Analysis: How lineout defence is evolving

Analyst Sam Larner returns to Planet Rugby to take a look at the lineout and how teams are trying to cover the weakest defender at the set-piece.

Off set-piece defences can line-up however they want. That, of course, is not possible in open play. The benefits of lining up as you wish mean that you can hide your weaker defenders and keep them from making important tackles or decisions. Rugby tradition dictates that, at a lineout for example, your fly-half should stand in the defensive line closest to the back of the lineout with your two centres on his outside. That puts huge pressure on your fly-half to be a good defender. Of course, if you are picking your fly-half because he is a good playmaker then you are unlikely to find someone who also has the skills of a very strong defender as well. Why would you put pressure on your fly-half if he is not a great defender?

The answer for most coaches is to do away with tradition and put their players wherever they think they have the best chance of success. In this article we will look at how teams change their defensive set-up and how they hide weaker defenders.

In this first example you can see that Uruguay defended with their fly-half, Felipe Berchesi, at the front of the lineout and scrum-half Santiago Arata at the back. The lineout is around halfway on the pitch and so Uruguay are not anticipating a long maul. They have therefore dropped their two flankers, Santiago Civetta and Juan Manuel Gaminara, into the midfield to cover where Berchesi would usually be.

The threat was wide so Uruguay switched their best and weakest defenders to cover that threat.

A little later in the game Wales had a lineout in the Uruguayan 22. This time the threat is close – Wales could maul over from this distance. Gaminara and Civetta move back to defending tight to the lineout and Berchesi and Arata move into the midfield. Hopefully away from the immediate action. Unfortunately, Wales have prepared for this and rather than starting a maul they send Hadleigh Parkes on a crash ball directly at Berchesi. The fly-half makes the tackle but Wales have got over the gain line.

Australia did something similar at the World Cup in Japan. On threatening lineouts in their own 22 they put scrum-half Nic White in the five-metre channel with David Pocock stood where the scrum-half would usually be and, in this case, Jordan Uelese the hooker, stood as part of the lineout.

If Wales went long then Uelese could lift at the back of the lineout and Pocock would move back to cover an attack at the tail. If the ball went to the front then Pocock could be there for the maul and White and Uelese would continue to cover their positions. White is only at risk if Wales peel off the maul and attack his channel.

That is something that Wales repeated last weekend against France. Close to their own line Wales defended with either George North, or when he went off, Johnny McNicholl in the five-metre channel. This is risky because from this distance any carry down the near channel requires the defender to complete the tackle otherwise it will be a try.

France do particularly well here because they draw Wyn Jones, stood at the front of the lineout, into the maul. That takes the only other Welsh defender out of the channel and gives Paul Willemse a clear shot at McNicholl. The winger cannot make the tackle and France score. In this situation it is dangerous to leave your defender in such a high-pressure situation and teams will spot this and, as France did, target it.

Conclusion

At lineouts coaches are clever and will hide their weaker defenders. Of course, opposition analysis can unearth that and it soon becomes a game of cat and mouse where the attack try and come up with plays which let them target the hidden defender.

Expect to see more of this as the Six Nations progresses and teams find more ways to target the opposition.

by Sam Larner