulted in a successful pilfer for the defending team.

5

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015

It also shows the number of Turnovers forced by the defending team and where these occurred either at the tackle or at the ruck which followed.

Tackles T/Over T/Over Forced Pilfers Made Missed Tackle Eff% Forced Tackle Ruck Blues 2078 280 88.1% 27 135 28 43 Brumbies 2360 328 87.8% 34 136 22 57 Bulls 2220 338 86.8% 24 156 50 43 Cheetahs 2216 382 85.3% 38 163 33 62 Chiefs 2033 254 88.9% 44 158 33 62 Crusaders 2437 365 87.0% 45 178 39 68 Highlanders 2792 370 88.3% 42 159 30 65 Hurricanes 2295 324 87.6% 39 169 41 59 Lions 2257 312 87.9% 33 179 29 47 Rebels 2100 267 88.7% 35 138 31 53 Reds 2228 337 86.9% 24 163 50 50 Sharks 1883 276 87.2% 42 176 30 74 Stormers 2198 307 87.7% 32 159 32 64 Waratahs 2100 315 87.0% 40 181 47 60 Force 2214 319 87.4% 35 145 32 59

When we examine the statistics from the table, there are a few that stick out as significant in indicating a dominance of contact. The waratahs where in the top tier in pilfers and turnovers forced. The most interesting statistic was that their turnovers were also one of the highest to occur at the tackle. This may reflect that the tackle was dominant and forced the ball carrier into error or into a poor position which made access to the ball easier for the pilfering player.

Again the Sharks and crusaders who both won their respective conference ranked highly in the same area’s as the waratahs, where as teams who finished low in the conferences such as the blues and the rebels performed on the lower end of the scale in the same areas.

It is important to consider however that other factors may influence the figures above and the outcome of matches. We need to consider that a smaller team may avoid contact and look to pass the ball which will in turn reduce the number of ball carries and therefore the opportunities for tackle breaks etc. Likewise, a kicking team may not be as reliant on ball carries to move the ball forward as they use kicking skills to play field position and back their defence and ability to win contact in this area.

6

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015

All of these considerations must be taken into account by coaching and team preparation staff when preparing players for matches. This will be looked at further later on in the paper.

Overall however teams that were dominant in both attack and defence at the contact area of the game where the teams that contested and eventually won their conference and in the case of the waratahs the competition. This clearly shows that being dominant in contact and winning the collision has a direct relationship with being successful in rugby. The next section we will look at is ruck ball speed and its impact on team success, which we can perceive as a direct result of winning the contact zone.

7

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015 3. Ruck Speed

Attack

When we discuss the importance of contact to the modern game we need to also consider what effects winning the collision has on the following ruck situation. A major factor to a successful team attack is the ability to generate fast ruck ball. This is important as it creates stress on the defensive team as they have less time to set up their defensive system, as well as produce line speed in their defensive line.

The statistics below are taken from the 2014 Super Rugby Season and examine ruck speed of teams across the season. The statistics provide us with a total of slow ball, normal ball and quick ball as well as the percentage of quick ball won in attack.

The second table shows the in seconds the time of each ruck across the season and the percentage of ruck ball that was won within 3 Seconds.

Attack – Ruck Ball Speed Slow Normal Quick Quick % Blues 87 332 809 65.9% Brumbies 78 292 781 67.9% Bulls 70 289 615 63.1% Cheetahs 79 282 547 60.2% Chiefs 61 279 804 70.3% Crusaders 58 318 733 66.1% Highlanders 66 260 623 65.6% Hurricanes 58 315 919 71.1% Lions 72 269 581 63% Rebels 98 352 766 63% Reds 68 280 700 66.8% Sharks 86 289 591 61.2% Stormers 94 325 735 63.7% Waratahs 108 327 1037 70.4% Force 88 401 748 60.5%

8

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015

Attack – Ruck Ball Speed <=3 %<=3 3-5 5-7 7-10 10-15 >15 Blues 899 72.7% 238 67 20 9 Brumbies 833 72.2% 219 68 25 5 Bulls 658 67.4% 238 56 18 4 1 Cheetahs 611 66.7% 213 64 23 3 Chiefs 862 75% 198 57 23 8 Crusaders 813 72.5% 240 45 16 4 1 Highlanders 673 70.4% 200 52 25 5 1 Hurricanes 977 75.2% 245 52 17 5 Lions 638 69% 213 48 19 2 Rebels 845 68.9% 267 72 33 8 Reds 749 71.1% 214 58 18 9 1 Sharks 642 66.1% 230 61 28 3 1 Stormers 808 69.8% 248 60 35 5 Waratahs 1084 73.3% 267 82 31 5 Force 823 66.4% 305 68 35 3 1

The interesting stats to note from the above table again relate to the waratahs as super rugby champions and their ability to generate fast ruck ball. Although they also had the highest amount of small ruck ball they were able to generate 73.3% of ruck ball which was available within 3 seconds. Overall 70.4% of their ruck ball was considered to be quick which allowed the waratahs to play on the front foot against retreating defences.

