Something struck me watching Ireland last week.
To me, there seemed to be four stages to the match. They were losing, came back into the game, went ahead, and then lost.
The first three of these are familiar to all Ireland (and Leinster fans) who enjoyed the 2009 season. During their famous grand slam victory Ireland were often behind in matches, before clawing their way back into it and getting their noses in front to win the match with a solid defensive effort.
Away in Wales, away in Scotland, home to France, away in Italy…in all but one match (home to England), Ireland were behind before coming back.
Away to Quins, the final against Leicester…no real need for it in the easy semi ;-),…
Not long into their six nations tilt that season, Ireland appeared to have adopted the Leinster one-up defence, a system that allowed Wallace, D’Arcy or O’Driscoll to step out of the line and hit their man early or even intercept. This gained yards in defence and drove opposition teams mad. This season, both teams employed the same patterns, but with quite different consequences. Ireland and Leinster often found their wingers facing two men, or knocking on attempted intercepts.
This is symptomatic of a greater change in the efforts of both teams. The one-up defence requires absolute trust in those around you to cover for you. It also requires no small amount of hunger and desire to know exactly what you want and then go gung-ho for it, completely commited to nailing your man/ROG.
Both with Ireland and Leinster, the teams know what they want, and if anything trust those around them even more (witness David Wallace being able to play as a proper 7 finally, without having to make all ROG’s tackles, now that Sexton is there and can make his own). So what’s the difference?
Hunger.
There is no way the Ireland team of 2009 would have lost to the Maori last week. There is no way the Leinster team of 2009 would have lost to the Ospreys last month. Those teams were hungry for success, and were so driven towards their goals (grand slam/Heineken Cup) that they would surely have seen it out when 4 points up against the men in black, or ground out a try when five down to the Ospreys.
In both of those matches, it was the opposition showing the hunger required to lift themselves (and the trophies) and see out a game they could easily have lost. The Ospreys, after a season spent cheating their way to a Heineken Cup 1/4 final and Magners League final, facing Leinster at home and a media that felt they had no chance, were hungrier than Leinster. Simple as. The New Zealand Maori were in celbrant mood, and anyone that saw their Haka knew they meant business in celebrating their centenary in their spiritual home.
It seems to happen more often in Rugby too. In more technical sports, teams seem to be able to put together what the Americans refer to as a dynasty (though they pronounce it funny…DIEnastie). Kilkenny are 3 games away from an historic 5th consecutive all Ireland in a sport that many consider to be the most technical of all ‘bat-and-ball’ sports. That means someone has previously won four in a row (as well as themselves). Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal have a near Monopoly on men’s tennis. Manchester United – much as it pains me to say it – have had two decades of dominance in English football. Yet, in power/impact/endurance sports (read rugby, American football, rowing, long distance running) there are far fewer incidents of teams winning consistently and dominating over long periods…in these sports, as well as the skill, fitness and innate ability required to succeed at the highest level, hunger is far more important – and far more influential – than in the likes of football, hurling and tennis. As an example, only one team (Leicester) has ever successfully defended the Heineken Cup, and no team has won the rugby world cup twice in a row. As an indicator of technical difficulty, there aren’t many sports that someone could take up at college and become an international (Tom Court).
Which leaves one question: How is this overcome in rugby? How does a team set itself up to win consistently at the highest level?
One may as well ask: how do you keep a team hungry? The answer to this is largely elusive. Sports psychologists, fitness gurus, inspirational speakers,…all of these people make a career out of trying to find the magic dust that will bring continued and continual success to a team.
The other way to approach this – rather than trying to keep players hungry – is to keep a team hungry by changing out the players who aren’t. Who has the motivation to keep playing through the pain barrier to win by a scrappy last-minute drop goal? Who has seen it all before and doesn’t really care if he misses that ankle-tap tackle?
These are the questions that will be plaguing Joe Schmidt this season, and – more pressingly – will be plaguing Declan Kidney this week. Who has a point to prove? My answer: Jonathan Sexton (recently dropped), Cian Healy (recently pilloried for performance in France), Shane Jennings (unfairly banned for half the international season), Ed O’Donoghue (new boy), and perhaps Paddy Wallace (sorry Gordon, but he played brilliantly against the Maori and has a point to prove to DC) and Shane Horgan (Fighting his way back into the international picture in his 30s in a position dominated by 20-somethings). However they can be accommodated – even if it means sacrificing proven skill – it has been shown time and time again that there’s no substitute in rugby for hungry players and a hungry team.
Whether its for steak dinners or stamping, John Hayes, of course, is always hungry.
imaginehq
joooooe
jungleb00gie
Points of Blue 