Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

Analysis: Did Quade Cooper 'struggle' last season? Part One

By Ben Smith
Did Quade Cooper struggle last season?

Queensland Reds head coach Brad Thorn has revealed his decision to dump mercurial playmaker Quade Cooper was due in part because he ‘struggled’ in attack, game management and defence last season.

ADVERTISEMENT

The public outcry of the axing has been swift. Fans, ex-players and media in Australia have all been critical of the decision. However, is their merit to Thorn’s assertion that he ‘struggled’?

Breaking down the game tape we look at the 29-year-old flyhalf to qualify Thorn’s claims in this two-part analysis – first looking at set-piece attack and then open phase play and defence.

Set-piece attack

 The Reds marquee recruit instantly became the centerpiece of the Reds set-piece attack, with the majority of plays running off 10 as the key decision maker and ball player. This gave Cooper the maximum amount of opportunities to influence the game.

Even for an adjustment so basic, this was a major improvement for the Reds strategically.

Set-piece attack was nearly non-existent in the previous few years under Richard Graham due to a tactic around playing for scrum penalties. The Reds strength in scrummaging became overkill, where nearly every feed was trapped at the back. The tactic would slow the game, starve the backs and often backfire against them given how subjective scrum reffing can be.

With Cooper back, the Reds playbook opened up and we saw a much more expansive side. Something was amiss though – sloppy execution and questionable play calling were common throughout the season.

Quade in the middle of this as the key cog was made to look amateur but he is not the only one to blame.

ADVERTISEMENT

Here against the Force late in the season, the Reds have a mid-field scrum. Karmichael Hunt (15) initially lines up behind the scrum as a two-way bet, enticing the Force to do the same with one of their defenders.

The Force leave only two defenders on the open side giving the Reds a potential four-on-two situation if Hunt swings around as illustrated above. If Cooper can beat the halfback the Reds have a massive opportunity.

ADVERTISEMENT

What ensues is either a lack of effort by Hunt, miscommunication or extremely poor play design.

Samu Kerevi (13) runs an ‘unders’ line, cutting back against the grain and Hunt meanders out the back aimlessly. Cooper ends up with only two possible options – Kerevi on a short crash ball or Nabuli wide on a cutout pass.

Both of these options fail to create an overlap or exploit the short numbers – Kerevi will run into contact and a cutout pass to Nabuli this early would allow for the defence to slide.

Karmichael Hunt jogs through the play, never becoming a viable option. It’s never clear what his intended route is meant to be.

When Cooper delivers his no-look pass to Kerevi, Hunt is 6-8 metres behind the play (circled). If he was coming around the corner behind Kerevi (superimposed), Cooper would have a back-door option to potentially open up the Force on the edge.

Instead, Cooper’s head fake fools no one and his pass to Kerevi is correctly ruled forward.

Cooper’s pass goes down as an error and a turnover but it is the cherry on top of a busted play and an illustration of the Red’s lack of thoroughness – running a play with a man not involved for no reason.

Against the Sharks in the first round, the Reds were offered the same attacking midfield scrum, this time only five metres out. This time the play calling is questionable and leads to a similar situation.

The Sharks will cover the Reds four open side players with three sliding defenders (two out of picture) and the halfback breaking off to cover 10.

If Cooper can get to or engage the first defender circled above, he will create an overlap and put the defence under pressure. He gets wide enough and does so.

The Reds run one of their standard ‘crash’ plays, with the 13 dropping under 10 and 12 sliding out.

The problem with using this play in this situation is Kerevi (13) effectively becomes a ‘dead’ option. With Cooper taking it to the line looking to hit someone running into a hole, Kerevi’s route takes him out of play leaving Paia’aua as the only flat option.

As Cooper releases his pass, Kerevi (circled) is in no man’s land – effectively removed from the play. Dropping the ball underneath is only going to result in Kerevi running into contact and trying to break tackles to score.

If the play called for Kerevi to hold a straight line and run into space (superimposed), he gives Cooper another option and forces the defenders into two decisions. He will either run in untouched or open up the hole for Paia’aua provided Cooper makes the right read.

The Sharks deliberately knock down the short pass to Paia’aua and the Reds receive a penalty but miss an opportunity for five points.

The man Cooper tries to hit flat, Paia’aua, is an easy read for the Sharks and would have never got through anyway.

