Being aggresive by nature, I've always favoured my team to take a short drop out in order to increase the chance to get the ball back than acquiescing and giving the ball back to the opposition to start off their attack 50 metres out. This gives them the chance to spread the ball on the 3rd or 4th tackle adding variety to their attacking set.
I really don't know why most teams prefer to do this especially when they have just defended 2 sets already. The only time they usually go for the short kick is when they are losing and there isn't much time left in the game.
If I was coach, I would practice short dropout tactics only.
I look forward to input why some think that the long drop out overweighs the short one.
Replies
I've never been in favour of the short drop out, but the way teams now defend on their own line with Fullbacks in the line it might now be worth the risk. I'm not sure our goal line defence is that good just yet.
I think only the Dogs employed short drop out tactics. The rest all go for long drop outs.
The Storm, Roosters and Raiders are masters of defending repeat sets. The rest aren't and usually are breached on the 2 or 3rd set. Don't know why they insist on it. If defence wasn't my asset as a team I'd rather gamble and chance my 50% to get the ball from a bat back. This is something we could have employed with Taka who's great at batting the ball back thanks to his size and timing.
The quick drop has work bouncing over the sideline for the loose head. Why wait for the shot clock to expire. I'm also interested why the first drop out is 50m and the next ones are only 35-40m.
Drop kicks finding touch are rarer than hen's teeth.
I think we got caught with a fast one this year, and I know I saw at least 2 fast ones reap rewards during the season. Fast and short for the first one of the game so no talk needed. Shed prep, same as a good trick scrum play to keep them on their toes.
I agree a quick drop out is the go. Most times the opposition winger would be out of play so go for touch. The ball would have to be quickly given to the kicker under the post and all defenders in the in-goal but a drop out aiming for touch around the 30-40m on side where winger is out of play is a definite play that isn't tested enough.
dropout
PF, I'm a big fan of the short drop out, and kick off too, but it can't be overdone or else the surprise factor is gone and they can backfire if the situation doesn't warrant it. We used to employ the short kick a bit under Brian Smith and I thought back then that we used it effectively and didn't overdo it.
Can't see BA going that way, he seems to be a much more conservative coach than Smith was.
The Ipswich Jets in QLD Intrust Super Cup employed the short kick off 100% for a whole season under the coaching of the Walker Brothers. Got them to the Grandfinal too. It was in conjunction with getting off tackled players quickly to speed up the opposition play the ball and quick kicks for restarts. Sounds weird but their reasoning was possession wins games. Their tactics gave them the most ball in the game, and it worked......for a season.
Oppositon worked it out though, and after that succesful season so it was all less effective.
Personally, I think we need to mix it up a whole lot more. Be unpredictable. Grubbers, high balls, running play on 5th tackles. Short kickoffs, more 40/20 attempts, quicker restarts to get opposition offside, kick for touch on restarts. Dont let the opposition feel comfortable about whats about to happen.
Consistency can be strategised for. Unpredictablily and sudden change is hard to defend against.
Love the short dropout... after a 'normal' dropout you're almost defending on your line after a couple of hitups anyway... may as well at least have a shot of getting the ball back... if you don't, whatever, you're defending anyway. Some might argue it's easier to defend close to the line as well. Should be used a lot more.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next