In nigh-on six years of Andy Farrell, Ireland have never kicked that often. Well, almost.
Many a recent column inch has been dedicated to discussing Ireland’s tactical shift of the last 12 months. Spend less time on the ball. Kick. Advance via the boot rather than on the ground.
Just how drastic a change this has been ought to be explained. It’s also worth questioning if this shift suits Ireland. After years playing a certain way, do they have the right cattle for change?
Are Ireland sliding down rugby's global pecking order?
At Soldier Field, Ireland put boot to ball once for every 3.9 passes. After the Schmidt and Farrell eras ofpossession-based rugby, that’s an astonishing ratio. In five-and-a-half years of Farrell’s leadership, Ireland have only kicked more frequently than that twice. One occasion was the summer’s fixture against Georgia in a wet Tbilisi – rugby’s equivalent of a wet Tuesday night in Stoke – when Ireland kicked once for every 3.7 passes.
READ MORE
The other was the Ciarán Frawley drop-goal victory against South Africa back in 2024 (one kick per 3.8 passes). That’s it. In the 59 games of the Farrell era, on a dry day, Ireland have only kicked more often than Saturday, relative to possession held, on one occasion.
It’s not just a quantitative change. Personnel has varied too. Towards the back end of Johnny Sexton’s career there was talk aplenty of different players taking kick duty off his hands, of varying Ireland’s game. In the first Six Nations post-Sexton, Ireland’s kicking strategy remained fluid in terms of the number of players involved.
Then came the 2024 November internationals, the start of the Jack Crowley v Sam Prendergast battle for the 10 jersey. From then on, whoever was at outhalf for Ireland averaged more kicks per match than the non halfbacks. When Ireland kick, more often than not it’s from nine or 10. James Lowe’s trusty driver still gets a run out of the golf bag, but not to the same extent as before.
In other words, Ireland are kicking more often but from a narrower source. On the evidence of Saturday’s defeat, it is at least in part due to players who could be kicking – namely the backthree – chasing high balls. You can’t kick if you’re running after the thing.
This isn’t not necessarily a negative. There is a contemporary blueprint for success in this one-dimensional, short kicking strategy: England. Ireland’s plan doesn’t look too dissimilar from Steve Borthwick’s, only it’s not yet as effective.
Of England’s 26 kicks against Australia last weekend, just four came from those not playing scrum- or outhalf. They had four scoring moments (three tries to a penalty), three of which came from their high and short kicking strategy.
Their plan is simple. In Tom Roebuck and Immanuel Feyi-Waboso, England have two of the game’s better aerial chasers. Young Noah Caluori, arguably the best of the lot, plays for their A team this weekend.
In the second wave of chasers were a cavalry of dynamic back rows: Ben Earl, Sam Underhill, Guy Pepper and Henry Pollock. If Roebuck et al win the ball back, there are strong, powerful runners on hand to canter through the disorganised line – see the scores for Earl and Pollock on Saturday.
Should the opposition hold on to the kick, can their backthree players clear out breakdown specialists? England opened the scoring when Underhill and Pepper swooped for a jackal penalty as soon as Australia recovered a high ball. These back rows can ruck and break for scores. They are the swiss army knives of Borthwick’s kick-chase.
With their combination of aerial jumpers and supporting dynamism, England will be hard to stop. Both now, during the Six Nations and, most importantly, at the next World Cup.
Ireland, to an extent, are trying something similar. Kicking predominantly from nine and 10, they are allowing their better aerial exponents, the likes of Jamie Osborne and Tommy O’Brien, to set off in pursuit. Their most dynamic forwards follow up close behind.
For all the kicks, Ireland’s plan worked just once on Saturday. In the build-up to Tadhg Furlong’s try, Lowe won an aerial contest off a Gibson-Park box-kick. Ryan Baird, Jack Conan and Dan Sheehan were all in support as Ireland won the loose ball and offloaded their way down the field. Crowley also rushed from the backfield to help. Ireland won a penalty against a disorganised a defence, kicking to the corner before Furlong crashed over.
The difference between Ireland and England on Saturday was twofold. First, results. Ireland’s lone score from their strategy paled in comparison to England’s three.
The other was balance. For all the praise of their kicking game, England still worked space for carrying threats. Freddie Steward, Tommy Freeman, Earl, Feyi-Waboso and Pollock all crossed the 50 metre mark when carrying the ball. No Irish player reached a half-century.
Some will point to the more settled nature of England’s plan. Early in the Farrell era, when Eddie Jones was in charge at Twickenham, they regularly smothered Ireland through power and an astute kicking game. Steve Borthwick hasn’t changed things dramatically.
Ireland, by contrast, have undergone a huge shift. Given the poor attacking output last weekend, new plans need more time to settle. A more cynical view would be that Ireland don’t have the same combination aerial threats and forward support as England. Farrell and co would surely point to Messrs O’Brien, Osborne, Baird, Sheehan, Conan and fit-again Doris in disagreement.
Irish coaches undoubtedly see themselves as reacting to trends in the global game. In response to law changers which favour those chasing, rather than receiving kicks, as well as players hunting for turnovers compared to those clearing rucks, it makes sense to ditch tiki-taka, possession based play for a more direct edge.
By kicking more but with fewer players, variety has been sacrificed. Ireland are banking on success in any case, and on time building familiarity and better results.
It will take plenty of the latter to convince the public of the new era’s merits, that Ireland aren’t merely aping of global trends with a group of players more suited to holding on to the ball.
