The stats you don't see on TV: Rugby World Cup final edition

We already invented a set of new statistical metrics ahead of the 2015 Rugby World Cup quarter-finals.

Most of them proved to be instructive and even moderately predictive. Argentina did upset Ireland, and in part that was because they limited their missed tackles, and were accurate with their final passes on the break. Our verdict was “an upset in the making,” and so it was.

Our novel stats pointed to a “leaky vintage of French rugby” and sure enough, as predicted, “Steve Hansen’s men” did “pile on the points.”

We observed that Wales’ best chance was to play very negative rugby, turn the Boks over, and force young Handre Pollard to play a tactical kicking chess match. They almost did just that.

And now, let’s use most of our unique metrics to evaluate the Rugby World Cup grand final; the tries per break stat has been discarded. It taught us nothing. Also, points allowed per missed tackle isn’t really a smart stat.

Here we go:

1. Beating your man
The semifinalists were the best DBC (defenders beaten per carry) teams in the competition. But Australia was beating defenders four pe rcent more often than New Zealand leading into the semifinals and is still three percent better now.

This may force the All Blacks to tweak their kick-after-two-phase game plan which stymied South Africa. Giving the Wallabies the ball over 40 times with kicks might put the All Blacks in serious jeopardy.

2. Poor handling in context
New Zealand was averaging an uncharacteristically high 10.4 knock-ons prior to the semifinals, but our KO/P stat (knock-ons per pass) stat puts that in context: the All Blacks have thrown the most passes per game, by far (1,116 in total, so far).

So, New Zealand has only knocked on 5.3 percent of the passes they’ve thrown. make matters worse for Australia, the world champions decided to clean up their handling in the knockout rounds, only spilling 7 times in the semifinal, despite brutal Bok tackling.

Michael Cheika’s Waratahs and Wallabies aren’t a high-passing team, and in this World Cup, they’ve thrown only 133 passes a game (by far the least of the four semi-finalists); and their KO/P rate is higher than the All Blacks’ (5.6 percent of Australia’s passes are knocked on).

3. Dominant tackles lead to turnovers
We could not find ready stats that delineate between a dominant tackle and ‘just a tackle’ but used a turnovers won per tackle (TOW/T) index as an intuitive stat, “useful only as a suggestion.”

Let’s make something clear: New Zealand has not tackled much. The Kiwis have made only 551 tackles, less (even now, with two more games) than Italy, and less than Wales, France, Ireland, and Scotland. But in a very constant 9.3 per cent of those few tackles, New Zealand has won a turnover. The All Blacks’ TOW/T has risen through the tournament, showing accuracy at the breakdown phases.

Australia is seen as a turnover machine, but in reality, only turns the ball over in 6.5 per cent of tackles made. This could spell trouble for Australia if they do not kick well (and more).

4. Breaking through defence
We specified that metres run, in and of itself, is illusory. In the semi-final between New Zealand and South Africa, the Boks were avoiding lineouts (I know, that sounds bizarre) but funnelled Ben Smith’s runs right into bone-jarring tackles by their tight forwards; knowing that breaks would not be easy.

Sure enough, no player had more than one break in that game; and most of those breaks were easily snuffed out.

So, we invented the counter-intuitive breaks per metre run (B/M). Here, New Zealand has led the competition from start to finish, and even after the Bok defensive prowess caused their B/M to slip, it is still equal to Australia’s (the Wallabies carved up the Pumas on the break, whilst the Pumas utterly destroyed the Wallabies in return — 18 clean breaks).

This appears to be an even “efficiency per metre” measurement between the finalists (i.e. not confusing motion with action), but the champs run so much more than Australia (over a thousand more metres in this tournament), it may be academic.

5. Missed tackles
We don’t like our new stat of points allowed per missed tackle (PA/MT); it’s unwieldy. Suffice it to say Australia misses too many tackles (33 against Argentina) and New Zealand has only missed fewer than England, who didn’t even play in the knockout rounds. Hell, the Kiwis only missed three tackles in their semi-final. Ever heard that adage about what wins trophies?

How will this play out?
Australia cannot win if it continues to miss so many tackles, because New Zealand isn’t knocking on any more, is better at beating defenders, and just as good at creating breaks.

Australia can only win if they kick better (and more often) than New Zealand, because the Kiwis are better — as a team – at turning carriers over in the tackle (even with David Pocock on the field), and all of New Zealand’s stats are constant or trending better.

Bottom line: Australia has to play better and kick more than it has, to win; New Zealand can win playing exactly how it has.