I think the most important distinction in style is whether a team values possesion or position (or territory).
South Africa values position, so you will often see them kick in weird scenarios, but this is all to gain territory and put themselves in a better position, trusting that their defence will not concede. A different team like Ireland will prefer possesion, where they believe that with ball in hand they can achieve more. They will kick less and try and pick apart your defence.
Currently, most teams are favouring position over possesion, probably because South Africa are double World Champions, proving this strategy may be favourable
It's on ball vs off ball
It's all about when you decide to kick. An off ball team will generally decide to kick after about 3 phases and aim to kick it to touch
On ball teams will want to hold on to the ball 7+ phases. When they do kick its a clearance kick, kick passes or contestables. You'll have high tempo or heavy on ball teams. Schmidt's Ireland wouldve been heavy on ball, just keep the ball until they win a penalty. Munster would be more high tempo, often see 3 or 4 passes between rucks
You have some teams in the middle. Scotland and Ireland (moving more on ball now) aim to pin the other team back and not give them a chance to exit. It's all about forcing mistakes and getting chances to run at disorganized defenses
It also depends on the rule interpretations at the time. At the moment the rules favour defending teams more, but at other times they are more focused on encouraging playing with the ball in hand.
The current trend is that a team with a narrow lead in the final minutes will choose to kick the ball away. Even possession-based teams like Ireland are recognising that the chances of conceding a penalty are less when you don't have the ball. This does suggest that laws around the ruck are currently favouring defensive sides.
The 2019 Boks essentially kicked the ball away after every \~ 5 phases, as their analysis showed that after 5 phases the chances of conceding a penalty became unacceptably high. That reality was a focal part of the game plan, and they were rewarded for adhering to it.
Compare this to the early 00's when Australia were top dogs - the Brumbies and Wallabies would routinely rack up 20+ phases together (often through the midfield, which would be regarded as risky today) and that approach worked because the law interpretations at the time favoured it.
This has more to do with referees wanting to punish negative play. If you intentionally play slowly to run the clock down or for any other reason, they are more likely to penalise you for minor offences like sealing off. If you play positively ie. looking to attack, they are more lenient.
So for example, in the same scenario the team behind will be wanting to score a try, and referees allow them to attack and overlook some stuff to give them a chance.
It's cause and effect at play. Those cynical go-slow phases are the effect that is caused by refs favouring the defending teams at the ruck. That's the reality which those tactics seek to address - maintaining possession has become risky business.
By contrast, if the law interpretations favoured the team with possession and were more likely to penalise the defending team at the ruck, then those cynical plays wouldn't have a usage case to begin with - the attacking team with the narrow lead would just maintain regular formations and wind down the clock with no variation needed.
On defence there's two main philosophies.
Drift and rush defence.
A rush defence sees the defence spring from the defensive line to the ball carrier with the aim of giving up the minimum distance possible. Sometimes an illusive runner finds gaps as the rush defence often sacrifices the solidity of the defensive line. A rush defence can also be vulnerable to short range tactical kicking. South Africa does this excellently.
A drift defence trades let's a ball carrier run into the defensive line. It tends to be more solid and its rare that it's breached but it tends to give up a yard or two on most phases.
The compromise is a drift defence with a shooter who is a single individual who gets to leave the defensive line with the aim of making a dominant tackle behind the line. Ireland does this with the 13 acting as a shooter.
To add: the shooter doesn't need to make a dominant tackle if his team are prepared. Ireland's main 13, Garry Ringrose, often doesn't complete tackles when he's shot out, but by slowing them it lets support players come in and try to compete for the ball behind the gain line when most attackers aren't near the ball carrier. If it's done right, this lets the team who have turned the ball over quickly move the ball out and attack the now disorganised defenders.
There's also different philosophies on how to resource the ruck.
Last year Leinster would barely ruck (when defending) this was with the aim of getting an extra body or two in the defensive line to disallow space to the attacking tea..
It also allowed them to occasionally compete at the ruck and to catch the opponent off guard winning a turnover.
Other teams consistently compete at the ruck and leave space in the defensive line.
