The Toronto Arrows have been a revelation in Major League Rugby since joining the league last year (MLR’s second). In their inaugural year, the Arrows reached the semi-final stage.
The winter weather in the Toronto area meant that for the beginning of the 2020 season the Arrows played all their games away from home – before the Covid-enforced break. While the season was shortened, in the five games the Arrows played we learned a significant amount about Canada’s team and how to construct a gameplan to create a winning team.
Off the field, the Arrows have spoken strongly about wanting to become a pathway for Canadian talent, and the next generation can take heart from the system being created. This piece aims to look into the Toronto Arrows game-plan, and break down how they became serious title challengers.
The Arrows First Phase Magic
Every attack in rugby starts with a “platform”, whether this be lineout, kick, turnover or scrum – all are examples of platforms. The Arrows were good off most of their platforms. You don’t get to the top of the conference being mediocre. But while they were good off most of their platforms, they were extraordinary off the four man lineout. This platform enabled the Arrows to get a strong start to the majority of their attacks.
The launch from the four man lineout was a staple of the Arrows attack. The best way to examine the play is to pick an example which resulted in an outstanding score. While there were a couple of options, the best example was the score versus Rugby ATL.
The sole Canadian side had split their four men into two distinct sections, with a back pod of three and a single front man. The lineout’s back pod contains numbers 6,7,8 while number 5 marks at the front of the lineout. The lack of a Prop within the set-up is deliberate and increases the speed of the lineout. The Atlanta set up however, does include Props. The front marker is the Tighthead Prop, meaning he is matched up against the Arrows’ Lock. Meanwhile, the ATL Loosehead is positioned at the back of the lineout.
The split in the Arrows has created a target zone. This targets the inside of the Atlanta front marker, and aims to exploit the Prop’s lower mobility. The split is also more central to allow the Scrumhalf to take the ball on the move, rather than distributing from a standing position.
In the movement phase of the lineout, the Arrows have a dummy jump from the Number 8 aiming to unsettle the Atlanta pod. Atlanta appears to be expecting this with a specific defensive system. Rather than the number 4 moving out of the way, the Atlanta Lock instead pushes across to be a lifter. This gives the Arrows an advantage, however, as Paul Ciulini, 5, is able to move without turning. This earns them a split-second advantage. This gain within the movement phase has a large effect in the final competition for the ball.
The Rugby ATL number 4 turning puts the Atlanta lineout at a disadvantage when challenging the Arrows. While Ciulini is able to stay square throughout the lift and reach perfect form, the Atlanta lifter pivots and lifts away from his body. This limits the height of the ATL challenge, and ends up simply surrendering the ball and throwing the jumper across the lineout.
Due to the lack of significant challenge from the Atlanta pod, the ball comes away relatively cleanly. This allows Andrew Ferguson to attack onto the ball at a steady pace. This smooth delivery from the Scrum Half allows the strike team to fire into life.
The strike team is positioned in the center of the field, attacking off the Flyhalf. They are set up in a simple spear head shape, with the Centre in front of the two Props. This means the Arrows can split the field and have dominant carriers on either of the options they choose. In this case, the Arrows decide to have the Centre fade across the front of the pod. The bill is given to the prop who strikes on an out to in line against the Rugby ATL drift.
The lineout structure then plays a second crucial role in the make up of this midfield formation. With the Centre having faded across for the second phase, the number 4 Lock is used in the clear. He had been running the inside line, tracking on the Fly Half, and as such plays a role in contracting the ATL defence. The effect of the number 4 is on the inside defender of the press.
Splitting the Atlanta defence is the objective here for the Arrows. With the 12 fading across the pod, it means he can act as a distributor or strike runner on the next phase without having to win the race around the corner. The inside run of the number 4 Lock has pulled the inside defender higher, and he has to work further before wrapping. This is a two-phase strategy aiming to break the Atlanta defence systematically.
Before moving onto the second phase of the Atlanta score, it is worth reflecting on why this first phase move is so successful. The move is based on a common shape, so defenders will make preconceptions about the play. The formation was used to great effect, securing a try against the Seawolves the week before with a subtle change.
There is a subtle change within the lineout. You’ll notice on this occasion the number 5 Lock (circled in green) is positioned at the tail. He acts as the back lifter, but this positional change also enables the number 4 Lock to be shifted to the front of the lineout. This brings in a decoy threat to the center of the field. This changed with the number 4 Lock shifting into the lineout and the Winger (circled in red) becoming an option. This little distinction off the same shape is key for the Arrows in maintaining variability and introducing doubt to the opposition defence.
Shifting focus back to the Atlanta try, the Arrows are ready to enact the second stage of their attacking game plan. They have secured a quick ball, the inside option clearing the ruck alongside the second Prop.
