A coach's view of the first match

A wise old coach takes a look at the first match of the Super 14 and does so from the perspective of a coach - an idealistic coach.

The remarkable feature of this game was the turnaround after halftime. The Hurricanes in the first half looked out of touch. Of course, they were trying to move the ball at every opportunity-  coaches of the obvious, masters of the mediocre, would rather replace “at every opportunity” with “at all costs” as “opportunity” suggests potential for success whereas “at all costs”  is negative, suggesting inevitable failure.

In the first half, the Blues played the more conservative game, no doubt a game intentionally wrapped around their strengths, or apparent strengths - their heavier forwards, their scrumming power, line-out ability, their direct-running mid-field backs, solid, effective loose forwards. Probably the most successful rugby battle plan of all, for such sides, is to play behind the opponents, keep them going backwards, and this the Blues did most effectively, sticking through raking touchline kicks, keeping the ball in the Hurricanes half, indeed, twenty-two, for much of the time. From good set ball, they were not shy to move the ball wide but it is probably not unfair to suggest they lacked subtlety and failed to penetrate the defence lines. They were up 16-3 at halftime, deservedly, one goal and three penalties to 3, playing a balanced game on the back of their forward dominance.. The Blue’s try was scored off a good line-out developed into an efficient drive to the line off the side of which drove the try-scorer. Efficient, effective, workmanlike - as was the rest of their game. The Blues’ scrumming was a marked strength; in this phase of play, they had the Hurricanes in trouble- in the first half..

Their game plan? Sound, I should say, if predictable, and it cannot be denied that it worked well in the first half only because they won the majority of good ball. They were the tighter, the heavier side and  made more deliberate contact than their opponents, although it cannot be said  that that was obviously excessive.

Generally, both sides  delivered ball from the ruck  impressively quickly, thus the game moved and did not become a static wrestling match; thank heavens, truck’n trailers were largely absent from the game..

What about the Hurricanes? One could, as some did, criticise them for being one dimensional in the first half, running just about every ball they received in almost any situation. They knew they would struggle in the tight and perhaps the tight loose and so no doubt determined to keep the ball away from those phases of play. Then, too, they were playing against a light breeze and so perhaps for that reason, too, they determined to keep ball in hand. Impressive was that although they ran into an impressive wall of defence, sometimes deliberately from game phases near their own line when they managed pretty well to control their own ruck ball; hence, despite the ground advantage of the Blues, only one try was scored against them in the 1st half.

“Running the ball” is much maligned and also misunderstood by the rut rugby bigots- it does not entail merely passing the ball to the fellow next to you or shooting the ball out to the wings- there is much more to it; in fact, it is an extraordinarily difficult game to master, as we saw in the Hurricane’s 1st half, though even then  it served its purpose  in allowing (1) the Hurricanes to settle and sort out their game (it is not easy to click straight into the finesse-ridden running game) and (2) to play the game against a heavier side at pace with, perhaps, the intention of having the legs on the Blues by the close of the game.

The most effective part of the winners’ game was the way in which they handled the Blue’s rated scrum in the second half. There is a rugby law: never give an opponent an easy tight ball. The Blue’s messed up some of their own line-outs, off one of which the Hurricanes scored, but what was most impressive was the manner in which the Blue’s scrum ball was negated by  perfectly executed wheels, only one of which the Blues managed to control effectively. On the other hand, the smaller Hurricane forwards scrummed most efficiently on their own ball and were only very seldom in any real trouble. What better way of winning than beating your opponents at what they consider to be their strengths?

Hurricanes were at rucks in numbers, their defence was deadly- from both facets of play, they garnered turnovers which were used to great effect.. In the second half they were the livelier side (why?), they varied their game more than in the first half and put in some very astute kicks, which put the opponents under extreme pressure (it was raining). When they moved the ball, they did so with assurance (not as they did in the 1st half) and ran off the ball in support sometimes quite brilliantly so that the ball-carrier had options inside and out. They were going forward, plans were working and tails were up- the rhythm missing from their 1st half play, was now there and they gave a superb display of all-round skill.

The side that played with all-round skills, was prepared to take chances, to risk in the first half, particularly, won the game. The side that played with less imagination and variation, lost., despite their heavier, bigger forwards. Hurricanes played effectively to their strengths and they believed in what they were doing- they were caught up in the adventure of their game. The Blues were stolid.