Taking the road less travelled makes all the difference. When a fork in the road looms ahead, the right course can often lie on the most unexpected path. Rugby in 2025 will need to learn to expected the unexpected and follow its nose to the right destination in the New Year.
Last week I was sent a report by World Rugby consultant and a prominent ex-referee of the amateur era, Corris Thomas. Back in the day, Corris was always one of the most progressive officials, looking to minimise the number of penalties in a game by reducing them to ‘material’ offences which concretely affected the outcome of a play. Matches refereed by Mr Thomas tended to be free-flowing, and the players had to quickly learn to be ‘comfortable in chaos’. The concept of materiality has not only survived, it has thrived among the best referees in professional times.
His report focused on the 2021 Women’s World Cup in New Zealand [played one year later in November 2022], arguably the most exciting and dramatic of international competitions, male or female, in recent memory. Although the Black Ferns had won five of the previous six World Cups, they were no longer the tournament favourites, having been overtaken by the only two professional nations on planet rugby at the time, England and France.
They had first been beaten by France and then trounced by the Red Roses on tour in November 2021, by a combined score over two matches of 99-27. That had prompted considerable soul-searching in the shaky isles, some root-and-branch reform and the installation of Sir Wayne Smith as head coach.
While England’s women were approximating the kind of stats you typically see in the men’s version, the Professor’s solution was to strip New Zealand rugby back to its heartbeat in the running and passing games. Corris takes up the story:
“New Zealand brought a strategy and playing approach to the tournament that was unique to them. It was a game that revolved around distributing the ball at pace, in all parts of the pitch, by all players with the set pieces seen more as sources of distributable ball than vehicles of attrition.
- Making twice as many passes as their opponents
- Rucking at the highest rate both at the pool and knockout stages
- Kicking by far the least
- Mauling the least”
Over six matches, the Black Ferns set 14 mauls compared to 52 by the Red Roses. In a pleasing symmetry, England mauled 71% of their lineout throw while New Zealand shifted the same percentage of ball won through their backs. England tapped one in 15 penalties, New Zealand tapped one in three.
Thomas notes: “One in three of New Zealand’s kicks were chips or grubbers with 57% kicked into opposition territory: England’s rate was one in seven grubber and chips and over 80% kicked into opponents’ territory.”
This unusually clear differentiation of national characteristics and preferences extended to France also. The French had by far the best defence in the tournament, conceding only five tries and 46 points over six games. They also kicked more than everyone else, with their scrum-half kicking away one in every nine possessions compared to one in 56 by the Black Ferns.
The contrast in styles resulted in one of the most enthralling tournaments and two of the closest finishes in World Cup history. Both the Ferns’ semi-final against France and their final versus England were won and lost on the very last play. The ability to win by playing the running rugby of his dreams blessed ‘Smithy’ with one of the most memorable experiences of even his long and distinguished career.
“I have never been prouder of [any] team,” he said. “We just wanted to go out and play and be true to our DNA.
“To see Eden Park packed for the Black Ferns, I never thought I would see that in 100 years.
“That was the most phenomenal moment of my career, listening to ‘Black Ferns, Black Ferns, Black Ferns’ at Eden Park.
“This will go down as one of the great experiences of my life.”
The tournament sent ripples out into the future of the game like doves from the ark. Which way will the rugby world reach under pressure? Towards more forward power, more iron defence and playing for territory with the kicking game; or towards speed and continuity, “the distribution of the ball at pace, in all parts of the pitch, by all players”?
Will the set-pieces develop further as restarts geared to producing usable ball for attack, or remain stuck as ‘vehicles of attrition’? Does the final of men’s game in 2023, with one try and 23 points scored, or the final of the women’s in 2022, featuring 11 tries and 65 points, present a truer picture of what is to come?
In the men’s club/provincial game, there are plenty of green sprigs of optimistic holly, and it is largely a function of the English Premiership’s shift towards a Black Ferns mindset. The loss of three professional clubs has shaken the game to its spine in the UK, and highlighted the need to provide more entertainment and scoring, more bang for the spectator’s buck.