The second phase again uses a strike formation, aiming to open a weak shoulder and allow a hidden runner to carve through the middle. There are a lot of moving parts to break down this try, and each one plays an important role.
The first role is carried out by the Inside Centre who runs a blocking line. A secondary role is played by the Outside Centre, who comes late onto the ball and moves toward the wide channels creating multiple decisions and therefore problems for the defence. The scoring role is played by the Left Winger. While the break is magical, and involves a lot of skill and talent, the positioning on the previous phase shows Leivas positioning himself perfectly.
Leivas attacks from a hidden position, starting the phase behind the screen runner. As opposed to a distributor who would want to be further across, the Winger tracks in behind the screen runner and ends up concealed within the secondary pod.
As shown on the pitch above (camera angles not great) we can see all 3 roles in perfect harmony. The Winger begins hidden behind the Inside Centre, who manages to create the split by escorting the Atlanta Openside away from the hole.
The outside threat, again with a small throwback to Dan Moor’s try v Seattle, convinces the Atlanta defence to push high. As shown above, the overlap convinces the back field coverage that the ball will be going wide, with the Fullback shifting his weight, ready to make a covering tackle. The double tackle aims to stop any spread of the ball, but the number 13 can free his arms and the inside is attacked.
The Arrows have a tendency to overload the wide channels in attack. This try v Atlanta and the score v Seattle are evidence of this. However, again there are small variations, as DOR Silverthorn aims to disguise the Arrow’s intentions. Against Seattle, the Left Winger targets the outside defender instead, with an inside trail runner from 10 holding the defence.
The Arrow strike plays are formidable. But what if they don’t work? The Arrows require a second option to play from, and this transition is another dangerous part of Toronto’s arsenal.
System Success: The Arrows 1-3-3-1
The main system used by the Arrows when they are unable to score is their 1-3-3-1 shape (broken down here: https://theanalysisguy.sport.blog/2020/02/19/building-blocks-deliver-arrows-victory/ ). The use of formations is something more akin to football, but in modern rugby the spread of players across the pitch is becoming more refined and specialised. The 1-3-3-1 shape is probably the most common shape across teams, as there is plenty of room for manoeuvre within the shape. By positioning two pods of three Forwards in the centrefield, teams have multiple options on attack. These also interact with the play making axis and offer different options depending on how the team wants to use them.
The Arrows are an expansive team well adapted to the 1-3-3-1 structure. Across three of their games I measured using Rugbycology (versus ATL, Houston, and Austin), they passed more than their opponents. There were significant differences in the pass per phase stat against Austin and Houston, with the Arrows bringing a really expansive attack to both matches. This expansive attack is enabled by the use of the 1-3-3-1 formation.
The formation is shown clearly in the game against Houston. Starting from a kick receipt the Arrows are able to get into formation early. As shown in the picture below, clear pods are being formed for the play back in the field. The wide ruck plays a crucial role in creating the formation.
The wide ruck is set up from a carry by the single forward on the right of the set up. The inside pod is circled in red. By positioning close to the 15m line they can get toward the outside of the Houston press and really establish a strong platform. It also enables the backs utilized in the wide ruck to be used in the following plays.
Outside the red-circled player’s crucial backline, alignment is beginning for the next phases. Joined by the yellow line, the second pod of 3 is beginning to assemble and align themselves to receive the ball from the Flyhalf. In a secondary role, Sam Malcom, shown in the blue hexagon, is rotating to become a second playmaker. This is a key shape for the Arrows with the stellar Fullback a crucial distributor out wide. The final part of the picture is Manuel Diana, the strong carrying back row who takes the wide position out wide giving the Arrows a whole-field threat.
This picture is also repeated against Austin. Again starting from a kick, the Arrows begin to gain their shape. The second phase after the kick was played to a carry from the left pod of 3 (blue square), this stretched Austin to the far side.
The play has led to a large defensive overload on the blindside with five Austin players marking two rather disinterested Arrows players. Instead, the Arrows play to the openside, using a pod of 3 to attract the initial press. The ball is then released to a deep lying playmaker, Fly half Tayler Adams, who spreads the ball further to expose the wide channels, allowing the Arrows to make significant ground.
Out wide, the Arrows make long gains reaching the Gilgronis 10m line. The carry is made by the archer himself, Dan Moor, with the wide forward involved in securing the breakdown. This enables quick and clean ball for the following play, involving the centre pod of 3.
The situation created by the Moor run is incredibly similar to the one at Sam Boyd stadium against the Sabercats. There is an electric feel to the Arrows attack, as it methodically follows the plan exploiting poor defence by the Austin side.