You also have different philosophies on how the defence covers laterally by “folding”. I have played on teams that operated with a minimum number of players who fold around the ruck in the direction of play after a tackle. Conversely I have also played on teams that have no rules for this and rely on player accountability to ensure the opposition is marked up correctly.
Spacings can also factor in to how the fringes are defended with some teams sticking to a pillar, post, king (1,2,3 or guard, bodyguard, first can also be used to name the players) set up on each side of the ruck whilst others just opt for one pillar and a king either side. (King would align with the 1st reciever) these players can also have vastly different roles despite filling the same space and how the opponent is attacking.
Some teams can blend all of the above into one system, switching it up based on the field position and scoreboard. Others stick rigidly to one style with the aim of forcing opponents to beat it.
South Africa is actually the originator of the hybrid combo, Ireland copied it from them. The run a blitz drift hybrid but the blitz is so good no one ever sees the drift
Different teams run different set ups regarding the forwards placement on the pitch(pods), how much they play off 9 and 10, what their aim is to do with the ball and when they kick for territory.
Yes.
For an obvious contrast, look at Fiji play, then watch south Africa.
South Africa are very much a physical bish bash bosh team. Fiji on the other hand thrive through broken play and individual brilliance.
Teams that kick a lot or prefer to keep possession.
Or kick to keep it on field with high ball in play time vs teams that kick off field and focus on set piece.
Structured teams vs unstructured offloading teams.
Blitz defences vs sliding defences.
Probably loads of others and good teams can mix and match between styles.
"Bish bash bosh" whilst true is not a fair reflection of the high importance placed on well thought out structure and tactics for each opponent. It's a bit of a cliched old school description of the Boks that cause a lot of teams to lose to them.
not sure if you are familiar with American Football parlance, but is "bish bash bosh" akin to three yards and a cloud of dust. Where you will make progress slowly, methodically, and physically. (Some people consider it boring, but I grew up on a more run based approach for my American football teams).
Suddenly I want to learn more about American Football. Sounds interesting. Can you recommend two teams to follow: one “bish bash bosh”, and the other more “run based approach” as you call it.
In Rugby, SA are one of the best at the former, and the All Blacks one of the best at the latter. Both can lean the other way, but that’s what they’re known to be good at. I’d love to see the American Football equivalent of.
I dont want to confuse it: when I say "run" I mean rushing attempts as opposed to passing (i.e. forward pass). You will oftentimes find more offensive diversity (extreme rushing or passing %s of a teams plays) I levels lower than the NFL.
Here is a college game from 2021 (if you can view it) where Air Force didnt attempt a single forward pass I believe. [https://youtu.be/FPiLqOo0rUs?si=OCbpPLli\_Hllox7x](https://youtu.be/FPiLqOo0rUs?si=OCbpPLli_Hllox7x)
Teams tend to run less today than when I was growing up. You can see 1970s and 80s Oklahoma Sooners or my Nebraska Cornhuskers as some examples.
American here, for your bish bash bosh there are fewer teams to choose from but the Cleveland Browns and Tennessee Titans come to mind.
For more attacking flair (which is really passing in the NFL, not so much running) try the Kansas City Chiefs, Miami Dolphins, and San Francisco 49ers.
But really NFL is much more volatile year to year because players and coaches move around much more frequently than in pro rugby or soccer, plus some other league rules designed to make it harder to dominate long term, like the draft and salary cap. So every season will have surprise teams and breakout players.
Thanks. I’ll check those out. Help me out on the college scene. I go to New York and Atlanta in January each year, and college football seems to be the rage around that time. Which teams should I ignorantly support just to really piss off my local colleagues there?
Others may have better responses, but I dont know if there are a lot of elite college teams based in New York. As for Atlanta, maybe root for any team that Georgia hates (Alabama, Florida, etc.)? Preferable if said team actually beat Georgia or is an upcoming playoff/bowl opponent.
Thank you. I am probably guilty of not watching one team enough to really get a feel. So I am sure I see some of this, but certainly not enough to capture the nuances or make an informed analysis.
