Tackling at international level

After discussing it briefly on another thread, i thought id get some focus on your thoughts of tackling at international level.

Englands backs one on one tackling in the recent NZ tour was simply amateurish at times. The Kiwis ran past them at time like they werent even there - and it wasnt just Ashton!

Now this issue was also visible in the 6n this year but the difference being against the NH teams we had enough time to scramble the defence and stop tries. Against the Kiwis this was brutally exposed, as one missed tackle allows the AB's to just flood through behind you.

Is this because attackers are becoming so quick and physical now that one on ones are not achieveable anymore so you have to tackle in pairs etc? Or is it simply that the tackler is not good enough?

Personally i feel its that they're just not good enough tacklers.

How is your teams first up tackling and whats your thoughts on it?

It seems that they're tackling upright, with high risk of bouncing off but stopping the immediate offload, then relying on a secondary tackler coming in the finish the job.

Now as you say, it kind of works in the 6 nations because we can play at the same pace as them. Against the All Blacks they can play faster so the ball carrier has time to move the ball on or break the line before any secondary tackles can get there. With their support play at that point it's often a score.

Not particularly happy with it myself, I'd rather the tackles are fully completed, but I'm not an international coach.

Because the game is now so fast at the highest levels, and because offloading can be a potent tool in that fast paced game, I think there are tacklers who feel pressurised in different ways.  

Number 1: they are obligated to tackle and take out their man obviously.  

Number 2: they are obligated to make the right call on the kind of tackle.  Low on the legs to stop a strong player making progress even in the tackle OR high up to take in player and ball and so protect against an offload.  You can't do both if you're a lone tackler.  You make the choice.

Number 3: being always conscious that what the opposition will be attempting on their attack is to create space to run through.  So not only do tacklers feel obligated to their tackle duty but also they must try to predict the kind of tackle they'll be involved in and how long they'll be tied up in the subsequent melee on the ground.  
Being tied up on the ground by players holding on, or lying on top of you, impedes your ability to be back on duty in the defensive wall.  So I feel a lot of the tackle double-thinking that goes on, which can keep defenders from fully commiting, is down to how much they worry about the many different strands that defending and tackling requires.

Tackling is never simply tackling - it's thinking about the consequences before the tackle, during the tackle and after the tackle.

I can see what your saying Secret, but i think your suggesting theres too much thinking goes into it at times.

When in open play with attackers coming on to you, you make your tackle its as basic as that...to let him waltz past you is simply unforgivable. Id rather the man brought his opposite man with the ball down. He if makes the offload then so be it...but at least that man is taken out of the equation.

Too often we let the attacker through with out tackling and thus create more headaches for those outside.

Personally I believe defence or tackling is all about attitude, if you have the right attitude you have won half the battle, as far as whether you need to go high or low depends entirely on the match situation and whether there are in close support runners.

But most importantly make the bloody tackle, if the guy gets an offload in, then that is the problem for the next defender, it is this decision making where a player hesitates that makes him miss tackles, take the guy out.

It also depends on the field position, whether the ball carrier is close to the touch line.

What many defenders miss completely is that defending is also running the right lines, jus take for example the try Brown was the support runner for Tuilangi, the defender cut Brown off, so the offload could at no point be made, and Ben Smtih then only had to worry about bringing Tuilangi down.

Could always try a Liam Williams style of tackle ?

HammerofThunor wrote:It seems that they're tackling upright, with high risk of bouncing off but stopping the immediate offload, then relying on a secondary tackler coming in the finish the job.

Now as you say, it kind of works in the 6 nations because we can play at the same pace as them.  Against the All Blacks they can play faster so the ball carrier has time to move the ball on or break the line before any secondary tackles can get there. With their support play at that point it's often a score.

Not particularly happy with it myself, I'd rather the tackles are fully completed, but I'm not an international coach.

I am not sure the problem is the system but rather the personnel. With Barritt at 12 it works with Eastmond it does not.