Duncan Paia’aua (12) is lined up and taken out on suspicion.

What makes this play call even worse is the Reds had already tried it 10 minutes earlier with the same result, again in a great attacking position on the 22 but didn’t learn the lesson.

The first time the Reds ran the play Paia’aua spills the ball in this rib-tickler.

Summary

The Reds opened up the playbook and looked to strike more from the set-piece last year but struggled to make a break or score, often turning the ball straight back over.

These two examples were selected because they illustrate one of the Reds main issues at set-piece – the failure to use numbers efficiently to attack space.

When you try to run strike plays that require exquisite timing and understanding from three or four players, you need a high level of chemistry that wasn’t there last year.

In fairness to Cooper, the backline was foreign to him. He had only played a handful of games with Kerevi and Hunt, and it was Paia’aua’s first full season starting at 12.

They tried to play around Cooper as a playmaker but it was below par but it is unfair to say that it was solely his fault.

Where I believe Thorn couldn’t trust Cooper anymore will be revealed in part two looking at phase play and defence.

Video Spacer

 

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 6

Sam Warburton | The Big Jim Show | Full Episode

Japan Rugby League One | Sungoliath v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Japan Rugby League One | Spears v Wild Knights | Full Match Replay

Boks Office | Episode 10 | Six Nations Final Round Review

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | How can New Zealand rugby beat this Ireland team

Beyond 80 | Episode 5

Rugby Europe Men's Championship Final | Georgia v Portugal | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

A
Adrian 1 hours ago
Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby?

Thanks 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

8 Go to comments
T
Trevor 3 hours ago
Will forgotten Wallabies fit the Joe Schmidt model?

Thanks Brett.. At last a positive article on the potential of Wallaby candidates, great to read. Schmidt’s record as an international rugby coach speaks for itself, I’m somewhat confident he will turn the Wallaby’s fortunes around …. on the field. It will be up to others to steady the ship off the paddock. But is there a flaw in my optimism? We have known all along that Australia has the players to be very competitive with their international rivals. We know that because everyone keeps telling us. So why the poor results? A question that requires a definitive answer before the turn around can occur. Joe Schmidt signed on for 2 years, time to encompass the Lions tour of 2025. By all accounts he puts family first and that’s fair enough, but I would wager that his 2 year contract will be extended if the next 18 months or so shows the statement “Australia has the players” proves to be correct. The new coach does not have a lot of time to meld together an outfit that will be competitive in the Rugby Championship - it will be interesting to see what happens. It will be interesting to see what happens with Giteau law, the new Wallaby coach has already verbalised that he would to prefer to select from those who play their rugby in Australia. His first test in charge is in July just over 3 months away .. not a long time. I for one wish him well .. heaven knows Australia needs some positive vibes.

21 Go to comments
B
Bull Shark 7 hours ago
Jake White: Are modern rugby players actually better?

Of the rugby I’ve born witness to in my lifetime - 1990 to date - I recognize great players throughout those years. But I have no doubt the game and the players are on average better today. So I doubt going back further is going to prove me wrong. The technical components of the game, set pieces, scrums, kicks, kicks at goal. And in general tactics employed are far more efficient, accurate and polished. Professional athletes that have invested countless hours on being accurate. There is one nation though that may be fairly competitive in any era - and that for me is the all blacks. And New Zealand players in general. NZ produces startling athletes who have fantastic ball skills. And then the odd phenomenon like Brooke. Lomu. Mcaw. Carter. Better than comparing players and teams across eras - I’ve often had this thought - that it would be very interesting to have a version of the game that is closer to its original form. What would the game look like today if the rules were rolled back. Not rules that promote safety obviously - but rules like: - a try being worth 1 point and conversion 2 points. Hence the term “try”. Earning a try at goals. Would we see more attacking play? - no lifting in the lineouts. - rucks and break down laws in general. They looked like wrestling matches in bygone eras. I wonder what a game applying 1995 rules would look like with modern players. It may be a daft exercise, but it would make for an interesting spectacle celebrating “purer” forms of the game that roll back the rules dramatically by a few versions. Would we come to learn that some of the rules/combinations of the rules we see today have actually made the game less attractive? I’d love to see an exhibition match like that.

29 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby? Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby?
Search