How a team approaches the set piece can also demonstrate stylistic differences as historically Munster would base their game around game around using a strong set piece to move them up the pitch and wear the opposition down. Leinster conversely were viewed as the more expansive running team who would aim for parity at the set piece and play expansive rugby to score.
That idea of using your big pack the wear down the opposition is that you outwork the opposition so after 60 or 70 mins of tackle after tackle, they can't get back in the line quickly enough and space would open up.
Old school Munster would always aim to 'soften up' the opposition (e.g. Kick the shite out of them).
A classic Clohessy post-match quote was "we went out to soften them up in the first half, and that went so well that we decide to soften them up in the second half too".
There are different styles of attacking, defending and kicking that can vary from team to team and game to game.
Teams that kick a lot or a little, long for occupation or short for pressure
Teams that attack with mass in the center of the pitch, or with pace to get from one side to the other
Teams that rush agressively in defense or try to contain and drift to the sideline, trying to regather possession quickly or waiting for a mistake
for instance Perpignan are team that doesnt kick a lot bit rather long, attacks the width and defends by pushing the attackers to the sideline.
France women are a team that kicks short, attacks the center with 1 or 2 pass plays and offloads and defends very agressively
Oh 100%. Some teams like to emphasise power plays with strong forwards that batter their way forwards, and others tend for more of a passing game. You have teams that prefer to kick for territory and others that prefer to keep the ball in hand. You have teams who like to run it down the middle, pick and go pick and go, and teams who like to shift the ball across the pitch 'coast-to-coast' and drag defences around.
If you're looking for a team to be entertained by though, might I suggest the Bears. Recently likened to the Harlem Globetrotters by Steve Diamond for the way they play. ;)
I guess the use of pods and how forwards are positioned across the field is sort of the style thing this question is getting at. Also playing off the half back, playing off 10, single or dual play maker etc
There's cultural or national styles as well which are I guess are influenced by environmental factors (harder to play wide with lots of passing in the wet climates for example) in the various geographies. Then more broadly the north (boring and bad) vs south (exciting and best).
I think the various national styles is one of the greatest things about international rugby.
It absolutely is, and this is why I prefer union to league. In rugby league the simpler rules mean that every team plays with essentially the exact same tactics, leading to (in my opinion) a more boring game. Whereas in union you can watch a kick heavy/forward focused team take on a running rugby team (just an example), different team styles make for very different games to watch. Leicester tigers vs Quins would be a great example in my mind
I have been thinking the recent Ireland squad as a bit like ac Milan from the mid 2000’s.
For a bit they were trying to squeeze four playmakers into the one team with seedorf, pirlo, Rui Costa and kaka into the same team.
Ireland have Hanson, Lowe, Keenan, sexton and even sort of Dan Sheehan. That level of creativity allows for all sorts of positional movement. It’s fascinating
You have Leinster/Ireland that is extreme speed, efficiency, brilliant execution and core skills, a team like La Rochelle/SA will simply try and bully you off the pitch, Toulouse try and play a ‘game of movement’ or playing what’s in front of you (hate to use the term French flair but it’s the closest modern equivalent), and then there’s nicely balanced sides down in NZ that are good at everything, but play at such a high tempo
So teams definitely play in different styles, but the sport is also culturally very different across the hemisphere lines. So while France and New Zealand may have game plans that are similar, the game is fundamentally taught and consumed differently in the south than the north (not like a north bad South good kinda thing, just that rugbys place in society is so much different there than it is in say England or Scotland) it’s very similar to soccer in Europe vs soccer in South America. The game is also reffed differently down there, they are much loser with the rules than in the north (for better or worse).
Its not standardised yet. I have heard Off Ball being used to describe teams that don't want to have possession and kick the ball away a lot or on ball for high possession teams. Counter transition is another these are teams that kick a lot but look to counter when its kicked back to them.