Ironically the most successful league at attracting investment and sponsorship, France’s Top 14, also provides the most modest spectacle, with the lowest ball in play time and the most penalties awarded [eight] per try scored. The Premiership is summoning the old spirit of Super Rugby more quickly than any domestic competition up north, with one try scored for every five penalties awarded and the Bristol Bears matching the Blues’ record of just over five tries per game scored. The URC is a fascinating crucible of the game’s development, with a South African attritional ‘handbrake’ applied to traditional free-scorers such as Leinster and Glasgow.
Last weekend’s match between Leicester Tigers and Bristol showcased the new spirit in the Prem perfectly. Michael Cheika’s Tigers were coming off a 50-point thrashing of the Sharks, but found themselves on the receiving end of a 54-24 beating in front of their own incredulous supporters at citadel Welford Road. The Bears had scored six tries by half-time, fulfilling all the Professor’s precepts in the process.
Within the first 40 minutes Bristol had blown away any cobwebbed notions the away team has to turn up to forbidding fortresses such as Welford Road and grimly grind out a result. By half-time they had launched five attacks from a start point within their own 22, and another two from between the 22 and their own side of halfway. They made 21 offloads in the game, and it can take a less ambitious attack-oriented club than the Bears eight or 10 matches to reach that figure.
As the first clip shows, Bristol can slip in and out of structure at will, with a couple of offloads on the first phase setting up a deliciously-delayed pass by 10 AJ MacGinty to his two front-rowers in the second. Bristol’s fourth try followed the same pattern.
An offload from outstanding number 11 Gabriel Ibitoye sets up the break for 13 Kalaveti Ravouvou initially, and a second Fijian, number eight Bill Mata finishes off on the second phase.
The most dramatic brushstroke on the West Country canvas occurred in the 35th minute, beginning with yet another counter from the Bears’ own goalline.
No fewer than three passes in or just before contact unlock the Tigers’ defence for the initial bust by Ibitoye, and another over-the-top basketball offload provides the finishing touch from the wingman to full-back Rich Lane to complete a length-of-the-field score.
When Smith watches a Bristol team coached by Pat Lam playing rugby from anywhere, grasping the nettle of attacking opportunity regardless of field position, it must bring a broad grin to his face. It is an example of rugby following the fork in the road signposted by the Black Ferns.
Rugby in 2025 would do well to heed the lesson, and focus on enhancing the use of the set-piece as ‘sources of distributable ball’ rather than simple ‘vehicles of attrition’. There is still a place for romance in the game’s soul, and that is where the secret of new growth in rugby can be nurtured.
Cheers AA👍
Okay that's me done I can see this is a pointless conversation.🖐️
Fl
I have been following the entertaining discussion .
Quite why you fail to recognise Marcus Smiths wonderful skills is beyond me and obviously others too.
England have been rubbish way before M Smith appeared in the squad , to take the blame from you and a certain O Farrell and G Ford were supposedly running the show and failing dismally.
5th in the six nations is not running the show unless you also attribute " badly" to the dialogue too .
Ford is now injury prone as old age creeps ever forward and his kicking days appear to be limited too.
Fin Smith was superb at the weekend and as mentioned is far closer to Marcus than Ford could ever attempt or imagine.
The days of protecting a weak 10 are well over and defence is an important attribute.
Unfortunately Ford is useless at tackling and is a passenger at Sale . Both Smiths get stuck-in, witness Fins tackle on a charging forward and getting him down .
I do believe Borthwick will have taken on board the criticism and put both Smiths in the team and we will see a rejuvenated England this 6 nations and will do well .
and yet the outside backs barely touched the ball this autumn!
I found some old stats from my database on the autumn game v Aussie as well as the first Test in NZ [above] ....
Results:
Marcus runs = 3, inc 1 clean break and 1 tackle break
Kicks long = 5
Kicks short = 3, inc one break assist to Lawrence and one try assist to Sleightholme
Passes outside = 17
Pass inside = 3
Passes to backs = 13
Passes to forwards = 7
So once again, there is no support for your claims. Theory that Marcus cannot pass to his outside = bunkum.
Why are you avoiding the point about ruck stats?
Where should I go to get stats pertaining to run/pass/kick distribution?
That is interesting that Marcus distributed more in the summer than he did in the autumn. I wonder why that happened; do you have any theories?