I think the problem arises when a game opens up. It doesn't have to be much but that little extra time and space makes a big difference. Look at Yarde in the third test with Jane running at the weak shoulder. Looked a horrid miss but Yarde was not moving up in defence but, rather, backtracking and that created the space necessary for Jane to jink inside.

Often the S15 has that label of turnstile defence but much depends on the game in hand. As soon as attacking teams are given that little but of time and space extra, they can wreak havoc like the ABs in Ellis Park as opposed to Eden Park last year. If you're stretched and aerobically challenged it's hard to make the right decisions. If it's tight and you've got little time and space any side can look handy on defence. Compare Argentina in SA in the dry and away in the wet, they look two different teams.

I think England are following the Saracens model of rushing up in the defence. This puts pressure on the attack and, although it is harder for the first tackler to make the tackle because he is rushing, the attacker will have to change his line to evade him and a cover tackle should be made over the gainline. Thus you may miss a 1-on-1 tackle and it should be recorded as such, but the team defence has held out because the tackle has been made in enemy territory, so you still have a net gain as a defensive team.

England also start very narrow, but if your 10, 12 and 13 can get up on their men quickly and ensure they aren't beaten on the outside, they can force their opposite man into that cover defence.

Where this falls down is if the players are skillful enough to doge the first up tackle but still move forward, so they can beat the cover defence, or when they have good enough hands to get the ball outside of the 13 to the full back and wing, running at the big gap left by the 13 rushing up. I think that's the difference between 6 Nations teams and the All Blacks, the All Blacks managed to ruthlessly exploit that in a way the 6 Nations sides didn't.

It didn't help that the cover defenders are likely to be the forwards, and some of them dropped of tackles uncharacteristically, possibly a sign of fatigue.

I don't think we have the best 1-on-1 tacklers around, but the system lends itself to player's missing tackles, it's just there's meant to be a "failsafe", that also malfunctioned on this tour.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I think the problem arises when a game opens up. It doesn't have to be much but that little extra time and space makes a big difference. Look at Yarde in the third test with Jane running at the weak shoulder. Looked a horrid miss but Yarde was not moving up in defence but, rather, backtracking and that created the space necessary for Jane to jink inside.

Often the S15 has that label of turnstile defence but much depends on the game in hand. As soon as attacking teams are given that little but of time and space extra, they can wreak havoc like the ABs in Ellis Park as opposed to Eden Park last year. If you're stretched and aerobically challenged it's hard to make the right decisions. If it's tight and you've got little time and space any side can look handy on defence. Compare Argentina in SA in the dry and away in the wet, they look two different teams.

yeah agree Kia, easy to blame it on one on one tackles, yet for the AB tries for Yarde and Ashton were more the ambulance at the bottom, and sooner or later they were going to miss tackles, they just chose sooner. A whole lot of breaking open the defences went on well before that though.

I'd point more at the bad tackling in those cases than anything miraculous NZ were doing personally.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd point more at the bad tackling in those cases than anything miraculous NZ were doing personally.

hmmm..yes...I mean nothing was ever on until Ashton missed his tackles. The huge Smith pass, the Cruden cut throughs...the Savea pick up in the wet...all standard stuff...but none of that really mattered...so long as Ashton made his tackle.

Taylorman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd point more at the bad tackling in those cases than anything miraculous NZ were doing personally.

hmmm..yes...I mean nothing was ever on until Ashton missed his tackles. The huge Smith pass, the Cruden cut throughs...the Savea pick up in the wet...all standard stuff...but none of that really mattered...so long as Ashton made his tackle.

Thats not the point im trying to ask on this thread.

Whilst i do give alot of credit to the attackers....Im saying basic tackling at international ....certainly in Englands regard...is poor.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd point more at the bad tackling in those cases than anything miraculous NZ were doing personally.

hmmm..yes...I mean nothing was ever on until Ashton missed his tackles. The huge Smith pass, the Cruden cut throughs...the Savea pick up in the wet...all standard stuff...but none of that really mattered...so long as Ashton made his tackle.

Thats not the point im trying to ask on this thread.

Whilst i do give alot of credit to the attackers....Im saying basic tackling at international ....certainly in Englands regard...is poor.

