- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
One of my favourite sayings about stats – and my apologies for not knowing its origin – is: “Statistics are like bikinis – what they show is interesting, but what they hide is crucial.”
And it’s certainly true, we can make stats say whatever we want them to.
But if nothing else, stats are the ideal conversation starter, and with that in mind here are a few discussions worth having out of last week’s Super Rugby numbers.
China shops safe with these Bulls around
Every now and again, you see a set of numbers that just leave you shaking your head.
The Blues-Bulls game in Auckland last Friday night didn’t reach any great heights, but throughout the game – and particularly the second half – I couldn’t quite pin why the Bulls were just unable to get their noses in front.
The Blues rallied very well to stay one step ahead, and certainly made good use of dominant possession and territory in the second forty. But the Bulls just lacked something. And that something was back-five forward impact, which for a side known for its ability to play pragmatic, forwards-led rugby, was rather surprising.
For the match, the Bulls made 82 runs as a side. Of that figure, just 21 come from their starting back five forwards. In order, Flip van der Merwe, Victor Matfield, ‘Lappies’ Labuschagne, Arno Botha, and Pierre Spies made four, none, six, eight, and three runs each, for a collective 37 metres gained. The Bulls made 285 metres for the match.
To be fair, again, both flankers Labuschagne and Botha were replaced in the 51st minute, by Deon Stegmann and Jacques du Plessis, respectively.
And the benchies provided even less impact: one and two runs respectively, as they spent their 29 minutes of action in defence, essentially (they made nine and eight tackles each in that same time).
If it wasn’t already questionable what Matfield is bringing the Bulls this season, his numbers for 80 minutes were terrible: no runs and so obviously no impact in attack at all, two passes (surprisingly), ten tackles in 12 attempts, and eight lineout takes.
Guess. The. Game plan. Flip van der Merwe, Matfield, and Spies all played 80 minutes each, and took 16 lineout throws between them. The Bulls mauled 15 times.
I know it wasn’t much of a game, and the Blues’ total run numbers aren’t that much different, but they’re running 13th in the competition. The Bulls currently lead the South African conference, and you have to wonder how that is, on those numbers.
My forward projections three weeks ago had the Bulls finishing seventh overall, and I’ve seen nothing since to change my mind, not with locks and a backrow providing very little other than a maul.
‘High-octane rugby’: How’s that going?
It was the SANZAR catch cry heading into the 2015 edition of Super Rugby, but has it actually been achieved?
In 2014 there were 614 tries scored in total across the 125 games, at an average of 4.9 tries per match. There were 59 four-try bonus points achieved during the regular season, ranging from the Waratahs’ nine to the Rebels’ one.
In 2015 already, we’ve had 443 tries scored in 92 games, an average of 4.8 tries per game. With four full rounds and 28 more games to play, there have already been 44 four-try bonus points achieved.
Though the try average hasn’t really changed, there’s no reason to think why the bonus point mark won’t be topped – the current top six teams have only five fewer four-try bonus points now than what the eventual top six finished with last year.
Of course ‘better’ or ‘more entertaining’ rugby isn’t necessarily just about tries being scored, though that is certainly what makes the headlines and what is remembered long after other details are forgotten.
Part of the thinking behind ‘high octane rugby’ was to have the ball in play more often, and specifically the focus on ensuring more space for teams to attack at set piece and at the ruck via quick exits of tacklers.
So, if there is – or was supposed to be – a focus on creating space, are teams carrying more this season? If the extra space is there, are teams looking to exploit it?
Well, in a word, no.
Carries per game: 2015 v 2014
| team | 2015 | ave | 2014 | ave | More? | Diff |
| WAR | 1491 | 124.25 | 2389 | 132.72 | no | -8.47 |
| BLU | 1472 | 113.23 | 1854 | 115.88 | no | -2.64 |
| REB | 1450 | 120.83 | 1853 | 115.81 | YES | 5.02 |
| FOR | 1436 | 119.67 | 1741 | 108.81 | YES | 10.85 |
| HUR | 1424 | 118.67 | 1984 | 124.0 | no | -5.33 |
| CRU | 1370 | 114.17 | 1936 | 107.56 | YES | 6.61 |
| CHI | 1366 | 113.83 | 2004 | 117.88 | no | -4.05 |
| BRU | 1349 | 103.77 | 1900 | 105.56 | no | -1.79 |
| LIO | 1325 | 101.92 | 1506 | 94.13 | YES | 7.8 |
| STO | 1315 | 109.58 | 1701 | 106.31 | YES | 3.27 |
| RED | 1264 | 105.33 | 1698 | 106.13 | no | -0.79 |
| SHA | 1146 | 88.15 | 1733 | 96.28 | no | -8.12 |
| HIG | 1143 | 95.25 | 1640 | 96.47 | no | -1.22 |
| BUL | 1116 | 93.0 | 1476 | 92.25 | YES | 0.75 |
| CHE | 993 | 82.75 | 1544 | 96.5 | no | -13.75 |
Only six teams are carrying the ball more per game in 2015 than they were in 2014: the Rebels, Force, Crusaders, Lions, Stormers, and Bulls. But even then, of these six teams only the Force have increased their number of carries by more than ten per game on average (10.85 carries/game more in 2015).
At the other end of the scale, of the nine teams carrying less than in 2014 only the Cheetahs have reduced their number by greater than ten per game on average (13.75 carries/game fewer than 2014).
So in all this, it would very difficult to conclude that the supposed focus on creating space has made any difference at all. Such little difference – up or down – in the carry numbers season-to-season is just as easily explained by game plan changes by the individual teams. High-octane rugby looks the same as it ever was.
The Round 14 standouts
A couple of fullbacks were the big metre-eaters, with Cheetah Clayton Blommetjies and Waratah Israel Folau running for 115 metres from 11 carries and 114 metres from 14 carries, respectively. Red James O’Connor also broke 100 metres, while I’ll come back to the two Chiefs wingers in a moment.
If you don’t like fullbacks in this sort of rating, then Waratah Bernard Foley (18 runs for 94 metres), Brumby Christian Lealiifano (11 for 87 metres), and Lions backrower Jaco Kriel (12 for 85 metres) are the names for you. I’ll come back to Kriel in a sec, too.
Just on the Waratahs, Foley’s 18 carries, along with Kurtley Beale’s 16 and Folau’s 14, represented just under 45 per cent of all the Waratahs’ ball-carrying for the match against the Sharks. Between the three of them.
The Chiefs wingers, Hosea Gear and Bryce Heem, were engaged in a good old-fashioned shootout. Anything you can do, old fella, I can do just as well, the former sevens star proved.
Gear: 15 runs for 104 metres, four offloads, three clean breaks, seven defenders beaten.
Heem: Eight runs for 101 metres, four offloads, three clean breaks, five defenders beaten.
Jaco Kriel was outstanding at Ellis Park, and jagged the second-half try that belatedly fired the Lions into action. How about these numbers: 12 runs for 85 metres, one clean break, seven defenders beaten, 14 tackle attempts, none missed. Wonderful game, and a quality player.
And on the tackle machines, Hurricanes lock Jeremy Thrush made 18 tackles from 20 attempts, Brumbies flanker David Pocock 16 tackles for zero missed, Rebels’ George Smith clone Jordy Reid made the same number with two misses, and the heir apparent to ‘Seven Black’, Sam Cane, made 15 tackles without a miss.
Some fair efforts.