"How convenient! So you have nothing."
NB I don't have the specific thing that you want me to have. I'm really sorry about this, but I don't know why you're so fixated on that. There were actually multiple strands to our discussion but now you've realised you have more data than me on that one specific point its the only thing you're willing to talk about. I'm also legitimately not sure what you want from me at this point. As I said I'm not going to deny what I know to be true just because you have more figures to hand!
How convenient! So you have nothing.
But as I was researching the first Test Eng v the ABs in any case, I thought I'd take the trouble to try and work out what you are trying to say about Marcus Smith via a sample game.
Results as follows:
Distribution:
Long kicks = 3
Short [attacking] kicks = 2
Ball carries = 4, inc 1 tackle bust
Passes outside = 17, inc 1 break assist and 1 try assist
Passes inside = 1
Passes to outside backs = 12
Passes to forwards = 6
So if you are trying to say Marcus does not kow how to include his backs in the game, that game def does not back up your theory.
I do have access to ruck building stats, and have explained on numerous occasions why I interpret those stats differently from how you do. But instead of debating that point you've just got angry!
I actually don't have access to stats pertaining to run/pass/kick distribution. Where do you find them?
I had seen stats confirming the evidence of my eyes that England's outside backs barely received any passes in the autumn, but those stats are now behind a paywall. I can't cite specific figures because of that, but I'm not going to deny what I know to be true just because you have more figures to hand!
Sorry - I read the Charlie Morgan piece multiple times without having to pay, but now it is showing as being behind a paywall.
The point of sharing the article wasn't to push Charlie Morgan specifically, but just because the article presents pretty clear cut statistics showing how rarely outside backs have been touching the ball when Marcus is at 10.
I think Ford looks very coachable and England shouldn't lose faith in him. Marcus Smith has just been given lots and lots of chances and its never translated into results.
🍿🥷🏻
Oh, pay for stuff from someone who doesn't have any experience working in the game. Great idea.😁
I agree on certain items on your menu - Marcus could still improve his contestable kicking and play behind pod for example - but you're drawing the wrong conclusions and minimizing the value of the chances he does create.
He is still very coachable and England don't need to lose the faith.
Who cares? I already gave you stats related to try-scoring averages, run/pass/kick distribution linked to Marcus, ruck-building in your imaginary 'Irish attack system' - none of which you seem to have access too...
Give me some cold hard facts, I'm getting bored.😆🤓
try reading "The reasons Marcus Smith has not locked down the England 10 shirt yet" by Charlie Morgan in the Telegraph
I completely agree. That's doesn't address anything I said though!
England were better at defending, but that doesn't tell us anything about what they were doing when they were attacking.
Mate come up with some evidence other than an off the cuff remark by Dan Biggar.
You've presented nothing to support your case re Marcus at all.
If you only win 70 rucks per game it means you spend a lot of time on D and prob are more comfortable doing that - which was exactly the impression when Felix Jones was still coaching.
Pretty obvious stuff.
on the article "Why defensive aggressor Felix Jones will drive new-look England" I said:
"Look at the kick:pass ratio from England’s games under Borthwick:
Italy 20:100
Argentina 50:100
South Africa 53:100
Fiji 24:100
Samoa 22:100
Chile 12:100
Japan 25:100
Argentina 55:100
Fiji 30:100
Ireland 21:100
Wales 24:100
Wales 13:100
Ireland 26:100
France 22:100
Wales 26:100
Italy 23:100
Scotland 18:100
The average is 27:100
The average in games we have won is 28:100
The average in games we have lost is 26:100, but these averages are skewed by the fact that we have tended to kick less and pass more against worse sides
The average in games where we have beaten current top 10 sides is 35:100
The average in games where we have beaten current top 8 sides is 39:100
The average in games where we have beaten current top 7 sides is 53:100
The average in games where we have lost to teams currently ranked lower than us is 20:100"
on the article "Four talking points after England's narrowest-ever win over Italy" I said:
"Look at the kick:pass ratio from England’s last 8 games
Italy 20:100
Argentina 50:100
South Africa 53:100
Fiji 24:100
Samoa 22:100
Chile 12:100
Japan 25:100
Argentina 55:100
So (1) England spread it wide more yesterday than against anyone bar Chile, and (2) all of england’s best performances have been when we kick loads, and in every match where we kick loads we have had a good performance."
