Winning the contest for possession whether you’re playing rugby, AFL, NFL or any other football code is one of the basic rules teams follow to ensure victory.
Trawl through any post-game report or sporting blog and there will be a variety of statistical measures used to illustrate why a team won or lost. The most commonly referenced statistic is possession.
When Graham Henry coached the All Blacks, it was the first time Kiwi fans saw Dan Carter regularly kick the ball to the opposition and not into touch. At the time there was a general lack of understanding from fans and journalists about this change in strategy as it went against habits ingrained since childhood – keep possession of the ball or kick it out.
Starting with the All Blacks – but certainly not ending with them) – there emerged an increasing number of games where traditional metrics were turned on their heads. The team dominating possession and territory statistics were not often assured of victory.
Teams that had the greater attacking and counter-attacking ability had a higher conversion rate of opportunities into points than those teams who were better equipped to win the ball but weren’t using it effectively.
The All Blacks from 2005-2007 were masters at blowing teams apart during a 20-minute scoring burst that took the game beyond the opposition’s reach. But they would often trail well behind in possession and territory stakes.
The Super Rugby Reds team of 2011 were a similarly moulded side in that their pack never dominated the forward exchanges but they competed vigorously to lay a platform for Quade Cooper and Will Genia to conjure their tricks.
Watching the Crusaders versus Hurricanes match last weekend reminded me of the contradiction in these terms.
The Crusaders played one of their best games of the season. They had more than enough ball to apply pressure but conceded four tries (with a further two ruled out by the TMO) to lose the game.
Critics and sceptics will point to the Hurricanes’ malfunctioning lineout, additional tackles made, higher turnovers and penalties conceded and fewer rucks and mauls won in comparison to the Crusaders as systemic flaws that can’t sustain victories the deeper they progress into the season.
Supporters will point to the significant difference between the two teams in their effectiveness of utilising that possession. The Hurricanes carried and passed the ball fewer times than the Crusaders but made three times as many clean breaks, progressed 300 more metres, scored four tries and most importantly missed fewer tackles. All this with one of their best players in the sin bin for ten minutes.
It was an identical story between the Highlanders and the Sharks. The Sharks had more possession, carried it more times, won more rucks and mauls and forced the Highlanders into making more tackles.
However, in comparison, the Highlanders, with less possession, made four times as many clean breaks, progressed the ball 150 metres more, missed fewer tackles and scored more tries.
Analysing the statistics from the Hurricanes’ single defeat against the Waratahs tells a story that flies in the face of this evaluation.
The Hurricanes had the better of the possession and territory stakes and used it effectively. They passed and ran more times, ran further metres, won more lineouts, scrums and rucks, missed fewer tackles and also scored four tries. The difference on this occasion was two-fold.
Yet their goal kicking was less accurate and they missed more scoring opportunities. While they missed fewer tackles the effectiveness of those tackles in stopping the Waratahs forwards on or behind the advantage line was poor. This was critical as it enabled the Waratahs to gather momentum, convert their few opportunities and win the game.
The Hurricanes and Highlanders are almost clones of each other and, interestingly, when they clashed earlier in the season there was only a five per cent or less margin of difference between them across all statistics. That isn’t surprising given the similarity in both teams’ approach to the game and their relative strengths.
My observations of the New Zealand Conference is that the better attacking sides are rewarded for their approach. While they’re not winning the ball as well as the opposition a combination of their evasive running, try-scoring abilities and strong defence is overcoming that shortcoming.
When their defence is inaccurate or ineffective, they’re unable to impose their strengths on the game and make headway against scoring deficits.
Dwayne Johnson
Guest
KK - I said that about an hour before you did - 1.43pm
ben
Guest
No....ive been desperately trying to remember his name....cant even google it....definite east european name. When he started for the abs he was already passed 50 years old...maybe in his 60s. He was the abs first stats man i think in the early 90s.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Same here buk, canes and highlanders the 2 most enjoyable teams to watch. They remind me of the Blues version 2003-2005 with king carlos and co. Still my n1 SR team to watch of all time but when I see Barrett, Ben, Conrad, Aaron Smith , Savea etc version 2015 I feel we are getting there with the canes & landers. Great article Sam, glad I finally got time to read it!
Birdy
Guest
Interesting example, Ben. I suppose it's the interpretation of stats that is the important thing. As an example of how that can go badly wrong, in the early 1990s some clown was employed by the English Football Federation to analyse how goals came about. He identified that at international level a majority of goals come from 3 passes or less. This underpinned England's 'long ball strategy' between 1990-1994. Needless to say England didn't even qualify for the 1994 world cup, but not before this halfwit toured the world (including Brazil) to tell everyone where they were going wrong.