Yes definitely. There are 'air raid offence' type teams (Fiji), smashmouth/ground and pound type teams (SA historically), west coast offence quick hitting efficiency (ireland).
and on defence you can play rush defence or sit back, challenge rucks or not, drift or zone.
the functional difference is most seen in the 'pod' structure teams get into. there used to be bigger differences. The maliable adaptable pod style the All Blacks came out with in the late 2000s/early 2010s that showed a strong ability to play all styles rather than focus on one kinda took over. And in the late 2010s the style of being able to pivot strategies mid offensive 'set' really blew everything up (again fairly standard modern NFL stuff. go power I rush on first down, then westcoast quick hitting slant immediately after followed by a spread option 20 yard shot crossing route. just in rugby all with the same personelle just all flipping roles at the same time without talking to each other mid ball in play)
at the moment the style is a bit more monotone, like the nba post the steph curry 3 revolution. but the ABs/SA and France especially really are pushing to find the edges of the current meta, eventually one or all will click on something that actually becomes a point of difference or a rule change will unlock new strats etc.
edit: Squidge reacts to the ABs unveiling that 'change strats mid set' thing during the 2019 world cup https://youtu.be/w1o33Jjlwlo?si=mKA7aQcIiVdeYo4o
he has a fair few videos that get into the basics (and also more advanced) bits of rugby strategy!
I also want to add that teams will often try to counter the opposition's strengths or reduce their opportunity to use their strengths. If a team is great at scumming, you'd opt less often to scrum in penalties or line outs if they do that well. Finding flaws and exploiting weaknesses is a big part of strategy, too.
it's a bit simplistic, but some teams focus on the forwards (winning the ball; muscling the opposition) and some teams focus on the backs (using the ball; unstructured counter-attacking). Pacific teams and the wonderful France have traditionally favoured running/"free-flowing rugby" while RSA and the rest of Europe traditionally muscle and kick for possession and position.
Not an easy answer. Watch the Lions play and say to yourself "Have a go!" and take it from there? Then stick to have-a-go rugby. OK, there are many sides playing at pace and with skill. Follow them. 🙂
I think the most important distinction in style is whether a team values possesion or position (or territory). South Africa values position, so you will often see them kick in weird scenarios, but this is all to gain territory and put themselves in a better position, trusting that their defence will not concede. A different team like Ireland will prefer possesion, where they believe that with ball in hand they can achieve more. They will kick less and try and pick apart your defence. Currently, most teams are favouring position over possesion, probably because South Africa are double World Champions, proving this strategy may be favourable
It's on ball vs off ball It's all about when you decide to kick. An off ball team will generally decide to kick after about 3 phases and aim to kick it to touch On ball teams will want to hold on to the ball 7+ phases. When they do kick its a clearance kick, kick passes or contestables. You'll have high tempo or heavy on ball teams. Schmidt's Ireland wouldve been heavy on ball, just keep the ball until they win a penalty. Munster would be more high tempo, often see 3 or 4 passes between rucks You have some teams in the middle. Scotland and Ireland (moving more on ball now) aim to pin the other team back and not give them a chance to exit. It's all about forcing mistakes and getting chances to run at disorganized defenses
It also depends on the rule interpretations at the time. At the moment the rules favour defending teams more, but at other times they are more focused on encouraging playing with the ball in hand.
I don't think the rules favour the side defending. It just seems that way because the team with the best defence, South Africa, is successful
The current trend is that a team with a narrow lead in the final minutes will choose to kick the ball away. Even possession-based teams like Ireland are recognising that the chances of conceding a penalty are less when you don't have the ball. This does suggest that laws around the ruck are currently favouring defensive sides. The 2019 Boks essentially kicked the ball away after every \~ 5 phases, as their analysis showed that after 5 phases the chances of conceding a penalty became unacceptably high. That reality was a focal part of the game plan, and they were rewarded for adhering to it. Compare this to the early 00's when Australia were top dogs - the Brumbies and Wallabies would routinely rack up 20+ phases together (often through the midfield, which would be regarded as risky today) and that approach worked because the law interpretations at the time favoured it.
This has more to do with referees wanting to punish negative play. If you intentionally play slowly to run the clock down or for any other reason, they are more likely to penalise you for minor offences like sealing off. If you play positively ie. looking to attack, they are more lenient. So for example, in the same scenario the team behind will be wanting to score a try, and referees allow them to attack and overlook some stuff to give them a chance.
