Analysis: England's Rugby World Cup game plan explained
Eddie Jones has referred to his side’s game as a ‘modern’ version of English rugby, an attempt at refreshing an old way of playing.
It is certainly true that they adhere to a game of past ages – the one constant with their game is a commitment to territorial advancement. They simply do not value possession anywhere near as much as territory, using the kicking game to trade the ball for ground upfield wherever possible.
It can be said that for the most part, they do not want the ball.
Whilst the addition of attack coach Scott Wisemantel and a host of new players has sharpened up aspects of their starter plays, the interplay between the forwards and backs is a long way off the level of Ireland or New Zealand. They are not built to hold the ball for long periods of play and the detail in their shape is haphazard at times.
However, what they make up for a lack of creativity, flair and spellbinding play is with bruising defence, punishing physicality, and dominant set-piece fuelled by the territorial kicking of their halves.
On the back of the boot of Youngs and Farrell, England builds the platform to unleash a ferocious defence and continually make the opposition feel like they are going backward – usually because they are.
It sounds simple enough but this is exactly how they do it and what they will do to try to win the Rugby World Cup.
England’s kicking zones
England’s game is constructed around three key kicking zones, the first being the exit zone – inside or just outside the 22m.
Halfback Ben Youngs (9) will handle almost every exit, the most important zone to execute kicks. There is a no-nonsense approach to it, re-positioning the ruck if required but never playing a phase more than required.
Inside the safety of the 22 he can find touch, if not, a contestable ball will be launched.
The ideal landing spot is inside the 5m channel against the sideline between the 40m and halfway, where it can be contested or the recipient can be put over the sideline. Youngs has the ability to do this on a frequent basis.
He can overcook it at times but when Youngs kicks well, it goes a long way towards an England victory, with many possessions re-gathered around midfield setting up the next kick. Flyfhalf Owen Farrell (10) is often part of the kick-chase unit, not in the pocket as a kicking option, even at times getting up for the contest.
This is a quite unique use of the flyhalf in a non-traditional way. Farrell, who is known for his aggressive contact, can get involved in the kick-return contact instead of being tasked with the responsibility of clearing.
If England are able to regain possession from Youngs’ kick, often they will look to drive another kick downfield targeting the depleted backfield instead of using the turnover opportunity to attack wide.
Against Wales, the ball bounces back directly to Ben Youngs who uses a ‘topspinner’ to kick it end-over-end over the touchline deep into Wales’ territory.
Again, against the All Blacks after winning a kick contest inside their half, Youngs gets a quick recycle and forces them back deep into their own 22 with a tight angle to clear from.
This results in huge ‘piggyback’ territorial shifts in a 15-20 second-time span, often flipping from their own pressure exit situation to the exact opposite with back-to-back kicks but comes at the expense of attacking off turnover ball.
The next kick zone is between each of the 40m lines on either side of halfway.
On this side of halfway, you will often see England send up another contestable kick. It is generally a bomb from Farrell dropping back into the pocket but could at times be another box kick by Youngs.
Despite the relative safety this area of the field offers, the number of phases they play in this area before kicking is low, ranging between 2-5 on average. A few carries or one wide shift may occur before Farrell or Youngs decides to send it to the air.
The distinct lack of structure is visible in the shot above after a few phases, with no other planned option but for Farrell’s kick. Even if they wanted to play running rugby, they aren’t in a position to do so.
Farrell’s bombs enable England another contestable ball, this time encroaching into the opposition half where points could be on offer should they regather.
The middle third is where Farrell’s kicking game really comes to the forefront, and it has been this area of the field where England have been vulnerable.
Gareth Davies (9) spies Farrell in the pocket and rushes off the line to pressure the kick. He moves Farrell off his spot and with a lack of any other bail-out passing options, Farrell still attempts the kick and is charged.
This is dangerous for England because this kick occurs like clockwork after the play breaks down, becoming predictable. Farrell often has a slow wind-up and at the same time is usually unprotected without players in front of him. It would be possible in this area of the field to put a ‘spy’ on Farrell and blitz him every time.
Players like Faf de Klerk and Ardie Savea who can get off the line quick would be a major threat to England’s kicking plan. One charged kick recovered could be a game-changing 7 points.
Between halfway and the opposition 40m, a continuation of the same strategy ensues. The bombs and box kicks are launched to land a bit further downfield, inches outside the safety of the 22.