.

Appreciate that..I just think the amount of momentum allowed to build up before the tackle is a very telling factor. But its a good point and whether we admit it or not, tackling isnt the first reason we ever pick a player so in a way we get what we get. Some are good, some not so. Attitude and technique must be right.

We have Barrett who has been below club level on head on tackles over the past two seasons but one of the best at dragging players down from behind.

robbo277 wrote:I think England are following the Saracens model of rushing up in the defence. This puts pressure on the attack and, although it is harder for the first tackler to make the tackle because he is rushing, the attacker will have to change his line to evade him and a cover tackle should be made over the gainline. Thus you may miss a 1-on-1 tackle and it should be recorded as such, but the team defence has held out because the tackle has been made in enemy territory, so you still have a net gain as a defensive team.

England also start very narrow, but if your 10, 12 and 13 can get up on their men quickly and ensure they aren't beaten on the outside, they can force their opposite man into that cover defence.

Where this falls down is if the players are skillful enough to doge the first up tackle but still move forward, so they can beat the cover defence, or when they have good enough hands to get the ball outside of the 13 to the full back and wing, running at the big gap left by the 13 rushing up. I think that's the difference between 6 Nations teams and the All Blacks, the All Blacks managed to ruthlessly exploit that in a way the 6 Nations sides didn't.

It didn't help that the cover defenders are likely to be the forwards, and some of them dropped of tackles uncharacteristically, possibly a sign of fatigue.

I don't think we have the best 1-on-1 tacklers around, but the system lends itself to player's missing tackles, it's just there's meant to be a "failsafe", that also malfunctioned on this tour.

You are right about England players playing to the Saracens method. This works well with players who are used to it and have the energy and dedication to apply it especially in the midfield. It works well with Farrell and Barritt but does not work with Burns and Eastmond. Whether that is lack of time using the system or at they are not up to it I do not know. I suspect the latter.

Some good stuff here. England have been developing a style of play - the Saracens offensive defense - and so far it has proved very effective.

It puts a lot of pressure on opposing teams, which is a good thing.

But of course this being NZ (and us not being able to put out our best team for this strategy) they work out a way of counteracting it.

Didn't see this game, but in general for tackling I find that some leagues and teams are more acclimatised to contact. The running lines from opposition are designed to wear down an opponent so the tackle is easier (lazier), whereas at the truly elite level players are running looking for weak shoulders and space.

That coupled with tacklers going too high on the attacker many times leads to sloppy turnstile defending.

There are some players though that you have to just accept that they might achieve an offload, but shoot for the ankles in order to bring them down as the loss in yardage if you down stop their momentum with a chest high tackle is too great. You find this happens with SOB and Healy in the past season as the objective of the opposition must be to bring that player down and dealing with an offload is easier than the risk of giving these guys yardage.

It is interesting though that it took until both the third test and Ellis last year to expose the fact that some individuals have tackling issues across the two sides. It was a popular discussion point after Ellis as well in terms of the tight 5. With England it was generally those out wide.

Its gotta be due to the extent that the ABs stretch the opposition that other sides dont do enough to expose the issue. The ABs apply a fast pace game where the runners generally opt for space rather than contact, and done often and at pace, miss tackles are inevitable.

I mean England werent accused of poor tackling during the 6N to this extent, and I've no doubt that if the ABs were pushed as much, we'd suffer it too..England 2012 an example- Carter, McCaw, Conrad etc all fell off tackles under pressure of the English momentum, so I dont think its unique to England.

All teams misses tackles, the reason why SA missed so many tackles was down to the fact that their focus was on attack, and their structures weren't in place for the counter attack.

This year there will be more balance.

Besides, how often does some players make desperate lunges at tackles they are unlikely to get, but still try. I rather see 20 missed tackles than twenty non tackles, it speaks to the attitude and what a player will do for his team.

I just look at Yarde during this series, he almost ran himself out of position as to not having to commit to a tackle

Taylorman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd point more at the bad tackling in those cases than anything miraculous NZ were doing personally.

hmmm..yes...I mean nothing was ever on until Ashton missed his tackles. The huge Smith pass, the Cruden cut throughs...the Savea pick up in the wet...all standard stuff...but none of that really mattered...so long as Ashton made his tackle.

