Analysis of England’s Kicking Strategy in Rugby
World Rugby has recently released a new edition of the laws of the game, but one fundamental aspect remains unchanged: there is no specific guideline dictating how often teams should kick, run, or pass the ball. This decision is left entirely to the players and coaches, a dynamic that has always existed in the sport. Last Saturday, during the match between England and Scotland at Twickenham, England opted for a predominantly kicking strategy to secure a narrow 16-15 victory. This choice, however, was met with boos from the home crowd, revealing a divide between strategy and spectator expectation.
As we look forward to England’s upcoming matches against Italy and Wales in the Six Nations, it’s worthwhile to ponder why some fans expressed discontent despite the win against Scotland, a team that had bested them in their previous four encounters. Kicking is not an alien concept; many successful teams, including the All Blacks and the 2022 Six Nations champions, France, have utilized this tactic effectively from their own half.
The Irish team, in their recent triumph over Wales, also demonstrated the effectiveness of kicking, executing 38 kicks to England’s 36 against Scotland. For Ireland, this strategy was pivotal in transforming a sluggish performance into a confident victory, applying pressure on Wales and relieving their own team from defensive duties. Players like Jamison Gibson-Park showcased exceptional line-kicking skills, while Sam Prendergast’s long punts exploited gaps left by a youthful yet promising Welsh back three.
The Dichotomy of Kicking: Effective vs. Detractive
To properly address the ongoing debate regarding kicking strategies, we can categorize it into two main questions: Is the kicking effective on its own merit, and does it detract from the team’s other strengths? This latter question haunted England and head coach Steve Borthwick throughout the 2023 World Cup, where the team relied heavily on kicking, at times opting for it even when better opportunities to advance were available.
Many spectators, including myself, grew weary of England’s relentless kicking approach, especially during the “bronze final” in Paris. Despite the victory against Argentina, this strategy turned players like Henry Arundell into peripheral figures, limiting the influence of dynamic players like scrum-half Alex Mitchell and fly-half Marcus Smith. England’s centers and wings found themselves constantly looking skyward, chasing high balls rather than engaging in more creative plays.
In their match against Scotland, England kicked the ball 36 times. While they managed to secure the win, they scored only one try, leaving many fans frustrated with the team’s excessive reliance on box-kicking and tactical grubbers. Some of the kicks from Mitchell and Smith seemed to disregard promising attacking opportunities, favoring aerial play instead. This was particularly striking considering only two weeks earlier, England had employed a more varied game plan against France, culminating in a one-point victory.
Comparative Performance: Kicking vs. Carrying
In the match against France, England made 95 carries for 700 meters, achieving eight line-breaks. In contrast, their performance against Scotland saw them make only 79 carries for 474 meters and two line-breaks. While the second try against France resulted from a well-executed kick-pass from Smith to Tommy Freeman, it was set up by solid carrying and strategic gameplay.
Borthwick had previously emphasized the team’s newfound pace on the edges and the presence of distributors and ball-players. However, this potential was not fully realized against Scotland, with players like Ollie Sleightholme barely touching the ball before being substituted shortly after halftime. After the match, Borthwick noted that Scotland’s tactics forced England into a reactive strategy, and it is likely that detailed statistics on territory gain and scoring chances from kicking were analyzed post-game.
The dilemma for England lies in the fact that a lower possession rate exposes the flaws in their kicking strategy. However, the Twickenham crowd deserves to believe that their team can perform at a higher level, especially on home turf. This encapsulates one of rugby’s oldest debates: the balance between kicking and running the ball. I recall attending a Grand Slam decider between England and Scotland at Twickenham in 1995, only to witness a match marred by constant kicking from both sides, resulting in a lackluster experience for spectators. The post-match commentary echoed the sentiments we hear today, though the achievement of a Grand Slam softened the critique.
Ultimately, to avoid discontent among fans, teams must excel not only in their kicking game but also in their overall performance. The challenge remains for England to find the right balance to satisfy both the tactical requirements of the game and the expectations of their supporters.