Farrell and Youngs can do this with remarkable accuracy, forcing the retreating team to recover and secure the ruck in a position where a turnover would be costly.
The final kick zone is when England finally have possession inside or around the opposition 40m line as they start to press into deeper into opposition territory. Their play becomes more expansive, reaching the edges with more frequency.
However, if England start losing gain line or can’t open up the opposition, they complete another kick plugging the corners, attempting to force a 5m lineout or a very tight clearing kick.
At times even though they may have the ball pressing into the opposition 22 they will still kick into corner to force the opposition to exit, which is why often the outside backs like Jonny May and Jack Nowell or Henry Slade and Elliot Daly will grubber through.
Why do they kick away so much ball when already deep on attack?
It’s because England really want one specific situation to attack from, it is the one gun where they have all their ammunition loaded, an attacking lineout anywhere from 15-30m out with which they can run their set plays.
Once the opposition clears their lines they will usually receive their desired lineout platform.
They have become increasingly prolific from scoring off this situation using ‘slow-burning’ switch plays after strong first-phase carries from Tuilagi or Vunipola and a few phases of hammering the line around the corner. Against both the All Blacks and Ireland they scored in the first few minutes using these type of switch plays.
However, the number of times they receive these opportunities to craft tries is going to vary. It might only occur two or three times a half if that. If you are going to kick away the ball in every third of the field, patience is required. You must wait to win the ball back through your defence or opposition error, kick and wait again to advance to the next zone.
When you also consider that they will also nearly always take the three points on offer when receiving a penalty in range, England’s laborious grind of taking territorial chunks down the field becomes a game of aerial ping-pong with little actual running rugby.
By the end of the 2018 Six Nations, a tired England outfit was no longer winning with the frequency of the first two years under Eddie Jones. 12 months later, they found a way to rejuvenate the side.
A dominant defence feeds into a ‘winning-territory-at-all-costs’ strategy as you frequently giving the ball away. If you can’t hold or take it back then it becomes futile. England’s defence needed an upgrade.
The emergence of Tom Curry and Sam Underhill as twin world-class flankers was central to this, as was the addition of underrated Mark Wilson. The aging Robshaw and Haskell were replaced when Jones took a punt on Curry on the mid-year tour of South Africa.
The 20-year-old Curry has since emerged as one of the breakout stars of international rugby and brings a relentless motor, bruising defence and turnover ability to England’s already formidable pack.
England’s backrow became faster, more agile but with newfound aggression. Dylan Hartley was also left on the outer as part of Jones’ plan to kickstart his pack.
It was part of the juice required to reboot England’s system, along with a healthy Billy Vunipola. They emerged in the 2019 Six Nations with a ferocious defence able to dominate the gain line again, as well as take the ball off the opposition frequently.
One plan fits all
England has used the same game plan against South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and every opponent in the Six Nations. It worked spectacularly against France but lead to effective stalemates against Wales, Springboks and the All Blacks with each result decided by a few points or less.
If England captures their second World Cup with this strategy, it will prove that rugby can still be won playing with traditional old school strategies although it won’t be a celebration of innovation and running rugby. They will, however, have to a great defence and that will be something to marvel at.
Former England fullback Ben Foden documentary:
Comments on RugbyPass
Totally deserved win for the Crusaders Far smarter than the Chiefs who seem to be avoiding the basics when it matters Hotham showed them what was missing and Hannah seems a real find - a tad light but that can be fixed over time
8 Go to commentsGreat insight into the performance culture with Sarries and I predict Christie will be a fixture in the Scotland team now for some time to come. However, he is slightly missing his own point around Scotland “being soft” when he cites physicality examples in defence of that slight. The issue is much closer to the example he referenced around feeling off before a game but being told “it doesn’t matter, you can still play well” by Farrell. Until Scotland can get their psyche in that square, they will carry on folding under extreme pressure…
1 Go to comments> We are having to adapt, evolve and innovate more than when we were in Super Rugby where there was only really one style that everybody had to play to gain the most success. Have = able to? Interesting what that one style might be? I thought SA sides still had bad tours now, or at least bad schedule, months away? Those extra few hours flights have to be a killer though, no surprise to see their sides doing so badly at the start of the season each year. I wouldn’t enjoy that unfairness as a supporter.
