Defence wins the big games or does it?
Rugby league can basically be divided into two aspects of play: attack, where the primary objective is to score, and defence, where the primary objective is to stop the other side scoring. Two key performance indicators in both are possession and territory, where if a team defends and attacks well, these will generally be high. There are more specific aspects of play which facilitate these primary areas, such as, in attack, creation of second phase play, quick play the balls, and astute kicking. In defence, there is the prevention of line breaks, physical domination in the ruck and the elimination of second phase play. Every aim in defence has a correlation in attack, and is the direct inverse of it, for example, where there is the creation of second phase play in attack, there is the prevention of second phase play in defence. Where there is the creation of quick play the balls in attack, there is the prevention of quick play the balls in defence.
Coaches can choose between two extremes they can focus 100% on attack, or 100% on defence. A lot of the experts in rugby league, such as Phil Gould and Warren Ryan, like to say that defence wins the big matches. Either extreme, though, is clearly flawed significantly, especially this one. If taken literally, then it would be impossible to win a match, as points are not scored in defence. If anything, the other extreme would be the better one, as it is possible, although extremely unlikely, that a team attacks so well that the other team never gets the ball. Clearly, though, a balance needs to be struck. Where this balance lies between the two extremes will depend on factors such as a teams strengths and weaknesses, and weather conditions at the time of the game.
Two coaches seemingly polar opposites of one another are John Lang of the Panthers, and Matthew Elliott of the Raiders. Lang, whose team won the NRL premiership in 2003, is quoted to have said it doesnt matter how many points the other team scores, as long as we score more. Clearly his focus is on scoring points, that is, attack. Matthew Elliott does not have such a quote, but judging by the playing style of the Raiders, especially in 2003, it would seem that his priorities lie in defence the Raiders base their play largely around dummy-half runs and one-out hitups. By doing this, the focus is on possession and territory maintenance, no doubt crucial aspects of attack; however other common aspects of attack are almost completely ignored, such as the use of set plays and second phase play. In short, Elliott is using attack primarily to facilitate defence, thereby giving defence the priority. The idea is that by maintaining territory by abolition of second phase play and maintenance of possession (the Raiders have consistently had one of the best completion rates in the NRL), defence will be a lot easier. This is almost the exact opposite to John Langs style of play, where by placing a large emphasis on attack and point-scoring, there is a greater room for error in defence.
There is an element of truth, however, behind the idea that defence wins big games. Big games are games such as representative games and finals, and therefore are usually close games involving two high quality teams, and in close games, it is often the team who can hold out the longest, the team who can keep the opposition from scoring that extra try, who ends up winning. A good example is the 2003 NRL grand final between the Panthers and the Roosters although the Panthers had become minor premiers and earnt their spot in the season decider through exciting attacking football, it was their defence, their ability to hold out the Roosters for sustained periods, that won them the grand final. The logical problem with this idea, though, is that it is somewhat of a circular argument surely any victory can be attributed to the winning team defensive effort, their preventing of the losing team from scoring. At the same time, it is within reason to postulate that the cause of the loss was the losing teams failure to attack successfully. Clearly, both facets of play are equally significant when analysing the outcome of a match.
Defence and attack are interrelated. Defence is facilitated by good attacking play, and attack is facilitated by strong, solid defence.
748 words, including title