"In particular you're neglecting the impact of the type of D Felix Jones was trying to introduce, which demanded most of England's training energy at the time."
I'm not, actually, I'm hyper aware of that fact and of its impact. I think it is because of the defence that England's new attack faltered so much for the first three games, something you ignore when you try to judge England's attack in the six nations by taking an average of either the trys scored or the rucks completed over the whole tournament.
"International coaches don't just pick those styles like sweets from a sweet shop!"
Yeah, I know. England's defence wasn't exactly the same as SA's, but it was similar. England's attack did rely on turnovers more than the Irish system did, but it was still pretty similar to it, and then shifted to something similar-but-not-identitcal to the Labit/Nick Evans systems, which are themselves similar but not identical.
entirely irrelevant stats won't convince me, no. you'd do well to try to stay on topic!
"that cannot coexist with the Springbok D adopted by Felix Jones"
why can't it? it empirically did last year.
"That is why England sat 34 rucks adrift of Ireland in the 6N..."
You refuse to engage with the point that rucks completed only tells the full story when the Irish-style attack is being executed successfully - which it wasn't for the first 3 games. Disingenous at best! In the match against Ireland, England completed more rucks than Ireland did; so you think England weren't running an Irish style attack because they completed too few rucks, but Ireland completed even fewer in that match, so I guess in that match Ireland weren't running an Irish style attack? Make it make sense!
Your argument is far too patchy to stand up I'm afraid!
Thanks for he snooty thumbs-up.😁
But it is you who need to 'return to form' my friend.
You ignore the main reason for England's failure in November [poor defence] and pin bad results on Marcus. Disingenuous at best.
Then you claim wrongly that England were trying to implement an Irish attack system when that cannot coexist with the Springbok D adopted by Felix Jones. That is why England sat 34 rucks adrift of Ireland in the 6N...
Your narrative is far too patchy to stand up I'm afraid.
Thanks for finally reading my comments before jumping to mischaracterise them.
I don't think its worth continuing to engage here (rucks completed only tells the full story when the Irish-style attack is being executed successfully - which it wasn't for the first 3 games). Your latest article is a return to form.
I see nothing will dislodge your prejudice😁
Okay I see you want Furbank at 15, so all good.
But I cannot agree with your summary of England's style.
England were never 'running an Irish-style attack' in the 6N. Their average # of rucks won was 73 to Ireland's 107 per game in the tournament. If you run an Ireland attack you dominate possession of the ball.
So the signals were far too weak to support your claim.
Likewise the Labit/Quins attack theory. They scored some good tries on the counter v. Ireland and off set-piece v France, but that is the limit of what you can say.
There some flickers of life in attack, but generally life was dominated by the development of Felix Jones' D. And defence was the main concern in November after he left.
To pinpoint Marcus Smith as the main problem is off point.
No I haven't.
Nick you're the best analyst on here but seem to be going out of your way to be obtuse. I said that I thought England should go back to the irish-style attack they were running in last year's six nations.
Did we?? I don't remember it.
These are just bald assertions without foundation I'm afraid. International coaches don't just pick those styles like sweets from a sweet shop!
In particular you're neglecting the impact of the type of D Felix Jones was trying to introduce, which demanded most of England's training energy at the time.
That meant the attack got relatively little attention in the early stages of the 6N, and they turned the corner by using a turnover based attack v Ireland.
You cannot play an Ireland attack and a Springbok D at the same time, even Leinster are discovering that one!