5 Go to commentsThe problem for NZ, and Aus, is they ripped up the SR model and lost a massive chunk of revenue that hasn’t been replaced. Don’t forget SA clubs went North because they were left with no choice, Argy unceremoniously binned and Japan cast adrift. Now SR wasn’t perfect, far from it, but they’ve jumped into something without an effective plan, so far, to replace what they’ve lost. The biggest revenue potential now lies in Japan but it won’t be easy or quick to unlock, they are incredibly insular in culture as a nation. In the meantime, there is a serious time bomb sitting under SH rugby and if it happens then the current financial challenges will look like a picnic. IF the Boks follow their provincial teams and head north then it’s revenue meltdown. Not guaranteed to happen but the status quo is a very odd hybrid, with the Boks pointing one way and the clubs pointing the other way. And for as long as that remains then the threat is real.
36 Go to commentsI think Etene has had some good tuition, likely while at the Warriors to be a professional that helped his rugby jump, but he was certainly thrown in the deep end way too early. Should have arguably 20 less SR caps, and therefor a way better record that he does at his age, but his development would have been fast tracked by the need to satiate his signing away from league. Again, credit to him and others that he has done it so well. Easy to fall over under that pressure in the big leagues like that but he kept at it when I myself wasn’t sure he was good enough.
1 Go to commentsAwesome story. I wonder what a bigger American (SA) scene might have mean for Brex.
1 Go to comments“Johnny McNicholl and the Crusaders” save a Penney. Who has been in camp this week and showed them how to play?
8 Go to commentsSo, reports of the Crusaders’ demise / terminal decline are perhaps just - slightly - premature/exaggerated…? 🤔 Will we see a deep-dive into that by the estimable Rugbypass scribes, and maybe one or two mea culpas? Thought not.
8 Go to comments1. The Chiefs are rudderless without DMac, which enhances his AB chances 2. Chiefs pack are powderpuffs. The hard men arent there anymore 3. They had their golden title chance last yr and wont threaten this yr. Gone in second round of playoffs.
8 Go to commentsHonestly, why did you have to publish such a foolish article the day they play us? 😂
36 Go to comments> They are not standalone entities. They are linked to an amateur association which holds the FFR licence that allows the professional side to compete in the league. That’s a great rule. This looks like the chicken or egg professional scenario. How long is it going to be before the club can break even (if that is even a thing in French rugby)? If the locals aren’t into well it would be good to se them drop to amateur level (is it that far?). Hope they can reset from this level and be more practical, there will be a time when they can rebuild (if France has there setup right).
1 Go to commentsWhat about changing the ball? To something heavier and more pointed that bounces unpredictably. Not this almost round football used these days.
35 Go to commentsThis is the problem with conservative mindsets and phycology, and homogenous sports, everybody wants to be the same, use the i-win template. Athlete wise everyone has to have muscles and work at the gym to make themselves more likely to hold on that one tackle. Do those players even wonder if they are now more likely to be tackled by that player as a result of there “work”? Really though, too many questions, Jake. Is it better Jake? Yes, because you still have that rugby of ole that you talk about. Is it at the highest International level anymore? No, but you go to your club or checkout your representative side and still engage with that ‘beautiful game’. Could you also have a bit of that at the top if coaches encouraged there team to play and incentivized players like Damian McKenzie and Ange Capuozzo? Of course we could. Sadly Rugby doesn’t, or didn’t, really know what direction to go when professionalism came. Things like the state of northern pitches didn’t help. Over the last two or three decades I feel like I’ve been fortunate to have all that Jake wants. There was International quality Super Rugby to adore, then the next level below I could watch club mates, pulling 9 to 5s, take on the countries best in representative rugby. Rugby played with flair and not too much riding on the consequences. It was beautiful. That largely still exists today, but with the world of rugby not quite getting things right, the picture is now being painted in NZ that that level of rugby is not required in the “pathway” to Super Rugby or All Black rugby. You might wonder if NZR is right and the pathway shouldn’t include the ‘amateur’, but let me tell you, even though the NPC might be made up of people still having to pull 9-5s, we know these people still have dreams to get out of that, and aren’t likely to give them. They will be lost. That will put a real strain on the concept of whether “visceral thrill, derring-do and joyful abandon” type rugby will remain under the professional level here in NZ. I think at some point that can be eroded as well. If only wanting the best athlete’s at the top level wasn’t enough to lose that, shutting off the next group, or level, or rugby players from easy access to express and showcase themselves certainly will. That all comes back around to the same question of professionalism in rugby and whether it got things right, and rugby is better now. Maybe the answer is turning into a “no”?
