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.
Gezbee
Guest
Completely off the subject I just wondered if the SANZAR nations and ARG would consider a combined team in line with the British and Irish Lions. They could be called the SANZAR Sharks or Southern Sharks, as I believe sharks are common to all the southern nations and lets face it if you put a lion in the water it would not have a chance against a Shark. By the way I am a Lions fan. Then again if you put a shark on land it would die end of. Just a thought. The kit would have to be a neutral colour that would contrast well with the red of the Lions, perhaps a blue or grey to match the colour of sharks I guess. Now wouldn't that be great the best combination of the Home Nations versus the best combination of the southern hemisphere teams. 4 nations versus 4 nations. Sound good??
Wardad
Guest
Very few ABS fans think of the ABS as "demi-gods "or such rubbish ,and we know all about the tactical kicking and on field nous .But all things being equal its that indefinable ABS mana and beieif that keeps their noses in front . You sound a bit jealous mate ,doesnt your team have anything out of the ordinary to laud eh ? Your trying to make it sound as if its your eureka moment that all us plebs have over looked what with all that star dust in our eyes.
Carlos the Argie in the USA
Guest
Not really! It is very difficult to put long phases together, and as YOU said, if the long phases go nowhere, they kick the ball. I think teams keep going into phases until they reach futility. There is no specific goal that states after "N" phases we kick. You play, as people mentioned here, what is in front of you. In this case, the use of statistics may be misleading.
Thank you Birdy, and I agree with you putting them on pedestals won't provide the answers, analysis (well to the best of our armchair abilities) is more likely to provide answers
Birdy
Guest
Excellent analysis BB, particularly of the ABs. The Kiwis are clearly the best team in the world, but there has been remarkably little sensible analysis about why they have been so excellent in recent years. Little enlightenment will be found in the Kiwi press or fan comments as it is all simply put down to the superhuman, demi-god qualities of the 'All Black' in a way that gets a bit creepy and weird after a while. The answer is remarkably simple. The ABs are the best tactical kickers by a country mile and spot the counter-attack opportunity off opposition mistakes very quickly which they then exploit through an ability to do the basics of exploiting space and disorganisation in the opposition defence; passing and receiving; and running support lines better than any other team. Knowing this doesn't make them any easier to beat, but it does cut through some of the semi-mystical BS that is often written about them.
I used the summation of SANZAR because it makes sense to me why NZ have reduced their number of phases and have evolved their kicking game. NZ is the leader when it comes to adapting their game plan in my view, if lengthy phases were the answer the statistics would have shown more phases for them, not less ;)
Carlos the Argie in the USA
Guest
Well, then that is misleading information. You need a frequency distribution by number of phases and score by number of phases before you can reach that conclusion. There are many more "short" phases in rugby so I am now dismissing the finding as unproven or not demonstrated. However, your analysis is still very interesting!
Carlos, I didn't do the analysis for how many phases it takes to score, those are summations/conclusions that SANZAR came up with last year.
Harry Jones
Expert
Ja, I was hearing JdV talking about Meyer giving marks on the decision making quality and that's the focus. Vision, speed, angles. Great stuff, man. You are really synthesizing things
Carlos the Argie in the USA
Guest
Interesting analysis, Biltongbek, I truly think it is very thought provoking. However, I will challenge you again on the "statistics" issue. You state that "the more phases you play, the owner your chance of scoring". You did not show how you reached this conclusion. How many "long" playing phases do you have as a "denominator" and how many "short" phases? How many tries per "long" and how many tries per "short". Also, the relationship between number of long and number of short is relevant. I presume that most games have phases that are actually "short", less than 5 before ball is turned over, so you have a clear case of frequency bias in your analysis. Also, there are so few very "long" phases over all and this is why you have few tries scored. I think that if you divide scores by number of "longs" you will find the opposite conclusion. And yes, I am a frustrated statistician. Or a lover of statistics. They can tell you all sorts of things. My concern is when they tell you exactly what you thought you wanted find out. Cheers!
Harry, I think possibly yes, but now teams will evolve their adaptability, knowing where the game is going doesn't mean we have reached the pinnacle of perfection yet, teams will now have to learn how to play it smartly.
Harry Jones
Expert
BB, I was just looking at some data IRB collected on the "shape of the game" as it has evolved. You've done a great job of looking at how styles play out, between 4 well-prepared teams. Do you think we've seen the apex of "ball-in-play" and the nadir of set piece %? When you look at 1995 to now; we see huge increases in % of time the ball is in play, number of passes (250+), rucks/mauls per game (150+), and far fewer set pieces (10:1 ratio of ruck to scrum; instead of 2:1/3:1 like when we were playing).
Thanks Harry, glad you enjoyed it.
Harry Jones
Expert
Excellent excellent piece of work.
Saw it too mate, it seems SANZAR has decided to go ahead with this idea, so next year is my last year of watching Super rugby, I am very disappointed, I see no value in SA being part of Super rugby anymore.
Nobrain
Guest
BB I hate to do this to you and it is abit out of topic, but it just came out in PR that Japan got the last franchise for SR. Any thoughts about this?
You're right about Argentina at the breakdown, I mentioned it last year as well, they flood the breakdown with many numbers and "looks" legal because of the numbers, hence they get away with it.
Nobrain
Guest
I defenetly think that the wait and see approch was a smart thing to do in wet weather ( we had to many, specially at the begining of the tournment). the ABs defenetly commited less men to the racks than previous years and were more selective in when to compete for the ball, but I think they were pennalized more than other years at the ruck. This has to be telling us something, either the ref were more severed in this formation or the the ABs jumped the gun to late because of this strategy. Most of those penalties were for entering from the side or falling over. In reference to SA imo they went more for the ball rather than the man than the year before. Aus did not fight the rucks than they used to and went into opposite direccions than SA, they were looking more to clear the ruck rather than look for the ball. Argentina should have been more pennalized in tha ruck, they did all kind of penalties that they were no often called by the refs ( may be was hard to see by ref because of the intensity they put in each rack.)
Nobrain
Guest
Hi BB exellent article, I wonder that the last twenty minutes issue was a planned thing to do by the ABs,a change in the stategy, or just the simple urgency to turn around the score that pushed the ABs to commit more men to the rucks.? I am referring to the last game against the Wallabies.
Digby
Roar Guru
Thanks BB My major concern with the ABs is at times I feel they are too comfortable within their systems. Perhaps a silly thing to say but other teams capable of going 'viking' at the breakdown can cause them issues and the perceived gap in terms of fitness and depth is closing. Too much wait and see for my liking. Must work on those starts.