If we examine the underperforming cheetahs it is not surprises that the generated the lowest amount of quicker than 3 second ball and their percentage of quick ball was 63% in comparison to the waratahs at 70%.

The average for quick ball for the competition was 733 so the waratahs ended well above this figure with 1037. The Cheetahs finished well below the average on 547.

9

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015 Defence

Not only do we want to gene in attack but teams are also invested in slowing ruck ball down in defence, giving them the opportunity to set defensive system and create defensive line speed.

The below table outlines the impact super rugby teams had in 2014 on ruck ball speed in defence.

The statistics show the amount of quick normal and slow ruck speed in relation to the defensive team along with the percentage of quick ball.

Defence – Ruck Ball Speed Slow Normal Quick Quick % Blues 80 272 713 66.9% Brumbies 112 330 798 64.4% Bulls 72 295 717 66.1% Cheetahs 62 297 774 68.3% Chiefs 75 298 644 63.3% Crusaders 93 363 787 63.3% Highlanders 71 372 907 67.2% Hurricanes 76 313 770 66.4% Lions 55 245 745 71.3% Rebels 70 303 655 63.7% Reds 72 306 730 65.9% Sharks 94 307 543 57.5% Stormers 85 359 694 61.0% Waratahs 75 245 721 69.3% Force 79 305 791 67.3%

From examining the figures above the most notable is the ability of the sharks to slow down opposition ball. The sharks finished top of the South African conference and although their statistics in relation to ball carriers were not poor they were not in the same region as the waratahs, therefore we can assume that the shark’s success was built more around their ability to compete at the tackle and ruck and disrupt opposition ball.

10

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015 Another interesting highlight is the ability of teams to create fast ball against the Highlanders throughout the tournament. IF you study the statistics of the highlanders in other areas of contact they perform extremely well which most likely was a reason behind they success in making the final series. The statistic above however point to a lack of ability at slowing opposition ball down and this may have been the difference once they were competition with teams such as the waratahs who seemed to dominate when they could create fast ball easily.

It is once again evident from the figures above that the teams that were successful throughout the super rugby season tended to achieve statistics which would demonstrate a dominance at the contact or collision aspect of the game.

11

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015 4. Breakdown Support

Attack

The final aspect of the contact area or collision zone in the ruck is breakdown support. Ruck speed can be related to the number of bodies a team is prepared to use to either ensure quick ball in attack or slow the ball down in defence. This is a fine line however as the more people a team uses at the ruck the less players a team would have available to be a part of the attacking structure or defensive system.

Ideally a team would like to be effective at the breakdown whilst using the smallest number of players. The questions we will look at here is whether teams that have had success generally use less players at a ruck and is that related to an ability to slow down or speed up ruck delivery.

The table below outlines statistics taken from the 2014 Super Rugby Season showing the ability of teams to retain possession at the ruck – in particular their effective and ineffective involvements. It also outlines the players per ruck which can show us if there is a different in the number of players involved in comparison to effectiveness and retention.

Attacking Ruck Success Involvements Total Rucks Rucks Retained % Retained Effective Ineffective /Ruck Blues 1368 1306 95.5% 3564 230 3.1 Brumbies 1266 1224 96.7% 3407 89 3.0 Bulls 1102 1038 94.2% 2975 131 3.2 Cheetahs 1034 966 93.4% 2516 96 2.9 Chiefs 1265 1212 95.8% 3146 136 2.9 Crusaders 1246 1194 95.8% 3377 151 3.2 Highlanders 1079 1021 94.6% 2739 94 3.0 Hurricanes 1427 1360 95.3% 3474 198 2.8 Lions 1067 984 92.2% 2739 108 3.1 Rebels 1348 1286 95.4% 3554 121 3.0 Reds 1188 1111 93.5% 2970 139 3.0 Sharks 1075 1033 96.1% 3026 148 3.3 Stormers 1288 1229 95.4% 3256 138 2.9 Waratahs 1640 1566 95.5% 4191 199 3.0 Force 1379 1311 95.1% 3654 134 3.1

12

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015 Once again it is noted that the Waratahs were in the top group for percentage of ball retained from rucks, but not only this but also their effectiveness at the breakdown when they went there.

It is also interesting to note nearly all teams average around 3 players at each attacking ruck, however if we take the Hurricanes for example they tended to average the smallest number of players at an attacking breakdown and they also had the highest number of ineffective involvements at these rucks. It is not surprising that when you look at the figures around ruck speed these are at the lower end of spectrum.

Once again all 3 conference winners are in the top tier of all the figures especially in the retention of possession, this combined with their ability to dominant contact which was outlined before it is becoming clearly as to why they were successful in the 2014 competition.

Defence

As we did in the previous section looking at ruck speed we will look at the ability of teams to affect the attacking breakdown through their effectiveness in defence.