35 Go to commentsWow, didn’t realise there was such apathy to URC in SA, or by Champions Cup teams. Just read Nick’s article on Crusaders, are Sharks a similar circumstance? I think SA rugby has been far more balanced than NZs, no?
4 Go to commentsBut here in Australia we were told Penney was another gun kiwi coach, for the Tahs…….and yet again it turned out the kiwi coach was completely useless. Another con job on Australian rugby. As was Robbie Deans, as was Dave Rennie. Both coaches dumped from NZ and promoted to Australia as our saviour. And the Tahs lap them up knowing they are second rate and knowing that under pressure when their short comings are exposed in Australia as well, that they will fall in below the largest most powerful province and choose second rate Tah players to save their jobs. As they do and exactly as Joe Schmidt will do. Gauranteed. Schmidt was dumped by NZ too. That’s why he went overseas. That why kiwi coaches take jobs in Australia, to try and prove they are not as bad as NZ thought they were. Then when they get found out they try and ingratiate themselves to NZ again by dragging Australian teams down with ridiculous selections and game plans. NZ rugby’s biggest problem is that it can’t yet transition from MCaw Cheatism. They just don’t know how to try and win on your merits. It is still always a contest to see how much cheating you can get away with. Without a cheating genius like McCaw, they are struggling. This I think is why my wise old mate in NZ thinks Robertson will struggle. The Crusaders are the nursery of McCaw Cheatism. Sean Fitzpatrick was probably the father of it. Robertson doesn’t know anything else but other countries have worked it out.
36 Go to commentsIt could be coincidental or prescient that the All Blacks most dominant period under Steve Hansen was when the Crusaders had their least successful period under Todd Blackadder and then the positions reversed when Razor took over the Crusaders.
36 Go to commentsDefinitely sound read everybodyexpects immediate results these days, I don't think any team would travel well at all having lost three of the most important game changers in the game,compiled with the massive injury list they are now carrying, good to see a different more in depth perspective of a coaches history.
3 Go to commentsSinckler is a really big loss for English rugby.
2 Go to commentsThanks Nick The loss of players to OS, injury and retirement is certainly not helping the Crusaders. Ditto the coach. IMO Penny is there to hold the fort and cop the flak until new players and a new coach come through,…and that's understood and accepted by Penny and the Crusaders hierarchy. I think though that what is happening with the Crusaders is an indicator of what is happening with the other NZ SRP teams…..and the other SRP teams for that matter. Not enough money. The money has come via the SR competition and it’s not there anymore. It's in France, Japan and England. Unless or until something is done to make SR more SELLABLE to the NZ/Australia Rugby market AND the world rugby market the $s to keep both the very best players and the next rung down won't be there. They will play away from NZ more and more. I think though that NZ will continue to produce the players and the coaches of sufficient strength for NZ to have the capacity to stay at the top. Whether they do stay at the top as an international team will depend upon whether the money flowing to SRP is somehow restored, or NZ teams play in the Japan comp, or NZ opts to pick from anywhere. As a follower of many sports I’d have to say that the organisation and promotion of Super Rugby has been for the last 20 years closest to the worst I’ve ever seen. This hasn't necessarily been caused by NZ, but it’s happened. Perhaps it can be fixed, perhaps not. The Crusaders are I think a symptom of this, not the cause
36 Go to commentsNo way. If you are trying to picture New Zealand rugby with an All Blacks mindset, there have been two factors instrumental to the decline of NZ rugby to date. Those are the horror that the Blues have become and, probably more so, the fixture that the Crusaders became. I don’t think it was healthy to have one team so dominant for so long, both for lack of proper representation of players from outside that environment and on the over reliance on players from within it. If you are another international side, like Ireland for example, sure. You can copy paste something succinct from one level to the next and experience a huge increase in standards, but ultimately you will not be maximizing it, which is what you need to perform to the level the ABs do. Added to that is the apathy that develops in the whole game as a result of one sides dominance. NZ, Super, and Championship rugby should all experience a boom as a result of things balancing out. That said, there is a lot of bad news happening in NZ rugby recently, and I’m not sure the game can be handled well enough here to postpone the always-there feeling of inevitable decline of rugby.
36 Go to comments