You picked out Yarde as well. You honestly think that try would/should have been scored? Personally put more blame on midfield than Ashton for the 1st but I do think it was Englands defence that mainlly contributed.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd point more at the bad tackling in those cases than anything miraculous NZ were doing personally.

hmmm..yes...I mean nothing was ever on until Ashton missed his tackles. The huge Smith pass, the Cruden cut throughs...the Savea pick up in the wet...all standard stuff...but none of that really mattered...so long as Ashton made his tackle.

You picked out Yarde as well. You honestly think that try would/should have been scored? Personally put more blame on midfield than Ashton for the 1st but I do think it was Englands defence that mainlly contributed.

not sure of your point but what I meant was the failure was systemic, initially, then ultimately came down to individuals making tackles. The ABs used long balls, missed passes, double rounds, varied lines and the English inside backs couldnt contain it, not marking up sufficiently. Its actually what I mentioned before the match, that the ABs would work out the deficiences of Burns and Eastmond as an inexperienced inside pairing from their first test showing and that those deficiences would be push out to Tuilagi and beyond. That's exactly what happened. There was general acceptance by English fans that the two would be ok 'based on their first test performances'. That couldnt have been more wrong.

Taylorman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd point more at the bad tackling in those cases than anything miraculous NZ were doing personally.

hmmm..yes...I mean nothing was ever on until Ashton missed his tackles. The huge Smith pass, the Cruden cut throughs...the Savea pick up in the wet...all standard stuff...but none of that really mattered...so long as Ashton made his tackle.

You picked out Yarde as well. You honestly think that try would/should have been scored? Personally put more blame on midfield than Ashton for the 1st but I do think it was Englands defence that mainlly contributed.

not sure of your point but what I meant was the failure was systemic, initially, then ultimately came down to individuals making tackles. The ABs used long balls, missed passes, double rounds, varied lines and the English inside backs couldnt contain it, not marking up sufficiently. Its actually what I mentioned before the match, that the ABs would work out the deficiences of Burns and Eastmond as an inexperienced inside pairing from their first test showing and that those deficiences would be push out to Tuilagi and beyond. That's exactly what happened. There was general acceptance by English fans that the two would be ok 'based on their first test performances'. That couldnt have been more wrong.

Point is I think it was England making basic errors rather than what NZ were doing that was Englands downfall. eastmond was woeful. If we d performed the basics right as in tests 1 and 2 and in the 2nd half we would have been ok. Don t get me wrong NZ were great in the 1st half but England should nt have conceded as easily as they did.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd point more at the bad tackling in those cases than anything miraculous NZ were doing personally.

hmmm..yes...I mean nothing was ever on until Ashton missed his tackles. The huge Smith pass, the Cruden cut throughs...the Savea pick up in the wet...all standard stuff...but none of that really mattered...so long as Ashton made his tackle.

You picked out Yarde as well. You honestly think that try would/should have been scored? Personally put more blame on midfield than Ashton for the 1st but I do think it was Englands defence that mainlly contributed.

not sure of your point but what I meant was the failure was systemic, initially, then ultimately came down to individuals making tackles. The ABs used long balls, missed passes, double rounds, varied lines and the English inside backs couldnt contain it, not marking up sufficiently. Its actually what I mentioned before the match, that the ABs would work out the deficiences of Burns and Eastmond as an inexperienced inside pairing from their first test showing and that those deficiences would be push out to Tuilagi and beyond. That's exactly what happened. There was general acceptance by English fans that the two would be ok 'based on their first test performances'. That couldnt have been more wrong.

Point is I think it was England making basic errors rather than what NZ were doing that was Englands downfall. eastmond was woeful. If we d performed the basics right as in tests 1 and 2 and in the 2nd half we would have been ok. Don t get me wrong NZ were great in the 1st half but England should nt have conceded as easily as they did.