The following table outlines the effectiveness and ineffective involvements of teams across the 2014 as well as the average number of players sent to a ruck. It will also show the number of turnovers won.

The table will hopefully identify that those teams who were highly effective with their involvements also have the highest number of turnovers won or a corresponding ability to slow down attacking ruck ball.

Defensive Breakdown Success Involvements Total Rucks Turnovers Won Penalties Won Effective Ineffective /Ruck Blues 1184 35 28 1169 148 1.2 Brumbies 1384 38 30 1520 121 1.3 Bulls 1181 27 23 1087 115 1.1 Cheetahs 1251 35 31 1158 134 1.1 Chiefs 1166 46 30 1140 156 1.3 Crusaders 1392 49 41 1516 200 1.4 Highlanders 1487 52 30 1440 129 1.2 Hurricanes 1285 41 36 1227 129 1.2 Lions 1148 30 28 1035 165 1.1 Rebels 1178 44 28 1475 105 1.5

13

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015 Reds 1237 28 37 1402 153 1.4 Sharks 1107 49 48 1370 118 1.6 Stormers 1264 39 38 1200 160 1.2 Waratahs 1194 48 34 1382 158 1.5 Force 1314 39 41 1370 129 1.3

From the table above we notice that once again the conference winners are generally the teams provided the best statistics with the Sharks and the Crusaders both achieving high numbers of turnovers won and penalties won. The waratahs also achieved well in the category of turnovers won.

It is interesting to note that the Waratahs use the most number of players per ruck for the competition. Whereas teams such as the bulls and cheetahs tend to on average send less players to defensive breakdowns.

The statistics once again show that the top ranked teams for the competition are in the top tier of the statistics in this contact area with the bottom teams on average performing the worst statistically across the competition.

This can lead us to the assumption that if a team wishes to be successful in the game of rugby they need to be effective in all aspects of contact, both attack and defence.

14

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015 5. Conclusion

Contact – Its importance to the Modern Game

Outlined throughout the evidence provided above we can make a strong assumption that teams have had success in rugby union are generally more effective and dominant in the contact area than those teams who have not had success.

What does this mean for coaches? if contact plays such a large role in the modern game that it would be sensible to spend suitable time and expertise on this area of the game.

This means that teams need to train for contact and practice it throughout the week. A great example of a team that has embraced the contact culture at training is the Wallabies under coach Michael Cheika. Previously to Chieka taking over the wallabies, a typical training week from my observations would include one to two contact blocks per session early in the training week. These blocks generally involved the use of hit shields or modified contact blocks.

With the introduction of Michael Chieka as head coach there was a drastic difference in the training week for the Wallabies, with contact (man on man) involved in every session throughout the week. There was a greater emphasis on team runs becoming live environments and always a contest for possession.

On the field there was a noticeable improvement in Wallaby performance and in turn wallaby success, which ended in making the 2015 World Cup Final. The best indication of the benefits of this change in training was during the pool match against Wales, where the wallabies were asked to defend their line for long periods. Their ability to not only tackle but compete in contact ensured they were able to hold the Welsh out and in the end win the match and progress out of the pool.

This is a fantastic example of where a coach has placed an emphasis on contact and it has provided success on field for the team.

This paper has aimed to provide evidence to the importance of contact to the modern game and also link it to proven success of teams. This in turn will hopefully identify for coaches the importance of contact in the modern game and allow them to plan and prepare for this accordingly.

15

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015 6. References

References

1. Wheeler, K. W. and Sayers, M. G. L., Contact Skills Predicting Tackle-Breaks in Rugby Union, International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2009, 4, 535-543 2. McKenzie, A., Holmyard, D. and Docherty, D., Quantitative Analysis of Rugby: Factors Associated with Success in Contact, Journal of Human Movement Studies, 1989, 17, 101-113. 3. Sayers, M.G.L. and Washington-King, J., Characteristics of Effective Ball Carries in Super 12 Rugby, International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 2005, 5(3), 92-106 4. Fairplay Report – Attack Report by Team – 2014 Super 15 – All Rounds 5. Fairplay Report – Reds Match Summary Report by Team – 2014 The Rugby Championship – All Rounds 6. Fairplay Report – Reds Match Summary Report by Team – 2014 Super 15 – All Rounds 7. Fairplay Report – Tackle Ball Availability Times Report by Team – 2014 Super 15 – All Rounds 8. Fairplay Report – Defence Report by Team – 2014 Super 15 – All Rounds 9. Fairplay Report - Tackle/Rucks Report (Defence) by Team – 2014 Super 15 – All Rounds 10. Fairplay Report – Rucks Report by Team – 2014 Super 15 – All Rounds 11. Fairplay Report – Tackle/Rucks Report (Attack) by Team – 2014 Super 15 – All Rounds

16

Lachlan Parkinson Level 3 Paper 2015