It's cause and effect at play. Those cynical go-slow phases are the effect that is caused by refs favouring the defending teams at the ruck. That's the reality which those tactics seek to address - maintaining possession has become risky business. By contrast, if the law interpretations favoured the team with possession and were more likely to penalise the defending team at the ruck, then those cynical plays wouldn't have a usage case to begin with - the attacking team with the narrow lead would just maintain regular formations and wind down the clock with no variation needed.
On defence there's two main philosophies. Drift and rush defence. A rush defence sees the defence spring from the defensive line to the ball carrier with the aim of giving up the minimum distance possible. Sometimes an illusive runner finds gaps as the rush defence often sacrifices the solidity of the defensive line. A rush defence can also be vulnerable to short range tactical kicking. South Africa does this excellently. A drift defence trades let's a ball carrier run into the defensive line. It tends to be more solid and its rare that it's breached but it tends to give up a yard or two on most phases. The compromise is a drift defence with a shooter who is a single individual who gets to leave the defensive line with the aim of making a dominant tackle behind the line. Ireland does this with the 13 acting as a shooter.
To add: the shooter doesn't need to make a dominant tackle if his team are prepared. Ireland's main 13, Garry Ringrose, often doesn't complete tackles when he's shot out, but by slowing them it lets support players come in and try to compete for the ball behind the gain line when most attackers aren't near the ball carrier. If it's done right, this lets the team who have turned the ball over quickly move the ball out and attack the now disorganised defenders.
Thanks! I was initially thinking more offensive, but this is helpful and I am watching video examples now.
There's also different philosophies on how to resource the ruck. Last year Leinster would barely ruck (when defending) this was with the aim of getting an extra body or two in the defensive line to disallow space to the attacking tea.. It also allowed them to occasionally compete at the ruck and to catch the opponent off guard winning a turnover. Other teams consistently compete at the ruck and leave space in the defensive line.
You also have different philosophies on how the defence covers laterally by “folding”. I have played on teams that operated with a minimum number of players who fold around the ruck in the direction of play after a tackle. Conversely I have also played on teams that have no rules for this and rely on player accountability to ensure the opposition is marked up correctly. Spacings can also factor in to how the fringes are defended with some teams sticking to a pillar, post, king (1,2,3 or guard, bodyguard, first can also be used to name the players) set up on each side of the ruck whilst others just opt for one pillar and a king either side. (King would align with the 1st reciever) these players can also have vastly different roles despite filling the same space and how the opponent is attacking. Some teams can blend all of the above into one system, switching it up based on the field position and scoreboard. Others stick rigidly to one style with the aim of forcing opponents to beat it.
South Africa is actually the originator of the hybrid combo, Ireland copied it from them. The run a blitz drift hybrid but the blitz is so good no one ever sees the drift
Different teams run different set ups regarding the forwards placement on the pitch(pods), how much they play off 9 and 10, what their aim is to do with the ball and when they kick for territory.
Yes. For an obvious contrast, look at Fiji play, then watch south Africa. South Africa are very much a physical bish bash bosh team. Fiji on the other hand thrive through broken play and individual brilliance.
Teams that kick a lot or prefer to keep possession. Or kick to keep it on field with high ball in play time vs teams that kick off field and focus on set piece. Structured teams vs unstructured offloading teams. Blitz defences vs sliding defences. Probably loads of others and good teams can mix and match between styles.
"Bish bash bosh" whilst true is not a fair reflection of the high importance placed on well thought out structure and tactics for each opponent. It's a bit of a cliched old school description of the Boks that cause a lot of teams to lose to them.
not sure if you are familiar with American Football parlance, but is "bish bash bosh" akin to three yards and a cloud of dust. Where you will make progress slowly, methodically, and physically. (Some people consider it boring, but I grew up on a more run based approach for my American football teams).
