- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
We will often look at statistics to guide us towards an explanation for an outcome of a study. The issue with statistics though, is that they can be manipulated.
We can be influenced by perception and therefore statistics can cloud our judgement.
Statistics do not accommodate context. When we look at the statistics of the recently completed Rugby Championship, the SANZAR match statistics would tell you that Argentina had a 95 per cent success rate, Australia and South Africa a 94 per cent success rate and New Zealand a 92 per cent success rate at the breakdowns.
Further investigation will tell you the number of rucks hit: South Africa (521), Australia (524), Argentina (428) and New Zealand (372).
These statistics would suggest that South Africa made the most play during the Rugby Championship, however this is misleading as they hit 263 of those rucks in their final two matches at home.
These statistics will also suggest that Australia has been very efficient at the breakdown, but what we witnessed during matches was a propensity for their forwards to stand off rucks. There was also a lack of numbers to the ball and – apart from their match against South Africa at Newlands – their breakdown work was by far the worst of the competition.
Regardless of the statistics, it was clear to see that South Africa were reticent to play ball in hand for the early part of the Rugby Championship.
What is telling though is the number of rucks New Zealand hit. This would confirm the suggestion that New Zealand has become a team that relies on mistakes from opposition teams in attack to counter from. Their speed in getting the ball into space on counter attack has been one of the mainstays in New Zealand scoring tries.
This does not suggest that New Zealand cannot score from set phases or building multiple phases, but that Steve Hansen choses to play a wait and see approach rather than holding ball in hand for extended periods.
One of the reasons why this approach might be favoured is that New Zealand have become the best tactical kickers in the game.
Aaron Cruden has learnt from the manner in which Dan Carter controls territory and his decision making has improved. This is in contrast with Beauden Barrett, who has struggled to execute as efficiently and accurately as Aaron Cruden.
In my mind this has had two effects on New Zealand. The same approach with Barrett at pivot means less territorial advantage. Added to that, New Zealand has been put under more pressure defensively as South Africa and Australia changed their method of attack through Hanre Pollard and Bernard Foley being much flatter.
This has caused New Zealand to be more passive and hesitant in defence.
On the other hand, South Africa seems to have two distinct approaches depending on conditions during the match. If wet underfoot and raining, they will adapt to a wait and see approach and under ideal conditions they will keep ball in hand and build multi-phase plays.
The biggest improvement shown by South Africa has been their patience in attack in building as many as 30 phases at a time.
Australia has a strict policy of keeping ball in hand at all times. Except for their last match in Argentina, the consistency in the number of rucks they hit per match never varied by much.
Argentina have also been very consistent in the number of rucks hit per match and it is clear to see that they have improved their ball-in-hand approach during the 2014 campaign. This should stand them in good stead for the future.
There is one issue that South Africa, Australia and Argentina seem to have ignored and Steve Hansen has embraced. Statistics suggest that the more continued phases you play, the less likely you are to score. Most tries come from four or less phases.
In my view, each of the teams need some fine tuning in respect of their game plan.
New Zealand need certain cattle for their approach to work, during their last two matches it was clear that Beauden Barrett is tactically not as accurate or astute as Carter or Cruden.
Aaron Cruden and Dan Carter are masters of the tactical kicking battle. The approach of allowing teams to come at them from deep and waiting to exploit errors for counter attack is sound, and being selective of when to compete on opposition rucks is a smart approach. However, it depends on which players are selected.
Steve Hansen will certainly analyse the effect of his breakdown specialists and pivots and how it influences the approach of New Zealand. I am sure the necessary adjustments will be made.
South Africa need to improve their adaptability during the game, rather than planning before-hand what their approach will be prior to stepping on the pitch. It doesn’t allow enough scope of reading the match situation and playing what is in front of them.
It is also important for them to improve on their tactical kicking. Handre Pollard will be using the November tour to work on his tactical decision making and execution, as that will be crucial to succeeding.
Australia need to realise tactical kicking is part of the game and vital in relieving pressure or gaining territory. Execution is of course essential.
It will be necessary for Michael Cheika to build his forwards into a collective that commit to the breakdown for a full 80 minutes. The ability to read the ruck situation and knowing how many numbers are necessary to win quality ball is essential for Australia.
Although Argentina have shown a willingness to run with ball in hand, it is essential that their decision-making processes sharpen up to the point that they know when to make the percentage play as well.
Offloading for the sake of keeping the ball alive is not the same as getting the ball to a player who is in a better position than you. Offloading for the sake of offloading without reading the situation will only continue to lead to 50-50 passes and counter attacking opportunities for opposition teams.
Experience and continuity of selection is key to the improvement of the Pumas.
For each of these teams it is important that they play to their traditional strengths, but it is equally important for them to be able to adapt their plans to the available cattle. The same plan with different cattle will not necessarily provide the same results.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.