You've just said you want to go back to the WC semi side below....😁
Set pieces are important and the way teams use them is a great indication of how they play the game. No team is showcasing their revolution more than the Springboks. This year they have mauled less and primarily in the attacking third. Otherwise they have tended to set like they are going to maul and then play around the corner or shove the ball out the back. They arent also hitting the crash ball carrier constantly but instead they are choosing to use their width or a big carrying forward in wider areas. While their maul is varied the scrum is still a blunt instrument winning penalties before the backs have a go. Some teams have chosen to blunt their set piece game for more control. The All Blacks are kicking more penalties and are using their powerful scrum as an attacking tool choosing that set piece as an attacking weapon. Their willingness to maul more and in different positions is also becoming more prominent. The French continue to play conservative rugby off the set piece using their big bruisers frequently. The set piece is used differently by different teams. Different teams play different ways and can be successful regardless. They can win games with little territory and possession or smash teams with plenty of both. The game of rugby is for all types and sizes and thats true in the modern era. I hope that administrators keep it that way and dont go further towards a Rugby League style situation. Some administrators are of the opinion that rugby is too slow and needs to be sped up. Why not rather empower teams to choose how they want to play and create a framework that favours neither size nor agility. That favours neither slow tempo play or rock n roll rugby. Create a game that favour both and challenge teams to execute their plans. If World Rugby can create a game like that then it will be the ultimate winner.
I love it when different styles from different countries come up against each other. It's fascinating. Vive la difference.
Keep? Do you have any idea what league is like? That is what rugby has turned into, not where it's trying to go. The universal body type of mass, the game needs to stop heading towards the physically gifted and go back to its roots of how it's played. Much like how SA are trying to add to their game by taking advantage of new laws.
That's what's happening, but as Nick suggests the slow tempo team can still too easyily dictate how the fast tempo team can play.
You mean how rugby used to be before teams started trying to manipulate everything to take advantage for their own gain to the discredit of the game.
Speed of game and stoppages in play remain a problem SK. Set piece oriented teams generally want a lower ball in play time, and they have various strategies to try and get it - legal and illegal!
They want to maximize their power in short bursts, then recover for the next effort. Teams like Bristol are the opposite. They want high ball in play to keep the oppo moving, they want quicker resolution at set pieces, and if anyone is to kick the ball out, they want it to be the other team.
The way rugby is there will always be a place for set piece based teams, but progression in the game is associated far more with the Black Ferns/Bristol style.
The scrum is a crucible. We have still not solved the problem of scrums ending in FKs and penalties, sometimes with yellow cards attached. A penalty ought not to be the aim of a scrum, a dominant SP should lead to greater attacking opportunity as long as the offence is not dangerous but technical in nature.
Merry Christmas, Nick. Thanks for all your articles.
For all the doom and gloom around super rugby, its stats are very similar to the Gallagher Premiership with the exception of ball in play time.
HC to you too Mitch and thanks for all your involvements. Yes, though they always tended to be way ahead in terms of content!
Sorry been a bit disjointed reading the article as one has difficulty at this time, but one thing I want to say other than the topic is that this style of rugby isn't the sole domain of the All Blacks, I mean it never was. Australia were often even more enterprising and it's no surprise that their heavy involvement hasn't also helped the Premiership appreciate other ways of playing, and indeed much of these plays were like watching Australia play England all over again.
That said, Lam no doubt harbors many found memories from the early Auckland Blues domination days. That side found such a confidence that allowed them to play well above their individual parts that I'm sure he felt better being a part of.
On the topic, romance for me is the French game were they love immobile forwards and electric backs that keep the two games, of forwards and backs, completely seperate, and the enthusiasms British (and maybe to a lesser extent Irish, they had a different fire for me) had for the power mini games. In a look to the future you definitely want that to be cherished as the All Black rugby talked about here wouldn't have had the appeal without that counterpoint. More immediately I can see the game homogenizing, but more long term some notes I had were that the different domestic rules for the game shouldn't vary too far from the International rules, but each area has their own needs to change the game and WR need to balance those all out when it comes to show piece tournaments, so we don't see what happened in 23 with all the criticism of the referring for example. The game needs to unite but it also needs to fight various different battles that will try to rip it apart.
What do you guys think that rugby will be like in the future?
Will the Springboks, and the All Blacks be as good as they are now?
Maybe the English Roses will finally beat the French "Les Bleus". Maybe there will be an E-Ball that can measure how many times it was passed or how many meters it traveled.
This is all a big mystery...
Well when the Wallabies get an Australian coach we will be number one before long
The Boks will remain formidable while Rassie is running the show. Can't see England beating the French anytime soon. New Zealand will be OK as long as they don't get complacent about rugby League's efforts to make serious inroads in New Zealand.
Discuss..