Birdy
Guest
Geez, Jerry, if you and Charging Rhino don't get a grip you're going to make yourselves even less popular on these boards than me!!
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
Perhaps the 2011 WC Quarter final SA vs Aus? Boks dominated every facet of the game, besides the breakdown where Pocock was allowed carte blanche by Bryce. Yet came off 2nd best on the scoreboard. 76% territory and often camped in the WB's 22. WB made 147 tackles to the Boks 53 Crazy game.
Bakkies
Guest
It can be when you don't have the nous or the coaches are forwards whose idea of attack is pick and go and up the jumper.
Sam Taulelei
Roar Guru
Ben I'd like to know more about positive and negative possession analysis, sounds fascinating. Cheers
Alphonse
Guest
The sooner you score after gaining possession, he less possession you accumulate. This was very obvious when you looked at the stats for the 2003 Blues. They were always way behind in the possession stats. Likewise, the more you score from counter-attack the less possession time you accumulate.
Harry Jones
Expert
Agee 100% Sam and Brett. Gain line success crucial. Allied with the absence of killer errors (kicking and handling).
Sam Taulelei
Roar Guru
Is the statistician you're referring to Ken Quarrie?
Sam Taulelei
Roar Guru
Newspaper coverage isn't a problem as I can read online but tv and radio I really miss. Fox Sports provides a service but as rugby is only a niche sport here it's not the same coverage as we're used to.
RobC
Roar Guru
thanks v cool info, ben. Harry Jones had an interesting article about stats. http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/11/14/rugby-aint-cricket-the-stats-lie-all-the-time/
RobC
Roar Guru
thanks Sam. I was particular proud of that one, if I may indulge in that term. Mainly because I was proud the players featured are Qld reps, doing their best. I enjoy watching it occasionally. There's also some nice bits from Slips and others, too. But had to cut, as the video would have been too long. Gonna one for Force, Rebs, too. And Tahs Brumbies NRC teams.
ben
Guest
By the way sam...got back from melbourne recently again....dont know how you get by there with the distinct lack of rugby coverage...after a week i desperately wanted my newspaper radio and tv fix back home.
ben
Guest
I remember when the abs employed a professional statistician..cant remember his name but he was an east european migrant who was a professional soccer statistician and when he migrated to nz, fell in love with rugby. He could not believe that our sport did not maintain team, player and game stats. When he presented to the abs with his stats etc they were amazed...instantly employed. In interview he compared his stats to those regurgitated everywhere and on tv. Possession was broken down to positive and negative possession i.e. time in possession whereby you finish up behind where you started with the ball = negative possession and vice versa = positive possession. Handling errors werent only knock ons and forward passes, as tv stats show, but included passes to ground forwards and backwards and balls dropped backwards. His analysis was so much more indepth but in relation to this article his possession and handling stats tell a true story that the stats we read dont. I sat once and did a positive negative possession stat analysis of my own .....no comparison to stats read on sites and actually told the story of the game accurately. Dont know where he is now. Lies damned lies....
Sam Taulelei
Roar Guru
Ha ha ha, that's gold Jerry
Jerry
Guest
NZ v France, 2007, Cardiff. (lights touch paper, runs away.....)
Sam Taulelei
Roar Guru
Excellent post, especially loved this bit; "But keeping the opposition in the right parts of the field, where their ability to convert possession to points is made more difficult, is more important than retaining possession in parts of the field where you risk conceding points."
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
Great article Sam. In a different context, we have the oft-debated size doesn't matter, it's what you do with it expression. To an extent in rugby, size does matter. We've seen that in junior rugby with the Bok and English packs dwarfing their opponents. But it's still largely true that it doesn't matter how much you have the ball, it's what you do with it when you do have it. Putting in large amounts of tackles used to mean a fatigue factor could be exploited later on. Now defences hold off waiting for the opportune moment to commit numbers. As a result, recycling ball and cleaning out rucks can be more taxing than putting in the tackles and fanning out in a line. It's not so much who has the ball but, rather, where the ball is. In 2009 NZ tried to run the ball out of their half and SA were waiting for them. Now the bomb to halfway is a good tactic as even if you lose the ball, the opposition invariably need a few phases to reset their offensive line. If you do regain the ball, you are likely to find open spaces to exploit because the defensive line isn't set properly. A malfunctioning line out can prove disastrous as you risk giving away possession in your danger zone and we've seen how a rolling maul can be hard to negate when attacking teams are given an advantage where they can group their players around the ball. But keeping the opposition in the right parts of the field, where their ability to convert possession to points is made more difficult, is more important than retaining possession in parts of the field where you risk conceding points. On the important proviso, of course, that somewhere along the line you are able to convert opportunities to points. This is where many teams fall short: applying scoreboard pressure. Having the pill for large periods and not scoring can prove soul destroying.