The play back inside to the pod of 3 after the break is also similar. This is because the Arrows are aiming to create what is known as a 80/20 split. The name is simply generated, looking at the width of the field as a percentage on both sides of the ruck. By getting to just outside the 15m line, it opens up a significant blindside – should the Arrows wish to hit back. Importantly, it opens the openside, allowing the Arrows to use their full-pitch threat.
The wide play allows the Arrows to use the pitch and bring in second distributor Malcolm, attacking outside just like he did against Houston. However, rather than spread the ball, he cuts inside, finding ground despite attacking a more organised Austin defence. This is because of the way the Arrows like to use a split pod when attacking on the 80/20. Rather than having a standard arrowhead, instead they position a short option – in this case cutting across the face of Adams, with a double running threat out wide.
This split pod means the Arrows’ focus is wider, with men out wide including a backrower attracting outside defenders. This opens the hole for Malcolm to attack through and make ground.
Having made ground, the Arrows switch direction, hitting the Left Winger who acts as a hybrid option, replacing the Hooker in the centre pod of 3. As a faster and more agile player, he offers a different threat, while Hooker Quattrin can target the breakdown and secure quick ball. From the quick ball, the Arrows enter a same way pattern using a combination of carrying 3 man pods with additional backs to offer a varied threat, aiming to reach a wide channel as they had against Houston.
By attacking the same way, the Arrows forwards can fulfil their roles easily. It also stretches the Houston defence, as it forces them to mark up and react to threats while continually travelling backwards. The deep lying 13 threat, coming on the inside of the pod above, also offers additional direction to the pods.
It is also incredibly efficient, as the Gilgronis keep players on their feet, so the Arrows don’t need to secure each ball in the ruck. The nature of travelling the same way also keeps the same defenders under pressure. In this case, the Austin Openside and Outside Centre deal with the brunt of the work.
Once the Arrows reach the 15m line, they again have split the pitch 80/20. However, this time they want to reset and work to the touchline, relying on their skill to fully utilise the Blindside. This creates a wonderful try for Dan Moor and shows how effective the Arrows’ sustained phase play can be.
But the same-way pattern has one final hand in the Moor try. Not only is it wonderful handling by Adams to free Moor, but with a great wide pass from the base there is significant deception from the Arrows.
In truth the Gilgronis should do better, Adams creates a 3 on 2 by sliding about a meter, but the threat of a pick and go means the Gilgronis have numbered up. The carry on the previous phase by Diana ties in two Gilgroni tacklers, with the Austin Prop (now at guard) also absorbing the blow. The Arrows have also beaten the Gilgronis in the race for width using the same-way pattern. As the ruck is set, the Gilgronis’ 13 is working through traffic. The high work-rate and continual focus on 13 has broken the Austin side, allowing the Arrows to score in the corner.
All of the examination above has been in isolation, focussing on either the strike-play or the phase-play of the Canadian side. But against the Seattle Seawolves we see how Toronto blended these two strengths to score a try. The attack starts from a four man lineout, again using the standard set up. Following the lineout, they transfer the ball, maintaining their shape and using a pod system, combined with backs acting as hybrid players. This stresses and eventually overwhelms the Seattle defence.
The simple four man lineout follows a similar pattern as above, with a dummy jumper leaving the line, and then ball off the top. Playing off 10, the standard structure is more disguised, though the basic formation is still present.
However, it is the slight change which makes it so effective. The lead running Centre acts alongside the inside forward to screen Dan Moor. With Moor hidden, the Seattle defender fixes onto the forward. Moor then accelerates late, beating the tip of the Seattle defence and breaking through.
For the next two phases, we again see the Arrows enter a same-way pattern. Using two pods of 3, the ball can be quickly carried to the wide channel. For the final ruck, notice that the Inside Centre has been used as a secure option, while at the start of the clip, 13 has been used as a clearing option.
Having reached the edge, the Arrows then continue attacking in the field. Being close to the line, the Arrows’ attack begins to morph, becoming a hybrid of both backs and forwards. It is admittedly an easier transition – the use of extra bodies increases the speed. The same-way attack also results in people becoming more automatic, another method for increasing speed.
The final two phases for the try deserves their own short breakdown: There are three major building blocks which generate the score. First, the quick ball of previous phases has disoriented the Seattle Seawolves defence. This is mainly shown through a lack of Seawolves defenders by the breakdown. Now whether this is inexperience or simply Toronto skill, the Seawolves have left a gaping hole, only filled by the Prop, Sears-Duru.
The second building block of the score is the isolation of a single player. Now, not only are the Seawolves on the back foot and in disarray, but this is all magnified and focussed upon one player. Sears-Duru (blue square), is faced with two options: either he will focus on where the ball is, or take the route of where it may go.