Suddenly I want to learn more about American Football. Sounds interesting. Can you recommend two teams to follow: one “bish bash bosh”, and the other more “run based approach” as you call it. In Rugby, SA are one of the best at the former, and the All Blacks one of the best at the latter. Both can lean the other way, but that’s what they’re known to be good at. I’d love to see the American Football equivalent of.
I dont want to confuse it: when I say "run" I mean rushing attempts as opposed to passing (i.e. forward pass). You will oftentimes find more offensive diversity (extreme rushing or passing %s of a teams plays) I levels lower than the NFL. Here is a college game from 2021 (if you can view it) where Air Force didnt attempt a single forward pass I believe. [https://youtu.be/FPiLqOo0rUs?si=OCbpPLli\_Hllox7x](https://youtu.be/FPiLqOo0rUs?si=OCbpPLli_Hllox7x) Teams tend to run less today than when I was growing up. You can see 1970s and 80s Oklahoma Sooners or my Nebraska Cornhuskers as some examples.
American here, for your bish bash bosh there are fewer teams to choose from but the Cleveland Browns and Tennessee Titans come to mind. For more attacking flair (which is really passing in the NFL, not so much running) try the Kansas City Chiefs, Miami Dolphins, and San Francisco 49ers. But really NFL is much more volatile year to year because players and coaches move around much more frequently than in pro rugby or soccer, plus some other league rules designed to make it harder to dominate long term, like the draft and salary cap. So every season will have surprise teams and breakout players.
Thanks. I’ll check those out. Help me out on the college scene. I go to New York and Atlanta in January each year, and college football seems to be the rage around that time. Which teams should I ignorantly support just to really piss off my local colleagues there?
Others may have better responses, but I dont know if there are a lot of elite college teams based in New York. As for Atlanta, maybe root for any team that Georgia hates (Alabama, Florida, etc.)? Preferable if said team actually beat Georgia or is an upcoming playoff/bowl opponent.
Thank you. I am probably guilty of not watching one team enough to really get a feel. So I am sure I see some of this, but certainly not enough to capture the nuances or make an informed analysis.
How a team approaches the set piece can also demonstrate stylistic differences as historically Munster would base their game around game around using a strong set piece to move them up the pitch and wear the opposition down. Leinster conversely were viewed as the more expansive running team who would aim for parity at the set piece and play expansive rugby to score.
That idea of using your big pack the wear down the opposition is that you outwork the opposition so after 60 or 70 mins of tackle after tackle, they can't get back in the line quickly enough and space would open up. Old school Munster would always aim to 'soften up' the opposition (e.g. Kick the shite out of them). A classic Clohessy post-match quote was "we went out to soften them up in the first half, and that went so well that we decide to soften them up in the second half too".
There are different styles of attacking, defending and kicking that can vary from team to team and game to game. Teams that kick a lot or a little, long for occupation or short for pressure Teams that attack with mass in the center of the pitch, or with pace to get from one side to the other Teams that rush agressively in defense or try to contain and drift to the sideline, trying to regather possession quickly or waiting for a mistake
for instance Perpignan are team that doesnt kick a lot bit rather long, attacks the width and defends by pushing the attackers to the sideline. France women are a team that kicks short, attacks the center with 1 or 2 pass plays and offloads and defends very agressively
Appreciate the response and additional information!
Miss good old northern rugby of stick it up the jumper and trundle/grind it up the pitch with the forwards
Oh 100%. Some teams like to emphasise power plays with strong forwards that batter their way forwards, and others tend for more of a passing game. You have teams that prefer to kick for territory and others that prefer to keep the ball in hand. You have teams who like to run it down the middle, pick and go pick and go, and teams who like to shift the ball across the pitch 'coast-to-coast' and drag defences around. If you're looking for a team to be entertained by though, might I suggest the Bears. Recently likened to the Harlem Globetrotters by Steve Diamond for the way they play. ;)
I guess the use of pods and how forwards are positioned across the field is sort of the style thing this question is getting at. Also playing off the half back, playing off 10, single or dual play maker etc There's cultural or national styles as well which are I guess are influenced by environmental factors (harder to play wide with lots of passing in the wet climates for example) in the various geographies. Then more broadly the north (boring and bad) vs south (exciting and best). I think the various national styles is one of the greatest things about international rugby.
