Gloucester secured victory on a wet night in the west of England helped by the indisplince of the warriors and the fast feet and superb finishing of Louis Rees Zammit. Worcester suffered a yellow card to Ryan Mills in the second half opening up a previously solid if under pressure defence. However, while the game will be remembered for Zammit’s finishing and his assist for a try of the season contender, it is worth bearing in remind Gloucester’s poor performance in the Worcester 22.



Whilst gloucester ended with a conversion rate of 2.2 points per start. While it meant they left with 29 points overall a strong absolute figure, the conversion rate sat below that from the Worcester 50 and given the amount of pressure exerted, they should have left with significantly more points. By Half time, Gloucester had managed a strong 5 starts in the Worcester 22. With only one scoring play, and a misley penalty at that it showed how Gloucester really did struggle until the yellow card broke the Warriors resistance.



But why did the cherry and Whites struggle and what simple changes can be made to allow a true challenge for the top 4. However, we will start by analysing their defence, showing why both Worcester and Gloucester struggled to convert priceless field position.



In the example below, it’s easy to see how Gloucester used a strangling defence and restricted the Worcester attack. Worcester worked side to side but simply failed to breach the Gloucester defense. Worcester were able to move side to side, but strong defence, and simple breakdown work prevented any real momentum.



Having started from a line out at the blue line, Worcester make ground up into the Gloucester 22. However, from here, they start their attacks too deeply and are unable to make continuous ground. This is for a variety of reasons. Look in the image Worcester only have two serious running threats coming off the first receiver. This means that Gloucester can easily mark both of them, especially as they are running at different men. As well as this, it is tighthead Schonert receiving the ball, who decides to carry despite lacking momentum. They are not able to recycle the quick ball needed to test defenses the initial opportunity been spurned and now Worcester have to look to restart their attack. From here they get pushed back and back really struggling to break the oppressive Gloucester wall.



As part of the same attack Worcester are now pushed all the way back to the 22 line. As well as this Gloucester are comfortable and able to jackal and slow the ball down stopping Worcester gaining any advantageous possession and restarting the attack.



Then having realigned Gloucester are able to push the Warriors back again. Zammit is key here getting in the eye line and preventing Worcester exposing the space in the wide channels. While it may seem that I have strayed from my initial point, everything in rugby is connected and the Gloucester defence is what allows them to lay a firm foundation however their attack is beset by the same problems as Worcester. In this phase of play, Worcester played in the 15m channel once apart from the original lineout. Not reaching the edge of their attacking line on any occasion.



While a switch play can help to surprise defenses and can allow momentum to be gathered. The pendulum like attack became predictable from Worcester and allowed Gloucester to consistently win the battle of the gainline. The art of the switch is to expose defenders getting up from a break down and attack weak shoulders. However the constant switching meant that the Gloucester defence were able to tighten and their forwards, crucially Mostert, Ludlow and Ackerman centralise and hit rucks and make big tackles.



However, while they were delivering the tackles here, Gloucester reverted to almost exactly the same attack when they got to the Worcester 22. The defense example outlined above resulted in a scrum which resulted in a lineout on the Worcester 22, an example we will now examine.



Gloucester have won an opportunity for themselves, however, they seemed to lack *composure* chucking the ball wide and allowing Worcester to rush them immediately. This poor pass from Morgan means that Gloucester are unable to generate front foot ball immediately. This results in the opportunity being wasted.



Trying to attack in the width Gloucester leave with no points and spurn the opportunity. However, luckily for Ackerman’s men this wasn’t the entire story of their evening following the first Worcester yellow card.



Let’s examine Ruan Ackermans try and how Gloucester were able to finally open space and build a scoring attack. Firstly, Gloucester hit a crash ball. Now a man to the good Gloucester hit the ball immediately up through Atkinson.



Despite scrappy ball, Gloucester are still able to drive. Then they flood the channel near the ruck and keep carrying hard. Working the ball to the 15m before pivoting quickly not allowing the reset of the Worcester defence.



The difference in the 2 sides attacks are simple, and explain what is key to this confrontational play.



While Gloucester start the attack in the 22m and following a negative carry (one not gaining momentum) they manage to restart with simple carries and hitting the shoulders of defenders. However Worcester struggled and use single runners at strong tackles, causing them to lose ground.

Gloucester were stopped the spreading and of Worcester by keeping the carries close to the ruck. While Worcester continued to lose ground, they covered the width in 2 or 3 passes whilst the Cherry and Whites struck with continuous tight carries. This stopped the forwards being able to defend specific channels. It also meant that they had to tighten.

Overall it was these 2 differences that meant Gloucester managed to score despite no initial momentum. Striking close rather than allowing rest periods for the defence and the use of latches and multiple options was the difference. No doubt helped by the yellow card, Gloucester did eventually pull away.



However, given this was against 14 men there will undoubtedly need to be improvements. Crucially this must start with an increase in variation. There was a clear mindset change from the border of Worcester 22. While in 50m areas Gloucester had over 200% variation, recording 260% in their own half and 286% in the Worcester half. However, this dropped to 117.4% in the Worcester 22m. These may seem like just numbers, however when applied to the context of a comparison of the entire game and the first half.



Gloucesters attack play breakdown, entire game

Gloucesters attack breakdown 1st Half

Gloucester recorded only 50% variation in the Worcester 22. Less than half that of the whole game score. This was coupled with no wide plays, meaning they rarely stretched the defence, falling into the same trap as Worcester.



If Gloucester, can change this picture and start to stretch defences more than they can truly be a threat for any team.