Yes and it goes hand in hand. The ABs played to such a level at times that England simply didn't have the capability of doing the basics, ie it was out of their hands. That's how the ABs win the majority of their matches, by executing at levels the opposition cant live with, specifically in terms of the very basics required. In test 1 for example the ABs didnt apply the same accuracy they did in test 3 in order to put Eastmond under pressure. In test 3 they did. Eastmond suffered because he wasnt in the same league experience wise, and you simply cannot expect to do well vs the ABs with 7 tests at 10 and 12 twice in a row. Just doesnt happen, but agree a couple of the tries could have been stopped if key tackles had been made.

Can t agree. Just basic errors and weren t caused by NZ but were ruthlessly taken advantage of. Thats why NZ are so good.

and thats fine 7.5, my view is simply that England did not have the defensive strategy, nor the skills or experience in the midfield to handle the improved AB attack, going into the match, and that the basic errors as you refer to them, were inevitable. Happy to agree to disagree.

The thing today is with League attack/defence Coaches being prevalent tackling is now
League Style.Go high to stop the offload if possible,desperation smother style in past.
Now if you go low between knee and hip no matter how big you are he`ll come down
even an ankle tap will do it.
Going high won`t stop a big man a full tilt and there is always chances of them being
milked for penalties/yellow cards etc.
Gang tackling just creates gaps and the blitz only works if you ignore off side laws.

emack2 wrote:The thing today is with League attack/defence Coaches being prevalent tackling is now
League Style.Go high to stop the offload if possible,desperation smother style in past.
Now if you go low between knee and hip no matter how big you are he`ll come down
even an ankle tap will do it.
Going high won`t stop a big man a full tilt and there is always chances of them being
milked for penalties/yellow cards etc.
Gang tackling just creates gaps and the blitz only works if you ignore off side laws.

A good example from this weekend: Colin Slade of Crusaders went in high to make a tackle on a Wellington ball carrier. Got absolutely trucked. Ball carrier's shoulder to the head. Perfectly clean. Later on he had to come off for concussion evaluation as a result of that play. I showed my sons who laughed at the poor technique, but clearly not the result.

emack2 wrote:The thing today is with League attack/defence Coaches being prevalent tackling is now
League Style.Go high to stop the offload if possible,desperation smother style in past.
Now if you go low between knee and hip no matter how big you are he`ll come down
even an ankle tap will do it.
Going high won`t stop a big man a full tilt and there is always chances of them being
milked for penalties/yellow cards etc.
Gang tackling just creates gaps and the blitz only works if you ignore off side laws.

If you watched the Blues Force match Alan you would have seen gang tackling done how it should be. After the Blues went to 26-0 in less than 20 minutes they spent the next 20 minutes holding back a barrarge of attacks through 2, 3 and 4 on tackling.

It doesnt necessarily open gaps if its done correctly because the opposition is slowed down to a point that the defence regathers in time, and speed up onto the ball carrier makes all the difference- yes you have to be careful about the offside, but what type of defence doesnt.

Geordie I will only make two points:

1. the worst missed tackle of the series for me was Richie Mccaw on Yarde in the first test.
AND
At times throughout the series (especially in the first two games) I asked myself similar questions about Englands defence, not so much to be critical of England but rather to look at how the ABs attack needed to focus more on the opportunities that were available to them, which leads me to my second point.

2. To me Englands defence looked like it was too engrained in defending against too many structured plays. Structured plays always have two things in common (A) there is a degree of lateral in the attack and (B) the attack is quite slower than say adlib rugby, or a half break.

All of a sudden due to the pace of the attack, a number of players were finding them selves the lone tackler when they may have usually had a mate, with one going low and one going high (to prevent the chance of an offload) or they were draged out of alignment of there own defensive line, thus leaving holes.

Bottm line I think the ABs should have scored a lot more tries than they did.

Laurie

1) Yep (but at least it was one of few and far between)

2) Yep, that's why we can complete against most NH sides but are succeptable to being blown away when other teams click.

And the last point, agree, the All Blacks were shaking off their rust and it gave people a false sense of capability.