Sears-Duru makes a clear choice in focussing on the ball. His eyes become fixed on the ball, and he rests on the ruck, waiting to launch at the man at the base. This is where the secondary Seattle player becomes important. The player circled in red eventually sits just behind the try line, possibly waiting to see where he’s needed rather than being proactive. This means the space next to Sears-Duru is unprotected. With the Seattle Prop focussed on the ball, his blindspot creates an area the Arrows can exploit.
Summary
The combination and adaptability of these strengths allowed the Arrows to be a complete team. Despite the shortened season, there are clear signs of growth and strengths which the Arrows can continue to build upon. While I only covered two major parts of the Arrows attack, it’s clear why the team is so strong.
Strike moves are part and parcel of modern rugby, and the Arrows have ability in abundance. The tries outlined earlier all showed their ability from the four man lineout. By using the same set up, Toronto was able to maintain cohesion and also increase deception. They also manipulated defences when they changed their formations.
The ability of the Arrows to strike was not limited solely to the lineout. The try against Colorado is a perfect example of this. The multiple options on the play – using a blocker – is typical of rugby. The easy execution leads to what looks like a simple try.
The move has multiple options and typifies the Arrows. Crucially, the Arrows have hidden the target player from the intended hole (blue square). The strong run from 13 (circled light blue) is designed to act as a blocker and he interacts with the defensive line, hitting the outside shoulder of the defender.
The target runner is available at two opportunities. Either the ball can be passed early, opening the wide attack of the Arrows with Mieres playing a distributing role. This is illustrated by the dashed yellow line. This multiple option run is just a small innovation which made the Arrows hard to defend.
The run also has the benefit of drawing the cover defender out of the line. The left defender jumps out of line (purple line), aiming to intercept the deep-lying Mieres and tackle him. However, Mieres runs a slightly wider line, leaving the defender grasping air.
The choice of line is crucial – and another aspect of Arrows’ strike-running formations. This line running is clear with the blocking line run by 13, who manages to hit the outside of the defender and disrupt Colorado’s defence. This prevents any cover reaching Mieres so he can carve through the defence. The final defender makes a small misread, losing connection with inside defenders and pushing to cover the final threat of the Arrows’ formation.
This strike play has three clear building blocks. First, there is complexity built around simplicity. The result is easy execution and a distracted defence. Second, the line-choice and timing of distribution. Mieres’ fade outside the Colorado defender creates his own opportunity. The blocking line helps to widen the gap before the shape again relies on the simple structure to create what ends up being a simple opportunity. The final building block is continuity of the shape. As said above, the four man lineout strike move was used across all their games, and this scrum move is a variation on a theme. This means that the shape can be used across multiple games with players filling multiple roles, with no real drop-off being evident. In this age of analysis, it also paints a picture, which may cause defences to anticipate the wrong outcome.
Toronto’s attack, however, stretches well beyond 3 phases. They combined their strike-attacks with a clear phase play-attack. The use of a 1-3-3-1 attack enables the Arrows to stress the defence. The use of 3 man pods creates the ability to clear quickly, and also allows interplay. The use of the Centres as hybrid and supporting players within these 3 player pods maintains the speed in attack.
The 1-3-3-1 structure allows the use of the Toronto backs in a variety of roles. Sam Malcolm played a linking role outside. The ability of their Wingers to shift and roam around the field also changes the picture and keeps pressure on the defence. The Arrows transition from strike to phase attack was also well executed.
There is no better example than the attack from kick-return v Houston Sabercats. By finding width early, the Arrows allow their forwards to settle into formation. This removes work-rate with the backs able to clear out the ruck. This also meant that Diana on the far side could offer a more physical threat – outside the speed and distribution of Sam Malcolm. This combination of threats meant momentum could be kept throughout the attack.
Looking forward to next season, the Arrows are clearly in a good place.
They have been able to build structures which will form a foundation for future seasons. They also have the individual talent needed to be challengers, even with the departure of Sam Malcolm and Dan Moor. Whether Toronto would have won the MLR Shield this year is up for debate, but their strength would have given them an opportunity.
Thanks to Rhiannon Garth Jons and Karen Gasbarino for proof reading and hopefully making it more coherent. Thanks also to Sam Larner for some inspiration. Check out this small thread around the Arrows starter plays, https://twitter.com/SamLStandsUp/status/1233539241935802370?s=20
Feel free to get in touch. My twitter is @analysisguy0502 – https://twitter.com/analysisguy0502 My Email is sportanalysisworld@gmail.com Happy to answer any questions, and any feedback would be fantastic.
The Analysis Guy 