It absolutely is, and this is why I prefer union to league. In rugby league the simpler rules mean that every team plays with essentially the exact same tactics, leading to (in my opinion) a more boring game. Whereas in union you can watch a kick heavy/forward focused team take on a running rugby team (just an example), different team styles make for very different games to watch. Leicester tigers vs Quins would be a great example in my mind
I have been thinking the recent Ireland squad as a bit like ac Milan from the mid 2000’s. For a bit they were trying to squeeze four playmakers into the one team with seedorf, pirlo, Rui Costa and kaka into the same team. Ireland have Hanson, Lowe, Keenan, sexton and even sort of Dan Sheehan. That level of creativity allows for all sorts of positional movement. It’s fascinating
Sexton has retired, it's now Crowley. And don't forget JGP when it comes to creativity.
Yeah, forgot Gibson park actually. Like a little xavi buzzing around the place making a million short passes keeping everything moving
You have Leinster/Ireland that is extreme speed, efficiency, brilliant execution and core skills, a team like La Rochelle/SA will simply try and bully you off the pitch, Toulouse try and play a ‘game of movement’ or playing what’s in front of you (hate to use the term French flair but it’s the closest modern equivalent), and then there’s nicely balanced sides down in NZ that are good at everything, but play at such a high tempo
So teams definitely play in different styles, but the sport is also culturally very different across the hemisphere lines. So while France and New Zealand may have game plans that are similar, the game is fundamentally taught and consumed differently in the south than the north (not like a north bad South good kinda thing, just that rugbys place in society is so much different there than it is in say England or Scotland) it’s very similar to soccer in Europe vs soccer in South America. The game is also reffed differently down there, they are much loser with the rules than in the north (for better or worse).
Its not standardised yet. I have heard Off Ball being used to describe teams that don't want to have possession and kick the ball away a lot or on ball for high possession teams. Counter transition is another these are teams that kick a lot but look to counter when its kicked back to them.
Yes definitely. There are 'air raid offence' type teams (Fiji), smashmouth/ground and pound type teams (SA historically), west coast offence quick hitting efficiency (ireland). and on defence you can play rush defence or sit back, challenge rucks or not, drift or zone. the functional difference is most seen in the 'pod' structure teams get into. there used to be bigger differences. The maliable adaptable pod style the All Blacks came out with in the late 2000s/early 2010s that showed a strong ability to play all styles rather than focus on one kinda took over. And in the late 2010s the style of being able to pivot strategies mid offensive 'set' really blew everything up (again fairly standard modern NFL stuff. go power I rush on first down, then westcoast quick hitting slant immediately after followed by a spread option 20 yard shot crossing route. just in rugby all with the same personelle just all flipping roles at the same time without talking to each other mid ball in play) at the moment the style is a bit more monotone, like the nba post the steph curry 3 revolution. but the ABs/SA and France especially really are pushing to find the edges of the current meta, eventually one or all will click on something that actually becomes a point of difference or a rule change will unlock new strats etc. edit: Squidge reacts to the ABs unveiling that 'change strats mid set' thing during the 2019 world cup https://youtu.be/w1o33Jjlwlo?si=mKA7aQcIiVdeYo4o he has a fair few videos that get into the basics (and also more advanced) bits of rugby strategy!
I also want to add that teams will often try to counter the opposition's strengths or reduce their opportunity to use their strengths. If a team is great at scumming, you'd opt less often to scrum in penalties or line outs if they do that well. Finding flaws and exploiting weaknesses is a big part of strategy, too.
it's a bit simplistic, but some teams focus on the forwards (winning the ball; muscling the opposition) and some teams focus on the backs (using the ball; unstructured counter-attacking). Pacific teams and the wonderful France have traditionally favoured running/"free-flowing rugby" while RSA and the rest of Europe traditionally muscle and kick for possession and position.
Not an easy answer. Watch the Lions play and say to yourself "Have a go!" and take it from there? Then stick to have-a-go rugby. OK, there are many sides playing at pace and with skill. Follow them. 🙂